i didnt think it was a red, but my first thought was…‘bet you he gives a red for that’
and i know this goes into a bit of tin foil hat territory, but i can almost feel the elation and pride as he rushed off over to give it…like it was in his mind ‘fuck yes…that the moment i was waiting for’…
i’ll never be able to prove it…but just the pep in the step as they do it to us…the chest puffs that little bit…the zero hesitation…just a body language thing…
you can just imagine the cunts in the booth in the corner of the pub on a thursday all having a bit of banter about how ‘fucking good that one felt’…
Its a term straight out of the rule book. Refs started using it instead of “professional foul” a long while back. Maybe 15 years ago?
It’s relevant that no where in the rule does it mention “last man”, which appears to be the factor people who have reflexively agreed with it being a red seem to be hanging their hat on.
I’m a current referee at the grassroots level but do a decent amount of MLS nextgen games (basically academy matches). So not a super high level but pretty decent.
Denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity has a lot of factors that a ref should consider. Last man is just one of those factors. Also should consider direction the play is going (away from goal or toward goal) and distance from goal.
Once he blew it for a foul, I can see why he then gave the red. In my opinion, I do think direction was heading away from goal if he got a touch and there was another covering defender even with the play. But that is subjective and can see why the ref thought otherwise.
My biggest issue was I didn’t even really think it was a foul. Legs tangled up a little but not much contact at all. Virgil had eyes only for the ball and when he actually extended his leg to tackle, he pretty cleanly got the ball. The only contact on the player happened while they were both running side by side (incidental contact) and not from the actual tackle itself, he got the tackle pretty clean there. Seen that not called more than I’ve seen it called in the premier league. Rodri makes about 2 of those tackles in every game.
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
The point of this is to what end are we being asked to consider these 4 factors. Its in deciding if the opportunity was actually an obvious goal scoring opportunity. That is not actually defined in the rules, but is typically meant to mean the opportunity to shoot unaffected by any defender, and it only needs one of those 4 criteria to fail to be met for it not be a goal scoring opportunity.
I think it is indefensible to think that without the foul Virgil is not in a position to impact the striker being able to get a shot off. It’s therefore really difficult to justify a decision to view that as a red. As I said yesterday, I genuinely think the uncommon nature of the foul (last man fouls are usually ones where the defender is already beaten) made the ref forget he should have still considered Virgil in the “location of defenders” criterion. Kind of like when you occasionally see a ref fuck up on the number of players needed to play an attacker onside when the goalie is a long way off his line leaving the relevant defenders behind him (its not the last defender, it is the last 2 defenders one of which is usually the goalie).
The referee obviously thinks that he’s going to get the better of one of the best if not the best modern day defenders , and then contend with one more very top level defender… And then beat the best freaking goalkeeper presently when he gave that as a red card.
Matip would have covered that position even if the contact didn’t happen and Virgil didn’t stick his leg out to make a clean tackle. Assuming that the guy could stop fully and wrong foot Virgil.
If you want to argue that then go ahead, but I was responding to your repeated assertion that he was unlikely to beat Alisson from there, something that is just not relevant to the decision.
@GratefulRed thanks for the insight as a ref, and also for your contribution to the beautiful game at grassroots level.
My take is that it was a harsh one. Van Dijk mostly got the ball, and only slightly made contact with the player, who milked it for all its worth. It’s the sort of tackle defenders do every game. A harsh outcome would have been yellow, but a straight red just seemed way over the top.
Before this season began, there existed a large body of evidence to suggest our games are not refereed evenly. Paul Tomkins did a very well researched article (bit too long and needed a good edit, but the points were made and the evidence is clear) to illustrate this, going back a good few years.
Even if we somehow erased all that, and started this season with a clean slate, what we’ve seen already is laughable. Harsh reds and yellows coming at the reds, while opposing players foul at will, both tactically and grappling and pulling, and slow the game down to suit with no card.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Newcastle didn’t lose another game at home all season. It’s a tough place to go. That we managed to win there, with ten men and that officiating, is an excellent marker.
I do think that a midfielder making that tackle in the centre circle doesn’t usually get penalised. Slight contact with the foot in process of getting the ball is fairly standard. You see it often with counter-pressing situations and usually it will be the player winning the ball who gets the benefit of the doubt - unless it’s a fairly obvious foul.
I think it’s a fairly clear foul, wherever it occurred. Virg swept right through his legs to get the ball. The fact he had the power to knock Isak completely out of the way and touch the ball cleanly instead of pushing one of Isak’s legs into the ball shouldn’t really be a factor.
I am not sure if you are saying you don’t care if its a red or don’t care if its a foul, but if the former, then its a pretty big deal for us knowing that Matip is being game-managed in the third game of the season (70’ or so was it?) and behind him is an unproven 20yo.
I would prefer Virg’s punishment to be overturned. Yes it was sweet how it unfolded with the result, but let’s hope the ref’s association uses some common sense over the coming days - an attribute most refs are very much lacking in.
If that had been given as a free kick and nothing else we wouldn’t even be talking about it.The red card comes from the possibility that Isak could have got a shot off.It doesn’t have to be a good effort or even on target.It’s very unlikely that Matip would have got anywhere near him.All Isak had to do was let the ball roll past him and swing at it with his left foot,unfortunately Virgil stopped him from doing that.I think it was a soft foul,but a red card.
