Hector Moreno tackle
- Thread starter black_dog
- Start date
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
Exactly! Too many people confuse outcome and cause, saying that if the injury is horrible, the challenge must surely have been horrible too. There is no correlation. By which I do not mean to excuse this particular foul. After my last post I saw better footage and I'm now convinced it most definitely was a foul that warranted a penalty. Not sure about red card. Yellow, yes, as the challenge was reckless. But excessive force? *screws up face in doubt*The outcome of a tackle does not define the legality of a challenge.
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
I hope you're taking the mickey, Beezer. But I'll take the bait: it was not 8 yards out, more like 12 to 15. Also, two other defenders were closing in on the situation. So while I do believe now that it was a reckless challenge, a penalty and a YC, waving a red for DOGSO would go a tad too far.
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
We have the benefit of endless repeats. If as a referee I were to judge this situation in an instant, I'd look for defenders around and possibly still awaiting the attacker. If they two remaining defenders each take one step towards the site of the incident, the gap becomes much narrower. Not convinced it would be an OGSO.
Besides, as we established in the Advantage thread, the penalty kick for this foul would give him another bite at the cherry, wouldn´t it?
No advantage this time! 
Besides, as we established in the Advantage thread, the penalty kick for this foul would give him another bite at the cherry, wouldn´t it?
No advantage this time! 
Oh my days ......lets not go back there still got a headache !!!!We have the benefit of endless repeats. If as a referee I were to judge this situation in an instant, I'd look for defenders around and possibly still awaiting the attacker. If they two remaining defenders each take one step towards the site of the incident, the gap becomes much narrower. Not convinced it would be an OGSO.
Besides, as we established in the Advantage thread, the penalty kick for this foul would give him another bite at the cherry, wouldn´t it?
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
You reffing tomorrow? I got another U17 match. Looking forward to it!
As I said before: the foul occurs when the trailing leg makes contact with Shaw. It was careless. Penalty, no card.
Yes I am , Cup games Sat and Sun ....Nothing spectacular Todays game is a bit of a derby ...so its got potential
have to disagree Ryan the fact that his body followed through and and he won the ball with his studs makes it Reckless for me .....Also it was Champion League where every challenge seems to be a foul sells it some more
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is the whole point! He may have won the ball but was it necessary to use sufficient force to shatter an opponent's leg to do so? I would argue any challenge where a leg is broken uses excessive force.
Had something similar last season ...two players sliding in the same direction in an attempt to gain control of a loose ball 30 yards from goal attacking player gets there first the ball goes to his strike partner, at the same time the full back is sliding in at a 90 degree angle and gets the strikers leg ..... I would have been happy to play the advantage till I heard the scream of the striker who was holding his shin up at a strange angle ......Game stopped , got the player sorted out , when I sent the defender off for the tackle his Captain claimed I had only sent him off because of the injury .....100% yes if its enough force to break a leg its excessive
This is why Gents its always a good idea to check on the injured player first ,its easy to miss things and if you see six stud marks on a players thigh ....etc it enlightens you a bit more
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
It was a clear foul.
Given that he jumped at the opponent as well, I think it's clearly reckless. I can't imagine how you could not consider it reckless.
Even though he won the ball first, it seems that he was only able to win the ball by committing a challenge that was foul. Therefore, DOGSO is still applicable. Red card.
I cannot figure out how the leg got broken. Was it trapped between the legs of Moreno? If so, that would make it SFP, with the manner of the jump.
Given that he jumped at the opponent as well, I think it's clearly reckless. I can't imagine how you could not consider it reckless.
Even though he won the ball first, it seems that he was only able to win the ball by committing a challenge that was foul. Therefore, DOGSO is still applicable. Red card.
I cannot figure out how the leg got broken. Was it trapped between the legs of Moreno? If so, that would make it SFP, with the manner of the jump.
I think it was Moreno's foot that hit his ankle directly, most probably with studs
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
I might only be a "lowly 7" (No interest what so ever in the promotion scheme), but I honestly cannot believe some of the stuff I have read regarding this incident.
I have seen and read nothing to make me change my original view that a referee could easily walk Moreno for excessive force.
Then there's the DOGSO aspect. Moreno's "challenge" is the only thing stopping Shaw with a clear shot on goal, no other defender was going to get anywhere near him.
At long last, someone who actually agrees with me, that was a nailed on GSO .....Red all day long ....
I agree. I don't think that a challenge where sufficient force is used to break a leg can be considered reckless. It may be accidental and a serious injury results, in which case there is no offense committed. However, in my opinion if there is a card used it has to be red. That is equally true whether it's the trailing leg or the leading one, and it obviously doesn't matter whether he plays the ball or not.
Since the challenge occurred where it did I think the only argument is what the red card is for, which to my mind has to be SFP rather than DOGSO.
As Beezer says, check on the injured player before you sanction the offender, although do it as you take him away from the area to avoid retaliation.