VAR - Everton vs Spurs Son “penalty”

[Joe Harrison]

Just been watching MOTD. Direct from the PGMOL: "The severity of the injury was a consideration in the red card".

Disregarding what would be considered safe refereeing, is this statement supported in law? I cannot recall it being but may be missing something

 

[Tealeaf]

I think in law that comes under the clause ‘any challenge that seriously endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play’

The severity of the injury suggests that Gomes safety was seriously endangered. The injury occurs because of the challenge; although not caused directly by the challenge it is a consequence of it.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Just been watching MOTD. Direct from the PGMOL: "The severity of the injury was a consideration in the red card".

Disregarding what would be considered safe refereeing, is this statement supported in law? I cannot recall it being but may be missing something

Careless, reckless excessive force....

 

[SurreySuperRef]

I'll bite.

It honestly looks more like a dive than a penalty. I can see the cause for appeal but the defender tumbles over and makes contact, then Son goes down to try and get the penalty.

Son is clearly on his feet when he feels the contact, then throws himself off balance intentionally. To me it looks like Son is never caught off balance there.

At the end of the day, it is football and simple collisions can happen without it being a foul to either party. I would have probably came to the same conclusion if I was Atkinson.

Edit: and just to add, I do think it was a red card as well. You can't just take people out from behind like that. Yes, it might have been a tactical foul and I have no doubt Son never wanted to injure him. However, at the end of the day, the tackle has caused the Everton player to go flying into Aurier.

I do think it still would have been a red even without an injury to be honest. If the Everton player didn't end up injured, and the referee gave a red, do you think people would be disagreeing with it? Not saying yes or no, just throwing the question out there.

 

[Tealeaf]

At the end of the day, it is football and simple collisions can happen without it being a foul to either party. I would have probably came to the same conclusion if I was Atkinson.

Exactly my take on it too. Felt the same with Richarlison at the other end as well.

 

[Russell Jones]

Red card protects Son as much as anything else. Good luck selling a caution at lower levels and not seeing the tackler get absolutely battered by the opposition

Though let's be honest, with his distressed state after the outcome, Son was always going to be subbed straight away

Just been watching MOTD. Direct from the PGMOL: "The severity of the injury was a consideration in the red card".

Disregarding what would be considered safe refereeing, is this statement supported in law? I cannot recall it being but may be missing something

It's somewhat supported if the severe injury is directly caused by the challenge as it's demonstrating that the safety of the injured player was potentially disregarded. However, extending that concept to what happens after the challenge is complete (as the PGMO statement appears to do) is opening up a massive can of worms and setting a highly problematic precedent, We certainly haven't seen or heard the last of this incident yet ,....

 

[Sheffields Finest]

They were intermating serial misuse of the system by a couple of the weakest members of the SG on MOTD. Can they be rested or put down the football leagues on a Leeds game maybe

 

[TSHudson]

Just been watching MOTD. Direct from the PGMOL: "The severity of the injury was a consideration in the red card".

So if no injury had occurred and Gomes had got up and walked away, would the yellow card have been downgraded to just a FK since he didn't endanger the safety of a player?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

So if no injury had occurred and Gomes had got up and walked away, would the yellow card have been downgraded to just a FK since he didn't endanger the safety of a player?

What a silly argument point that is! Come on, you’re better than that!

 

[TSHudson]

What a silly argument point that is! Come on, you’re better than that!

Think you're giving me too much credit there!
My point is, you can't "upgrade" a yellow card to red card because of the injury that happens after the foul, otherwise the same should apply in reverse no? And where does it stop? Do you now upgrade non fouls to fouls if one party is hurt in a fair challenge?

 

[TSHudson]

And if anyone should be sent off by the logic given for the red card, it's Aurier not Son!!

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I once took a keeper out in a game, displaced patella, ambulance in the pitch and all that, I was 17 playing in an OA game, it was accidental but the next 30 minutes I wish I’d been sent off, they all wanted a piece of me.

 

[JH]

I think in law that comes under the clause ‘any challenge that seriously endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play’

The severity of the injury suggests that Gomes safety was seriously endangered. The injury occurs because of the challenge; although not caused directly by the challenge it is a consequence of it.

A player could theoretically break their ankle from a careless trip, that doesn't mean the careless trip directly endangered their safety.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Alan Judge was fouled by Luke Hyam 3 years ago where Hyam was given a yellow card. Below is a link to a video of the 3rd minute challenge. It is first action on the video. It was, to me, an horrendous challenge that should have been red. Excessive force was definitely in play in this challenge and in the 3rd minute, on the half way, with the Brentford player facing his own goal too... Very much not needed this challenge.
For the rest of the first half, Luke Hyam had basically been targeted by Brentford players with a lot of niggly fouls, especially by Alan McCormack and a bit by Ryan Woods.
Hyam was eventually sent off for a second booking before half time, guess he'd had enough. Think it was a very soft yellow but my thinking was the referee had both the first incident on his mind and maybe got it wrong in his head and that he may lose control with the constant niggling of Hyam since that foul.
So sometimes I can actually see why a referee will send someone off in this instance. It is to protect the player from retribution and even save his own control.

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/sport...-brentford-as-luke-hyam-is-sent-off-1-4489222

 

[RustyRef]

For the handball, it looks to me like it glances off Mina's shoulder before hitting Ali's hand. If that is the case it cannot be handball under the new law.

For the red card, it's a difficult one but what PGMOL seem be saying is cause and effect. Son's tackle in it's own right was reckless, but because it clearly endangered an opponent it was upgraded to SFP. I've seen similar things in the past, notably when a defender is shielding the ball back to the keeper, the challenging attacker pushes the defender who then clatters the keeper and injures him. The push in its own right was nothing more than careless or reckless, but because of the outcome it becomes SFP. Another example is when a player pushes an opponent close to the touchline causing a collision with the perimeter barrier, again the push is just careless or reckless but the player is sent off because of the outcome. So I don't think the decision to send off Son is completely going against what has happened before or what is expected.

 

[one]

Think you're giving me too much credit there!
My point is, you can't "upgrade" a yellow card to red card because of the injury that happens after the foul, otherwise the same should apply in reverse no? And where does it stop? Do you now upgrade non fouls to fouls if one party is hurt in a fair challenge?

Actually he wants to get some pop corn and watch the drama (some may say he has found someone who bites ).

 

[one]

On red yellow for Son and basing that on outcome.

There are times that you should take outcome into consideration and time you shouldn't. Example I have given in the past, a careless push in the back of an unsuspecting player is normally is just a foul, now if that player bumps into the goal post and split the flesh above the eye and blood all over the place, you'd consider that outcome in the sanction.

Hard to explain when an outcome changes the sanction but in general it has to be a direct outcome and predictable/'non-football', (for lack of better term). There was no way Son or anyone else could have predicted a careless/reckless tackle like that could have had such outcome and it was very much an indirect outcome of the tackle. Therefore that outcome should not have been considered for sanction.

 

[Peter Grove]

There are times that you should take outcome into consideration and time you shouldn't. Example I have given in the past, a careless push in the back of an unsuspecting player is normally is just a foul, now if that player bumps into the goal post and split the flesh above the eye and blood all over the place, you'd consider that outcome in the sanction.

This is true and to follow up on the subsequent point of it being predictable or non-predictable, I think when a player is pushed into a goal post that is a clearly visible, immovable object, the opponent has to have known that by pushing a player who was so close to the frame of the goal, the player was going to collide with it and the resulting injury was almost certain to happen.

In Son's case there was no way to predict that an otherwise relatively innocuous (although reckless) challenge, was going to result in such a horrendous injury. As several other contributors have alluded to, sometimes the most benign of contact can lead to serious injuries because of the way a player falls or lands.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

On red yellow for Son and basing that on outcome.

There are times that you should take outcome into consideration and time you shouldn't. Example I have given in the past, a careless push in the back of an unsuspecting player is normally is just a foul, now if that player bumps into the goal post and split the flesh above the eye and blood all over the place, you'd consider that outcome in the sanction.

Hard to explain when an outcome changes the sanction but in general it has to be a direct outcome and predictable/'non-football', (for lack of better term). There was no way Son or anyone else could have predicted a careless/reckless tackle like that could have had such outcome and it was very much an indirect outcome of the tackle. Therefore that outcome should not have been considered for sanction.

Get off that fence @one you’ll get splinters in your jacksie

 

[one]

What fence? I think I was clear that red card was a mistake. It should have been yellow. The fact that there was a terrible injury in the incident was irrelevant to the tackle in this case.