https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ligue-1-kick-nantes-diego-carlos-sent-off-psg This was a rather crazy incident. With PSG on an attack, referee Tony Chapron cuts in front of a Nantes player while tailing the play. He trips, and while on the ground appears to attempt to kick at that Nantes player.
i was watching this after watching the barcelona game. kept rewinding it to see if I missed something i guess in france, the kicking the player is their version of a "what the hell" utterance was the second yellow for a lack of apology and yes he did kick him, sanctions to come
When I saw the headline, I would have sworn it had to be click-bate. Some innocuous act blown way out of proportion, like the referee attempting to get up, and it just looked like a kick. Now, what would VAR rule on that?
That's what I thought, too - but having seen it there's no doubt in my mind that it's a deliberate kick by the referee (and not just an attempt, he actually makes contract). To make matters worse, the referee seems to be the one that caused the collision in the first place, by cutting across into the player's path. Then, to add insult to injury, he sends the player off for something that he himself was guilty of causing.
I saw the video on a different site. Absolutely unacceptable from the referee. First of all, it looks like he knew someone was behind him and close. Second, you just can't do that as an official. I'm guessing the red card is rescinded and that this referee's retirement is quietly expedited.
I thought the same! 4th and trail AR should have seen and intervened. Absolutely embarrassing decision from referee.
I was also really curious about the rest of the referee team. The R obviously did not see what happened as he was clipped from behind. He doesn’t t bounce up with the red in his hand, so I would surmise that he had some input before he pulled the card. One other thought. Do we know that the send off was for the trip and not for something that was said afterwards?
I believe after the kick out occurred, the player was walking away from the referee and said something before the referee gave him the second caution so it was probably dissent.
They suspended him today. He also issued an apology/explanation. Link: https://www.eurosport.co.uk/footbal...-to-kick-nantes-player_sto6477892/story.shtml
I don't know how he can do any professional match for the rest of this season. Even him coming back next season is a "we'll see then" situation.
I thought I read somewhere that he had already had his retirement papers in. He is 45 I believe. Maybe he was just trying to get something off his "bucket list"????
First time I've imagined dissent meaning "complaining to a referee that he tried to trip you when he actually did do just that." Some of you suggested the rest if the referee team getting involved. Is there any appropriate way to do this with a guy so clearly out of line? How would you do this and not have it devolve even further?
Honestly, short of refusing to continue, I'm not sure what the others could do besides hang on. Chances are they weren't 100% confident that the referee was in the wrong. After all, they've got their own responsibilities to pay attention to. Such a bizarre incident.
As it was a second caution, seemingly for dissent, absolutely nothing. But why would they be watching the referee? Not that they should be watching the ball, but there eyes should be either watching behind the referee's back or another potential danger zone, perhaps on the wing. I'm sure they would have the referee in their peripheral vision, but I am also pretty sure it wouldn't be enough to tell the referee the trip was accidental. Moreover, the misconduct took a few seconds to issue, after the player was walking away, and it was a 2CT. That indicates dissent. So even if they could say with certainty that he wasn't tripped intentionally, I don't believe they'd have a way to prevent the red card, given how it all went down.
We also don't know what was said. While the referee's conduct was clearly not acceptable, that doesn't give the player carte blanche. The second caution and resulting send off could well have been the completely proper decision.
Not sure if any of you saw the update on the scenario, but there was not dissent. The yellow card was issued because the CR thought he was intentionally tripped. Yellow card was rescinded.
Happen to have a source? That really doesn't make any sense--if the ref thought a player had deliberately tripped him it should have been a straight red. I can't see any way that you can get from tripping the ref to a caution.
I haven't seen a longer replay, but if the ref felt that he was deliberately tripped, he should have restarted with a DFK under the new rules. I would be interested to see if he at least got that right...
Longer version of the video appears to show him signalling for DFK and then PSG preparing to take the restart, so my assumption that it was for dissent appears incorrect unless he got the restart wrong or he waited to give the IFK signal until play was ready to resume. I'd love to figure out at what point he blew the whistle, because that might help us piece things together: It's all very confusing. The DFK is correct if he felt he was deliberately tripped, but then the 2CT is wrong unless Chapron somehow reasoned that a deliberate physical act against an official could be UB. This makes the hypothetical VAR question all the more interesting because while he sent the player off for an act that should have been a straight red card, the fact that he issued a 2CT instead would have prevented the initial mistake from being corrected. So it's a weird situation where two mistakes ensure that the first mistake can't be fixed. Granted, we're unlikely to see something exactly like this again, but it does illustrate a weird dynamic that could emerge, where referees might have an incentive in the future to go straight red for SFP or VC over a 2CT in some instances, just so they have the safety net of being able to correct themselves if they totally screwed up.