SFP vs Violent Conduct

[JamesL]

From the LOTG glossary: Challenge - An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball

That's the entire definition. And nothing in there about the ball having to be in play. The same applies to the glossary definition of Serious Foul Play. So I'm disagreeing the the initial premise of your statement - even if the whistle has gone a split second before the kick, that doesn't stop it being a challenge for the ball. Which therefore means SFP is still on the table as an option.

I'm only going by what observers have said and a logic I have agreed with. Your point is fair, but its not a legitimate challenge in my book.
As said earlier, horse for courses, player still gets red and associated ban for it.

 

[Big Cat]

BTW, I'm only indicating that a caution is OK in the presence of VAR and the safely of the EPL arena. I'd probably end up dismissing for SFP on a Sunday morning because the inevitable MC would make that the expected outcome

 

[RustyRef]

SFP for me, I'm pretty sure without Saka there that swing would be connecting with ball at about the time it is just off the ground. I just don't see why he would deliberately kick Saka when he is about to get a potential shot at goal, and with the force he has put into it there is no way you can stop that motion even if he did hear the whistle.

I think when he has started the swing he hasn't seen Saka as he was behind him, that is backed up by the image @one posted as reproduced below. At the time he realises that Saka is between him and the ball there would be absolutely impossible to stop the volleying motion. Doesn't mean it wasn't SFP, but I don't think there was an ounce of intent.

 

[QuaverRef]

I’m kind of struggling to say this is SFP if I’m honest. Considering it’s an attempted shot from distance, I wouldn’t say the force is excessive so I’m either saying it’s reckless if he’s challenging for the ball, or VC if not