Halsey certainly isn't on the City fans' hate list (we've had him at supporters club meetings) but he's daft on this. Haven't there been several "official" illustrations that mean you do take into account the consequences of a foul tackle?
"In real time I would have taken the safe option and cautioned
Mane because there was an element of doubt." Safe for whom? Not the GK lying with a gashed face and stud marks an inch or so from an eye.
Surely the distinction between yesterday's yellow and Saturday's red is that
Reckless means that the player has acted with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent while
“Using excessive force” means that the player endangers the safety of an opponent. Mane was not "in danger of injuring his opponent" (previous wording) but plainly
did endanger the safety of an opponent. I'm not baffled by some of the media nonsense (which I put down to the general antipathy toward City) but I am baffled by refs at any level who didn't see it as a red card under the SFP definition.
The wording of excessive force is still stupid. As "complete disregard" for "reckless" is now just "disregard", that suggests a lower threshold for YCs, but I can't be the only one to think that "excessive force" is a stupid category. What is "the necessary use of force"? Necessary to do what? The wording is "far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent" - what if you have far exceeded the necessary use of force but weren't in danger of injuring an opponent?; what if you used "necessary force" and did serious damage? Personally, I'd also want to think about the difference between SFP and VC - many SFP tackles are SFP because the offender went for the man and ignored the ball (and that's a distinction we now have to make in DOGSO, with a RC still possible in the PA if the tackle was not a realistic attempt to play the ball).