Is that even if the ref did see the foul?
Was it a red?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
There’s a lot I agree with in there but not the bit about it would’ve been a straight red up to the 90s.
The 70s/80s were very physical (extreme example but google Chelsea Leeds FA Cup final replay… was carnage and I think one yellow given).
On reflection and looking at image from in front, I don’t think there’s malice but irrelevant if out of control/from behind/likely risk of endangering an opponent. I think it’s a red but the initial decision (no foul) and timing of refs decision wasn’t great.. makes it look like reffing the outcome (which he shouldn’t) rather than the tackle… and/or that Klopps reaction swayed it.
I want tackles to remain and loved/love physical football (as a player/vIewer) but that’s a red for me under rules.
We see this type of hook tackle in almost every game, in fact, we saw one 5 minutes later that wasn't even deemed a foul. He clearly hooks the ball away from the side. There is only contact from the side, until he is already in possession of the ball.
The player wasn't already gone, which is why he was able to win the ball before the crucial contact was even made.
It's not a two footed challenge. You need to use both feet in the challenge for that.
A red card in the 90s?
Let me refresh your memory.I agree with that to a point. But like rugby, there should be an onus in tackler to control his actions?
I am not suggesting he intended the injury but he is responsible for the tackle and the resulting injury. He got it wrong. His spacial ability fell short of the tackle he committed. RED CARD. No passes for lack of intent.
There is, and the rules say as much. My point is that this type of tackle (trailing leg making contact with opponent) happens a couple of times every gameweek but is never penalised with a red card because most of the time the contact isn’t on a planted leg at an awkward angle and doesn’t end up in an injury. Most of the time, it’s not even a free kick and it wasn’t on Elliott either until the consequence was obvious (and the rules say nothing about changing verdict based on outcome).
I mean, if there was a general application that every tackle made where a trailing leg comes close to the opponent is a red card due to risk of freak injury, then I’d say that this was a red card too. But that would be ridiculous because we’d see players being sent off for every slide tackle ever committed, and that’s never been the application of any sort of law.
Or, like I said previously, if I gently nudged a player who was running at full speed and he lost balance and collided with another player or rolled his ankle due to being unbalanced, I have technically endangered the opponent and thus would have fulfilled the red card criteria, if we’re going to be literal in our approach. Yet we can surely agree that nobody would want to see any touch of an opponent punished with a red card, would they, even if the tiniest of touches could lead to serious injury, given the right set of circumstances?
So if I nudge you with my left thumb while you’re running at full pelt, and you lose balance and break your arm while breaking the fall, do I deserve a red card due to freak circumstances occurring and a serious injury happens?
Your left thumb would not have done the damage directly. It would be classified as a secondary injury. This case is different. It is a primary injury caused directly from the tackler's leg.
I am a newbie and my posts are limited to 5 which suits me fine. I will not be commenting further on this issue.
Some seriously stupid opinions in here. Even the player saying it wasn’t a Red ffs. Just think rationally for a minute, would this have been a red without the injury? Obviously the answer is no, never in a million years.
If Elliot don't get injured, I think 99% of people (bar Klopp) nod in appreciation of a very good tackle, won the ball, contact with trailing leg, happens all the time, contact sport. Elliot is so unlucky here, but you can't send people off because of a freak outcome.
Players break legs with no contact, it happens.
Wish the young lad well, seems a decent sort.
Players break legs with no contact, it happens.
Wish the young lad well, seems a decent sort.
Would a drunk driver be convicted for a hit and run if he/she didn't hit anyone? You're logic is lacking.
He wouldn't have broken his leg though if the tackler hadn't jumped in with such force and out of control that their trailing leg did that damage, it's not a freak outcome but a perfectly logical outcome given the nature of the challenge.
While that's true, it wasn't a red card either.
the initial tackle was clean, but as he rotated to the left to sweep the ball away unfortunately his body landed on Elliots ankle.
That's just purely bad timing and a freak accident as the player says himself. If he didn't get his ankle trapped it wouldn't have even be a foul (which the ref didn't call for either)
If malicious or not has zero bearing, neither does the outcome?
There's a big difference between a player heading in dangerously / studs up with over aggression, or just an unlucky coming together.
Yes, the VAR can always indicate that a foul might have been red, then it's up to the main ref to determine if he's sure of what he saw, if he wants to double check on the screen or if he trusts the VAR refs and gives a red directly without checking. In this case, I suspect VAR told him its a clear red and considering how bad the injury was, he decided to give it directly.
He did not jump in nor was he out of control. Don't exaggerate.
It was never a red card!
They are normal every game tackles, Mane had one on him 5 minutes later, ball won, exact same trailing leg contact, play on and no one batted an eyelid at it. seen it in the game last night too, play on. Either they all get reds for that tackle, or not, but shouldn't be on an extremely unlucky outcome because of the way the lads ankle has twisted badly.
Both of his feet are off the ground which is otherwise known as "jumping", while if he was in control then how was he not able to stop his trailing leg from connecting with Elliott's planted leg with the force that it broke it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thanks!
Silly comparison. If you drink and drive that’s that crime regardless. If you go into a tackle in a fair manor and win the ball then the outcome is irrelevant. Not every tackle that causes an injury is a foul. So how do you argue against Saying it wasn’t a red card?
Why are we putting any weight behind what the player said?
Has he watched it back from the angles we aren't privy to because he wouldn't have seen much in the moment and the one angle we do have isn't conclusive.
Has he watched it back from the angles we aren't privy to because he wouldn't have seen much in the moment and the one angle we do have isn't conclusive.
Yeh you are right let’s ignore the player who actually got tackled and just go with what you reckon. Forget the rest of it.
I asked a very specific question which you ignored to make a sarky remark.
He was involved in the incident in which he suffered a serious injury.
Are you telling me he was able to rationally analyse the whole situation in the heat of the moment when he, in all likelihood, didn't even see the trailing leg?
I’m not being funny when you play football you know when you are on the end of a bad challenge. I have had people dive in two footed from behind at me and you really know it! Elliott will know if that challenge came in with enough force and intent to cause injury. Clearly the lad is aware that wasn’t the case and he was just unlucky which really is obvious from seeing the tackle. All this microanalysis of the back leg is irrelevant and pointless, it’s only a foul/red due to the injury caused and that’s a stupid precedent to set.
Have you considered that maybe Elliott is just trying to avoid more people piling on to Strujik, who has already had to turn off his Instagram comments, and is just being dipomatic? Elliott saying it's not a red does not definitively mean it's not a red.
Have you considered that the moon landing was false and that 5G caused covid? Sometimes the obvious point is right in front of you.
Nobody said it was intentional or that he dived in to do him. Besides it clearly did come in with enough force to cause injury.
Without the other camera angles drawing definitive conclusions on this is difficult.
It's even hard to pin point when the tackler touches the ball. The question for the ref would have been if it was reckless or not.
If the player had sat down, perfectly controlled, on the ankle while it was at the angle it was and planted in the ground, the same injury might have occurred. It’s a combination of forces and the angles they’re applied at that caused the injury. With two fit players weighing 70kgs each, the most controlled of actions can cause a leg break if the circumstances are the wrong ones, and the ref had deemed it a great tackle initially and then suddenly it was out of control because the player got injured.
Remember Zlatan’s knee injury? Nudged in the air and simply having his leg at the wrong angle when landing with his body weight has caused serious injury. Is that a red card because it can cause serious injury too? If so, Harry Kane wouldn’t see the light of day.
The outcome probably shouldn't have a bearing on the decision, but in this case it clearly did.
That said, I can't see it being overturned as it meets all the criteria for a red card. As @RORY65 pointed out above, he jumped into a tackle from behind with both feet off the ground (which almost by definition means he wasn't in control of the tackle) and his trailing leg caused the injury to occur. In other words the nature of the tackle caused the injury, which pretty comfortably covers "endangering your opponent".
We see tackles like that every week but not necessarily from behind, with both feet off the ground and with the same level of intensity. And obviously the injury here makes it a lot harder for the ref to let slide, as he likely would with minimum complaints had Harvey been fine.
I don't think it had to be a red card or would have been a red card without the injury. But that isn't the same as it being wrong to give a red card given it's a subjective call.
Even with the Son red card that got overturned last season the decision to overturn it wasn't unanimous and in that case it was contact with an entirely different player that actually caused the injury. Based on that I would think this will stand.
I honestly think you are only judging the challenge based on the injury. If you can honestly sit there and say without the injury that’s a red card then you have a very different view of football to me. I once had an incident a few years ago when I was running alongside my opposition striker. There was a tangle of legs as we crossed and it ended up with the striker breaking his ankle. I didn’t go in to tackle him or put any force in, it was a freak incident where an unfortunate injury occurred, it wasn’t a foul just because this striker was in agony.
I understand that’s not the exact same as this incident but I just think it’s the classic case of people judging by the reaction.
Well it's absolutely nothing like the incident. You keep telling me how I've judged the incident. At this point my opinion is that it's impossible to make a proper judgement without access to the replays.
I thought I'd made that clear.
Sure I’d also like to see more of the videos, but from the evidence we do have and from watching the initial clip a good few times It certainly doesn’t look anything like a red card which is what we have to go off. If more videos surface that show I’m wrong I’ll hold my hands up but I suspect it won’t.
There is a moment in every single slide tackle ever made where this would be the case, do you think they are all out of control?
You might see more of this type of thing with the new reffing directives on tackling / higher threshold for fouls. Burnley particularly seem to be taking advantage of this with some real throwback tackles, taking “man and ball”, and play being waved on, against Everton last night.
This is a stupid image which is only a frame capture and does not show how the action truly unfolded. He can't stop his trailing leg because it's simply not physically possible. He stretched his leg out and this is how it works in real life. This is natural physics at play, there is no lunge. It was unfortunate, but it was Elliott's leg that was trailing in that part of his stride.
From what little we’ve seen, it’s a red for me. It’s similar to tackles that wouldn’t get given as other people on here have said, but for me the difference is the fact that the man is between him and the ball. Going at speed and seemingly lacking control, it’s a red for me all day, regardless of if he got a touch on the ball or not.
I was literally responding to a comment where you said he didn't jump, I posted a picture where he's clearly jumping and now that's being called stupid by someone who doesn't seem to understand the definition of a 4 letter word. I didn't base my opinion on a still image, it's the fact that it's a tackle from so far behind that a player has to jump to make it and therefore cannot be in control of what happens with his trailing leg.
He's not jumping in the picture.
So
- he can't stop his leg from landing on elliot's with force
- He stretched out to go into a tackle from behind, with the very real and fairly high chance of landing on elliot's leg with force
- he did land on elliot's leg with force, which dislocated his ankle as a result - natural physics at play.
Conclusion: he attempted a dangerous tackle with no regard for his opponent's safety, therefore being a reckless challenge. Which is the definition of a red card offence
It was so nearly a great tackle, but he broke Elliot's ankle so it clearly wasn't. The specifics of the situation determined that it was a reckless challenge in this instance. They're basically alongside each other but converging on the ball at speed so once Struijk makes the lunge his momentum is always likely to carry him into Elliot. The fact he's attempting one of those 180's where your back leg whips round almost guarantees it. I think Struijk was always in control, but that type of tackle, at that speed and with those relative trajectories is and was dangerous. I certainly don't blame him for doing it, he's not Euclid and I'd expect most players to make the same choice in the same situation. Even so that specific situation carries elevated risk and if that risk is realised then you have to accept the consequences.