Was it a red?

Corey

Full Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
267
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
I agree with your general line of reasoning but according to the rules a “reckless” challenge is the definition of a yellow card offence ; “excessive force” is the definition of a red card offence.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
44,842
Apparently Elliot had a "dig" at some goons giving him grief with the below tweet

Elliott eventually responded: “Crazy though how I have more legs than United have trophies over the past eight years.”


How many legs does he think he has exactly? If it was 4 years maybe he'd be right, but we won a few cups under Van Gaal and Mourinho.
 

Relevant

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
66
Apparently Elliot had a "dig" at some goons giving him grief with the below tweet

Elliott eventually responded: “Crazy though how I have more legs than United have trophies over the past eight years.”


How many legs does he think he has exactly? If it was 4 years maybe he'd be right, but we won a few cups under Van Gaal and Mourinho.
Wonder what grief he was getting?

Difficult to argue that those supplying it aren't muppets, whoever they support.

Reckon Elliott should keep his trap shut, and maybe if I was that club's publicity manager I'd be encouraging and if that didn't work enforcing this.

I still can't believe some people think this was just 'one of those things'.

The Leeds player jumps across Elliott towards the touchline on a slight diagonal as Elliot is moving himself on the opposite diagonal towards the centre circle. That picture above shows were he's actually landed. You can't see Elliott's foot any more because it's been squashed under the weight of a 14/15 stone player who's launched himself through the air. The Leeds player must have known he was going to land on Elliott by the angle he took off. What goes up, must come down.

He's done him, good and feckin proper

If that had happened to Jadon Sancho we'd all be going fecking apoplectic, and rightly so.

Although it didn't seem it at the time due to the camera angles, this was a seriously reckless tackle.

Looks like the FA are in agreement, thank God. Still shudder when I think of that happening to Sancho/Greenwood...... awful, awful challenge.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
44,842
Wonder what grief he was getting?

Difficult to argue that those supplying it aren't muppets, whoever they support.

Reckon Elliott should keep his trap shut, and maybe if I was that club's publicity manager I'd be encouraging and if that didn't work enforcing this.

I still can't believe some people think this was just 'one of those things'.

The Leeds player jumps across Elliott towards the touchline on a slight diagonal as Elliot is moving himself on the opposite diagonal towards the centre circle. That picture above shows were he's actually landed. You can't see Elliott's foot any more because it's been squashed under the weight of a 14/15 stone player who's launched himself through the air. The Leeds player must have known he was going to land on Elliott by the angle he took off. What goes up, must come down.

He's done him, good and feckin proper

If that had happened to Jadon Sancho we'd all be going fecking apoplectic, and rightly so.

Although it didn't seem it at the time due to the camera angles, this was a seriously reckless tackle.

Looks like the FA are in agreement, thank God. Still shudder when I think of that happening to Sancho/Greenwood...... awful, awful challenge.
It wasn't reckless, it was unfortunate.
There were at least 2 other very similar challenges this weekend, that didn't result in any issue at all.

The fact the ref didn't even flag it as a free kick until he saw the injury speaks volumes.

However, you're right on the lad himself needing to keep his comments to himself. He'll only ensure he becomes even more of a target.
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
22,067
Supports
Real Madrid
It wasn't reckless, it was unfortunate.
There were at least 2 other very similar challenges this weekend, that didn't result in any issue at all.
The one on Mane was way different, again, the player doesn't jump in with both feet off the ground there, there is considerable less force involved, and he didn't land on Mane's leg, he clipped it. And it was still dangerous and should have been a foul anyways, btw

The fact the ref didn't even flag it as a free kick until he saw the injury speaks volumes.
Yes, english refs are morons. But we already knew that
 

Relevant

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
66
It wasn't reckless, it was unfortunate.
There were at least 2 other very similar challenges this weekend, that didn't result in any issue at all.

The fact the ref didn't even flag it as a free kick until he saw the injury speaks volumes.

However, you're right on the lad himself needing to keep his comments to himself. He'll only ensure he becomes even more of a target.
In my eyes - reckless.

Two feet off the deck jumping into the back of another player at an angle. Or have I missed something?

The fact that the ref didn't even whistle shows his complete incompetence at refereeing.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,001
Are people still trying to claim it was a reckless and out of control challenge? Despite a huge amount of ex refs, pros and other people who play the game saying otherwise? Including the guy who come off worst in all this?!!
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
44,842
Are people still trying to claim it was a reckless and out of control challenge? Despite a huge amount of ex refs, pros and other people who play the game saying otherwise? Including the guy who come off worst in all this?!!
Yeah I was wondering if I'd seen it wrong from the posts above.
It looked a great challenge on first view. The other leg was the unfortunate part.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
28,500
Are people still trying to claim it was a reckless and out of control challenge? Despite a huge amount of ex refs, pros and other people who play the game saying otherwise? Including the guy who come off worst in all this?!!
Whatever about reckless, he obviously wasn't in control of the tackle given he jumped in to the challenge with both feet of the ground and was unable to stop his trailing leg injuring his opponent. I'm not sure how you could possibly be in control when making that sort of challenge unless you're telekinetic.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,001
Whatever about reckless, he obviously wasn't in control of the tackle given he jumped in to the challenge with both feet of the ground and was unable to stop his trailing leg injuring his opponent. I'm not sure how you could possibly be in control when making that sort of challenge unless you're telekinetic.
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.
 

Relevant

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
66
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.
It all depends on the angle you come in from with the tackle.

If he was running alongside Elliott with Elliott being on his rhs then it could have been a fair challenge as his trailing leg would have not come into contact with the other player.

The issue with the tackle from this particular angle was that Struijk was always going to come into contact with the back of Elliott's legs

There was literally no other way he could go.

And due to his trailing leg still being in the air at the time of contact, the force was excessive.

And the player was out of control.

It doesn't matter how many referees you know who think differently, and the FA clearly don't, upholding the decision as it clearly endangered another player

If you can show me how Struijk could have avoided Elliott going in from that angle I'll hold my hands up

Like I said earlier, thankfully it wasn't Sancho who's probably of a similar size to Elliott.

That Struijk is a unit
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,001
It all depends on the angle you come in from with the tackle.

If he was running alongside Elliott with Elliott being on his rhs then it could have been a fair challenge as his trailing leg would have not come into contact with the other player.

The issue with the tackle from this particular angle was that Struijk was always going to come into contact with the back of Elliott's legs

There was literally no other way he could go.

And due to his trailing leg still being in the air at the time of contact, the force was excessive.

And the player was out of control.

It doesn't matter how many referees you know who think differently, and the FA clearly don't, upholding the decision as it clearly endangered another player

If you can show me how Struijk could have avoided Elliott going in from that angle I'll hold my hands up

Like I said earlier, thankfully it wasn't Sancho who's probably of a similar size to Elliott.

That Struijk is a unit
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.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
28,500
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.
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
6,001
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 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.
He didn't have two feet off the ground, so that a strange one.
But whatever, it's clear to all that without injury this would never have been a red and the ref would not have blown up.

Again, when you have so many polarising opinions from current professionals (including Elliot who is adamant it wasn't a foul), managers, ex refs etc, it's clear it isn't a certain red card and it comes down to opinions from a review panel.

But that's football, always different opinions on things.
 

TrustInJanuzaj

'Liverpool are a proper club'
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
8,768
I mean anyone with any rational thought can tell it’s not a foul so good to see Elliott being fair. Very unfortunate injury and a very unfortunate red too!
 

VanDeBank

Ma’am
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
3,396
I didn't watch the game live, I heard/read the commentary. and was expecting it to be some sort of unpreventable freak accident on a routine tackle. The way he glides in is extremely unorthodox and reckless. Red all day every day, but I get that there was no malintent and 9 times out of 10 nothing bad happens, but that is usually the case with reckless stuff.

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.
:lol:
 
Last edited:

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
18,870
Apparently Elliot had a "dig" at some goons giving him grief with the below tweet

Elliott eventually responded: “Crazy though how I have more legs than United have trophies over the past eight years.”


How many legs does he think he has exactly? If it was 4 years maybe he'd be right, but we won a few cups under Van Gaal and Mourinho.
Think we actually have more than Liverpool in that time frame. There's obviously being more prestigious.
 

Relevant

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
66
I mean anyone with any rational thought can tell it’s not a foul so good to see Elliott being fair. Very unfortunate injury and a very unfortunate red too!
I find that remark slightly insulting.

I could respond with "anyone who had functioning eyes in their head could tell it was a reckless tackle"

......but I wouldn't stoop to those depths
 

TrustInJanuzaj

'Liverpool are a proper club'
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
8,768
I find that remark slightly insulting.

I could respond with "anyone who had functioning eyes in their head could tell it was a reckless tackle"

......but I wouldn't stoop to those depths
Good for you. It's clearly not a red card though...