No chance that’s overturned. The extent of the injury obviously played a part in Pawson’s decision but if you’re jumping in from behind and you end up taking the man (whether you intended to or not) it’s a red card all day long.
2 Likes
Identical tackle last night on Richarlison. Very dangerous and should not be allowed. All depends on who’s going to be deciding.
2 Likes
I think Spurs did the same for Son’s red on Gomes and it was overturned.
That’s right. After he cried.
Don’t buy the act from Son. He’s a dirty sod and has no problem being a dirty c**t.
2 Likes
It’s amazing how many football fans say “ye that’s a red card coz it’s reckless“
A reckless tackle is a yellow card.
A tackle with excessive force is a red card.
Apparently Sean Dyche, Duncan Ferguson and Jack the Ripper are on the panel to decide if it’s a red or yellow
They’d probably award Leeds a retrospective freekick and Elliot a 3 match ban for diving.
3 Likes
Ah memories of us beating Leeds University first team (on their patch) with our scratch team comprising of a mix of players from our 1st, second and third team. They were top of the league and a cracking side to be fair. We got 2 chances, took both, while they enjoyed over 80% possession I would guess. I dont think they actually had many shots on goal either. The game was quite a blur to be honest.
I wonder if I should track down our ruthless Greek finisher to give some tips to Mane? 
It’s a moronic anachronism from a period when red cards were rare and you could punch someone on the chin and just get a talking to. The irony is so many of the ex-pro talking heads who are so intent to focus on intent played their entire career under the same general perspective.
In an effort to improve player safety, red cards for endangering an opponent were brought in during the 90s. This is a perspective that ignores whether the player “won the ball”, or even whether it was a genuine attempt to win the ball. Over time the specific interpretation has varied, but since then it has been constant that if the challenge puts the opponent at risk then its serious foul play. This does not require a serious injury to have occurred. It does not even require contact (if the opponent has to take drastic action to avoid contact). It is only lack of consideration for the safety of the opponent not malice that matters.
1 Like
It doesnt help that there is variation in the wording of the laws among various bodies. As such, the word reckless isnt used in the FA’s verison of rule 12 that Lawson posted above. For them, the definition of serious foul play, a straight red, is “A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent…”.
There are other clauses in there including the use of excessive force, but that bit quote above is is sufficient. It then provides examples, such as lunging in from the side or behind.
Very hard to claim that tackle didn’t endanger the safety of an opponent…
I don’t think the intent was malicious, but it was a rather desperate lunge from behind so it would be ridiculous that it didn’t stand. I though Bielsa in his post game comments said they wouldn’t contest it so i’m surprised by this…
What a surprise!
I mean when was the last time they accepted an appeal?
1 Like
What a fucking stupid appeal
1 Like
Because it was against Liverpool they were confident 
Think son had his overturned last year or so for his tackle on Gomes that left his leg in a crumpled heap.
2 Likes
Get ready for the screams from the likes of Neville, Shearer & co!
Game’s gone…
Happens a little more often than I think it should, though I haven’t been following closely enough this season to recall one.
1 Like
Just forget for one moment that the tackle was clearly endangering the safety of an opponent but Elliott was, what, on the halfway line? Obvious denial of a goal-scoring opportunity. Baller.