A&H

LUFC V LFC

Sorry but I'm still siding with its not a red card, it's a freek injury which 9 times out of 10 would not occurred I shall bet.

It was reckless at worst so maybe a yellow card would suffice. If Andy Madley thinks it's a red because of the force and not of the outcome to Elliot then fair enough but how can we know that for sure?

I just think the Son one was much much worse but got overturned because the injury was not caused by the tackle yet he tackled from behind with the ball miles away because he was annoyed he did not get a free kick before hand. This was a genuine attempt for the ball which he got and the contact/injury occurred after getting the ball. There's no consistency and Leeds fans have every right to feel aggrieved.
It's text book SFP imo. Did he lunge? yes. Was it from behind? yes. Was the players safety endangered? yes.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

The fact it was an "freak injury" is not a consideration, it was a direct consequence of the players action. Accident or not, this is a red card offence, it ticks all of the boxes.

2 other buzz words I'd chuck in, not in law, are airborne and out of control. At the point of the challenge both feet are off the ground, this results in a loss of control meaning the player cannot avoid making contact and thus injuring/endangering his opponent.

A freak injury is like Djibril Cisse leg break whose leg just snapped whilst running.
 
The Referee Store
I would love to see more red cards on these lunges that result in forceful contact on the foot of an opponent's plant leg. These type of tackles are resulting in major injuries more frequently than many studs up tackles where the foot goes into the leg. In fact there was one in France's first world Cup qualifier last week where the VAR sent it down and I was very happy to see that.
 
Sorry but I'm still siding with its not a red card, it's a freek injury which 9 times out of 10 would not occurred I shall bet.

It was reckless at worst so maybe a yellow card would suffice. If Andy Madley thinks it's a red because of the force and not of the outcome to Elliot then fair enough but how can we know that for sure?

I just think the Son one was much much worse but got overturned because the injury was not caused by the tackle yet he tackled from behind with the ball miles away because he was annoyed he did not get a free kick before hand. This was a genuine attempt for the ball which he got and the contact/injury occurred after getting the ball. There's no consistency and Leeds fans have every right to feel aggrieved.

Even without the injury, it's a red card. It is pretty much the physical embodiment of the Serious Foul Play language in Law 12.

I would love to see more red cards on these lunges that result in forceful contact on the foot of an opponent's plant leg. These type of tackles are resulting in major injuries more frequently than many studs up tackles where the foot goes into the leg. In fact there was one in France's first world Cup qualifier last week where the VAR sent it down and I was very happy to see that.

I don't think the average person understands how dangerous these types of lunging tackles from behind are. The attacker doesn't see it, so there's no way to protect oneself. The chance of a lot of bodyweight coming down on a plant leg or a leg with the foot flexed increases a lot. I realize the average fan doesn't understand this, but it's a very dangerous spot to be in.
 
Last edited:
I would love to see no red cards on these lunges that result in forceful contact on the foot of an opponent's plant leg because players stop lunging that way because they know they will get sent off.
FIFY. :)

If these only get punished when the victim gets seriously injured, they will continue. Stamp them out of the game.
 
Sorry but I'm still siding with its not a red card, it's a freek injury which 9 times out of 10 would not occurred I shall bet.

It was reckless at worst so maybe a yellow card would suffice. If Andy Madley thinks it's a red because of the force and not of the outcome to Elliot then fair enough but how can we know that for sure?

I just think the Son one was much much worse but got overturned because the injury was not caused by the tackle yet he tackled from behind with the ball miles away because he was annoyed he did not get a free kick before hand. This was a genuine attempt for the ball which he got and the contact/injury occurred after getting the ball. There's no consistency and Leeds fans have every right to feel aggrieved.
The point I'd agree with is that the dismissal was contrived from someone seeing the injury. Without the injury, I'd have expected that a caution would've gone unnoticed. That said, I think the red was justified and it would've been entirely the wrong message to overturn it

Edit: I'd add that this is nothing like the Tarkowski challenge. The Burnley player's tackle was obvious SFP, because regardless of angle, it was bloody unmissable and the intent was matched only by the excessive force. Whereas, takeaway the freezeframes and replays and Struijk's effort is difficult to identify as dangerous, depending on perspective/angle. Whilst it was a mess, there was no malice in comparison and it involved an element of misfortune. So, I ain't gonna argue against a dismissal, obviously not. But, just saying, the injury is what made it obvious, otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it (probably wouldn't)
 
Last edited:
FIFY. :)

If these only get punished when the victim gets seriously injured, they will continue. Stamp them out of the game.
This very thing has happened in the Stoke -Barnsley game tonight.

Not injured thankfully but high lunge, not a massive amount of contact but still a red. Will post a video when it’s uploaded.
 

I don't think this is a consequence of changing some thresholds for foul tackles. I think it's just an inexplicable mistake
The adjusting of the bar shouldn't relate to this type of challenge (Reckless or Dangerous). I think the overall aim was to stop players from Refereeing the game themselves, by going down very easily in defensive areas and so on. So they only tinkered with the careless threshold in certain areas of the FOP. I say that... at least that's what I thought the change was all about

I think it was entirely predictable. I predicted it.
What if the "higher bar" means players think they can get away with SFP? There are enough signs already that the leeway allowed in the Euros for mere contact not to be penalised is already being interpreted by PGMOL referees to allow "endangering" tackles.
 
Back
Top