Can you explain why it’s the right call? On the real time, of course it looks like a horrendous challenge and red. But when you go to replay and VAR you see that he extended locked leg seems to completely miss the opponent, and it’s the top of the foot of the trail leg that makes all the contact. Seems like something I’ve seen get downgraded. Or is it just the speed he goes in with and makes contact on its own that worth the SFP RC
The level of force is very high. The fact his locked leg missed doesn't mean that it didn't endanger the safety of the opponent. The fact that the trailing leg hits him that hard is indicative of the excessive level of force. None of that is negated by the replays. I understand the argument for a caution, but in my mind it doesn't come close to suggesting that it was a C&O error to go red.
Flying two footed lunge, at speed, missed ball, hits opponent. Textbook description of a red card for SFP, endangering safety of opponent. 100% correct IMO. Some players and other observers believe that in a big game like this one they can get away with such fouls because the referee doesn't want to do something that affects the outcome. Back in the old MLS days, before PRO, the league would definitely expect the referee to "manage" this incident. Referees who did not do so were discontinued. Thankfully those days are over. PH
If your goal is to increase player safety and reduce injuries (which in theory is the purpose of having rules regarding SFP in the first place), then the default for any 50/50 SFP card should be red. In this case, all you have to do is ask yourself if you want tackles like that in the game....if your answer is "no", then that should be a RC....if your answer is that tackles like that are ok, then it's a YC. Another example would be the multiple high boot incidents throughout the season, most of which were adjudged to be YC's, thus sending the message that trying to play the ball with a high boot is ok. If you want "high boots" out of the game, then all you have to do is start sending people off for them. Otherwise the message is "that's ok".
Not entirely buying this. A YC doesn't say "it's OK." It says that isn't OK and if you do it again you'll be sent off. (And there is YC accumulation.) Certainly a red send a much stronger message that the behavior isn't OK (and I agree that message should be sent here), but it is a gross overstatement to say that YC means the tackles are OK.
I want to make it clear I am very happy that a SFP RC was given and upheld for this. I'm just surprised that especially in England, even though it's only League One, it stood up. I wonder if this would have been downgraded if it was the Premier League. Or maybe even given as a YC on the field and not called down to check.
In a vacuum, yes. But in reality, players view YC's as being an irrelevant sanction because they don't hurt their team at that moment in time. That's why you see players happily taking yellows to stop counter-attacks with professional fouls, for example. It's why you see so much time-wasting. It's why you see so much dissent. Nobody is scared by the possibility of getting a YC. So when a ref chooses to give a YC in a situation where he could have given a RC, the message the player receives is that the behavior is going to be tolerated because he's getting let off the hook.
I'm not seeing what you're seeing or, at least, don't share the same concerns. First, I would not take a position that this is "only" League One. It's the promotion playoff. Impossible to quantify for individual referees as a concious act but, on the whole, I think that would make most referees far less likely to produce an SFP red than in a run-of-the-mill regular season EPL match. This is, effectively, a cup final. We know how that attitude can play with referees. But to the larger point, this is an atrocious tackle. And this might be the only type of "tackle" where English referees don't get all caught up with the intricacies and buzzwords that can help otherwise excuse clear SFP. With this challenge, you don't have to (or at least shouldn't) be worried about glancing versus blunt or contact at the upper foot versus lower shin or the mode of contact being studs flush or not. The Barnsley player is late and second to the ball, arrives with a high degree of speed and force, never thinks about pulling out or mitigating the challenge, and is so incredibly high (given both the ball and his opponent were on the floor) that his lead foot (which is straight and exposing studs), actually clears his opponent's entire body. It's down to total dumb luck that the foot doesn't smash into the knee and result in a catastrophic injury. The fact that he clatters him low with the tucked leg also shouldn't go unnoticed, as that, you know, is going to hurt at that level of speed and intensity. The still photo you chose is not the best angle for showing how bad this is/could have been; in your clip, look at 49:39 and the subsequent VAR slo-mo view instead. The bottom line is that he's airborne with no control over his body, over the ball completely, and arriving with a high degree of speed and force to a prone player. Luckily, those characteristics still trigger red lights and alarm bells for English referees regardless of the details around point and mode of contact. We could all learn something from the idea of this still being a red because it punishes the nature of the challenge and not just the result. We don't have to wait for shattered kneecaps just to do our jobs. EDIT to add on the VAR question... this isn't getting overturned anywhere I can think of but the question of whether or not it would be upgraded from yellow to red is an interesting one. Because the lack of the buzzword characteristics might very well affect a VAR's judgment on whether or not yellow would be clearly and obviously wrong. I think that would all come down to the experience/attitude/confidence of the particular VAR.
I agree with all of the above points. As I said I am happy this was given as a SFP red because every aspect of it fits the definition. I just remember how especially in England sometimes it seems like things that are given as SFP in all the other European leagues and MLS only get a YC and VAR sometimes doesn’t even call them down for review, so they might try to pull some BS that the locked leg completely missed the opponent so we aren’t gonna give red for it. Your final point of “if this was yellow on the field would it even be called down to upgrade to red” is exactly what I mean. A horrific tackle that they might still weasel their way out of going red if yellow was given. But I guess that is pretty moot considering RC was given and upheld on the field
I'm happy to see this discussed — and even decided on the pitch! — in terms of the "nature of the challenge" but if I only read the descriptions here I would never know that both players left their feet and slid into the challenge; To me, that's an important element in "the nature of the challenge" When the Barnsley player decides to leave his feet, I don't think it's possible that he knows Sheffield Wednesday has also decided to. It's a fraction of a second after. Once he leaves his feet, of course, he's uncontrolled (mainly) and bad things can happen, but he's still taking at least some care to not injure an opponent. His left leg stays back, bent at the knee, and he's only extended the right foot trying to get in front of both the ball and the opposing player. It's also evident to me that he tries to keep his lower body elevated and not smashing his opponent directly into the ground. That, too, is part of the "nature" of the tackle. I'm fine deferring to referees with their experience and training, but I think it's worth noting the difference between this and other "textbook" Serious Foul Play where only one player leaves his or her feet to lunge into a challenge. Rather, this is a textbook case where non-referees (like me) have to defer to the practiced eye of practicing referees. It doesn't help though that this is England where, as most of you note, a referee might not normally get this right, when they concern themselves more with the contact, the "results" of the tackle, rather than the "nature" of the tackle.
Truly unbelievable. Your posts aren't worth engaging point for point because so much of the content is either bizarre or wrong, but I will focus on this sentence because this schtick, in particular, has gotten quite old: Actually, no. Look at the players. They knew immediately how bad this was (and would scoff at some of the other points or assertions in the rest of your post). And I am quite certain all of them are "non-referees." You focus on this referee versus non-referee thing, but I actually wonder some about your level of playing experience because, well, of almost all your analysis and commentary.
Clear foul. The fact it only brushed his fingers makes me surprised we didn't get the England VAR saying "it's not enough".
I'm not sure what broadcast you get, Mikael. But today was the not the first time this season that the announcing crew here (ESPN, in this case) clearly knew--and wasn't just guessing--that a VAR intervention was coming before the referee whistled. It's happened with NBC, too. Do you know what that link-up entails? On the ESPN broadcast here today, the announcer--after speculation about it--affirmatively states "there is more to this than maybe immediately met the eye, the VAR David Coote..." before Tierney ever starts signalling (he finishes his sentence, which is about adivising Tierney to go to the monitor, while Tierney whistles). It's not just a guess. And it's not the first time I've noticed this. Any ideas? It seems really weird because obviously they aren't hearing the communication between VAR and Referee. So, are CRs waiting after getting the recommendation? Is someone else in the VOR simultaneously pumping information to broadcasters? I can't think of a way that this isn't adding to inefficiency on the field even if it is, slightly I would argue, adding to efficiency of communication with the broadcast.
Yeah, there is a mechanism where the commentators can see a silent check going on (ie. where if the ball was out ref would tell players not to restart the game), at least both in PL and UEFA. And it seems that during this process in the PL, the commentator can hear what the VAR tells the referee, at least numerous times on one channel I heard "VAR x has told referee y that this situation z was not eg. handball" - and in a way that is very specific and obvs relying heard communication.
There's something funny about Jonathan Wilson writing an article about the absurdity of the Grealish handball and then The Guardian picks this image to go with it. If the ball his Grealish in the palm and drops straight down to the ground then no one has an issue right?
I find this fascinating. And can't believe it's apparently under-reported. But maybe I've missed it. In MLS, there are Slack channels or the equivalent where someone in the VOR is giving relevant information to the broadcast (relatively) immediately after a decision has been made. That's one thing. But for broadcasters to actually be hearing the real-time communication or, somehow, being told of a decision before the referee even makes it?! I don't know, there seems like there's something more or else going on. Because the broadcasters aren't talking in real-time about the VAR's analysis and considerations while he is examining a play. They are only saying, from what I've heard, that "the VAR has advised the referee..." So maybe the communication goes live once that recommendation (or "check complete") is made? Because if they could hear the actual real-time VAR-CR communciation or the VAR's discussions with his AVAR, surely they'd be relaying or commenting upon it, no? The alternative, of course, is that CRs and VARs in England are not actually interacting the way they are in PRO or elsewhere, where questions like "what did you see?" and some decent back and forth can occur before the recommendation. Do you have any idea how that's working in England? Is it essentially radio silence until a recommendation or check complete is rendered and then the communication opens up?
One of the best pieces of evidence yet that, no matter what you do, people will always find a way to complain about penalty and red card decisions. Nothing is truly objective or clear and obvious, it would seem. Pity no one was able to draw that conclusion 8 years ago.
My more cynical view is that the media decides to whip up any handball incident that occurs in a big game into a firestorm of poor-faith thinkpieces and “news” coverage to drive outrage and clicks, which in turn causes the gullible public to truly believe there’s something wrong.
Having had the pleasure of rewatching lots of football from different eras since the outbreak of Covid (1980s, 2000s), my opinion is that in general the sport got more and more ill-served by slow-motion replays which most of the time give a much more distorted impression of what happened than the live sequence. And I don't think people realise how much everything changed in the last even twenty years. For instance, there was no discussion (to my recollection) about this non-penalty for Germany at EURO 2004. Imagine nowadays! VAR is obviously the extreme end of that^ trend and fans who bemoan video refereeing and say it has 'sucked the life out of the game' shouldn't be dismissed as luddites (I agree with them, personally).
FWIW, Tim Robinson and Darren Bond have been promoted to the Premier League. Robinson was the referee who produced the straight red card in the Barnsley-Sheff Wed play-off final. PH