Got to disagree there. If it’s a trip/pull back then fine. But when you are throwing yourself in with a tackle at full sprint, you’re just basically assaulting somebody if the ball isn’t there
Man U v Spurs
- Thread starter lincs22
- Start date
- Status
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I think the problem 'football' has with it, is that Martial gets sent off for something far less violent. Totally understand you can use the letter of the law to justify both the red and the yellow but its certainly not what 'football expects' nor within the 'spirit of the game'
one
RefChat Addict
Lamela's first reaction was to throw his hands out as in "what's this ref" then (he realised there is an opportunity here) grabbed his chin and fell to the ground. Had he not reacted the way he did and simply got on with the game, does anyone think Tylor would send anyone off? I think not. The send off was due to the reaction.
Last edited:
Oh generally speaking I think you're spot on - straight red cards always felt like they should be intended for violent and dangerous acts, or deliberate game-changing cheating. Martial gets in trouble due to the specific provisions for head/face contact, although I think there is a get out clause the referee should have used regarding negligible force. Should have been a yellow each.
But that (arguable) mistake doesn't change my stance on Shaw either. I don't see it as a violent act and as such, I don't see current justification for a red card. There's an argument that you could modify what DOGSO is to also include cynical fouls that prevent the creation of a goalscoring opportunity if deliberately carried out in a reckless manner....but that's a bit too much fluff for me as well. It basically means you're stacking yellow cards - one for a reckless tackle and one for SPA, which flies in the face of the simultaneous offences rule.
Last edited:
If we look at the Shaw challenge, we can all agree there’s no attempt to play the ball as it’s nowhere near them, so I don’t see how it can be considered reckless rather than excessive force. Excessive force by definition is ‘exceeds the necessary use of force’, so by going yellow we’re looking at that and saying the amount of force used was necessary. Can we all confidently say he needed to go into that challenge the way he did?
Pretty sure the appeal was turned down, as was Rooney's for something very similar.
Lots of senior ex-referees say it should have been red. Clattenburg, Halsey, Walton, Hackett all said red.
It wasn't a tackle for the ball, it can't have been as the ball was nowhere near. If a player just kicked an opponent in the middle of the pitch when the ball was nowhere near it would be a red card, this is no different. I think this is another one, a bit like handball, where outside of England there would be more eyes raised at a yellow than a red card being shown.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
This. ^^^^^^^
You've made quite a few leaps of logic there, most of which I've already discussed in post 16
I think you need to look at it again. The ball was no more than 4 or 5 yards away at the point of the foul. For me that is 'within' playing distance (eg if I was looking at impeding progress if they were tussling) I accept there is no attempt for the ball, but to say the ball is nowhere near is an overstatement and VC is not on the table.
It's a cynical foul which shows disregard to the Consequences for his opponent for me.
It is so far apart from randomly kicking someone in the middle of the park as I can think. For starters it's a slide challenge, it is not a striking of the opponent or kicked as you would kick a ball.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
It's such an interesting one. Because it's clearly not a challenge for the ball but equally it's not the type of 'off the ball' incident that one typically thinks of with regard to VC.
For me, it comes down to whether the force used in the "challenge" was the minimum required to stop the attacker and halt the promising attack. If it was, then it's just 'taking one for the team' and a YC is appropriate. If, however, the force used is more than required, then red becomes more of an option. I think the reason why the Shaw one is dividing opinion is because it's right on the borderline. It's certainly not a vicious assault on Moura but it is a scythe / hack and also more likely to risk injury because of its unexpected nature.
I'd be going Red as a referee but as an Observer would happily support either colour if the official argued his case coherently (in accordance with the LOTG) in the post match debrief!
one
RefChat Addict
Appreciate your view, but as a supply league observer I think I'd be looking at it very differently. I would as a minimum (and sadly by Zoom) be asking the referee to talk me through why it wasn't a red card.
When I say the ball was nowhere near, it was, and I emphasise, IMPOSSIBLE for Shaw to play the ball. He's then swiped a player's begs away who was running at full speed, that is incredibly dangerous and I expect a red card to come out here. I don't really care whether it is for SFP or VC, but it has to be red. Even if I was feeling generous and didn't class it as a missed red card, I feel fairly confident I would be pointing at it as a cause of lack of match control, or the very minimum a failure to enhance match control.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Just seen the Martial red card.
Sorry, but I think that is an atrocious decision.
The contact by Martial is minimal - a palm to the neck . The previous contact by Lamela was a heavy elbow to the neck, even chin.
IMHO the correct decision is a red card for Lamela, yellow card for Martial.
All that players will learn from this is that they must dive - if Martial hits the deck after the elbow, then Lamela gets a VAR VC RC.
Sorry, but I think that is an atrocious decision.
The contact by Martial is minimal - a palm to the neck . The previous contact by Lamela was a heavy elbow to the neck, even chin.
IMHO the correct decision is a red card for Lamela, yellow card for Martial.
All that players will learn from this is that they must dive - if Martial hits the deck after the elbow, then Lamela gets a VAR VC RC.
Why is it incredibly dangerous? And why would the ball being 5 yards closer make it less dangerous?
The ball being right there, or 5 yards away presents identical level of danger.
Entering into that challenge has not endangered the opponents safety. It shows disregard to the consequences, or danger, to the opponent but does not endanger him.
He could get the ball, and then take the player out in exactly the same way in a fair challenge. Are you going to send him off then?
I think we have had this debate before about any contact when the ball isn't present is excessive and I don't think the law supports this. It would be very easy to mandate that opinion, which of course would make this easy, but the force used was, as Russel said, borderline.
You'd be furious if this was your team and he allowed the player to run straight past him.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I disagree. If the ball is there, the attacker is expecting and physically ready for the challenge. The more (but not completely) unexpected nature of this 'tackle' does IMO increase the risk to the attacker.
Well, I disagree with you! He's just touched the ball, he expects he's going to take the next touch within a second or two. He's functionally in possession and the exact distance to the ball or not doesn't change the degree of danger involved.
Last edited:
In post 16, you’ve put ‘Excessive compared to the amount of force that would have been used in a normal challenge? Again, I'd say no’
that implies this isn’t a normal challenge. I do agree that if the ball was there to be played, it was no excessive. However, in an attempt to simply stop the player from running to a ball, it’s excessive.
Shaw has multiple options to stop that attack. He can either trip the player, grab his shirt, or hack him down. Through frustration, he’s gone with the option which could hurt the player as well as stop him
Last edited:
- Status