They give red cards on the basis " could have" injured the opponent using subjective claims about recklessness and dangerousness or whatever . So I don't see the logic of sticking up for a player that's actually injured an opponent seriously. The position of the trail leg in that challenge is very reckless and dangerous when Elliot can't even see the challenge coming , he has no chance to try to avoid contact. When someone challenges the ball they have to consider both legs. The ball wasn't there to be won in that manner
Fair points. I can see both sides tbf but as it was done by the ref and not VAR it wouldn't surprise me if overturned.
Irrelevant really though.
