Sea vs pool

[GraemeS]

To give the referee some credit (/an excuse), we've all pretty much immediately agreed on here that the only factor that might have saved the defender from a red is if the GK is getting there first. While it's fairly clear from a side-on camera view, I don't see how on earth it could be clear from the position he was likely to be in - 50 yards back, at a poor angle initially chosen to assess the Chelsea attack.

I still feel like (particularly with VAR available to downgrade if necessary), I would have been inclined to go red if I had to guess, but Tierney didn't have to guess - this is pretty much the AR's call to make. From a side-on view, roughly level with the defender it might(???) not be 100% clear that there is a foul, but once Tierney blows for it, he should be screaming for a red card down the comms.

 

[RefIADad]

I think it is unfortunate that it is not an official factor. DOGSO was brought in to stop cynical fouls. This is exactly the kind of foul that should be a send off--it's a take down from behind because the defender thinks there is an OGSO. Failures of refs to implement sufficiently led to the check-the-box application more than referee judgment. I'd love to see IFAB say that where, ITOOTR, there is a cynical foul (like this one) the thresholds on the other factors are diminished and the referee should err on the side of sending off the player.

I 100% agree with your reasoning. However, IFAB is trying to move more toward "objective" criteria (I use that term loosely) in an effort to remove subjectivity. This type of reasoning would add more subjectivity, and IFAB doesn't want that.

That being said, this needs to be a DOGSO red. Fouls in this nature need to be taken out of the game. No issues at all on my end going red on this if there's any doubt because of how blatant it was.