Seb Larsson
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
deusex
RefChat Addict
I'm often accused of red goggles on here but think this is harsh.
For me he doesn't go over the top, the ball is knocked away a millsecond before he gets a foot on it.
"Studs showing" is a bulls**t term made up by players, refs should now better than to use it to justify RCs. It has no basis in law.
"Shin high" - My shins start pretty close the ground
"off his feet" - not sure if you're saying he's in the air (which he wasn't) or he just wasn't on his feet (which makes every slide tackle an offence)
"Follow through" - hardly a brutal follow through
I think his attempt to pull out maybe makes it look worse than it is.
I'm not saying a red is a terrible decision but anyone comparing it to the tackle on Coleman is in LaLa land
For me he doesn't go over the top, the ball is knocked away a millsecond before he gets a foot on it.
"Studs showing" is a bulls**t term made up by players, refs should now better than to use it to justify RCs. It has no basis in law.
"Shin high" - My shins start pretty close the ground
"off his feet" - not sure if you're saying he's in the air (which he wasn't) or he just wasn't on his feet (which makes every slide tackle an offence)
"Follow through" - hardly a brutal follow through
I think his attempt to pull out maybe makes it look worse than it is.
I'm not saying a red is a terrible decision but anyone comparing it to the tackle on Coleman is in LaLa land
To address a couple of those points:
FIFA actually uses "studs showing" especially in the context of making contact with the opponent in their instructional material. They also push toward "striking of cleats against foot" is (typically) reckless, while cleats against body above ankle is (typically) considered excessive force. Of course, those are really starting points for your considerations to determine what level an offence is.
In this case (for me), the intensity of the tackle is medium-high, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's high enough for dismissal. With where the initial contact takes place (relatively high on the shin), despite being in a glancing manner only (as compared to the crunching Coleman tackle), I can understand why red was shown in this instance.
Combined with the follow-through with the trail foot in a manner that almost looks like it's lashing out at the opponent's other foot (right at the end of the tackle), seeing the referee go red on this tackle is understandable.
I can definitely see an argument for a caution on this play, and I'll admit that my first couple of viewings, I lean towards yellow. With more viewings, I find myself waffling more between caution and dismissal on the play, but like I said above, I understand why the referee dismissed Larsson.
FIFA actually uses "studs showing" especially in the context of making contact with the opponent in their instructional material. They also push toward "striking of cleats against foot" is (typically) reckless, while cleats against body above ankle is (typically) considered excessive force. Of course, those are really starting points for your considerations to determine what level an offence is.
In this case (for me), the intensity of the tackle is medium-high, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's high enough for dismissal. With where the initial contact takes place (relatively high on the shin), despite being in a glancing manner only (as compared to the crunching Coleman tackle), I can understand why red was shown in this instance.
Combined with the follow-through with the trail foot in a manner that almost looks like it's lashing out at the opponent's other foot (right at the end of the tackle), seeing the referee go red on this tackle is understandable.
I can definitely see an argument for a caution on this play, and I'll admit that my first couple of viewings, I lean towards yellow. With more viewings, I find myself waffling more between caution and dismissal on the play, but like I said above, I understand why the referee dismissed Larsson.