So it sounds like, no foul was given? It sounds like the player was dismissed retrospectively, based on advice from an AR or VAR
It therefore sounds like the Ref completely missed a KMI, because the safety of the opponent was endangered, regardless of the dreadful outcome (injury)
4th official told him it was a red card, but the VAR asked what sanction was being given before the red card was shown...So it sounds like, no foul was given? It sounds like the player was dismissed retrospectively, based on advice from an AR or VAR
It therefore sounds like the Ref completely missed a KMI, because the safety of the opponent was endangered, regardless of the dreadful outcome (injury)
I don't think this is a consequence of changing some thresholds for foul tackles. I think it's just an inexplicable mistakeYes the original decision was no foul. Yes the injury is terrible, but the fact that a PL referee thinks that is no foul shows how much we've gone away from cracking down on tackles from behind. How was this by definition not a careless tackle even if the player wasn't hurt?
Yes the original decision was no foul. Yes the injury is terrible, but the fact that a PL referee thinks that is no foul shows how much we've gone away from cracking down on tackles from behind. How was this by definition not a careless tackle even if the player wasn't hurt?
Inexplicable... explainedView attachment 5163
I would say that it is more a case of Pawson not being able to see the contact as Struijk's body/other leg are in the way.
Inexplicable... explained
It's all about angles after all
Still, I'm sure the challenge looked an absolute mess from any angle, so 'no foul' remains 'somewhat inexplicable'
The player himself has come out and said "its just one of those things" which really doesn't help.Real time it was difficult to spot, you tend to focus on the leading leg as opposed to the trailing one. Also from Pawson's angle I don't think he can see the trailing leg making contact. Conversely, Andy Madley had the absolutely perfect angle to see the impact of that trailing leg.
What frustrates me is the PGMOL statement that Pawson was always going to go red, he clearly wasn't as he initially played on. I'm guessing they wanted to make it clear that VAR hadn't get involved before an on-field decision had been made, but the explanation they have given just isn't credible and leads to conspiracy theories. I remain convinced that Madley was in his ear and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.
Even more bizarrely, there are referees on Facebook saying it wasn't even a foul, using phrases like "the game's gone". Not sure I would want to be playing in a game refereed by one of those.
I'd agree that it is "just one of those things". However, players being sent off are also "just one of those things"The player himself has come out and said "its just one of those things" which really doesn't help.
Everton v Burnley
First tackle of the game looked quite like the one in the OP
No card though. First tackle of the game... oh yeh... and no serious injury... as luck would have it... more inexplicability
I don't see how Pawson was thinking no foul even if he didn't see the amount of contact and the damage. He could see there was some contact.
A slide tackle from behind, specially one that started with both feet off the ground, if you bring the opponent down even with very slight contact and no damage, I am blowing the whistle. Getting the ball is no consideration for me in a slide tackle from behind. At a minimum this is careless. At worse, as is the case here, it's red.
Most of that stems from peoples only understanding of the laws being what they hear on Match of the Day.Red card has been upheld. I’m glad that’s happened despite the incredulity of much of social media.
And still there are people insisting it wasn’t even a foul.
Phew!Red card has been upheld. I’m glad that’s happened despite the incredulity of much of social media.
And still there are people insisting it wasn’t even a foul.
There was this beauty on sky sports last night...Most of that stems from peoples only understanding of the laws being what they hear on Match of the Day.
There was this beauty on sky sports last night...