I'll agree I get this one being a red more than the shocker last weekend.
Premier League Gameweek 34
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I think you're missing the fact that these days a legit attempt for a tackle is NOT a red anymore when last man. It changed.
You don't have to "take possession away", you just have to make an attempt at a tackle, as opposed to say just kicking someone, or tugging them, which are not legit attempts.
The red only serves if it's for the reckless nature of the studs on leg follow through.
Did the ref just miss their man getting smashed to the floor off the ball there?
He can't retract his leg. You're basically saying even though he could easily get a touch to the ball, he's not allowed to.
Because VAR is useless. They're going to appeal and get it rescinded.
But thats not how the rules are. As long as you get the ball first, then there are absolutely nothing which says you cant stop the player at the same time
Even if it pushes the ball 10 cm or 10 m
Yeah that would be a real precedent for Var to be wrong, wouldn’t it?
I can only speculate, but I’d say they didn’t intervene because they are generally told to not undermine the referees authority (unless the mistake is factual rather then interpretive). The factual here is that there was contact (and there was); and whether it’s deliberate or not falls under the rubric of interpretation.
They won’t intervene but we can see it for what it was.
I thought that only applied to penalties?
Both wrong. Those things only apply if it's in the box. DOGSO outside the box is still a red card.
That’s for penalties.
Pen!
Ha
feck off Leicester.
Oh Leicester you idiots.
No discussions about that penalty!
Justice. Get in there
Justice
Still plenty of time. They came back against Palace too.
Really? Wow, they've really messed that rule up then. Like the handballs.
I would imagine the logic is that Vestergaard tries to make a tackle, touches the ball and then Vardy's foot but without dispossessing him, then makes contact with him a second time on the back of the leg which is what denies Vardy the goalscoring opportunity. Given that touching the ball in and of itself isn't enough to stop something being a foul and it's supposed to actively require a mistake on the ref's part to be overturned, that might be enough for it to stand.
Yeah I think that’s correct.
Same here.
BBC reporting that red card was for scoring opportunity. Not "nasty" tackle. But that is just trying to cover up the fact they where wrong. Vardy was not even in the chance. Vestergaard took the ball. Shocker once again by VAR and refs. Not the first time and surly not the last.
I see you have more faith in other teams coming back than in the team you support.
I would have more respect for VAR if they done him for the stamp. Will be interesting to hear the explanation from the PL either way
That would be absurd if true. What are you basing this on?
The rules.
Leicester game focuses around Maddison. Not much threat from others.
Interesting that they beat us without him then!
Oh shut up, you are conspicuously oblivious to any rules.
Bednarek is not a great cb 
Don’t get mad at me because you don’t know the rules
That is the rule. It's the "double jeopardy" thing. The idea is that both a penalty and a red card is too much of a punishment for one foul unless it's intentional.
Can you find anything to support your views? I legit tried to look but cant find anything supporting youDon’t get mad at me because you don’t know the rules
I'm a pessimist.
But I'm glad to have made an impression on you. Do keep following me around.
Yeah, that’s right. I realized it a minute too late. It is in fact because of double jeopardy. That very much explains it.
As far as I'm aware, he's correct.
If it happens in the area then you restore the goalscoring opportunity by awarding a penalty and give a yellow (if it's a genuine attempt to play the ball) or red (if it's not).
Whereas if it happens outside the area it's a red.
Might be wrong though.
Well I am not blind so could read your crybaby moaning at half time in the threads yesterday.
Nothing you’ve posted here shows even a ghost any familiarity with the rules.Don’t get mad at me because you don’t know the rules
Samid and the other guy got it right though.
But as I see it, he tackles sucesfully - as he gets the ball - so its not denying any chance by unlawful means
So you cant send him off for that. Recklessness maybe, but not denying a chance