The Ref Stop

Canada vs Qatar

A

alexv

RefChat Addict
Level 3W Referee
What does everyone think of the red card for the leg break? The ref initially gave a yellow but changed his mind after the injury was apparent and sent him off.

I’ve watched it back and I just can’t see that it ticks any of the boxes for a red card. It seemed more like a swipe/trip with little intensity and no height. I think it’s just a total freak incident that it resulted in a break - it’s not like the challenge was studs up and high and the impact broke his leg.

I guess there’s an expectation that any challenge that causes a severe injury should be punished with a red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Ref Stop
I was waiting for this thread 😂 not a red for me, I think it was a careless (possibly reckless at worst) challenge that caused a very unfortunate injury. A classic example of why we shouldn't use the extent of an injury to determine card colour.

I also think the referee should have given the first red card regardless of whether the challenge was inside or outside of the box. Didn't look like an attempt to play/challenge for the ball imo.
 
Agree that the tackle that caused the injury isn't SFP - think the ref had it right to begin with.

First red I think yellow would've been correct had it been in the area; a poor attempt to challenge for the ball is still a challenge for the ball. Certainly didn't look like it was a deliberate trip.
 
Gabriel said:
I was waiting for this thread 😂 not a red for me, I think it was a careless (possibly reckless at worst) challenge that caused a very unfortunate injury. A classic example of why we shouldn't use the extent of an injury to determine card colour.

I also think the referee should have given the first red card regardless of whether the challenge was inside or outside of the box. Didn't look like an attempt to play/challenge for the ball imo.
Click to expand...
I was surprised it wasn’t up straight away but it was too late for me to write something up 😂
 
ARF said:
First red I think yellow would've been correct had it been in the area; a poor attempt to challenge for the ball is still a challenge for the ball. Certainly didn't look like it was a deliberate trip.
Click to expand...
Maybe it was a poor attempt. I just didn't think there was any possibility of him playing the ball, but I stand to be corrected if views differ. Having just watched it again, I think it's quite difficult for me to make my mind up tbh. Benefit of doubt and yellow maybe for me now
 
Gabriel said:
I also think the referee should have given the first red card regardless of whether the challenge was inside or outside of the box. Didn't look like an attempt to play/challenge for the ball imo.
Click to expand...

After the announcement, on the Fox broadcast in the U.S., their much maligned “Laws expert” explained that it was a red because it was not an attempt to play the ball. It continues to bewilder me that he keeps his job.
 
Might be an outlier here, but I'd 100% suggest red is correct for the leg break
Injuries can't always decide the correct card colour and arguably if there's no injury, a yellow card is perfectly sufficient, but given that the leg break was a direct result of a bad tackle (as opposed to the tackle happening and the break was due to the way the player fell after it), he clearly did endanger his opponents safety.
 
RefereeX said:
Might be an outlier here, but I'd 100% suggest red is correct for the leg break
Injuries can't always decide the correct card colour and arguably if there's no injury, a yellow card is perfectly sufficient, but given that the leg break was a direct result of a bad tackle (as opposed to the tackle happening and the break was due to the way the player fell after it), he clearly did endanger his opponents safety.
Click to expand...
cant agree that the same tackle can result in different outcomes because one breaks a leg and the other doesnt.

every single tackle has the potential to endanger a players safety, it's a contact sport and sometimes freak accidents occur.
 
alexv said:
What does everyone think of the red card for the leg break? The ref initially gave a yellow but changed his mind after the injury was apparent and sent him off.

I’ve watched it back and I just can’t see that it ticks any of the boxes for a red card. It seemed more like a swipe/trip with little intensity and no height. I think it’s just a total freak incident that it resulted in a break - it’s not like the challenge was studs up and high and the impact broke his leg.

I guess there’s an expectation that any challenge that causes a severe injury should be punished with a red.
Click to expand...
I think your last sentence sums it up. And technically red is correct as well because there is clear evidence that the tackle did endanger the safety of the opponent. The break was a direct result of the tackle. I wouldn't classify it as a freak accident but as an unexpected outcome of the tackle.
 
If this was EFL, National League, Contributory League, Supply League or grass roots, Referees are usually encouraged for incidents such as this to take their time & to reflect upon the circumstances which includes the extent of the injury & in this situation I would suggest a very high rate of Referees administering a red card. Although in this game the Referee had the benefit of VAR, although the offending player can consider it a harsh red for the reason mentioned in many of the threads/comments, a red is not outrageous.
 
Because the wording of the law says that endangering the safety of an opponent is a red card it effectively gives referees the ability to go on the extent of the injury. It was a foul, it clearly broke his leg, very difficult for anyone to argue that his safety wasn't endangered.
 
DavidObs said:
If this was EFL, National League, Contributory League, Supply League or grass roots, Referees are usually encouraged for incidents such as this to take their time & to reflect upon the circumstances which includes the extent of the injury & in this situation I would suggest a very high rate of Referees administering a red card. Although in this game the Referee had the benefit of VAR, although the offending player can consider it a harsh red for the reason mentioned in many of the threads/comments, a red is not outrageous.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Appreciate the World Cup is a different kettle of fish, but if you caution for a tackle that has clearly left someone leg bone in 2 pieces on a step 2-6 game or even EFL, say goodbye to your match control. Unless there are other very very clear circumstances, nobody will argue if a red comes out when they see the injury.
 
Seems to me it has to be a combination. A player can can end up with something broken from a clean tackle. I think result can be used as part of the determination, but can’t be the sole factor. (I’m not arguing against the red here at all. I would love to hear what was going on g on through the comms as he was running over with the yellow in his hand. And I’ll confess I haven't gone back to watch to see the tackle, as I don’t want to see the result again.)
 
one said:
I think your last sentence sums it up. And technically red is correct as well because there is clear evidence that the tackle did endanger the safety of the opponent. The break was a direct result of the tackle. I wouldn't classify it as a freak accident but as an unexpected outcome of the tackle.
Click to expand...
IMO 99 times out of 100 that very same tackle would cause no injury whatsoever, the referee might give a caution, and nothing more would be said about it. Should we really punish the 1% case differently because the outcome was different? If a player has an undiagnosed weakness in their tib/fib that means their very next collision will result in a break - does that mean the next player who carelessly trips him gets a red?

SFP should be judged on the merits of the foul itself, not on the consequences.
 
ARF said:
IMO 99 times out of 100 that very same tackle would cause no injury whatsoever, the referee might give a caution, and nothing more would be said about it. Should we really punish the 1% case differently because the outcome was different? If a player has an undiagnosed weakness in their tib/fib that means their very next collision will result in a break - does that mean the next player who carelessly trips him gets a red?

SFP should be judged on the merits of the foul itself, not on the consequences.
Click to expand...
I agree with that in principle, but the law would need to be changed to support it as there is absolutely zero doubt he endangered the opponent’s safety. The law says that endangering an opponent’s safety is a red card, I don’t see how anyone could argue that a player being carted off to hospital with a leg broken in two places hasn’t been endangered. If it was just a coming together then goes down as one of those things, but once a foul is given there is a guilty party.
 
RustyRef said:
I agree with that in principle, but the law would need to be changed to support it as there is absolutely zero doubt he endangered the opponent’s safety. The law says that endangering an opponent’s safety is a red card, I don’t see how anyone could argue that a player being carted off to hospital with a leg broken in two places hasn’t been endangered. If it was just a coming together then goes down as one of those things, but once a foul is given there is a guilty party.
Click to expand...
Cannot agree, its a freak accident
 
es1 said:
Cannot agree, its a freak accident
Click to expand...
If the tackle was a genuine and unfortunate attempt for the ball, I’d be more sympathetic, but while it wasn’t a typical SFP tackle it wasn’t great, particularly the secondary leg movement (IIRC, I’m not going back to try and find it again)
 
For the first, DOGSO DFK is obviously correct. I agree the more interesting question is whether to downgrade if inside. I’m pretty sure it should be a downgrade. It’s part of a challenge for the ball. It needs to be very blatant to be giving PK & RC.

Fo the second, I think the right decision is ultimately reached. We shouldn’t always be judging by injuries but if a foul has broken an opponents leg, we can conclude that that players safety has been endangered. Football also expects a red card here. Process wise, there are lessons for us. Firstly, we don’t need to rush to sanction if there’s not going to be immediate reprisal which it didn’t look like would occur in this case as the challenge seemed fairly innocuous at first glance. We can go to manage the injury, see that the players leg is broken and show the correct sanction initially rather than having to publicly change our decision. Once we have called on the physio and done our detective work though, we need to be showing the card immediately. By waiting for almost 3 minutes to show the red card, the referee appears indecisive and to have been influenced by the nature of the injury or pressure from the Canada team (whether that’s the case or not). Issuing the red card earlier also could have prevented the bit of handbags that occurred after the Canadian players realised how serious the injury was. Overall, the referee needs to demonstrate more urgency in dealing with this situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top