We will have stay on opposite side then. "... the perceived intent and dangerousness ..." Arguably, the dangerousness was there in this instance. I would like to hear an argument that could persuade me how anyone can judge "perceived intent" fairly and not just for specific instances. For example, the perceived intent of a common play, the dive, is to get your opponent cautioned. Look how well refs handle this today. You do bring up a very valid point when you say "the very best referees are reluctant card givers". Also, to be fair, the very best refs wouldn't stand for a lot of the crap that goes on during MLS games either. And one of these paragons of refdom might still have ejected Beckhams sorry ass for that tackle. It was fun talking to you.
Oh, I've read the rules of the game many times blueskies. Was a soccer ref many moons ago, mainly for select teams (U-16's, etc.). I've also watched soccer pretty intently for 20+ years at all levels from college through WC. High studs tackles around the world get called reg fouls, yellow card fouls, and red card fouls depending on the ref, the perceived intent and dangerousness (and in Italy on which team is paying the ref). I've seen very similar fouls resulting in a yellow at the WC more than once. And so have you if you've watched many WC's. The laws of soccer say that red card offenses are "serious foul play" and "violent conduct." It is up to the referee to decide when these criteria are met. That is the leeway I referred to in my post. And the very best referees are reluctant card givers, unlike Salazar.
