Liverpool v Althetico

[RustyRef]

I'm 99% certain he was always going red for the initial tackle. The ball wasn't even close to being playable and the defender has intentionally put his studs down his achiles. Might be yellow in the Premier League, but European referees have always taken a hard stance when a player is taken out when the ball isn't playable, something I fully support. If the ball isn't playable then you are just intentionally kicking an opponent, and that is VC.

 

[Paul_10]

I'm 99% certain he was always going red for the initial tackle. The ball wasn't even close to being playable and the defender has intentionally put his studs down his achiles. Might be yellow in the Premier League, but European referees have always taken a hard stance when a player is taken out when the ball isn't playable, something I fully support. If the ball isn't playable then you are just intentionally kicking an opponent, and that is VC.

I think some Premier league refs would give that as a red but some won't, definately subjective but its not a tackle I like seeing as if there was force behind it, an injury is quite likely. I think that's why some were surprised at the red and rather bizzarly people thought he got a straight red card just because he was ignoring the referee because there was not alot of force but the intent was there.

 

[one]

For me this was a yellow but I think for the ref here the initial thought was an orange. He needed thinking time, the player's ignorance helped him decide which way to go during that thinking time.

 

[Anubis]

On bbc website.
View attachment 5282

would read nothing at all into the bbc

I'm 99% certain he was always going red for the initial tackle. The ball wasn't even close to being playable and the defender has intentionally put his studs down his achiles. Might be yellow in the Premier League, but European referees have always taken a hard stance when a player is taken out when the ball isn't playable, something I fully support. If the ball isn't playable then you are just intentionally kicking an opponent, and that is VC.

just seen it, one view, and nothing to add to Rustys post.

 

[GraemeS]

For me this was a yellow but I think for the ref here the initial thought was an orange. He needed thinking time, the player's ignorance helped him decide which way to go during that thinking time.

I'm happy enough with this explanation - I still think a straight red is a touch harsh for the tackle alone, but if you factor in an increased severity from European referees on this kind of tackle AND a desire to choose the harsher of two punishments based on the reaction, I can see how it all adds up.

 

[Martiju]

For me this was a yellow but I think for the ref here the initial thought was an orange. He needed thinking time, the player's ignorance helped him decide which way to go during that thinking time.

Yes, I think this is it too. None of the body language suggested red until the player refused to come towards him, when it quickly changed. If it had been a red from the start he'd surely have done exactly what he did at the end straight away.

 

[Paul_10]

Yes, I think this is it too. None of the body language suggested red until the player refused to come towards him, when it quickly changed. If it had been a red from the start he'd surely have done exactly what he did at the end straight away.

But then he would(or should) of shown 2 yellows then a red if that is what he was thinking? Only Makkellie will know for certain but I think the red for the studs down the leg is enough for a straight red card imo.

 

[GraemeS]

But then he would(or should) of shown 2 yellows then a red if that is what he was thinking? Only Makkellie will know for certain but I think the red for the studs down the leg is enough for a straight red card imo.

Which leads us to the point @one made before. He's either had a brain fart and forgotten to show the two yellows, or he felt it was an "orange" card that he was intending to go yellow on, but in response to the disrespect, decided he shouldn't bother doing the player that favour and so went red.

 

[RustyRef]

This is why he was sent off, he has done him good and proper. That isn't an accident or even an attempt to break up play, it is a deliberate attempt to hurt an opponent. Red card is the only outcome.

 

[one]

This is why he was sent off, he has done him good and proper. That isn't an accident or even an attempt to break up play, it is a deliberate attempt to hurt an opponent. Red card is the only outcome.

View attachment 5286

Can see what you mean. I hadn't seen this. Here is a different angle and it's what caused the trip. My original thoughts were the trip was on the right foot and no contact on the left.

 

[GraemeS]

I think the use of the word "deliberate" is a little harsh here - the Atletico player has already tripped Mane's right leg at this point, so the fact he also then landed on his left leg would be an impressive feat of dexterity to achieve deliberately! But yes, agree that it's still a justifiable red based on this even if not deliberate.

 

[RustyRef]

I think the use of the word "deliberate" is a little harsh here - the Atletico player has already tripped Mane's right leg at this point, so the fact he also then landed on his left leg would be an impressive feat of dexterity to achieve deliberately! But yes, agree that it's still a justifiable red based on this even if not deliberate.

Atletico are trained in all of the dark arts, I am 100% certain he knew what he was going there.

 

[Anubis]

Atletico are trained in all of the dark arts, I am 100% certain he knew what he was going there.

Had the referee been anywhere else, the player might have got away with it
at least without VAR,
fortunately, the referee was perfectly placed to make a strong correct call in real time.