Fascinating results so far. I went red. He launched himself in, didn't have control, led with the studs and a very bad result--deliberate or not--occurred. I can understand the desire for restraint as this was a 50-50 challenge, so can sympathize with those that might say yellow. The single "just a free kick" seems to be an outlier at the moment, so let's ignore for now. For the 15% currently saying "no call"... Anyone care to explain their reasoning?
He went for the ball, not at the player, so we know this was NOT deliberate The Greek player arrives late, so he wasn't even there when the tackle started. The tackle was one footed, on the ground, at the ball's level and it went right at the ball. Not a single reason to give ANY card. Free kick.
Speed? Maybe. Can't tell from slow-motion replays. Intent? Probably not. Aggressive Nature? Wouldn't say so. Position of Tackle? Leg locked, spuds exposed, 6 in. off the ground. Biggest argument for a red card right there. Opportunity to play the ball? He had an opportunity and that seemed to be his intention. Atmosphere of the game? The match seems fairly calm. Two players who witness the tackle don't suddenly go sprinting to the scene to assassinate the culprit. No mass confrontation as far as we can see in the video. I went with yellow based on the facts above. My interpretation may be incorrect but this doesn't "feel" like one of those nasty, horrible tackles that needs to be "stamped out of the game".
His foot AT THE BALL, at the level of the ball, not above the ball. No card at all. he actually connects with the ball! He touches the other guy's leg AFTER connecting with the ball. I chose free kick but I am not sure even that is warranted.
Nice, formal diagnoses. I concur on all points except this one. In fact, I'm thinking in a real game I would have got this wrong. Precisely because I would have thought what you say. Only 6 in off the ground. But on replay, I've changed my mind. He definitely has a second phase to his tackle where he slides up over the ball. Nasty. Orange for sure.
I would have to say red card here. Whether he's going for the ball has no real influence on whether its a card or not. He's coming in too hard from to far to me. He has no time to correct if he misjudges the ball.That's excessive force. On top of that his studs are up. i have to agree with usaref, I think the temperature of the match is going to decide whether this is red or yellow. I didn't see the game so i can't really say.
I think this is a very tough call. I agree he goes studs up, no question there. I also think he gets the ball, which is where my problem lies. I think there is a high likelihood that when he hits the ball is butts up against the opponents leg. The continuing forward motion causes his foot to skip over the ball and into the opponent. For now I am saying yellow but this is how I see the events as they unfolded.
You really can't tell from this video. You can't tell the angle the two players came together. You can't tell if the yellow player was tryinhg to kick the ball or to corral it. You can't tell how hard they came together. Youi can't tell how far both slid on the ground. You can't tell how hard the leg was struck--he rolls around like a rattlesnake just bit him--looks like an enhancement to me. But, maybe its not, you can't tell.
Judging by the fact that he stayed in the game, he was certainly performing a dying swan routine right there. Which is what sold the ref on it. But, just like someone pointed out, the players around the collision did not think much of it.
That was actually my very first reaction. I thought the guy had been hit by a sniper or something. I'd give a yellow for embellishment there - I'd at least think about it. That's only a foul in my book because the challenge was reckless. From the ref's angle, you can see the contact right below the knee and there was no need to follow-through. At the observed speed, I don't see it as a SFP or VC.
goliath74, if you already had the answer for yourself and are going to disagree if a majority of referees tell you otherwise (at this point, nearly 90% say at least a yellow card and over 50% say red card), what was the point of posting here and asking our opinion? You seem to be sure the other player was a "diving swan" (which is interesting, considering the player in question reacts right away, while the other player has a delayed reaction to try to show he was also hurt, once he realized he was in trouble) and that there was barely a foul. If some of us are going to tell you otherwise and you don't want to hear it, it seems a pointless exercise.
It's not whether I THINK that he behaved as a dying swan - he did,. he returned and played the game out. Even though there were still substitutions available (and made). I've played organized football for 20 years and have blown my ACL, PCL, MCL, meniscus out multiple times, which are very serious knee injuries. I did not roll around in pain (and I do not think it was possible, anyways) like this guy. Now, if I think you weren't observant enough, I will sure tell you so.
So now, in soccer, anyone rolling around in pain has to be substituted out or they are a diver? No such thing as temporary pain, apparently. Don't understand this at all. But your medical history is helpful and moves the discussion forward. Again, what was the point? You clearly know what you think the right decision was supposed to be.
Ah ha! the experienced warrior defense. Regardless of the offended player's reaction/embellishment, I am sending the player off due to the placement of the studs at the end of the action. Straight leg, placement above the ball, studs up on the lower leg (regardless of whether he go the ball or not) is a trip to the showers from me. If this one isn't sanctioned, it opens up the rest of the game for some seriously dangerous action. JMO.
i dunno- last time i got cleated with studs (not the sissy firm ground plastic- good old soft ground screw-ins) in the shin it hurt like a m0th3rfnck3r. i didn't roll around, but it was definitely disabling for a minute or so: the type of pain where you are sure you will see blood when you look, but there is just the love bites from those studs... i'm bright orange for the tackle. i said red because the offender flopped around like he was the one who got hurt: even if i went caution for the tackle, a second caution for simulation.
He didn't seem to care what happened after he got the ball. He kept the studs up and the leg straight. If he would have done something to lessen the force or direction of impact (like bend his knee or move his leg away from the other player) I could see a foul or even nothing. He could have even got the ball then raised his foot even higher to go over the other player and the following collision would have been much less unlikey to injure. But he did nothing. For me that shows an unacceptable disregard for the safety of his opponent. Combined with contact of a type that everyone knows is likely to injure...
IT HURTS! This fact is lost on far too many. Even with shinguards, IT HURTS! The shinguards serve to spread the force over a larger area so it is less likely to cut or break something. My career-ender was a sprained ankle. I was playing basketball and stepped on someone's foot and rolled it under. It hurt like nothing else. But knowing that it was my ankle and the possibility that I could have a serious injury made it that much worse. After I recovered I had to play with a brace and every time I took a bad step or took a knock I went down easy, held onto my ankle until I was sure it wasn't reinjured, and took a while to get up. I may have looked like a sissy, but I didn't really care.
This appears to be the type of foul that referees see again and again in training videos. It meets all the criteria we should be looking for in SFP. The player in yellow slidew with two feet, one of his legs ends up above the ball. The force is certainly excessive. With the force exerted it does not matter that he arrived at the ball first. This is an extremely dangerous tackle and needs to be punished as such. Fans who do not completely understand the rules will never agree with referees on this type of challenge.
Wow, that's pretty good contact right there. At game speed I'm not sure I'd have the confidence to go red, but definitely yellow. I'd sadly be too cynical to take the flopping around at face value, though I can vouch getting cleated doesn't feel good at all. With the benefit of taking a second and processing it, I can see where a RC would come into play.
To me, the 3rd view which is the one the referee has, I judge the yellow player to arrive at the ball first. The white player arrives after the yellow player has already made a play on the ball. Where the yellow player goes wrong is that once the white player's leg is there he makes sure that he contacts the leg instead of avoiding the leg. Reckless for sure maybe trending to SFP. Judgement would include knowledge of player and temperature of the game up until then.
I initially went yellow based on the timing of the challenge. But after watching it again I'd like to switch to red. He doesn't go completely straight-legged til just before contact. It looks like he started the tackle legitimately, but then switched it up and made it hurt. So at game speed, one view, I would've been likely to pull yellow. Slow it down and give me multiple angles, and I'll switch my vote to red.