A&H

Gibraltar red card v Turkey

The Referee Store
1: Challenge from behind
2: Doesn’t play the ball
3: Slight scissor action trapping the ankle4:
4: European (non UK) referee.

It’s a very “European” red, for all of those reasons above.

I’m sure that at full speed it looks awful. Hard to tell from that clip a sits only the slow motion version.
 
Tealeaf said:
1: Challenge from behind
2: Doesn’t play the ball
3: Slight scissor action trapping the ankle4:
4: European (non UK) referee.

It’s a very “European” red, for all of those reasons above.

I’m sure that at full speed it looks awful. Hard to tell from that clip a sits only the slow motion version.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with points 1, 2 and 3. I can also see a case for a card the other way around. Not a send off for me.
 
Only video I can find. May be geoblocked but it’s not on YouTube yet. (Loads of video games claiming to be highlights though)

1:23 onwards

www.soccerhighlights.net

Turkey vs Gibraltar (World Cup Qualifiers) Highlights | Soccer Highlights

Dervişoğlu brace powers Turkey past Gibraltar 6-0Stadium: Ataturk Olympic Stadium, Istanbul, Turkey Disclaimer: This video is provided and hosted by a 3rd party server.SoccerHighlights helps you discover publicly available material throughout the Internet and as a search engine does not host or...
www.soccerhighlights.net www.soccerhighlights.net
 
one said:
Arm raised striking the face. Or am I the only one seeing it?
Click to expand...
Not for me. That's fair shielding with ball on playing distance. Any momentum or strike comes. From white flying in
 
I just don't see a red card here, but equally if I was VAR I don't think it would tick the clear and obvious error box.
 
It is a very poor tackle that he has thrown himself into.
If the oponents left leg is planted we could have seen an awful injury.
I'd be upset if it was my team but he's def given the ref/VAR a decison to make
 
one said:
The biggest problem on this for me is that the VAR thought it's clearly and obviously wrong not to send off and felt the need to intervene.
Click to expand...
This. I can't certainly see why a red card might be given but it's surely not a clear and obvious error not to give one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
deusex said:
It is a very poor tackle that he has thrown himself into.
If the oponents left leg is planted we could have seen an awful injury.
I'd be upset if it was my team but he's def given the ref/VAR a decison to make
Click to expand...
Correct if you tackle into a planted or about to be planted foot. This tackle was into the ball, both players had roughly the same opportunity to play the ball at the same time. One played the ball, the other planted his foot Infront of (or in the middle of) the tackle. I agree that the tackler should have been more careful but he has not used excessive force here.

Interestingly the initial decision from R (and I think AR) was no foul at all.

Screenshot_20211115-191137__01~2.jpg

Screenshot_20211115-194904__01.jpg
 
Its very much like Olivers Ajax one few weeks ago
I dont see a red card, one look on public pitch am not going red but if we doll it up, wrap a bow on it and sprinke some sprinkles on it, it could be disguised as a red card
 
deusex said:
It is a very poor tackle that he has thrown himself into.
If the oponents left leg is planted we could have seen an awful injury.
I'd be upset if it was my team but he's def given the ref/VAR a decison to make
Click to expand...

The problem with the "what if" or "we could've seen an awful injury if" type of arguments is that they're focusing on events that did not happen.

There's been no attempt to injure or hurt the opponent. There is no injury. We seem to be concentrating on trying to find "excessive force" at the top levels. Manipulate the wording to suite the need to further sanitise the physical aspect of the game.

Focus should be on tackles where the studs are high, lunging, 2 footed etc. That's excessive force. Wondering if the second leg could maybe have come round the opponent etc isn't where we need to be imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
He comes through his opponent's leg from behind. I think red is the better call in a vacuum. And I think it would have been a clear red a few years ago in international play. But the pendulum on SFP has swung the other way, and though I still think red is better, I think yellow is more expected and that means I agree it's not C&O error. (I do worry about that pendulum swinging too far--I don't think it goes back the other way until we see a serious injury or two to on star players.)
 
socal lurker said:
He comes through his opponent's leg from behind. I think red is the better call in a vacuum. And I think it would have been a clear red a few years ago in international play. But the pendulum on SFP has swung the other way, and though I still think red is better, I think yellow is more expected and that means I agree it's not C&O error. (I do worry about that pendulum swinging too far--I don't think it goes back the other way until we see a serious injury or two to on star players.)
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree that this tackle would've been a red a few years ago. It wouldn't.
 
one said:
Correct if you tackle into a planted or about to be planted foot. This tackle was into the ball, both players had roughly the same opportunity to play the ball at the same time. One played the ball, the other planted his foot Infront of (or in the middle of) the tackle. I agree that the tackler should have been more careful but he has not used excessive force here.

Interestingly the initial decision from R (and I think AR) was no foul at all.

View attachment 5300

View attachment 5301
Click to expand...
Very interesting screenshots actually. I can see what you mean. I think a caution is the correct decision. Certainly don't think VAR should have got involved.
But I certainly don't think it should go unsanctioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top