Not remotely SFP for me.
But I think DOGSO is justifiable. I also think yellow is justifiable.
The 4 considerations don't say "take the GK out of the equation", but they also don't say not to.
With no GK, the striker has possession with just a panicking defender to beat with a pass into an empty net.
Possession of the ball is in doubt, location and number of defenders (location) is in doubt... general direction of play is not in doubt (just because the ball is heading at 45 degrees doesn't mean the general direction of play isn't towards goal) but maybe... just maybe... the clincher is distance to goal.
If this is 10-15 yards closer to goal it's a much easier DOGSO red call. Even 5 yards closer to halfway and it's an easier yellow. With some doubt about three considerations, yellow is OK with me. But I think it's also easy enough to justify red.
Good grief. If that's not endangering the safety of an opponent, I don't know what is. Hardly even qualifies as "challenging for the ball" (as he wasn't).
SERIOUS foul play, really?Lunge? tick
Endangers safety? tick.
bear in mind we dont need, excessive force, to be met, its an and/or
undeniable its a lunge, plus, the other guys been injured. Its picture perfect sfp
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
- AND endangers, excessive force? Not for me.
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a redSerious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
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.
There's an "or" in there.
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a red
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a red
SERIOUS foul play, really?
What, admit that it was a clear and obvious error by VAR not to call it a clear and obvious error? Trying to explain it would make it worse.I don’t get the SFP from this clip. But it’s a very interesting decision to have to make.
The more we debate it, the redder it looks. It’s one that the authorities should explain.
Ha, accusations of misquoting in the same post where the law is being misquoted!Yes, there are three criteria. 1, a lunge, 2, endangering, and 3, excessive force
all three do not need to be met. There is no excessive force, there is the other two,
as the other poster says, you have misquoted, misread, or, simply misunderstand the text
its, and/or, not simply, and.
caught iby a lunge, on the back of the heels, at speed, certainly endangers, its outwith the expected iimpact areas to be fouled also.
as an example of how to can have SFP without excessive force, the infamous Nani high boot for Utd, v Real. Endangered safety, no excessive ( barely any force at all). The referee haa deemed it reckless. Because he is looking down the barrel of the gun at it and has no angle, meaning he fails to appreciate fully the gks actions.
Nothing in that picture proves a red card was the correct outcome....
It was Man City so of course it does!Nothing in that picture proves a red card was the correct outcome....
I think it proves that PGMOL and I have a different concept of what a "glancing blow" means.Nothing in that picture proves a red card was the correct outcome....