A&H

Fabregas Red Card VAR

The Referee Store
Studs down the achilles is a red. I'm fairly confident it wasn't intentional, but as this is a ref forum we know the laws are based what happened and not what the player meant.

Moments like this will be the thorne in the side of VAR for some time.
 
I think he went to do him, ball had well gone and he took an extra step, knowing the player involved as well id say it was deliberate.
 
cwyeary said:
Studs down the achilles is a red. I'm fairly confident it wasn't intentional, but as this is a ref forum we know the laws are based what happened and not what the player meant.

Moments like this will be the thorne in the side of VAR for some time.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't like making a judgement on a slow motion clip, but based on the slow replay, that looks borderline deliberate and it looks more than borderline red. I'd be very keen to see a full speed replay though and see if that changes anything.
 
spuddy1878 said:
I dont think they should be allowed to look at the replay in slow motion.
Click to expand...
Yup. My understanding is that slow motion & stills are only supposed to be used to determine point of contact - so for something like this the ref should go to the screen, be shown one slow replay or still to prove that studs made contact with ankle, then be shown a range of full speed replays and angles so that he can decide if it was deliberate and how forceful it was.

For whatever reason, what we see always seems to suggest that it's done the other way round.
 
Ryanj91 said:
Like Cesc, but that was deliberate. His 'I'm innocent' acting wasn't the best either...
Click to expand...

Watching his eyes, he appears to be looking away at the point of contact - not easy to hit a moving target like that. I'm convinced it was accidental.

And, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
 
Feel quite bad that I was watching the arm of Cesc, looking for a deliberate pull on the arm of the opponent.

Didn't even watch the legs until I read the comments in the thread.

I worry for any teams I ref this season 😂
 
The Referee said:
Watching his eyes, he appears to be looking away at the point of contact - not easy to hit a moving target like that. I'm convinced it was accidental.

And, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
It's easily within his peripheral vision. Very easy to hit the target.
cwyeary said:
Moments like this will be the thorne in the side of VAR for some time.
Click to expand...
Yes, hopefully once players start to realise they aren't going to get away with these types of fouls anymore they hopefully might engage their brain.
 
Football has involved from thinking the best of footballers to thinking the worst of footballers every time. The slo mo isn’t good but all you lot clamouring for the ultimate sanction at match speed are completely guessing intent and everything logical. Not saying it’s not a foul, but without the slow mo this is just a coming together.

You definitely ain’t seeing that on a Sunday morning,
 
Last edited:
cwyeary said:
Studs down the achilles is a red. I'm fairly confident it wasn't intentional, but as this is a ref forum we know the laws are based what happened and not what the player meant.

Moments like this will be the thorne in the side of VAR for some time.
Click to expand...
I think it was intentional, but that's based on a slow-mo replay which should be irrelevant
Not sure I'd be sending him off based on a real-time hunch however

Remind me, are they allowed to use slow motion replay when reviewing such incidents?
 
That will be a red every time in France (with VAR). French referees are instructed that anything above the ankle is a red card!

Personally, like others, I think a Yellow is sufficient. I think in England (even using VAR) it will be a Yellow.
 
Big Cat said:
I think it was intentional, but that's based on a slow-mo replay which should be irrelevant
Not sure I'd be sending him off based on a real-time hunch however

Remind me, are they allowed to use slow motion replay when reviewing such incidents?
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly.
Practicalities: "If the referee decides to view the replay footage, the VAR will select the best angle/replay speed; the referee can request other/additional angles/speeds".
Procedures: "The VAR can 'check' the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion should only be used for facts, ... normal speed should be used for the 'intensity' of the offence or to decide if it was a handball offence" and "The referee can request different camera angles/replay speeds but, in general, [the same things as the VAR should aim for]".
 
arbitre said:
French referees are instructed that anything above the ankle is a red card!
Click to expand...
That's a FIFA thing. If contact is with studs/cleats above the ankle, then start with a red card and then see if there's reason to bring that down to a yellow (like glancing contact only, no/negligible force, etc).

In this situation, the player steps onto the Achilles, and as he steps, his weight comes down on it. That's not glancing contact, nor is that negligible force.

Hard to see this live, especially when the focus is on the upper body and arms (as evidenced by some of the above comments).
 
The French take a different tack, and not as you say.
ANY tackle above the ankle WILL be a sending off.
 
arbitre said:
The French take a different tack, and not as you say.
ANY tackle above the ankle WILL be a sending off.
Click to expand...
That was (almost) the Futuro (FIFA) guidelines previously. There's supposed to be an understanding now that the force is also important, not just the point and type of contact.

What about a tackle with the side of the foot onto the shin... is that a red card? Your comment suggests that it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top