I don't understand this argument, every tackle has an element of loss of control.
It wasn't two footed, it wasn't a lunge, he was in control and the ref deemed so too as he didn't blow for a foul.
Near enough most refs I've seen speaking about the incident have suggested the same, that it wasn't a reckless tackle.
Even Elliot has said it was a freak accident.
Not sure what else there is to say really.
As far as I am concerned the red wasn't given because he was out of control, never was out of control ever mentioned.
The Premier League confirmed that it was due to excessive force, which wouldn't have been the case had Elliot not been seriously Injured. That last point is the important one to note, had Elliot not been seriously Injured would Struijk get sent off?
Interesting to note again that multiple ex premiership refs have said no.
And that's the key issue for me, and the reason it's not a red card, just because he's seriously Injured doesn't automatically mean it needs to be a red.
The fact that there's so much debate regarding it probably suggests it's not as clear cut as everyone seems to think it is.
Every tackle has an element of loss of control, but some obviously more so than others. A player who slides in while physically in contact with the ground will obviously be better able to control their velocity than a player who is airborne. We often see players pull out of or reduce the force of tackles they're making but it's much harder to do that when you jump in to the tackle with both feet off the ground, which is why that's such a major factor in determining whether something is a red
Whether a player is out of control
is a factor in whether red cards are given and held up, among many other things. It didn't stop being a factor here even if it wasn't actively mentioned in their explanation.
Here's head of referees Mike Riley explaining what makes a red card a red and the factors refs are supposed to consider:
The advice towards players is to be mindful of their responsibilities towards an opponent and beware that if they commit to a tackle, at speed, with intensity, with two feet off the ground, they run the risk of being sent off.
The advice from referees and assistants to players is to put themselves in their opponent's place and ask: "Can I make this challenge without having an adverse effect on my opponent?"
Referees look for the intensity, and the physical contact that's made.
The angle is not important, it's the degree of intensity and contact made.
And a player could win the ball with one foot and still endanger their opponent with the other. A decade ago, if a player won the ball, the tackle could be seen as legitimate, but now the emphasis is on the safety of the players.
With studs, almost by definition, if a player is going into a tackle two-footed, airborne, their studs raised, then they cannot control their velocity and risk a red card.
The bold all apply in this case.
Also, while Riley is correct in saying the angle of the foul isn't important in itself, it's also the case that referees are taught to take the context of the tackle into account. Part of that is that tackles from behind are treated with more suspicion, as the view is that a tackle where the attacker is already past the opponent will often involve more aggression, less control and more desperation on the part of the tackler. So in a context like this where the player makes a tackle with both feet off the ground and the trailing leg causes serious injury to the opponent, the fact that it was also made from behind
does become a factor in referee's assessment.
All of which feeds into why this red was never going to be overturned. While I don't think
anyone believes it would have been a red without the injury, it ticks so many boxes for a red card that it was never an actively wrong decision either. In de facto terms the reality under current PL standards is that any tackle that cause such extreme damage to an opponent would have to be
extremely clean to avoid a red card, because (as Riley says) the emphasis has shifted so much towards the safety of the players.