If only Luke Shaw against PSV had the same treatment and sympathy from the referee. After that horrific tackle, we didn't even get a penalty. Then Moreno scored and celebrated like crazy. 6 years already and I can't still get over that.
Was it a red?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
Seems odd that it went from not even being a free kick to a straight red without reference to VAR. The suspicion is that it was reaction to the extent of the injury and not necessarily a rational decision based on the actual tackle itself.
I have seen red cards given for less. In the circumstances I think the ref made the correct decision. It is only a red card, not the end of the world.
I have never heard of a dislocated ankle before but it sounds painful. I am sure there is ligamet damage too, maybe even a bone fracture. Does anyone know how long his recovery might be?
I have never heard of a dislocated ankle before but it sounds painful. I am sure there is ligamet damage too, maybe even a bone fracture. Does anyone know how long his recovery might be?
And that was the CL mind you. A competition where you get a straight red when a play acting opponent rushes into your raised foot and a Turkish ref with the face of one legged gimp theatrically brandishes said red card.
The outcome of the challenge is horrible, and I hope the player recovers quickly and manages to overcome the injury.
But the amount of uninformed medical guesswork is something I feel the need to comment on. I’m not here to educate, but an ankle injury doesn’t mean the tibia was “smashed” or “snapped in half”, to quote a few specialists here. Just google tibia, fibula, and talus, and you can easily understand what our ankle joint looks like and that it is not an indestructible construct that needs MMA skills to be destroyed. Add leverage and finally ask yourself, does a body in motion generate more or less force than a motionless body?
A few things came together and caused a horrible injury, but it was unlucky that it happened, and you’d probably struggle to recreate it without trying over and over again. It was the kind of challenge that repeatedly happens week in week out. None of us have started a thread for a similar challenge that hasn’t led to an injury. So, I’ll assume we’re just as guilty as the ref, for reacting to the injury instead of the challenge.
In my opinion, not a red card.
But the amount of uninformed medical guesswork is something I feel the need to comment on. I’m not here to educate, but an ankle injury doesn’t mean the tibia was “smashed” or “snapped in half”, to quote a few specialists here. Just google tibia, fibula, and talus, and you can easily understand what our ankle joint looks like and that it is not an indestructible construct that needs MMA skills to be destroyed. Add leverage and finally ask yourself, does a body in motion generate more or less force than a motionless body?
A few things came together and caused a horrible injury, but it was unlucky that it happened, and you’d probably struggle to recreate it without trying over and over again. It was the kind of challenge that repeatedly happens week in week out. None of us have started a thread for a similar challenge that hasn’t led to an injury. So, I’ll assume we’re just as guilty as the ref, for reacting to the injury instead of the challenge.
In my opinion, not a red card.
Nope. He *lands* with his knee on Elliot's ankle
So you’d give a red every time someone is tackled with the shoulder which makes him lose balance and hit the ad boards off the side of the pitch? Even if the player doesn’t get injured? Or is it just if an injury occurs?
Every tackle is a potential danger to the opponent, so if you’re going to be that literal about the law then every tackle is a red card. Every tackle can, under the wrong circumstances (planted foot at an angle etc) lead to a broken leg, rib or arm if unfortunate because of the forces involved (extremely fit and strong players weighing 75-80kgs exerting forces upon each other).
You don't know that. Andre Gomes was back playing after a similar injury in 4 months
It wasn't a powerful strike. His trailing leg rolled over the Liverpool players leg that got caught in the ground
It is a red card in my opinion:
- tackle comes from behind, player cannot see it coming and is thus extremely injury prone
- the player was already gone, the tackle was more than desperate
- he tackles with both feet and thus is whole body weight, multiplied by his speed
I think you guys in the UK have a different view on this, because you all really like physical football, but if this tackle was no red and allowed, there would definitely a lot of ugly injuries in one season. If in doubt, you need to protect the player anyway.
Up to the 90s, this would have been a straight red in every single case. But after 2k I feel that the referees have got some additional baggage from their managers, like "don't give a red" and disrupt the game.
- tackle comes from behind, player cannot see it coming and is thus extremely injury prone
- the player was already gone, the tackle was more than desperate
- he tackles with both feet and thus is whole body weight, multiplied by his speed
I think you guys in the UK have a different view on this, because you all really like physical football, but if this tackle was no red and allowed, there would definitely a lot of ugly injuries in one season. If in doubt, you need to protect the player anyway.
Up to the 90s, this would have been a straight red in every single case. But after 2k I feel that the referees have got some additional baggage from their managers, like "don't give a red" and disrupt the game.
Kinda reminds me of the Harry Wilson foul against Denmark in the Euros. Can't find the thread though, but we had the same discussion there, it would be interesting to read and compare.
The injury was bad luck in my oppinion. I still tend to see the red card as justified, as the tackle was too forceful. The risk of collateral injuries is too high and therefore rightfully disallowed.
The injury was bad luck in my oppinion. I still tend to see the red card as justified, as the tackle was too forceful. The risk of collateral injuries is too high and therefore rightfully disallowed.
Yeah what a prick. At least Shaw has come back strong and realised his potential, but Shaw lost a key period of development thanks to that fecker.
Wasn't a red. Wasn't malicious. Just terribly unlucky for the young lad.
The thing is this tackle would have been allowed if the unfortunate injury hadn't have happened. You see these every week in the premier league. If the injury doesn't occur, 100% the game plays on.
It's an unfortunate accident. They will inevitably happen, because it's a physical game which we in the UK like to see pushed to the limits. If incidents like this occur, personally I think it should be a forced substitution as opposed to a red card.
Truth. Obviously it will be an unpleasant watch and some people will unfortunately revel in that, but how on earth are we supposed to judge whether it was a correct decision if we can't see the footage. This is especially annoying as VAR gave the red. I might feel differently if it actually happened to me but if my leg was broken in a tackle I wouldn't want the footage supressed like this.
Remember when Maguire got injured against Villa at the end of last season? Would it have been a red for the Villa player had Harry snapped his leg? I know it's not exactly the same, but these things can happen
That's a red. Not only is he lunging at the ball, both of his feet leave the ground. He gave Eliott no chance. Completely reckless by the Leeds player. 3 match ban would be more than deserved.
Not a red, just dreadfully unfortunate for Harvey Elliot. The ref didn't deem the tackle a foul.
You can argue if it was a red or not (even though I understand giving it) but that's a clear foul. I'm assuming those saying it wasn't, haven't seen the image above. Good find.Doesn't like the great challenge you guys are all describing from this angle :
Based on the fact his trailing leg was "out of control" as it landed on the back of his leg and broke his ankle, then it's a red card. Similar to when a player has his studs showing and is not in control of the tackle and catches a players leg.
I think because of the limited camera angles, it is difficult to assess but it took a number of watches before I thought it was a red card.
I think because of the limited camera angles, it is difficult to assess but it took a number of watches before I thought it was a red card.
Theres a picture straight in front of the tackle. If you do a two footed tackle, one hits the ball the other hits the leg. This is the same thing. He did’nt do it on purpose, but still he did not controll his tackle properly.
We will see Elliot back on the field, but I doubt he will ever be what he could have been.
Definate red! Elliot was passed him. The tackle wasn't on from the beginning. It was a desperate lunge. Thus the serious consequences for the young lad on the end of it.
I definitely don't agree about it being the same as a two footed lunge, as they usually have a lot of intent behind them. But looking at it repeatedly over the last few hours he was a bit out of control in winning the ball back, along with the intensity in the tackle. In real time looked a great tackle and still 9.9 times out of 10 that injury doesn't happen, very unfortunate
If I remember correctly, you could see the ref talking to the VAR after they stopped the play.
I immediately thought of the moment Alan Smith got injured.
Nobody posted the Elliot instagram post?
Say's it was a pure accident, shouldn't have been a red card. A very mature response from the kid.
https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/harvey-...ame-pascal-struijk-for-horrific-injury-288747
Say's it was a pure accident, shouldn't have been a red card. A very mature response from the kid.
https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/harvey-...ame-pascal-struijk-for-horrific-injury-288747
Sensible boy and agreed not a red card...
And I agree with him. Unlucky yes, malicious not a chance. Football is a competitive sport and the kid got really unlucky that his ankle got stuck under the trailing leg. Klopp got him that red without a doubt. Hope the kid recovers well and gets back up again soon like Gomes did.
Agreed. Big difference between a malicious tackle aiming to hurt somebody, or a pure unlucky accident.
I get why the ref gave him a red, it's more to cover their own asses half the time in the heat of the moment - but I think they should appeal the ban IMO.
It seems like the injury could have been a lot worse (although it looked horrible) I think he will be back playing around Feb/March which will be great.
I agree, ref gave it to defuse the situation and save his ass. Leeds should appeal as I think there is a genuine chance to get this overturned. Like I said I really hope he will recover well and get back in the pitch quickly.
Shaw's break didn't even merit a talking to, so no such influence there. The commentary team, if I remember right didn't think much of it, but replays showed that it was a late and dangerous tackle. Almost ruined his career.
You never saw Sourness and his ilk get red cards in the 70s or 80s! And they dished out some pretty horrific stuff.
The red card is of so little importance. I am dissapointed so many of you feel it is worth the arguement. Says alot.
Mate, you’re on an online football forum. Do you think we’d be outside the hospital raising funds for Harvey Elliott if we weren’t discussing the laws of the game in a unique situation where a tackle that happens multiple times per game week (without red cards being brandished) ends up having a bad outcome due to unlucky circumstances.
Whether it was malicious or not has literally zero bearing on whether it's a red card though, because that's not how the rules work. People can argue whether it should have been a red card but intent isn't even a factor for the ref to consider, so lack of intent isn't an argument for it not to be given, unless you want to change the rules.
You talk about unlucky circumstances. A tackle involves judgement and in this case the judgement was way off. The arguement against a red card is irrational.
Are you suggesting that he intentionally timed his tackle to ensure that his trailing leg landed on a planted trailing foot exactly when it was at an awkward angle to ensure maximum damage? If so, that’s bloody impressive.
The unlucky circumstances are that the trailing leg (which the player cannot detach upon making a tackle) accidentally made contact with the foot that the player didn’t intend to tackle, and that the foot happened to be 1) planted, and 2) at an awkward angle right at the point of impact.
Any tackle, or contact, can, given unlucky circumstances, end up in a serious injury. Should we ban everything from the sport?
Tiny nudge of the shoulder makes a player roll his ankle and break it. Should that be a red card too?
Is that even if the ref did see the foul?
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.