Is the bar for handballs lower than for potential safety issues and tackles? With offensive handballs I mean it causes directly or indirectly down the chain a goal (or big chance). Chiellini vs Turkey was an example of a VAR overturn. Defensive handballs are the handballs preventing a goal or chance. De Ligt slip/push and VAR overturn an example here. I know this distinction isn't in the rules as such but a VAR goal check does principally focus on handballs by the scoring team.
Yes, exactly. The context and the moment do matter to some degree. My personal theory which I know is shared by many is that if VAR is if it is in the orange range, go low. Let the VAR find a red. If it's orange it's going to stand, so don't reduce a team unless it's clear. Don't come in high and ask the VAR to look for reduction, that just sets you up for trouble. If it's local amateurs and no VAR its easy, just call what you think. But with VAR... Go low.
In the imaginary clinic that @Lucky Wilbury and I mentioned earlier in the discussion of the previous red card, this incident would be way down the list of the subsequent clips being shown, with very good arguments for both YC and RC. I would choose YC myself here, but I can see why others would select red. PH
Sorry, there's just too much here that is either wrong or you seeming to try to re-litigate the De Ligt red card. I'm not de-railing this match thread. If you have legitimate questions about other incidents, ask them in those threads, which are still open.
Firstly, this is not a comment on the sending-off here, which I think is a bit harder to judge than the Sweden-Ukraine one, but..... Sorry, I will say this again - excessive force no longer has to be present for it to be SFP. "Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." Quite simply, if a challenge endangers the safety of an opponent - and that can be done quite easily with even negligible force - that meets the criteria for SFP.
But as we continue to say here, referees will still be downgraded for a red card missed on the field and then "awarded" via VAR. I realize that subconsciously this may occur, but it's not supposed to happen. Make the call on the field as you would normally. This is why I think the call by Oliver is so gutsy. It's not a completely obvious red, but it is the right call for the reasons I listed in my first post on the situation.
But doesn't it probably say a lot that Oliver--not exactly known for his quick moves to the back pocket--didn't "go low" here? It probably speaks to both his certainty and what UEFA has been saying about other incidents the past week. Or both.
I wish some weekend warrior coaches could see what it means to decide whether something is nothing, foul, YC, RC
I agree. UNLESS he just misread the challenge. Saw the high boot, saw the fall but maybe not the force of the trail leg... It may also have elements of both of these things.
I think where I ultimately come down here, in one sentence, is that Oliver probably saw something a little worse than what actually occurred but it was still bad enough for the red card to upheld via VAR because it wasn't clearly wrong. To put it in numerical terms, if 8-10 is a red card, Oliver probably went red because he thought he saw a 10 but the VAR saw an 8 and said "good enough for us." Does that make sense? That probably makes it a "soft" red card for most. And I think there's a chance Oliver sees it again and wishes he went yellow. But I don't think he'll lose too much sleep over it.
The player chose to slide in with a two footed scissor tackle. That’s going to look very bad at the first glance live even though the end result wasn’t terribly serious.
This is the second person I've seen who called this a scissor tackle... Did I miss that, I don't recall seeing a scissor action.
I'm curious about this use of "scissor" by so many. And it's making me realize we all have different interpretations for phrases that aren't well-defined. A "scissors," to me, means the motion. It means two legs making a scissors action with the opponent's leg or legs between the tackler's two legs. It doesn't mean any and all tackles or challenges that involve two legs. Here, one leg comes through high and then the other leg comes through low. All in the same direction and the same basic motion. Am I seeing it wrong? Or do other people have a different definition and I'm in the minority? I think this is kind of important given we're told to punish "scissors" tackles more severely. If we all think they are different things, well, that's a problem!
I count three including myself. I may have been in error based on MassachusettsRef's explication earlier (not the post immediately above). Gotta look again. I may have seen scissoring on the free leg rather than the plant leg. Which per above may be a stipulative definition rather than one we should all cling to...
Ekoku can shut up at any time about that red card. He's gone full Twellman. (full disclosure that I was still behind on the broadcast. I'm watching the shootout live now)
This is completely off topic, but the high and from the side view is pretty terrible for penalties. Just film it from behind or in front!
I think there's a good lesson there whenever anyone declares a change in refereeing is the end of the world. If things are called consistently, players will adjust.
What i saw and will look to re-evaluate is whether this is what I saw. Not just two-legged but a true scissoring motion.