Ref4Me

LUFC V LFC

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Maybe I'm looking at this too simplistically, but if a tackle comes from behind (where the opponent can't see it) and traps the ankle/lower leg in the manner it does, then doesn't it have to be endangering the safety of the opponent almost by definition?
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
So it sounds like, no foul was given? It sounds like the player was dismissed retrospectively, based on advice from an AR or VAR
It therefore sounds like the Ref completely missed a KMI, because the safety of the opponent was endangered, regardless of the dreadful outcome (injury)
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
So it sounds like, no foul was given? It sounds like the player was dismissed retrospectively, based on advice from an AR or VAR
It therefore sounds like the Ref completely missed a KMI, because the safety of the opponent was endangered, regardless of the dreadful outcome (injury)

Yes the original decision was no foul. Yes the injury is terrible, but the fact that a PL referee thinks that is no foul shows how much we've gone away from cracking down on tackles from behind. How was this by definition not a careless tackle even if the player wasn't hurt?
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
So it sounds like, no foul was given? It sounds like the player was dismissed retrospectively, based on advice from an AR or VAR
It therefore sounds like the Ref completely missed a KMI, because the safety of the opponent was endangered, regardless of the dreadful outcome (injury)
4th official told him it was a red card, but the VAR asked what sanction was being given before the red card was shown...
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Yes the original decision was no foul. Yes the injury is terrible, but the fact that a PL referee thinks that is no foul shows how much we've gone away from cracking down on tackles from behind. How was this by definition not a careless tackle even if the player wasn't hurt?
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
 

Alex Rush-Fear

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Yes the original decision was no foul. Yes the injury is terrible, but the fact that a PL referee thinks that is no foul shows how much we've gone away from cracking down on tackles from behind. How was this by definition not a careless tackle even if the player wasn't hurt?
Untitled1.png
I would say that it is more a case of Pawson not being able to see the contact as Struijk's body/other leg are in the way.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Inexplicable... explained
It's all about angles after all
Still, I'm sure the challenge looked an absolute mess from any angle, so 'no foul' remains 'somewhat inexplicable'

Real time it was difficult to spot, you tend to focus on the leading leg as opposed to the trailing one. Also from Pawson's angle I don't think he can see the trailing leg making contact. Conversely, Andy Madley had the absolutely perfect angle to see the impact of that trailing leg.

What frustrates me is the PGMOL statement that Pawson was always going to go red, he clearly wasn't as he initially played on. I'm guessing they wanted to make it clear that VAR hadn't get involved before an on-field decision had been made, but the explanation they have given just isn't credible and leads to conspiracy theories. I remain convinced that Madley was in his ear and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

Even more bizarrely, there are referees on Facebook saying it wasn't even a foul, using phrases like "the game's gone". Not sure I would want to be playing in a game refereed by one of those.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Real time it was difficult to spot, you tend to focus on the leading leg as opposed to the trailing one. Also from Pawson's angle I don't think he can see the trailing leg making contact. Conversely, Andy Madley had the absolutely perfect angle to see the impact of that trailing leg.

What frustrates me is the PGMOL statement that Pawson was always going to go red, he clearly wasn't as he initially played on. I'm guessing they wanted to make it clear that VAR hadn't get involved before an on-field decision had been made, but the explanation they have given just isn't credible and leads to conspiracy theories. I remain convinced that Madley was in his ear and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

Even more bizarrely, there are referees on Facebook saying it wasn't even a foul, using phrases like "the game's gone". Not sure I would want to be playing in a game refereed by one of those.
The player himself has come out and said "its just one of those things" which really doesn't help.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Everton v Burnley
First tackle of the game looked quite like the one in the OP
No card though. First tackle of the game... oh yeh... and no serious injury... as luck would have it... more inexplicability
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Everton v Burnley
First tackle of the game looked quite like the one in the OP
No card though. First tackle of the game... oh yeh... and no serious injury... as luck would have it... more inexplicability

I thought that as well, the impact was massively different though. If you choose to lunge like that you are taking a risk, as the saying goes you pays your money and you takes your chances. Players can't complain if they are sent off for it, but sometimes they will get away with it.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Burnley are going into tackles trying to nobble players and it's not being recognised/punished.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I don't see how Pawson was thinking no foul even if he didn't see the amount of contact and the damage. He could see there was some contact.

A slide tackle from behind, specially one that started with both feet off the ground, if you bring the opponent down even with very slight contact and no damage, I am blowing the whistle. Getting the ball is no consideration for me in a slide tackle from behind. At a minimum this is careless. At worse, as is the case here, it's red.
 

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I don't see how Pawson was thinking no foul even if he didn't see the amount of contact and the damage. He could see there was some contact.

A slide tackle from behind, specially one that started with both feet off the ground, if you bring the opponent down even with very slight contact and no damage, I am blowing the whistle. Getting the ball is no consideration for me in a slide tackle from behind. At a minimum this is careless. At worse, as is the case here, it's red.

Classic example of what players think is correct and what is actually correct being completely different. I had a game a couple of years ago where the defender came through the back of the attacker. Got a little bit of ball, but definitely fouled the player. Yellow card comes out, and the cries of "this is big boy soccer" and other things like that come out. After the game, the coach of the local college where we were playing came up to me and said the caution was spot on. He said as a coach, he doesn't want his attackers being fouled like that and he doesn't want his playing going into challenges like that.
 

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
Red card has been upheld. I’m glad that’s happened despite the incredulity of much of social media.

And still there are people insisting it wasn’t even a foul.
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Red card has been upheld. I’m glad that’s happened despite the incredulity of much of social media.

And still there are people insisting it wasn’t even a foul.
Most of that stems from peoples only understanding of the laws being what they hear on Match of the Day.
 

Paul_10

Member
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.
 
Top