2021-2022 UEFA Referee Discussion [R]

Sometimes I’m right about things.

 

Everything he just said was the exact opposite of reality.

 

Wendell acting like he hadn’t been dismissed was special, by the way.

Also Turpin showed the red twice more in the bench fracas after Wendell was initially shown it. So was that one each from technical staff or did he just re-show it to Wendel?

 

UEFA app shows Porto’s backup GK was dismissed. It says five minutes after Wendell but that’s got to be a mistake, right?

 

Fun. So either 4 or 5 reds. I tend to think 5. Mostly because I can’t believe Wendell would feign ignorance so strongly if he got shown the red card twice!

 

I just saw this on replay. It was actually pretty funny. Something was obviously said after a foul call and Turpin just casually dismissed said person (backup goalkeeper) with a red card. Porto coach and assistant were in conversation with each other while it happened, glanced over to see who was dismissed, then carried on their conversation as he left. Not a word of protest (for the foul or the dismissal) from coaching staff. Some combination of "meh, what's another red card" and "meh, he's just the backup goalkeeper" wrapping that all together.

 

You can quibble with anything in a 3-minute video, but overall this is damn near perfect from Turpin, given the teams, the personalities, the overall situation, and the moment.

https://streamable.com/3x1up1

I'd also point out that Wendell is about to be shown the red at 0:15 of that clip. He's then being pointed off the pitch at about 0:28 and he's reacting incredulously at being sent off. And then the replay that begins at 1:58 shows that Wendell saw the red and reacted to it.

So, first, I don't think Turpin showed the red to him again; that would be foolish and unnecessary. It was seen and reiterated well before the second red card was shown in this sequence (my guess is that the Porto coach/trainer wearing shorts with grey hair who was first to rush over and shove Simeone was sent off).

Second, the fact that Wendell stayed on the field and acted like he was going to keep playing is... I don't know what it is! He seemed to genuinely believe it, too. Selective amnesia? Some phenomenon where the adrenaline is so high you don't believe reality or create your own? I mean, this isn't a case of Wendell trying to pull one over on Turpin and hope someone else left. He just acted as though he hoped/believed the red card didn't really count. Something else was going on in his brain at that moment.

 

The more I watch this, the less I like the decision.

https://streamable.com/bq0tle

I just don't think it's DOGSO, by the definitions in the Laws. It's a very good scoring opportunity, sure. But, when the attacker falls from the apparent foul, he quite literally falls into another opponent who was tracking back to challenge. I am by no means sure that the attacker gets off a shot prior to being challenged by the non-fouling opponent. Then, even if you disagree there, you've got the whole "attempt to play the ball" thing. There was an attempt. A bad attempt, but it was there.

This just feels like the rare situation at this level where a referee went looking for a reason to go red rather than, you know, the other way around.

 

Yes. Quite often. Relatively, of course. There are some amateur leagues where this is going to happen a few times a year for the regular referees.

If you don't see it for what it is immediately yourself, player reactions help. Awareness of match context and player motivations is also important. But I think the crucial thing is to be keyed in on the location of the ball, the motion of the "challenge," and the point of contact on the leg. There's no magic formula, but I'd say if the ball is 3 feet away, you've got a swinging motion that screams "card" before it even lands, and the side of the leg or calves are the contact point... you're looking at a red card.