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

erskine bear

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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
Agree with this.
 

Ted Rangers

Well-Known Member
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).
Liam Cooper made an identical challenge later on the same game and it wasn't even a yellow card. The commentary team mentioned it at the time.
It was extremely unlucky for the boy who was injured, but it happens in football.
I don't think the tackler deserves the punishment, but in modern day football, every time you go to ground you run the risk of it being interpreted as being out of control.
 

Egt

Well-Known Member
Fairly blatant red card for me. From behind, and Struijk’s trailing leg is straight, studs up and at ankle height. There’s a reason tackles like that were banned years ago and football is vastly better for it.
 

Gazman_Airdrie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It's a red every day of the week.

His trailing leg is what causes the issue with this tackle, straight legged right through his ankle. The rule is all about endangering an opponent, and that tackle is dangerous.
 

Mackania

Well-Known Member
The first time I saw this I thought it a harsh red.

Seeing it now, there is nowhere for his left leg to go but into the back of Elliot's ankle through the way he lunges in for the ball. I get it, he is trying to get over the ball with his right foot and hook it back the way. He also has a clear path on the inside of Elliot to do so, but he executes it in a way that leaves nearly his full body weight going through the back of the lad's leg. Intent or not, he is reckless in his actions and I think the red is fair.
 

B Ferguson 6

Well-Known Member
It wasn’t a VAR decision, they only checked to ensure there was no error.
I know that but I think the ref has given it based on the injury and the fact that when it gets replayed 20 times in ultra HD in very slow motion that he’ll need to send him off anyway.
 

JD1872

Well-Known Member
It’s just really unfortunate, it will happen from time to time in a contact sport.

The question is should it automatically be a red card when severe injuries are caused even when there is no intent
 

CaptainHolt

Well-Known Member
The ref wasn't even giving a free kick initially, and didn't when a similar tackle was made about 10 minutes later.

I get why it's given because of the rules but that doesn't mean the rules are right.
 

WinkieWATP

Well-Known Member
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.
I’m sure he played on so I think he is telling porkies there tbh.
 

a_weir

Well-Known Member
Tackle behind = red.

There's no precedent being set here. Years ago when Cisse had his leg broken for Liverpool it was fairly innocuous but a red card was given.
 

Coza

Well-Known Member
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.

I basically said word for word this on WhatsApp recently. But the lack of multiple angles etc that would have been available to VaR make coming to a strong opinion either way impossible.
 

TheBearNecessities

Well-Known Member
Fairly blatant red card for me. From behind, and Struijk’s trailing leg is straight, studs up and at ankle height. There’s a reason tackles like that were banned years ago and football is vastly better for it.
I was going to say that. I agree.

A lot of chat on this thread about it being 'technically' from behind or 'technically' studs up, and also, the boy was 'unlucky' to get injured.

But maybe this type of 'unluckiness' has happened hundreds and thousands of times before, and that's why these types of tackles should be - and are - against the rules, even though they are not necessarily malicious/intentional.
 

Egt

Well-Known Member
I was going to say that. I agree.

A lot of chat on this thread about it being 'technically' from behind or 'technically' studs up, and also, the boy was 'unlucky' to get injured.

But maybe this type of 'unluckiness' has happened hundreds and thousands of times before, and that's why these types of tackles should be - and are - against the rules, even though they are not necessarily malicious/intentional.
That’s exactly it - there would be a lot more of these “freak” injuries if tackles from behind became more commonplace.
 

bradley1873

Active Member
I dont even think it was a booking, the boy is just unfortunate that the trailing leg has been caught underneath
 

CrunchBear

Well-Known Member
I don't think there was any malice, but it's probably a red. This injury is why tackles from behind are so heavily punished, because even innocuous ones can be incredibly dangerous.
 

Trueblueallan

Well-Known Member
Studs up on the trailing leg, whether he meant it or not doesn't matter.
His studs on his trailing leg don’t catch him at all his legs comes down on top of Elliots trailing leg. A freak accident and a really good tackle. Fs the boy Elliot even said it himself. Next we’ll be calling for bubble football. Freak injuries happen. It’s a contact sport. Horrible for the young lad and hope he recovers quick and goes on to have the career that he’s capable of at the very top. But it’s nonsense that the tackle would even be a yellow card offence never mind a red.
 

Jase

Well-Known Member
I put this down as unfortunate. A horrendous injury from a nothing tackle with no intent.

Hope the guy recovers well and soon.
 

Trueblueallan

Well-Known Member
Suggest people pause the video at the point the boy goes to tackle. If that’s a “tackle from behind” then the games finished.
 

JW1988

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I always look at these things as "If that was a Rangers player would I be happy with it" both in the sense of the tackler and the person being tackled. In both cases I think its a red. I wouldn't agree with a 3 game ban but that is the rules I believe.
 

JamesyMRR

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Not sure how you can be in control of a challenge and break someone’s ankle. He’s not tried to injure him but clearly endangered him with the challenge. It’s a very unfortunate red.
 

bilkobear

Well-Known Member
The outcome of this tackle was terrible for the young player whose leg is broken.
However, it was not a bad challenge.
It was a challenge that is often made and nearly always is unremarkable.

It should not have resulted in a red card and on reflection, it should be rescinded.
Instead, we have some evidence here that the generational/historic logic of football as we always knew it has been overturned and is now being led by emotion.
The feminisation of the west that seems to permeate everything nowadays, has, at last, embedded inside football.

No heading, no tackling no swearing and make the football pitch a safe place.
Eventually, it will be time to just hand the game over to another type of person.
 
Last edited:

Valladolid_Loyal

Well-Known Member
I think if you tackle and both feet are off the ground, then you can expect a Red card.

Arsenal player got one the week before, albeit a totally different tackle
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
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).
Souness and Carragher were talking about it.
Everton game. Monday nights football I think.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
I read about the challenge on here on Sunday.

When I watched it on MOTD, I didn't get the reaction from on here. I didn't get that there was malice on the part of the Leeds player, but from Salah's reaction you could tell it ended up horribly for the player.

It doesn't matter what we think though, a horrible accident I belive as opposed to deliberate thuggery.

Which deliberate thuggery we see almost every game.
 

dt17

A mate of mine.....
I read about the challenge on here on Sunday.

When I watched it on MOTD, I didn't get the reaction from on here. I didn't get that there was malice on the part of the Leeds player, but from Salah's reaction you could tell it ended up horribly for the player.

It doesn't matter what we think though, a horrible accident I belive as opposed to deliberate thuggery.

Which deliberate thuggery we see almost every game.

Even Harvey Elliott has came out and said it wasn't a bad challenge and the FA were wrong not to rescind the player's 3 game ban.
 

Mackania

Well-Known Member
Even Harvey Elliott has came out and said it wasn't a bad challenge and the FA were wrong not to rescind the player's 3 game ban.
Perhaps he doesn't want to believe there was any malice in the tackle whilst his leg is pointing the wrong way? Give him the benefit of a couple of year's hindsight and see his views on it.

The guy has not tried to injure him, I don't think anyone has tried to argue that, however he has jumped quick and heavy towards a player in a way that had a high chance of him landing on the back of his leg. It's an unfortunate accident, as there was no intent, but he jumped in a way that made it possible for him to land heavily on his opponent and he has to live with the guilt of that.

Edit: just watched it again and Elliott doesn't change direction to move towards the tackle. It was pot luck whether he ended up with a serious injury here. Red all day.
 
Last edited:

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Even Harvey Elliott has came out and said it wasn't a bad challenge and the FA were wrong not to rescind the player's 3 game ban.
He’s not the ref though and didn’t see what the ref has seen.
Players cannot referee a game.
FFS, half of them don’t know the rules.
 

dt17

A mate of mine.....
He’s not the ref though and didn’t see what the ref has seen.
Players cannot referee a game.
FFS, half of them don’t know the rules.

The ref didn't give a free kick at first haha. It wasn't until he saw the injury he blew the whistle.

I'm also fairly certain he'll have seen the tackle again since it happened.
 

Daleboy91Watp

Well-Known Member
Looks like 60 folk in here at the moment would like a non contact sport. Nothing for me as I said when I seen the challenge and the same again in the previous thread. The game is getting a tad embarrassing now. Still got folk on here claiming red when the recipient of the challenge also disagrees with them.
 
Top