Harry Wilson red card

[ROFLUTION]

I think a lot of people are missing the context here.

Wales are 3-0 down, and it's completely unnecessary and a tackle from behind when you trail the player. The latter's been a red in the rulebook since the 90's.

Dont know if they changed it since, but it was introduced In the 90's that such a tackle should be rewarded with a red card. In slow motion it doesn't look particular aggressive as you dont see speed, context or intent, but the intention is clearly to hurt the player in frustration, as he didn't need to do that tackle at all (i.e Wales wouldn't have scored 3 goals had he let him run) - so if you just look at it in slow motion, then yes, yellow, but if you look at the intent, a red is fine.

As a ref you also need to make sure further players don't get hurt if you allow such things. Could have escalated with frustration-tackles had he not given the red. That puts players in unnecesessary risk of injury. The tackle in itself was an example of that, so a red is fine.

 

[Gordon S]

Was shocked by the red tbh, would love to hear the ref explain it. But saying that, it honestly made me happy. Maybe it should be a red. The players know that they will get away with cynical kicks like that with a yellow at worst every single time and i hate it. Can`t even say i like it when Shaw does his obligatory tactical foul.

 

[OmarUnited4ever]

these kinds of cynical fouls occur too much, a trip, shirt pull, a shove, too hard to consider what Wilson did warrants a red card, it wasn't a dangerous tackle, a denying a goal scoring opportunity, or a violent act.

If what Wilson did should be considered a red card offense, then some games would definitely descend to mayhem.

 

[redshaw]

Felt like the ref gave a red for all the cynical fouls from Wales that were building up, that one was just a bit too far. Wales players lost it out there, on its own probably just not a red but the players didn't help themselves.

 

[Cascarino]

 

[The Hilton]

Ah, so you disagree with the rules as they're written. Then we'll have a hard time agreeing here.

This is just unnecessarily condescending, and also false. Your petulance rivals that of Williams when committing the foul.

Nobody was disagreeing with the rules, rather your interpretation of the event, which involves assuming intent and frankly exaggerating the danger.

 

[do.ob]

None of the factors mentioned in the rules happened, though.

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball [2], or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."


[2] Clearly happened, unless you're trying to tell me he was going for the ball. So on that front your statement is already wrong.
[1] Ruling it as excessive force, when a player goes full sprint after an opponent to hit him from behind is not a mistake. The contact itself was not particularly brutal, that makes yellow vs red a debate.

 

[ROFLUTION]

This point doesn't really work though, as you could make the same argument about any contact during a match.

This was a trip, intended to stop the player without causing damage. By the rules as they are, it isn't a red in a million years. If you disagree with the rules, and feel that it should be, that's a different conversation.

This, you cannot claim unless you're inside the players head.

If you look at the situation, nothing gamechanging would happen had he let him go, so it's just as much or even more likely that it was with the intention of causing damage, hence it was so unnecessary. (you're 3-0 behind, the natural feeling is to be frustrated)

Way more motives for it to be with causing damage/get frustrations out than he just tries to stop him, imo.

 

[Zlatan 7]

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball [2], or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."


[2] Clearly happened, unless you're trying to tell me he was going for the ball. So on that front your statement is already wrong.
[1] Ruling it as excessive force, when a player goes full sprint after an opponent to hit him from behind is not a mistake. The contact itself was not particularly brutal, that makes yellow vs red a debate.

2 did not happen with brutality

 

[Cascarino]

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball [2], or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."


[2] Clearly happened, unless you're trying to tell me he was going for the ball. So on that front your statement is already wrong.
[1] Ruling it as excessive force, when a player goes full sprint after an opponent to hit him from behind is not a mistake. The contact itself was not particularly brutal, that makes yellow vs red a debate.

Look at the video I posted which shows the contact. Does that come under brutality?

 

[do.ob]

Look at the video I posted which shows the contact. Does that come under brutality?

"attempts to use"
"regardless of whether contact is made "

2 did not happen with brutality

"Excessive force or brutality." I know it's a very long sentence, but still. Please at least try to read all those words, before you dish out the laughing smileys.

 

[Jev]

I think it's one of those that look less bad in slow-motion. In real time, it's clear he's just trying to wipe the player out with a reckless, malicious challenge. I think the red is well-deserved. You shouldn't be allowed to have at go at injuring your opponent just because you can't handle a loss. It should be stamped out, and it rightly was in this case.

 

[Anustart89]

Look at the video I posted which shows the contact. Does that come under brutality?

Look at the run he makes to go after the player. It's clear that he's going after him in order to put one in on him. A slow-mo video or picture of the contact (which the referee didn't have, btw) doesn't give context, and the laws specifically say that it should be a red, regardless of contact being made or not.

 

[The Hilton]

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball [2], or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."


[2] Clearly happened, unless you're trying to tell me he was going for the ball. So on that front your statement is already wrong.
[1] Ruling it as excessive force, when a player goes full sprint after an opponent to hit him from behind is not a mistake. The contact itself was not particularly brutal, that makes yellow vs red a debate.

If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating and inserting your own view of intent, then it's time to reassess your point.

Williams was full sprint in an attempt to catch someone faster, not as a premeditated assault, and resorted to tripping him after realising he couldn't catch him.

It's cynical, and it's a yellow without question, but there's no excessive force. Calling this violent conduct is just hyperbole.

 

[Cascarino]

"Excessive force or brutality." I know it's a very long sentence, but still. Please at least try to read all those words, before you dish out the laughing smileys.

It's not excessive force though, it's a trip

 

[Withnail]

Ah, so you disagree with the rules as they're written. Then we'll have a hard time agreeing here.

Poor attempt at winning an argument mate.

I disagree that it meet those criteria but we'll leave it there.

 

[Dominos]

I think the ref could see Wales players were getting frustrated that they had lost and were starting to make tackles out of anger. He then judged the challenge on the basis of his pre-conceived idea that there was bad challenge brewing, rather than actually judging the challenge based on it's merits. If the ref had judged it the same way he'd have judged it in the first 10 minutes of the game, it's a standard yellow as he's simply tripped him (and frankly not even that much contact).

 

[hellhunter]

If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating and inserting your own view of intent, then it's time to reassess your point.

Williams was full sprint in an attempt to catch someone faster, not as a premeditated assault, and resorted to tripping him after realising he couldn't catch him.

It's cynical, and it's a yellow without question, but there's no excessive force. Calling this violent conduct is just hyperbole.

Agree in all points, it was Harry Wilson, though

 

[Cascarino]

Look at the run he makes to go after the player. It's clear that he's going after him in order to put one in on him. A slow-mo picture of the contact (which the referee didn't have, btw) doesn't give context, and the laws specifically say that it should be contact, regardless of contact being made or not.

The laws are posted up above
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball

 

[ROFLUTION]

Try and be objective here, mate

 

[Anustart89]

Poor attempt at winning an argument mate.

I disagree that it meet those criteria but we'll leave it there.

How was I supposed to know that?

You said "I read it but the bolded is the part of the rules you are referring to which I disagree with."

I interpreted that as you disagreeing with the rules since you quoted my post where I quoted the rules and said you disagreed with that part of the rule.

 

[Anustart89]

The laws are posted up above
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball

I meant to say "a red", edited the post. It was me that quoted the law initially.

 

[Zlatan 7]

"attempts to use"
"regardless of whether contact is made "





"Excessive force or brutality." I know it's a very long sentence, but still. Please at least try to read all those words, before you dish out the laughing smileys.

Can’t help laughing at you, my bad

 

[Jev]

The laws are posted up above
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force [1] or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball

By that definition it's a definite red. Watch it in real time, you can't argue he's not attempting to use excessive force after realising he's not getting the ball.

 

[do.ob]

If you can't make your point without wildly exaggerating and inserting your own view of intent, then it's time to reassess your point.

Williams was full sprint in an attempt to catch someone faster, not as a premeditated assault, and resorted to tripping him after realising he couldn't catch him.

It's cynical, and it's a yellow without question, but there's no excessive force. Calling this violent conduct is just hyperbole.

Who is exaggerating now? Did I say anything about assault? It's a high intensity challenge from behind, that already puts you in hot water, the fact that it was clearly without any intention for the ball, or really most likely even a tactical consideration, but sheer frustration, pushes it into excessive force category. Now - again - I'm not saying that every ref will send him off for that, but this one did and doing so was not wrong. Just on the stricter side of the rule interpretation.

 

[Cascarino]

@do.ob @Anustart89


Watch it again. Look at the placement of the foot, it's intentionally not going studs in. The intent is to trip. If you interpret that as excessive force or brutality, that's one thing, but I don't think anyone can reasonably look at the footage and come to that conclusion.

Try and be objective here, mate

I think even most Danes would admit it wasn't a red tbh

 

[ROFLUTION]

@do.ob @Anustart89


Watch it again. Look at the placement of the foot, it's intentionally not going studs in. The intent is to trip. If you interpret that as excessive force or brutality, that's one thing, but I don't think anyone can reasonably look at the footage and come to that conclusion.



I think even most Danes would admit it wasn't a red tbh

I dont think they would. But maybe i'm not being objective enough for your taste?

 

[Cascarino]

By that definition it's a definite red. Watch it in real time, you can't argue he's not attempting to use excessive force after realising he's not getting the ball.

In that case we'd have a dozen reds a game. It's blatantly clear it's not excessive force.

 

[Cascarino]

I dont think they would. But maybe i'm not being objective enough for your taste?

erm ok?

 

[The Hilton]

Look at the run he makes to go after the player. It's clear that he's going after him in order to put one in on him. A slow-mo video or picture of the contact (which the referee didn't have, btw) doesn't give context, and the laws specifically say that it should be contact, regardless of contact being made or not.

It isn't clear at all, that's you inserting your own interpretation of his intent. You say the slow mo doesn't give context, but then are inventing your own context

He has to sprint after the player to close him down, it's his job as Roy Keane would say.

This, you cannot claim unless you're inside the players head.

If you look at the situation, nothing gamechanging would happen had he let him go, so it's just as much or even more likely that it was with the intention of causing damage, hence it was so unnecessary. (you're 3-0 behind, the natural feeling is to be frustrated)

Way more motives for it to be with causing damage/get frustrations out than he just tries to stop him, imo.

That's a fair point, I can't claim that he didn't intend to cause damage without being inside his head. But then you say its more likely he did intend to cause damage, breaking your own logic by assuming intent.

We need to look at the incident coldly, without trying to assume what the player intended (as we don't know), and so what we're left with is a trip that is neither reckless nor out of control.

 

[Jev]

@do.ob @Anustart89





I think even most Danes would admit it wasn't a red tbh

I actually missed it live the first time round. My initial reaction after the replay was that it was incredibly harsh. Having watched it again in real time, I think the red is fair. With no hope of getting the ball, he whacks the player with force out of frustration.

 

[The Hilton]

Agree in all points, it was Harry Wilson, though

Whoops!

 

[Cascarino]

I actually missed it live the first time round. My initial reaction after the replay was that it was incredibly harsh. Having watched it again in real time, I think the red is fair. With no hope of getting the ball, he whacks the player with force out of frustration.

When you watch the replay because of the angle of the foot is nothing like studs up, but a clear effort to trip, I 100% think it can't go down as excessive force, or even nearing red card territory. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference, it changed absolutely nothing and Denmark were miles better.

 

[The Hilton]

Who is exaggerating now? Did I say anything about assault? It's a high intensity challenge from behind, that already puts you in hot water, the fact that it was clearly without any intention for the ball, or really most likely even a tactical consideration, but sheer frustration, pushes it into excessive force category. Now - again - I'm not saying that every ref will send him off for that, but this one did and doing so was not wrong. Just on the stricter side of the rule interpretation.

Definitely still you, this was a trip, frustration doesn't make things more forceful, and you're again just making assumptions about intent to justify to your feelings.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I think the ref could see Wales players were getting frustrated that they had lost and were starting to make tackles out of anger. He then judged the challenge on the basis of his pre-conceived idea that there was bad challenge brewing, rather than actually judging the challenge based on it's merits. If the ref had judged it the same way he'd have judged it in the first 10 minutes of the game, it's a standard yellow as he's simply tripped him (and frankly not even that much contact).

I think that is a fair take. No way would the ref had given a red in a different context.

I don't think it is a red, but if I were to defend the decision, I would say that it looked like Wilson tried to foul Mæhle harder than he actually succeeded in doing. He knows he is not getting the ball and it is also not a really a professional foul to stop an opportunity. It looked like he wanted to get one in out of frustration, but didn't really manage to do it.

 

[ROFLUTION]

It isn't clear at all, that's you inserting your own interpretation of his intent. You say the slow mo doesn't give context, but then are inventing your own context

He has to sprint after the player to close him down, it's his job as Roy Keane would say.


That's a fair point, I can't claim that he didn't intend to cause damage without being inside his head. But then you say its more likely he did intend to cause damage, breaking your own logic by assuming intent.

We need to look at the incident coldly, without trying to assume what the player intended (as we don't know), and so what we're left with is a trip that is neither reckless nor out of control.

Im not breaking any logic. I am looking for what motives that would be the most likely. Not saying that was 100% what his intention was, but that this would most of the cases be the natural way to interpret it, as he simply could have just let him go on to the next player and let him deal with him. No harm done, they're already 3-0 down.

Take a look at the video above. There's a man behind him - no need to go in with that speed and force (see it live, not slowed down) if you just want to stop a player. Could have done it in less wild ways, hence I think it's way more likely that it is with damaging intent. He chases him close to the body to make sure he gets the tackle/hit it seems to me, which is also a sign that it's unnecessary and therefore more likely to come out of frustration.

 

[Wilt]

Red or yellow ….it made no difference, Wales were well and truly stuffed.

 

[Anustart89]

@do.ob @Anustart89


Watch it again. Look at the placement of the foot, it's intentionally not going studs in. The intent is to trip. If you interpret that as excessive force or brutality, that's one thing, but I don't think anyone can reasonably look at the footage and come to that conclusion.



I think even most Danes would admit it wasn't a red tbh

My thought process watching it live was "wow, that's a brutal tackle". However, having watched the slow-motion footage multiple times during the VAR check I didn't think it was a red card, because I didn't think there was enough contact. Then I went back and watched the live footage where you could see him make the run and lunge in towards the player and I went back to thinking it was a red card due to him only going in there to make a mark on the player, which is completely pointless and potentially dangerous, and obviously stemming from frustration over how the game panned out.

This is one of those incidents where the amount of contact isn't the point, so I'll ask you to watch the live footage, watch the run he makes before making the tackle and tell me that he doesn't come in way too aggressively and only to take the player out? For me, that fulfills the criteria "attempts to use excessive force" and "not attempting to play the ball", which makes it a red card IMO.

Also, taking the slow-mo footage and making a point about the contact itself takes away the context that the ref saw, which is Wales 3-0 down, player making a lung-busting run in order to lunge in and tackle an opponent to the ground from behind with a tackle that had no chance to win the ball.

 

[sincher]

It should have been yellow, by current rules. But can totally understand showing red.

 

[Flying high]

Did you watch the replay because he barely makes contact with his foot?

Like I said earlier, contact was minimal, but the intent was clearly there.