Is this a red card?

Is this a red card?

  • Red

    Votes: 66 13.6%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 152 31.2%

  • Nothing

    Votes: 269 55.2%
  • Total voters
    487
Gordy Boy

Gordy Boy

Well-Known Member

I'm sure we've all seen the challenge on Harvey Elliott that resulted in him dislocating his ankle.

Leeds appealed the red and earlier this morning the appeal was dismissed with the 3 match ban staying in place.

Elliott has already stated it wasn't a red and even this morning has taken to social media to say he believes the 3 match ban is wrong.

You're the referee, what's your decision?
 
Gordy Boy said:

I'm sure we've all seen the challenge on Harvey Elliott that resulted in him dislocating his ankle.

Leeds appealed the red and earlier this morning the appeal was dismissed with the 3 match ban staying in place.

Elliott has already stated it wasn't a red and even this morning has taken to social media to say he believes the 3 match ban is wrong.

You're the referee, what's your decision?
Click to expand...
It’s a dangerous precedent being set. Essentially saying that any tackle that injures someone is a red card
 
I think it’s arguably a red, purely because of the scissor action with the trailing leg, it’s arguably from behind and it appears the player leaves the ground - which by the book = red card.

It’s not malicious, not a “nasty” tackle by any means but that’s irrelevant. It’s a freak accident, but still a red IMO.

I wouldn’t strenuously object to the counter points though, so it’s tough.
 
Last edited:
It’s not a nasty challenge and if the unfortunate incident never happens then nothing else would get said about it. Looking at it in slow mo it is a scissor challenge which is known to be dangerous. It’s definitely not an immediate red card you’d be screaming for and think if it wasn’t a foul before the injury then it can’t be a red either, simply because of the injury.
 
You never want to see a player get injured but it takes something away from the game when players can barely put in a challenge without the fear of getting sent off.
 
not for me no but we already had this with Son a few years ago when Gomes got badly injured in the Everton V Spurs game and that was overturned

you can't give a red just because somebody gets injured from it unless it's a shocker of a tackle which that wasn't
 
Modfella said:
Nothing, Elliot pushes ball too far away from him which allows Struijk to win the ball cleanly, it is the tangle of legs at the end which cause the leg break.
Freak accident.
Click to expand...
He doesnt win it cleanly, hes both feet in the air and chops his trailing leg through the back of Elliot which causes the injury.

I do think there is still part of the punishment related to the injury rather than the tackle itself but its a foul and probably just a booking to me.

Didnt this happen to Son last season or the season before as well? An innocuous challenge on a player resulted in a broken leg and he got a VAR red card for it?
 
It’s a scissor challenge and it’s not surprising an injury has came from it. Compare and contrast the reaction to this and the challenge that injured Fofana the Leicester defender in pre-season even though it’s a similar type of challenge.

I don’t think the ref sends him off or it even gets talked about if Elliot doesn’t get injured though.

If pushed for an answer I would say Red.
 
bluenosebazza said:
He doesnt win it cleanly, hes both feet in the air and chops his trailing leg through the back of Elliot which causes the injury.

I do think there is still part of the punishment related to the injury rather than the tackle itself but its a foul and probably just a booking to me.

Didnt this happen to Son last season or the season before as well? An innocuous challenge on a player resulted in a broken leg and he got a VAR red card for it?
Click to expand...
Yeah at Goodison,Andre Gomes the Everton player got a bad injury.
The red card for Son was rescinded.
 
First I've seen it and my first thought is that it? Didn't even look a foul. However we all know going to ground causes risk of being out of control, risk of injury and risk of a red so can see why the FA have backed their ref. Shit the way our game has gone
 
Red, complete non control of his left leg and proceeded to swipe through the back of him and buckle his ankle. He’s tried to make a professional foul and stop Elliot breaking away and not executed it right.

The rules have been set like this for a while now and there is no excuse for it.
 
richmond23 said:
If any fans knows the laws of the game then they will agree it's a red card.
Click to expand...
Yeah.

Instances like this you see people say “it’s never red” based on their own opinion of what a red should be, rather than what the rules say.

I understand that, and do it myself on occasion.
 
Haven't watched any clips of it and have no intention of watching any either as a very similar incident ended my hopes of a professional contract and career in my youth. Horrendous injury for anyone to go through but recoverable from as long as he has the mental strength to forget it completely once back playing. I couldn't and was a shadow of the player I was prior to it, and was subsequently let go.

However, the general consensus appears to be it wasn't a red, and I can't argue with that given my own injury was the result of an innocuous challenge and bad luck/weak bones rather than, and I'm talking about late 1980's tackles here, a particularly bad tackle.

I also feel for the boy that caused it too, I've been told the guy that did me puked all over the ref, visited me in hospital and stopped playing around then too apparently. These things, when they happen, don't just affect the guy on the receiving end. 3 games sounds like a harsh punishment to me, seeing a fellow pros leg flopping about and knowing you caused it would be far worse I'd imagine.
 
Not for me. I understand the scissor action means it can be, but context on that interpretation is key. There was no malice intended and the part that causes contact was actually completely unintentional.

Its a freak accident. That challenge wont result in injury and will barely even be called a foul 99/100.

One of those ones where the rule is wrong, in my opinion.
 
No card for me.The boy himself said that.The ref used the injury to decide the red card.
 
Kevin Clancy has commented as follows:

"The boy Pascal Struijk should be banned for a long time for that tackle....sorry, what's that?...oh, really?...sorry, as I was saying, the boy Paddy Struijk was clearly innocent and the red should be overturned"
 
It's almost the definition of serious foul play in the Law of the Game

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

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.
Click to expand...
 
These days, i think its a red by the current rules. I don't think its malicious but his trailing leg comes through the back of Elliott and it looks like Struijk has both feet of the ground going into it.
 
I voted nothing, It’s a free kick at most. It’s just unfortunate for the kid
 
Last edited:
sh3lldon said:
okay then clattenburg fill us in

dont see much wrong one foot off the ground other sliding and then raised slightly as ran-up the opponents leg no intentional scissor action or chopping
Click to expand...
Intention is irrelevant though.
 
Hurricane Run said:
Not for me. I understand the scissor action means it can be, but context on that interpretation is key. There was no malice intended and the part that causes contact was actually completely unintentional.

Its a freak accident. That challenge wont result in injury and will barely even be called a foul 99/100.

One of those ones where the rule is wrong, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that most red card tackles have no malice behind them (in the professional game at least lol) but they’re still red cards.
 
For us of a certain age, just about a yellow, have seen worse as 'play on'.

In the modern game, it's a red as out of control.

Hope the boy makes a full recovery.
 
the endangering safety line is mentally subjective and makes it really outcome based, seems incredibly unfair in some situations.
 
erskine bear said:
Intention is irrelevant though.
Click to expand...

the rule is endangering players thru force essentially, had this challenge not ended in injury it wouldn't have even stopped play and im sure we all really know that. I do not think it was a forceful lunge or anything to me it looked a calculated challenge that unfortunately ended up the way it did

far worse tackles occur every week but they dont result in injury in these cases we rarely see red, just because someone does or does not get injured should not dictate the enforcement of rules.
 
reallyruff said:
He has endangered his opponent so red for me. Harsh yes, but in accordance with current interpretation of the rules.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason Scottish football is so rubbish is that from youth level all the way up there are lots of sadomasochists who love seeing dangerous tackles and see no problem with them, it is an institutional problem with our game.
 
sh3lldon said:
the rule is endangering players thru force essentially, had this challenge not ended in injury it wouldn't have even stopped play and im sure we all really know that

far worse tackles occur every week but they dont result in injury in these cases we rarely see red, just because someone does or does not get injured should not dictate the enforcement of rules.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that it shouldn’t be a red, but the rule book stipulates that it is.

The rules should be enforced where applicable, and this incident is probably one of those times if I’m being honest.

Feel for both parties, as there’s no intention from the Leeds player to do him and it’s just an accident - but I don’t think the ref is in the wrong got sending him off.

He said he was always going to send him off, and was waiting for VAR confirmation - whether we believe that or not is another thing.
 
erskine bear said:
I think it’s arguably a red, purely because of the scissor action with the trailing leg, it’s arguably from behind and it appears the player leaves the ground - which by the book = red card.

It’s not malicious, not a “nasty” tackle by any means but that’s irrelevant. It’s a freak accident, but still a red IMO.

I wouldn’t strenuously object to the counter points though, so it’s tough.
Click to expand...
I suppose they rules are in place to avoid freak accidents such as this. I voted nothing but you have swayed me slightly.

I do wonder if the ref lets it go if there's no injury though?
 
Gordy Boy said:

I'm sure we've all seen the challenge on Harvey Elliott that resulted in him dislocating his ankle.

Leeds appealed the red and earlier this morning the appeal was dismissed with the 3 match ban staying in place.

Elliott has already stated it wasn't a red and even this morning has taken to social media to say he believes the 3 match ban is wrong.

You're the referee, what's your decision?
Click to expand...
The thing that confuses me, and maybe admin here as "media people" can help me out.

Is it a different challenge from the one censored at the weekend?
We couldn't see it at the weekend but we can see it today?

I've been 20 years in a country where news goes on the news including pictures and videos one might not want to see.
But where folk are advised simply not to watch if they aren't going to want to see it.

So it really confuses me.
People like @TN8 might also have some insight.

People can be all over a thread about a shooting today in America.
Or all over a thread about a murder in Scotland 10 years ago.
Bit something that happens here today is horrible, gross, obscene.

Maybe I'm just wired up differently but I can never get UK or FF social etiquette.
 
erskine bear said:
My personal opinion is that it shouldn’t be a red, but the rule book stipulates that it is.

The rules should be enforced where applicable, and this incident is probably one of those times if I’m being honest.

Feel for both parties, as there’s no intention from the Leeds player to do him and it’s just an accident - but I don’t think the ref is in the wrong got sending him off.

He said he was always going to send him off, and was waiting for VAR confirmation - whether we believe that or not is another thing.
Click to expand...
Then where is the 3 match ban for the identical challenge the next day?
The boy tackled was perfectly fine.
But you can't base cards on outcomes.
 
Badger said:
I suppose they rules are in place to avoid freak accidents such as this. I voted nothing but you have swayed me slightly.

I do wonder if the ref lets it go if there's no injury though?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is a valid question - he says he was giving the red anyway, but I’m not so sure.
 
MightyGersLand! said:
Then where is the 3 match ban for the identical challenge the next day?
The boy tackled was perfectly fine.
But you can't base cards on outcomes.
Click to expand...
That’s the referee’s fault the following day for not applying the rules correctly, or interpreting them differently - if it’s an identical challenge.

By the letter of the law, the challenge here is definitely arguable as a red card - and the fact a card was shown doesn’t surprise me, the reason for the card may be an issue though.

(Genuinely not sure what challenge you’re talking about, so can’t comment).
 
erskine bear said:
My personal opinion is that it shouldn’t be a red, but the rule book stipulates that it is.

The rules should be enforced where applicable, and this incident is probably one of those times if I’m being honest.

Feel for both parties, as there’s no intention from the Leeds player to do him and it’s just an accident - but I don’t think the ref is in the wrong got sending him off.

He said he was always going to send him off, and was waiting for VAR confirmation - whether we believe that or not is another thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with VAR I doubt he would have got red if not for it!

I also still dont buy the rule being used correctly here if it is correct then why did Son win on appeal not exactly the same challenge but very similar

you cant base rules on outcomes a good tackle doesnt go bad because a player gets hurt
 
It reminds me of the one where Son was sent off, I think it was against Everton. The challenge wasn't malicious, and didn't appear on the face of it to be dangerous.
The result was a serious injury, and that decided the punishment.
The tackle on Kent at the weekend was far worse but fortunately didn't result in an injury.
We should be stamping out reckless tackles that don't result in injury more than innocuous challenges that unfortunately result in injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top