Going by Poch's interview, it was VAR that changed the card from yellow to red. Also blamed VAR for basing the decision in injury rather than tackle.
Are Spurs the dirtiest club in the league?
- Thread starter Runner
- Start date
Aye it does look like VAR was used, just wasn't picked up by Sky or any of the commentators or pundits. Fair enough.
That's not the same though since in your scenario the player would know that the post was there before the push. This was an unlucky outcome of a trip.Even if I grant youfecking hell you want video proof that Son deliberately tripped the player?
Again I will ask the same thing, do you believe player pushing someone in the middle of the pitch with no one around is same as player pushing the player on to the other player or onto the post? Both fouls are same, players pushing other player but the context is not.
Going by your logic, everything is same as it's player pushing other player.
If that was a red then Paul Scholes never would of had a career in football.
The end result shouldn't infuence the colour of the card. If a player pulls anothers shirt and he falls over and breaks an arm should that be a red? On Son. You see those sort of tackles a thousand times with a thousand yellows being given. Not a red for me even if the consequences were horrible.
I do agree with roonster on same type of fouls committed in different areas of the pitch and the example he used about pushing a player purposely onto the post. That in my mind should be a red because the possibilities of hurting a player are obvious much more and intent is involved.
I actually think Brandon Williams challenge were he threw Hudson Odoi over the hoardings was worse than Sons and he wasn't even given a yellow.
The end result shouldn't infuence the colour of the card. If a player pulls anothers shirt and he falls over and breaks an arm should that be a red? On Son. You see those sort of tackles a thousand times with a thousand yellows being given. Not a red for me even if the consequences were horrible.
I do agree with roonster on same type of fouls committed in different areas of the pitch and the example he used about pushing a player purposely onto the post. That in my mind should be a red because the possibilities of hurting a player are obvious much more and intent is involved.
I actually think Brandon Williams challenge were he threw Hudson Odoi over the hoardings was worse than Sons and he wasn't even given a yellow.
Different times, go back to the 70’s every team had its own cnut who’d intentionally injure the most dangerous players. Had Scholes played now, he’d have adjusted his game to suit.
There is no rule in football that takes cause-effect into account when punishing players. The principle is reckless endangerment, and an action cannot be reckless unless at the time of taking that action, the risk of its effect ought to have been reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable man.
To be considered reckless, therefore, the player should have known that there was a high chance of endangering the opponent beyond a normal and acceptable level. It does not matter whether Son was enraged or even malicious in his tackle, it only matters whether, from the perspective of the reasonable man, the tackle was so bad that the injury to his opponent could have been foreseen as a probable effect of his tackle.
This is the dumbest analogy I have ever read on here, and that took some doing.
Well done. Seriously, fecking congratulations.
Thanks!
If its not a tackle but rather a shoulder barge? The players falls, lands awkwardly and breaks his leg. Is it a red card offence?
What a great response- clearly won the argument there. Oh wait no you didn’t as it was dumb as fcuk
So much hypocrisy in football, every manager instructs his players to make a tactical foul to stop a dangerous attack. Son’s foul was run of the mill, you see it half a dozen times in every game (only this time the outcome was horrific). If you want this kind of thing stamped out then red cards should be dished out on every occasion for these types of offences, not just when the opposition player is badly hurt, which is why Atkinson changed his decision from yellow to red. When Salah was taken out by Chaudhary a couple of weeks ago he (which was a more reckless challenge) it was only deemed a yellow and Klopp was ridiculed for saying it should have been a red, what’s the difference?
Do you remember Moreno’s ‘tackle’ on Shaw? How did that one go again? A lot of refs were asked and agreed it wasn’t a red. All I can do is conclude I don’t understand the rules in fotball, or the interpretation of said rules. If this is a red, well...
It was not 100% Son's action solely in any way shape or form, the fact the injury occurred in the collision with Aurier seems a pretty obvious hint that another agent was involved.
Was Son involved? Most definitely, but he certainly wasnt 100% solely responsible like you are trying to argue. If Aurier wasnt involved Gomez takes a couple more steps and falls over, he was already on the way down. But instead he stumbles into Aurier who treads on his foot/ankle with a horrible and clumsy tackle. I mean you can clearly see it in the picture earlier in the thread. And the varying posts around the internet of Aurier's challenge.
It is always a risk when you go into any tackle, regardless of winning the ball or not. This argument about winning the ball makes zero sense. Player goes flying in at speed winning the ball with a studs up challenge, phew, a lot safer than that shirt pull where the player was making no attempt to win the ball. Did you actually read this back to yourself before you hit the post button? Two 80kg bodies coming together at speed to me indicates an inherent risk of injury.
VAR or no VAR the decision to red card Son was correct. Regardless of the injury, it was a reckless tackle and intent to injure the player and not to take the ball. Granted Son didn't want Gomes to break his ankle but unfortunately this was the case in this scenario. The booking was always about intent, as so it is in most cases in football regarding fouls and tackles. Managers now have another reason to moan!
Never a red come on. It’s a yellow all day long.
To the red/yellow card discussion:
Let's imagine I'm driving in a family neighborhood. The speed limit is 30 Km\h. As I find boring to drive so slow or I am late for some appointment, I'm driving at 50 Km/h.
Suddenly, a kid runs into the middle of the road chasing his dog who somehow escaped from the leash. Having no time to break, I ran over the kid and the dog.
It was never my intention to ran them over, since I was just speeding to get to my destination faster, so the only offense I should get is a ticket for driving above speed limit, and should be discharged for ruining a kid's life, not to mention the dog.
Let's imagine I'm driving in a family neighborhood. The speed limit is 30 Km\h. As I find boring to drive so slow or I am late for some appointment, I'm driving at 50 Km/h.
Suddenly, a kid runs into the middle of the road chasing his dog who somehow escaped from the leash. Having no time to break, I ran over the kid and the dog.
It was never my intention to ran them over, since I was just speeding to get to my destination faster, so the only offense I should get is a ticket for driving above speed limit, and should be discharged for ruining a kid's life, not to mention the dog.
No it wasn't.
look at the video the ball is no where near his tackle range and he clearly lunges towards gomes. Keeping the injury aside, i have seen them given Red. If it happened to anyone at united I would have agreed to a Red had it been given.
it's border line for me leaning towards Red.
Sprinting in and sliding someone from behind is reckless, no need for it.
There were a lot worse tackles in the Battle of Stadium Bridge. Spurs definitely have/had a nasty streak in them when things don't go their way.
I'm not sure you've thought through what you're typing here.
If Son had tripped him and he'd have hit the post, Jesus or a ball boy, it is still his kick that caused the sequence.
He kicked him with the intention of bringing him down, in clear retaliation. What followed was that he fell into the ground and Aurier which snapped his ankle.
But it was 100% because of Son's tackle, Aurier didn't make a choice in the sequence, it was out of his hands and the fact that he was the one who happened to be in Gomes way is not down to him.
And no, going for the ball makes the tackle A LOT safer, which you'd know if you'd ever played football.
So if Son trips him & that injury didn’t happen is it still a red to you?
Football is a contact spot & unless you want to eliminate tackling then I’m afraid very occasionally awful incidents happen. But don’t go blaming Son for something he had no intention to do, it was a silly foul given that all players from all teams have done at some point. There’s no need to make this bigger than it was. It should have stayed a yellow & it was an unfortunate incident which no one could have foreseen
His intention was to kick Gomes and bring him down for the elbow. If you go in on someone like that the risk of injury is not negligible and he should face 100% of the blame of the consequences.
You guys are talking about it as if Son just accidentally hit him while jumping or striking the ball - he intentionally tried to avenge himself and when you do something like this you have to accept that you're responsible for the outcome.
I'm not looking at the incident. Seeing the players and fans close by reactions to it tells me it's not a good idea. So, all prejudice aside, is it really clear that Son had intent to injure?
I’ve seen a basketball player break his ankle just jumping up and down unopposed. It would never be a red if the outcome hadn’t have been a break.
It's clearly not a red card. Can't judge tackles on the end result, otherwise we'll be seeing teams send on shit players to fake concussions to get dangerous opponents sent off.
Should the Anderlecht player who went up in an aerial challenge with Zlatan have been sent off because Zlatan landed awkwardly and did his ACL?
Should the Anderlecht player who went up in an aerial challenge with Zlatan have been sent off because Zlatan landed awkwardly and did his ACL?
Spot on. Had it been a normal challenge for the ball, I would have agreed with the posters who say no red.
However, in this case the tackle is only a minute or two after the elbow incident. From watching the video a few posts above, it is clear that Son had no chance to get the ball, yet he still went all in on a sliding tackle at Gomes’ feet from behind. In light of the prior elbow incident I am not in doubt that Son was out to get some sort of revenge, though of course not intending the actual outcome.
When a tackle is clearly malicious, such as in this case, you have a better case for considering the outcome when deciding on which card to give out (if any). In normal tackles, a player is mostly out to get the ball, and normally has a good intent with the tackle. The player should then primarily be judged on the tackle and not on the result. However, when there is a lack of good intent in the tackle, it is a different situation and the player needs to take the consequences of the results of his misdeed, as there was no excuse for making the tackle in the first place.
On another note, for those that say that this was just a run of the mill sliding tackle - it is clear from the video that tackling from behind at full speed, while Aurier is at the same time bombing into the situation from a different angle, is clearly a dangerous thing to do. Such a tackle will often take away the legs and the balance of the player running with the ball, and personally I can not think of many scenarios on a football pitch that is more dangerous than to be sliding through the grass out of balance, with your legs kicked away under you, while 80 kilos of granite is lounging at you at full speed from the opposite direction. This is what happened here, and by doing this reckless and illegal tackle, Son sent Gomes directly into Aurier’s tackle. I would myself much rather hit a goalpost. The fact that Son did not make these considerations before making the tackle is on him, he can not miss Aurier coming into the situation. Of course it is still harsh to give Son the full blame of the actual outcome, but is this reckless endangerment and a red card? Yes, every day of the week.
No question that the son challenge was a red card. No attempt to win the ball, fouling the player was the intention. Personally Son should feel guilty for what he did and I have no sympathy for him. I do feel bad for Gomes, as anyone would, but those feeling bad for Son for crying like a baby should remember that Son wanted to foul Gomes, so they should stop acting as if Son is an innocent person who is a victim of Gomes 'falling awkwardly.'
If someone wants to have a broader discussion about making all cynical, tactical fouls into red cards, I'm 100% on board with that. But given the current laws of the game, I cannot for the life of me understand how this is a red for Son. The only explanation is that the result of the challenge is influencing the decision, which is an extremely slippery slope and (in my opinion) completely contrary to the spirit of football itself.
Look at Guendouzi's challenge on Zaha last week - that was a far more cynical challenge than this one. Should he have gotten a red if Zaha had broken his collarbone or dislocated his shoulder due to an awkward foul? If one were to argue that these sorts of challenges should always be red cards, I would completely agree and would push for a change in the laws. But the reality is that for whatever reason, tactical fouls are given as yellows consistently. Change the laws if you like, but legislating based on fluke outcomes leaves far too much room for interpretation for the already incompetent referees in this country.
Look at Guendouzi's challenge on Zaha last week - that was a far more cynical challenge than this one. Should he have gotten a red if Zaha had broken his collarbone or dislocated his shoulder due to an awkward foul? If one were to argue that these sorts of challenges should always be red cards, I would completely agree and would push for a change in the laws. But the reality is that for whatever reason, tactical fouls are given as yellows consistently. Change the laws if you like, but legislating based on fluke outcomes leaves far too much room for interpretation for the already incompetent referees in this country.
This, basically. As the rules are written today, it shouldn't have been a red card.
It was obvious that the result of the challenge influenced the decision, seeing as he had his yellow card out, looked over at Gomes's leg and then changed his mind and showed the red card. Terrible officiating IMO and a slippery slope, as you say.
Is this a red card too? Because Anderson's leg was broken by this tackle
I’m not sure if it’s a red but it reminds me of A Rooney challenge from a few years ago when he saw red. Can anyone remember the game?
Was against West Ham and he was red carded because he attempted to trip a player on a counter but ended up kicking him in the thigh. Didn't agree with it at the time but definitely fulfills the 'excessive force' criterion. Why doesn't he just trip him up at ankle height? Why does he have to kick him like that? Definitely different from Son's sliding tackle.
I always thought that was a red, it was just a stupid tackle. Not much force, but if you raise your foot that high into someone from a position without much chance of getting the ball, chances are you will be given a red.
Without a doubt, proper dirty side, people going easy on son because he cried, easier to not go out your way to lunch into a tackle where you have no chance of getting the ball...pathetic
My point was not that all tactical fouls and cynical tackles are red cards. Far from it. But in cases like this, where a revenge tackle with no chance of getting the ball ends with a foot cut off, I am of the opinion that one can look at both what seemed to be the intent of the tackle, and what was the result. This AS opposed to «normal» tackles where the result is of less importance.
The point here is that Son did not at all go for the ball. One can punish such tackles without having to outlawing tackles altogether.
This, you cannot start issuing cards based on injuries. In a contact sport injuries are going to happen when you have 80kg bodies coming together at speed.
Hell the NDombele challenge earlier in that very same game was worse than Son's. But I agree on tactical fouling, it is a separate discussion and there should be harsher penalties for it. Can't believe City committed 10 tactical fouls in the first half vs West Ham and got zero bookings.
Care to conjure more conjecture out of the air and proclaim it as irrevocable truth? How do you possibly know Son was trying to avenge himself? Here's a hint, you cannot know.
I think it was more a tactical foul personally, Gomes running past him with the ball, better take him out. Im not about to sit here and espouse this theory as unequivocal truth however, like some, he could of been trying to get revenge for an earlier play. We will never know, only Son knows.
How many people agreed with Rooney's red against west ham a few years ago? Same tackle, same outcome
See someone beat me to this.. dont think either are a red card, but at the same time i think they need to clamp down on "tactical fouls"