And anyone who denies it is just a wum.
Here is the image Sky showed depicting the players just before the contact and BOTH Struijk's feet are clearly inches off the ground.
https://imgur.com/a/x5T4pmY
Let's see the wums try and deny the tackle was dangerous now.
Image taken from this official Sky clip.
https://youtu.be/DU4rMzSJg30
Sorry for deleted comments. I inadvertently posted the wrong link for the image & deleted comments that shared the wrong link.
Thanks to Ace for bringing it to my attention.
Definitely red card
posted on 13/9/21
To be fair, I’m not sure you’re reading the laws correctly yourself either though. He wouldn’t have been sent off for playing in a dangerous manner, you won’t find that term under red card offences (and is penalised by awarding an indirect free kick).
He was sent off for serious foul play. He didn’t play in a way that threatened injury, he did injure him.
posted on 13/9/21
The link was posted on other threads as well so. Good luck in getting them all removed.
posted on 13/9/21
Context of the game is being completely ignored, high tempo, physical game, not a dirty game and refs are being encouraged to let games flow.
The red was issued for the outcome not the tackle.
I reckon it'll be rescinded or downgraded to a yellow.
posted on 13/9/21
If Elliott did not suffer the break then it won't have been a red. Probably not even a yellow. Same thing happened with Son last season or season before.
Just looks like the unwritten rule is if you go for a tackle and you break a leg then its a red.
posted on 13/9/21
comment by (K̇ash) I'm the Mané - Free Palestine 🇵🇸 (U1108)
posted 9 minutes ago
If Elliott did not suffer the break then it won't have been a red. Probably not even a yellow. Same thing happened with Son last season or season before.
Just looks like the unwritten rule is if you go for a tackle and you break a leg then its a red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not an unwritten rule, it's a written rule for serious foul play.
posted on 13/9/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 58 minutes ago
To be fair, I’m not sure you’re reading the laws correctly yourself either though. He wouldn’t have been sent off for playing in a dangerous manner, you won’t find that term under red card offences (and is penalised by awarding an indirect free kick).
He was sent off for serious foul play. He didn’t play in a way that threatened injury, he did injure him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR sent him off, not the ref. He didn't give a foul nor reviewed it. They told him what to do. Farce
posted on 13/9/21
comment by Shaun M - Everywhere you go, always take Rapinha with you! (U9955)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 58 minutes ago
To be fair, I’m not sure you’re reading the laws correctly yourself either though. He wouldn’t have been sent off for playing in a dangerous manner, you won’t find that term under red card offences (and is penalised by awarding an indirect free kick).
He was sent off for serious foul play. He didn’t play in a way that threatened injury, he did injure him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR sent him off, not the ref. He didn't give a foul nor reviewed it. They told him what to do. Farce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the whole point of VAR. To catch incidents the ref may have missed.
posted on 13/9/21
I'm sure the commentators relayed the message that Pawson was going to send him off regardless anyway.
I doubted that myself at the time as play wasn't stopped until the medics ran onto the field to treat Elliot. The only explanation I can think of is he gave himself a couple of seconds to think about the decision before making it.
posted on 13/9/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 55 seconds ago
I'm sure the commentators relayed the message that Pawson was going to send him off regardless anyway.
I doubted that myself at the time as play wasn't stopped until the medics ran onto the field to treat Elliot. The only explanation I can think of is he gave himself a couple of seconds to think about the decision before making it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he didn't. It was Salah's reaction and our medic running on to the pitch which made him react. Ref was happy to play on despite what they told Sky.
posted on 13/9/21
comment by פlǝuƃɥᴉs (U19365)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
I'm amazed there are are so many posters saying that a tackle from behind where both of the tackler's feet are off the ground isn't a red card. It is covered under 'Playing in a dangerous manner'
The rules of the game state
"PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
That tackle from behind, out of control with both feet off the ground would be the definition of playing in a dangerous manner.
Some of you need to re-read the rules.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd stick to re-reading your own OPs and not doxxing yourself.