Harry Wilson red card

[MU655]

I can't believe there are people who think it is a red. How soft do you want football to become?

You would be having people sent off every match.

Football is becoming more pussyish by the year.

 

[Lyng]

I can't believe there are people who think it is a red. How soft do you want football to become?

You would be having people sent off every match.

It wasnt a red, but I agree with the OP that it probably should be given how dangerous a tackle like that from behind is, and that this was clearly out of frustration more than anything else.

 

[do.ob]

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.

The distance to the ball, the distance to goal and the defenders in front of the ball gives you plenty to go on. Like do you think that's calculated normal defensive behavior? There is no rational reason for such a challenge in such a situation.

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 @Anustart89 put it well a couple of posts above. The contact itself says yellow, the lead up says red. Since the rule specifies "attempt" and that contact doesn't have to be made it's up to the ref what he wants to weigh more heavily.

 

[Cascarino]

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.

I watched it again, and look at the 4s-6s point. You'll notice that Maehle hesitates for a second on the ball, and then bursts again. During this moment Wilson took a slight step to his right, and then when Maehle began his burst he shifted direction and tried to cut him off. When you see that, and then the angle where you can see his foot which he clearly shapes in a tripping motion, rather than a doing him in motion.

 

[MU655]

It wasnt a red, but I agree with the OP that it probably should be given how dangerous a tackle like that from behind is, and that this was clearly out of frustration more than anything else.

Trips happen every game. Any of them could end up twisting someone's ankle etc. In the end, this was a trip from a lying down position. There was actually less risk of harm than a standing trip.

It is more ridiculous, though, considering a flying punch to the head from Lloris was a yellow. There is no sense in football decisions. That could break someone's skull or even neck, but isn't considered a guaranteed red.

 

[Lyng]

It is more ridiculous, though, considering a flying punch to the head from Lloris was a yellow. There is no sense in football decisions. That could break someone's skull or even neck, but isn't considered a guaranteed red.

Yup I completely agree.

 

[Flying high]

Who did you play for? The only time I ever saw an actual physical fight (and that's being generous with the terminology), was Lee Kendall drunk after a game with one of the players uncle. On the pitch I never saw a fight.

That's funny. The impression we had was that S Wales was even worse for fighting. It was brutal most weeks. We'd often have fans trying to get involved! Welshpool always springs to mind.

TNS was the only decent team, and that was before they merged. Llanrhaeadr and a couple of others briefly when I was much older.

 

[B20]

Should have been a yellow, but also feel yellow is too much mild for such a thing. Red is too harsh though.

I'd like to see an orange card with players going into the sin bin for 10 minutes.

 

[RUCK4444]

I missed this live during the game but feck me, how anybody thinks that’s a red card is beyond me.

It’s cynical sure, borne out of frustration but never a red card.

We see these regular in the PL and never a red. Just a definite yellow.

 

[Cascarino]

That's funny. The impression we had was that S Wales was even worse for fighting. It was brutal most weeks. We'd often have fans trying to get involved! Welshpool always springs to mind.

TNS was the only decent team, and that was before they merged. Llanrhaeadr and a couple of others briefly when I was much older.

It might be because I played relatively recently and things have got softer! The only fans I ever had a problem with were Rhyl. I fecking hated them. We had a game halted for about 5 minutes because a bunch of kids were behind our net giving shit to the keeper, he snapped and kicked the ball directly at them. He claimed they were threatening him (dunno) but I remember that had a bunch of aggro

I never liked TNS but that's mainly because they just shat on everyone else for years (until recently), but yeah they've always been a really good side.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I can’t decide.

One part of me thinks it’s incredibly harsh for that little contact, another that’s it’s no attempt to take take the ball so simply twattish.

Thus… dun know.

I’ve thought a sin bin or “orange card” would be a great idea in football for years so this probably falls under this.

 

[Flying high]

It might be because I played relatively recently and things have got softer! The only fans I ever had a problem with were Rhyl. I fecking hated them. We had a game halted for about 5 minutes because a bunch of kids were behind our net giving shit to the keeper, he snapped and kicked the ball directly at them. He claimed they were threatening him (dunno) but I remember that had a bunch of aggro

I never liked TNS but that's mainly because they just shat on everyone else for years (until recently), but yeah they've always been a really good side.

My final season was some 10 years ago in the local league and I'd say it probably had calmed a little. Got kicked in the head one week and my team mates didn't seem too bothered!

 

[Carl]

I’m sure it’s a very controversial red but anyone else think challenges like that should always result in a sending off?

Every time a player gets tripped there’s a risk of injury. That injury increases when they’re tripped unexpectedly. When someone has no chance of getting the ball and no intention of playing the ball wouldn’t it be in the spirit of the game to amend the rules to clarify that these scenarios are an automatic red?

Discuss.

By that logic, pretty much every foul is a red because every time you fall over you risk injury.

 

[The Hilton]

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.

Most likely is again subjective, and a you're making assumptions that you simply don't know. You really are going against your own "you're not in his head logic" by assuming his intentions based on assuming his feelings.

He also wasn't at all "wild", he tripped a player who was running through on goal that he couldn't catch. There's simply no evidence that it was with intent to injure, nor was there excessive force, therefore no justification for a red card without making assumptions.

 

[Anustart89]

I watched it again, and look at the 4s-6s point. You'll notice that Maehle hesitates for a second on the ball, and then bursts again. During this moment Wilson took a slight step to his right, and then when Maehle began his burst he shifted direction and tried to cut him off. When you see that, and then the angle where you can see his foot which he clearly shapes in a tripping motion, rather than a doing him in motion.

I think the main point where we’re disagreeing is that my interpretation is that even before the change in direction occurs, Wilson’s already decided that he’s going for him no matter what, and the fact that the ball was completely out of reach doesn’t matter at that point because he was taking him out anyway. The clue for me is the frenzy he runs after him with and the nature of the lunge in real time. The fact that the Dane changes direction probably saves him from even more contact and a higher risk of injury.

Such pointless tackles have no place in the game for me, regardless of whether they end up injuring the player or not.

For me, this is similar to when Son was pissed off at not getting a free kick. Rushes back, slide tackles André Gomes from behind out of frustration and Gomes ends up stumbling into another player as a result of a completely pointless tackle and breaks his leg. Utterly pointless and with terrible consequences for the guy on the end of it. Why should it be tolerated to tackle someone because you’re pissed off at the referee or the result? Surely a tackle should be made to win the ball? And if you’re not trying to win the ball and go in overly enthusiastically into a pointless tackle that doesn’t intend to win the ball, why should we allow that? Who are we supposed to protect on the pitch? Players who make pointless tackles or players who are on the end of them?

 

[The Hilton]

The distance to the ball, the distance to goal and the defenders in front of the ball gives you plenty to go on. Like do you think that's calculated normal defensive behavior? There is no rational reason for such a challenge in such a situation.



I think @Anustart89 put it well a couple of posts above. The contact itself says yellow, the lead up says red. Since the rule specifies "attempt" and that contact doesn't have to be made it's up to the ref what he wants to weigh more heavily.

There's a perfectly rational reason - he couldn't stop the player by taking the ball, so tripped him. It happens all the time in football, Ole became a United hero for doing something similar (although was last man).

And it wasn't put well, because the "lead up" is all made up intentions. Nor does running towards a an opposition player who has the ball warrant upgrading a yellow card to a red.

It was a trip, the yellow is due to the position on the pitch, as happens all the time in football.

 

[Isotope]

Reminded me of those PSGs tackles at CL SF when they knew they didn't have any hope progressing.

But this one worth yellow, under the current rule.

 

[DCP]

Personally I think this should be a red card - maybe not in line with other decisions which makes it unfortunate - but I hate tackles like this.

 

[arthurka]

If Savage says it's not I'm going with it was a correctly given red card.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

He's defiintely gone in with no other intention than to foul. He's not looking to even try and play the ball. But even if he has chased him down, he hasn't gone in maliciously.

Very simialr to the Rooney one, harsh red IMO.

 

[Wibble]

No attempt to play the ball so he gave the ref very little choice.

 

[Pink Moon]

Yes.

If your only intent is to take out the man then it should be a red card. You aren't trying to defend or tackle at that point. You're explicitly targeting the man.

Fernandinho done this against Leeds at the Etihad a few months ago and Raphinha ended up missing a few games through injury.


"Only a trip", though...

 

[Vidyoyo]

Half and half for me but he doesn't go for the ball and probably fouled Maehle because he was wound up. I can understand why he got a red.

 

[redrobed]

If I was one of his teammates I’d hope never to see him picked for that team again. Your team’s already getting beyond humiliated by a team you should be beating and he does that.

 

[Red_toad]

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

Must have hurt his elbow throwing himself to the floor like that. Shame players need to add theatrical licence to their trips, slips and falls. I’d say it was a booking, but doing that is always an unnecessary risk

 

[Wibble]

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.

How does the video you posted change anything? It was a deliberate attempt to foul with zero attempt to challenge for the ball, so it easily falls within the rule. I'd have been more surprised if he hadn't been shown a red card tbh.

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

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Might be harsh but he gave the ref an easy decision. Like @Mike Smalling said, it looks like he tried to hit him really hard but missed.

 

[Jev]

The more times I watch the real time footage, the more I can't believe so many people are saying it's not a red. I think the slow-motion angles are the issue here, takes away the strong force and obvious malicious intent. He's very clearly out to hurt Mæhle, even though he doesn't quite succeed.

 

[ROFLUTION]

Most likely is again subjective, and a you're making assumptions that you simply don't know. You really are going against your own "you're not in his head logic" by assuming his intentions based on assuming his feelings.

He also wasn't at all "wild", he tripped a player who was running through on goal that he couldn't catch. There's simply no evidence that it was with intent to injure, nor was there excessive force, therefore no justification for a red card without making assumptions.

Through on goal? There's like 2-3 defenders he'll have to pass if he gets past Wilson

We wont agree, so let's just keep it that way

 

[ROFLUTION]

The more times I watch the real time footage, the more I can't believe so many believe are saying it's not a red. I think the slow-motion angles are the issue here, takes away the strong force and obvious malicious intent. He's very clearly out to hurt Mæhle, even though he doesn't quite succeed.

It's ironic really, most of people in here can't understand the speed of the tackle and that is what makes it an aggressive one, and then resort to back it up with slow motion footage of the tackle.

 

[Longshanks]

Any deliberate foul should be a red card imo its just blatant cheating that and simulation aswell should be a red.

It is of course difficult to make real time judgements on both of the above but with VAR now I don't see why at the top level they can't enforce both.

When I talk about simulation I'm not just talking about players going down in the box it happens all over the pitch, player plays himself into trouble, then iniates contact with opposition while shielding the ball and flops to the floor to win a free kick.

Surley VAR has time to have a quick look at simulation incidents and 'tactical fouling' and punish anything that is obvious enough, no need to stop the game the review can happen with the game going on and at next break in play punishment dished out. It would nice just to see even yellows regularly dished out for blatant cheating.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Never a red. The frustration argument is fine, but this wasn't violent conduct.

Go watch Steven Berghuis, he's the king of frustration born violence. He would scoff at this puny challenge.

Oh and to lend my post some authority, I have played footbal until a few years ago in the local 7th reserve division where I mostly played old and / or fat people. Things tend to get bad ass in there.

 

[Hester_manc]

I am Danish and of course cheering on Denmark. But it was not a red card. However, if you tackle from behind and you are not close to being able to reach the ball, then you risk getting a red card. But again, a yellow card had been appropriate.

At the goal to 2-0, however, there was no free kick for Wales. The Welsh player leans back and gives Kjær a push. As I see it, there was a free kick to Kjær.

 

[hellhunter]

I am Danish and of course cheering on Denmark. But it was not a red card. However, if you tackle from behind and you are not close to being able to reach the ball, then you risk getting a red card. But again, a yellow card had been appropriate.

At the goal to 2-0, however, there was no free kick for Wales. The Welsh player leans back and gives Kjær a push. As I see it, there was a free kick to Kjær.

It was the Harry Kane maneuver, agreed

 

[Oranges038]

Never a red card.

Nothing excessive or brutal about it, dives in misses it and sticks out a leg to trip him. It's cynical but it's not a red.

And those who think it was, really just need to ask themselves if they got a red for that would they think it was right. I very much doubt it.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Petition to have threads like this start with a clip of the event. I haven’t seen it.

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.

i actually completely agree with this. I expected to come in here and argue it should never be a red. Watched the slow mo video above and was about to post what a joke. In real time though that looks like a stupid challenge where he isn’t aiming for the ball. A red card is not unwarranted for that.

 

[youmeletsfly]

I think he got it for having feck all intention to play the game and clearly trying to hurt the other guy.
It doesn't look that bad because he didn't catch the guy properly, but even so, just a bit more and that tackle straight on the tendon is a very long injury.

If you want to take a guy out, you slide in, reap his legs clean, job done, no risk of injury, max a yellow card. If you go like a fecking idiot dog, trying to step on the back of someone's foot, right on the tendon, then it's a possible very serious injury and a clear straight red.

 

[Abraxas]

Looking at the rule, the important part may be the word 'attempts.'

It was certainly not a challenge for the ball, I don't think that is in dispute. The ref can easily ascertain that from Wilson's starting position when making that tackle.

Then the ref considers excessive force and brutality. Did it qualify as that in actuality - ignoring slow mo because it distorts perception and isn't what the ref judges the challenge on? Perhaps not, it's certainly a grey enough area because he didn't hit the player that well.

However there does appear to be an attempt made at excessive force or brutality. The context, the position the tackle was made from, the way he chased him down and lunged without attempting to get close. The fact it fell a little short of a proper hit job may be neither here nor there if the ref sees it this way, it is beyond a cynical little trip to stop a counter or a mistimed tackle aimed at the ball, you cannot convincingly state that it fell within either category.

I don't think it's to do with "preventing Welsh fouls" or laying a marker down from the ref. There's a few minutes left and you wouldn't brandish a red to achieve this aim, that would be disproportionate if the tackle didn't merit a red.

 

[Rajma]

Stonewall red given the context (3-0) and no intention to get the ball.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes.

If your only intent is to take out the man then it should be a red card. You aren't trying to defend or tackle at that point. You're explicitly targeting the man.

Fernandinho done this against Leeds at the Etihad a few months ago and Raphinha ended up missing a few games through injury.


"Only a trip", though...

That’s what I’d like to see. Fernandinho should have been sent off.