Ok, it's not quite TV, but I've seen this one on Twitter and wanted to ask others' opinions about it - referee's decision was a red card for the Blue #4.
Close-up slo-mo:
Close-up slo-mo:
from the first clip I think my inexperience would have given a yellow.
from the first clip I think my inexperience would have given a yellow.
Context of the game may change this to red for me but we only have a short clip.
Nope. Context gives you a lot more to interpret an fit this to a definition. As it is it does not fit the definition of UEF for me. However if he intended to hurt his opponent, that changes things. Not knowing the context of the game, I can't judge that.Surely if you are giving a red because of the context of the game, you are giving a red in isolation.
Endangering an opponent is endangering an opponent, no?
Surely if you are giving a red because of the context of the game, you are giving a red in isolation.
Endangering an opponent is endangering an opponent, no?
Slow motion close-ups = Zero value
He's a few inches off the ground for some a few tens of milliseconds = Reckless Play
It's probably a 7 and a half on the 1 to 10 scale, with 9 and 10 being SFP, so the ref got it wrong for me. The slo-mo scissoring thing on this occasion is a function of having two legs rather than one and has nought to do with scissors