Honestly, I don't think the SFP card gets upheld as SFP in most competitions at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it. And I think "feel for the game" means you need to end up 10 v 10 there, anyway. But if you're looking at all the components we think about for SFP these days, the only two we really have is that he left his feet and there was force. Again, I think that should be enough. But in the modern professional game it really isn't right now. No studs exposed. No straight leg. No two feet. No magic mode of contact. Etc. Let's put it this way: if he had not given red, does anyone think there's a chance VAR would have upgraded it? Because I don't. I feel like this is the English "referee's decision" philosophy coming into play, which has a good result for us here but probably a pretty inconsisent result because if it wasn't 10 v 11 to the away team, I'm not sure this gets given. Also, just to continue my contrarian streak... obviously the Kovacic foul is a red. But I am waiting for the first pundit who says the attacker went down easily to sell the red card because, in the attacker's mind, he probably didn't really have an OGSO. Because I bet that's true. You feel that tug there 50 yards from goal and you calculate the red is better than playing through.
Don't know why I said it was Stones, was Nico Gonzalez. Silly me. But yeah, I personally think it's a pretty direct hit.
Completely agree with this. The day before, in an Arab final, one of the best referees in the world according to FIFA didn't even give a yellow card after a very (moreso?) lunging tackle.
I think it's fair to say studs hit the inside of the calf, so I'll correct that aspect. But at the same time, the leg is bent very significantly and while it's not "glancing" it's also not like he goes through him either. I can accept "direct hit" but, at the same time, I just don't think the level of force is what we usually see for SFP in the EPL. If anything, the fact that he's lunging from close proximity simutaneously makes it look bad but also prevents him from generating the force he'd need to do real damage. Again, I'm fine with red. I think these tackles should be red. But I don't think this is given in many other situations. 10 v 11 at home for City really helps in this decision, in my opinion.
Yeah, this definitely helps prove my point. There was a time, not too long ago, when everyone knew you couldn't tackle like this. Even in England. You were gone. How we went from that standard to a situation where you get more protests for even calling the foul here is a mystery. Moving afield from refereeing for a moment, are high level youth not being trained/conditioned to know that you simply cannot do this? Is it from watching the professionals and seeing them get away with this? Again, it's not ancient nostalgia; just a little while ago this didn't happen and when it did everyone pretty much understood red was the result. Now, you get officials not giving red for this type of stuff and players wondering why the whistle went because he got ball. I think the England one ends up being a litle more dangerous because there's contact up high. But based on the nature of the challenge, leaving the ground with two feet stretched and exposed like this is (or was) always understood to be pretty much the most dangerous "tackle" that can be executed. But here we are, like you said, where this is just a foul in a FIFA competition. I've been saying for a long time that eventually something bad will happen and the pendulum will swing back. But maybe it won't.
Just to underline this point, Materazzi was sent off in a World Cup (2006) knockout match in this incident not for DOGSO, but SFP. Relatively speaking, it wasn't even that dangerous! https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxDGKh8iJ3c1xkzHIAGYRV1VMffOu27S0s?si=cundKF-EQbjCwNpU
I love the motion he made with his hands to show it was a two footed lunging tackle which used to mean a red card not too long ago. Now he just used it to show why it's a foul.
Happy to be corrected, but I was told quite authoratively by someone that the decision was for SFP. The two-footed tackle being an automatic red card was one of the WC2006 guidelines.
In my opinion, Cook hit him pretty flush. To use our favorite Dale Johnson term, I did not see it as "glancing". So I had leaving his feet, studs up, high (or at least high-ish) speed, and considerably more than glancing contact well above the bottom of the ankle. The bent leg was a potential mitigating factor to downgrade to a yellow, but the other factors make it a red. Maybe a caution is not overturned (i.e. "referee's decision" or "call stands"), but for me red was the correct call onfield. Like I said in my original post, Bramall will probably have this conditioned out of his referee toolbox by August.
Yup. Can't even imagine that being given today. Play on, 100%. If the opponent lost possession avoiding the challenge, you still get the foul, probably. But that's it.
I'm all good with this, really. But as I become even more of a cynic, it seems, my question is whether or not you think this gets given the other way. City is going down 9 v 11 on this? Or does it get given if they are at 11 v 11? Maybe more debatable, I admit. I just think that this is "enough of SFP" to justify a red card, so Bramall went that route given all the other circumstances and pressures. Now, pre-VAR days I'd say that's excellent refereeing and excellent feel for the game. But in the current VAR world, where we're supposed to have more consistency, I just find it hard to believe this would stand up as a red most places. And I can't think of anywhere where this would be given as a red via VAR.
I'd like to think the pendulum will swing back after two or three career ending challenges; it certainly won't happen with just one.
I would guess there’s a distinction being made based on actual impact on the opponent. A two footed challenge where only one foot makes contact probably reads as not that bad. Getting the ball first also seems to act like a ‘mitigating factor’ similar to how tackles with head contact are evaluated in rugby union. I think if someone makes a two footed challenge and hits with the studs of both boots, without getting the ball, it might still be deemed SFP. But the proliferation of that type of challenge isn’t being discouraged.
I certainly don't think that call in United-Villa was a black mark on the center. The replay was inconclusive and would not have been sent down had a check been conducted.
How is it not a black mark? First, he called it too quickly and didn’t give the VAR an opportunity. It’s against protocol. Second, even if defensible in Law for 99% of the world it’s wrong. So it’s wrong on the merits. The days of “eh you can understand what he was thinking” are long gone. There’s no excuse here. It’s a doubly wrong KMI in the most consequential match of the year.
The only thing Bramall potentially did was to save his VAR. Because I think there IS a chance VAR doesn’t send it down based on a rigid adherence to “referee’s call.” And if this had been reviewable but didn’t get reviewed, that would have been widely mocked. Instead, Bramall shoulders all the blame. Magnanimous of him.
I was watching Arsenal and then had Forest on my laptop. Am I correct that the disallowed goal incident occurred when it was still nil-nil?