Without giving away too many spoilers, I thought Deano showed some humility with his caution to the technical area. I was expecting a send off. With the Leeds red card/Harvey Elliot incident, that's a strange one. Contact really was the trail leg in the tackle trapping Elliot's ankle. From the replays I've seen it doesn't appear to be your classic "scissor" motion either. Under most circumstances, that challenge may not be a foul in the EPL...or it may be a simple foul. But ultimately it's hard to say that a tackle from behind that winds up being a leg-breaker (or or ankle breaker) doesn't endanger the safety of the opponent.
I have to think that a tackle from behind (meaning the opponent can't see it) and executed in a way that traps the lower leg/ankle in this manner has to be a SFP send off. I just don't see how it can be anything different, and I'm still surprised that this wasn't immediately ruled a sendoff.
It's technically England, and we don't have a WSL thread, but crazy winner late for Tottenham over Man City yesterday (85th minute, about 8:25 of the attached video): https://www.nbcsports.com/video/wom...s-manchester-city-1-tottenham-2?ls=social-vid Free kick -> Attacker's Hand -> Defender's Arm -> Goalpost -> Keeper -> Net is a new sequence for me. No VAR for the WSL yet.
Literally felt sick after watching the tackle live (though to be fair I'd read about it so that perhaps colored my opinion) but it certainly seems like Pawson didn't think it was a big deal at the moment. This is a problem the EPL needs to change.
Honestly the AR should catch this pretty easily. They should naturally be looking towards the head of the jumping Spurs player to take an offside snapshot and I don't see how the angle does not make it clear the ball hit the attackers hand.
Yeah. This is the kind of thing I think a perfect world VAR system would correct. "This is obviously wrong, and a referee should have spotted it." If it involves drawing lines or whatever, no thanks.
I'm not sure when a twisting or clamping motion became equated with a "classic scissoring action". Maybe it's always been that way but I'm sure I took from this forum several years ago that what made a scissors dangerous was the trapping of a leg so that if someone's falling, the leg has nowhere to go and can't follow along naturally with the rest of the body. It made sense to me then. It sure makes sense now in the present discussion, no?
If the Burnley-Leeds match was anything to go on, this Everton-Burnley match is shaping up to be another wild ride. Already a few rough looking incidents, from both sides. PH
There was this from Blackburn-Luton this weekend. Even I, as a Rovers fan, wonder how this wasn't red https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/season-ending-tackle-horrendous-efl-24967176
I agree with you. I'd give a red card here too. When someone's leg is dangling after a challenge from behind, "endangers the safety of the opponent" is pretty obviously met. On the other hand, I can at least acknowledge the argument made by others that the kind of tackle doesn't look like your normal SFP tackle which is why there's been a spirited debate online. Pawson's looking at the challenge from a bad angle to see the actual contact that causes the injury. What he's going to see is the Leeds' player's outstretched right leg make no contact with Elliot, win the ball, and then see the Leeds player get up with the ball. It's going to look clean. The Leeds player's body will shield Pawson from seeing the trail leg's contact, or the result of that contact on Liverpool's Elliot. Only possible members of the referee crew who can catch that part of the decision are the 4th and the AR. To be fair, both should see that and have a clear view. The rest of the clip looks like Pawson seeing an obviously seriously injured player, stopping play, then having a discussion with his crew members on what the call on the field should be. Considering Pawson displayed the red card, he was likely given information he felt was sufficient to deem the challenge was SFP from the AR, the 4th, or both. Looks like a good example of teamwork.
Having now seen the tackle, I would partly retract what I said earlier about scissors. I don't think I would call it a scissors at all. The problem simply is that Struijk crashes down on Elliott's leg, albeit with a trailing leg instead of a leading leg or both legs. While I can see, possibly, why the CR's position may make it hard to make the call with 100% certainty, I don't see why it's that hard and I agree with others here that something's wrong with how referees are going about their business to make it such a hard call. Bad things happen with great frequency with tackles from behind and it's really troubling if referees are working from the opposite assumption.
IMO these are both red cards. A very experienced PL referee came up with a foul and a throw in. https://streamable.com/zwhwgn
Neville sort of loses the plot throughout that clip, but yes, those both could be red cards. I'd disagree with Neville in that the first must be a red card where, as he states, the second has long been accepted as a yellow card (but, to be clear, still could be red in some circumstances). The issue is that a player has absolutely no way to prepare for the contact on the trail leg in the first instance. That's what results in Elliott's injury or De Bruyne's at EURO. These tackles from behind that nick (or miss!) the ball with the tackling leg but crush the trail leg with the aftermath are what regularly cause serious injuries. These are the tackles I've been on about for a long time now. There's no studs. There's no raised legs. There's not necessarily a lunge. There's no excessive force. And there's usually not even a deliberate scissors motion. So no boxes are checked. They are just inherently dangerous because of the direction and movement of the players. If we only punish these challenges with reds when they result in serious injuries (ahem, Craig Pawson), then we will get more serious injuries. But given referees collectively refuse to identify these challenges as among the most dangerous unless they have the accompanying injury, I don't see how we get out of this cycle. It's like they are treated as fair challenges that could result in an unlucky result, rather than horrific challenges that luckily result in no injury from time to time. The fact that analysts like Neville--fired up about the second challenge--are willing to say the first challenge is definitely not a red and maybe okay with no card, makes it all the more difficult because the external pressures aren't there without injury either. The second challenge, at least, the attacker can prepare for the contact. It can still be red, depending upon level of force, speed, intensity, point of contact, etc. But whether or not it needs to be red probably comes down more to philosophy on just how physical the game should be and probably even the context of the match in question.
On the second one I agree that it probably should be a yellow in the PL. We need to get to a point where the one from behind is a dark dark red. That tackle is more likely to cause an injury than 95% of "studs up" tackles.
One of the understandable issues with the second one is that a referee's focus does go to the challenge for the ball, right? Like, you are inherently looking to see if the initial contact is fair or at least in the ballpark. So then--watching live--catching the exact nature of the aftermath can be difficult because you are getting one look within fractions of a second and your eyes can get distracted or pulled away. Okay, fine. Not good, but human nature and such. But now we have VAR. So we can punish clear SFP tackles like this with relative ease. Except, because they aren't given regularly on the field of play, how can a VAR say that not giving a red is a "clear error?" Especially when it doesn't feel like these tackles are being instructed as such, if not for a serious injury? It's a conundrum.
I haven't watched the game (nor will I because I don't want to see the severity of Elliott's injury), but from what I understand the incident happened somewhat in front of the benches. If that's the case, Andy Madley would have had the best look at the play. Is it possible that because the situation with Elliott was so serious that Pawson just decided to let the treatment take its course for a little while before showing the red after advice from Madley? That at least seems like a plausible explanation to me. I know if I faced a situation like that, I probably wouldn't want to immediately add to the drama. Pawson might have known he had some time (unfortunately) to make a final decision before a restart, so he took it. I'm probably way off base given the general attitude toward physical play in England, but I want to think this was the case. I just know that if I'm in the same position as Pawson I'd want my fourth to be practically screaming in my ear for a sendoff. I understand why from Pawson's position the challenge didn't look that bad, but the fourth would have seen the severity. And I completely agree that we have to get these tackles out of the game. For me, really any type of challenge from behind that either rakes down the Achilles or traps the attacker's trailing leg should be a default of red and then I'd have to see if there was a reason for me to not give the red.
Pawson didn't even call a foul. Play had moved on with Leeds in control of the ball. The whistle only went because Salah immediately went to Elliott and started alerting Pawson to the seriousness of the injury. And Madley was a statue from everything I saw--a potted plant would have been more useful. He didn't move from his position from the tackle through the physios entering the field. Saying he showed no urgency would be a gross under-characterization. And then he did not even attempt to intervene to keep Klopp from the field. The lack of any(?) substantive help from most fourth officials in England has always been something I found curious. But this was particularly jarring.
I agree almost completely except I'd say the case is even stronger in that there are boxes checked. Struijk is hurling his body at the ball, at a player, to the ground. That's a lunge. It's not a lunge face to face, oncoming;but it's a lunge from behind. The English Language is our friend here. Struijk is crashing down on an outstretched leg. He isn't perhaps doing it with the full weight of his body. He isn't doing it with both legs. He isn't of course doing it with the leading leg. But he's crashing down with his trailing leg. And since he's tipping the ball with his front leg and twirling to not go through with his leading leg, where is gravity bringing down most of his mass to the ground? Wherever his trailing leg is going. This is force and lots of it. This easily is understood as excessive force to a layman like me. Obviously, referees use a specialized language with its own definitions, but somewhere the common language and the specialized language have to converge. I think the argument for why this must be a red card is very strong and I would simply bolster it by saying some of the usual boxes are checked.
It was impossible for Pawson (or any fit and agile center referee) to conclusively see the point of contact, mode of contact, and really the force behind the contact involved in the Struijk/Elliot challenge. The referee would have to be clearly out of position in order to get the angle that we get from the camera. On the Struijk/Elliot challenge, the additional information to get to a red card must come through teamwork. I have attached two still frames showing the challenge. Neither still frame shows the clear injury so they should be safe for this forum. Your definition of "lunge" is different than the clips referees are being trained on regarding "lunging" challenges. MassRef is right that the Struijk/Elliot challenge, at first glance, does not "scream" for a red card. MassRef is also correct that the Struijk/Elliot challenge is nonetheless inherently dangerous and endangers the safety of the opponent. I have said before that I agree with red and that I would also give a red if I was in Pawson's position. But I'm also explaining why this specific incident is very difficult for a referee crew to get correct immediately based on the factors already discussed.
I am no doubt growing cynical in my relatively old age, but I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate "teamwork" had anything to do with this. Pawson didn't call a foul. Madley and Betts, who was AR1, showed no visual urgency or any of the body language you would expect if they were indicating Pawson should stop play--nevermind give a red card. Everyone missed this. We shouldn't pretend otherwise. If anything, the lack of intervention from Madley and/or Betts might be worse than Pawson not calling a foul, for the reasons you point out. If there was teamwork, it probably was along the lines of Pawson saying "the injury is real bad, I think I need to send him off--any objections?" And then there were no objections. But we shouldn't create this myth that Pawson got help from his team and the red card was always inevitable. Because everything I've seen of this incident is that the referee team collectively decided it was not a foul and the red card was simply results-driven.
I hear you on becoming more cynical. I agree too with you that the body language from the crew doesn't indicate that anyone felt much urgency here. Clearly different than what we would see from an MLS (or USL) crew. So your analysis is certainly plausible and perhaps probable. The fact that Klopp was allowed on the pitch to get in the referee's face about the challenge, immediately before the red card, is proof positive that the 4th was not doing his job. But there are two professional referees who have a clear line of sight to the challenge and the dangers inherent in the challenge. It's tough to conclude that nobody offered advice and information after the fact. For example, I specifically have a part of my pregame saying that I need communication from all members of the crew if I ask them a question when the ball is dead, this includes "I think" speculation. It's possible Pawson asked the crew what they saw, and it took a bit of time to put together a full picture of what occurred from Madley and AR1 and I don't want to write off that idea. The only thing further I'll say is that if this challenge happened in a college/ussf game I am refereeing, with comms, and all I heard was silence, I would be livid at my crew.
I'm more with MassRef where I don't think Madley had the red card either. They pieced it together using the injury. In the end they got the decision correct. Even if that means a nudge from the VAR perhaps with Pawson saying "I think I'm going red here" and the VAR saying "then I have check complete".