It's a matter of consistency. I've seen more tackles that looked filled with more recklessness and intent that go completely unpunished. That tackle caused severe damage but it looks more bad timing and unfortunate accident than recklessness or with intent to harm. I'm pretty sure the card was given for the injury caused more than the actual tackle. The ref originally saw the tackle and wasn't going to even intervene (which would have been wrong too) until he saw the injury. It was an emotional response rather than a calculated response. Decisions should be based on what is observed rather than on emotional reactions. Either way, hope Elliott recovers 100% and this doesn't become a cause of future injuries at the same location
They aren’t 100% clear Sort of The problem is not the clarity on that wording The problem comes when trying to distinguish what is from behind - which is the discussion I was having with a young ref on Sunday. Incidentally he didn’t give a free kick for something very similar to what ended up injuring Elliot In fact the one on our Josh was worse The ref (we had a calm conversation after the game-and no issues during) said he viewed the challenge as being from the side As the player went in from behind and touched the ball before going right through the player. so I agree the wording is clear it leaves massive gaps for wriggle room Firstly define from behind
I think this is the point though. You can give a card for the injury, because it demonstrates the player was endangered.
So, as I say, argy bargy in the box for a corner. Player gets shoved over, bangs his head on a post, becomes like Michael Schumacher. Red card for a push in the box? Really?
My problem with this, if this is the case, is it would lead to simulation. Obviously impossible to fake Elliott's injury but there are others which can be. 30 mins against United and they foul us. Hey Fabinho, I need you to fake injury... We'll have them come stretcher you off get us a red card and a one man advantage for most of the game. Not saying Klopp would do this, but it could be used as a tool and lead to more simulation if the card is given for injury rather than the foul.
Hate to come back to it but Manes red when he contacted Ederson lmao In no way was he trying to injure Ederson And even though Ederson visibly lowered his head we all know what happened and why I think Pickfords assault was the bigger mystery
Manes was a red - intent not necessary. Pickfords wasnt because the overestimated popinjay Michael Oliver doesn't know the rule of serious foul play.
interesting. I would consider the from behind as clear as if the player cannot see it coming its from behind so theres quite a large vector in that. from the front , from the side and behind. TBH elliott knew the guy was coming and tried to step across him to block him off and he planted that foot. If he had it off the ground he could have gone down and rolled about and the player would be booked in europe. IMo this all comes back to the standard of english reffing. in europe thats a yellow all day every day. there's nothing in the rules that says contact with the ball means anything. its from behind therefore outlawed. In all of these things the first thing to say is if a defender is in that position he has been done already so is always struggling.
But it's not, is what I'm saying. Okay, extreme example - couple of seasons ago and Bobby had a perfectly good goal against Uniturd at Anfield disallowed because bent and corrupt deaf-mute VAR officials overruled the on-field ref and determined that Virgil had fouled De gayboy by coming within a yard of his personal space, or something. But what if DeGay had fallen badly from this non-contact contact and done his knee in like Fowler did decades ago against Everton? As the VAR officials, who sure play a mean pinball, had determined it a foul, does it then become red because the goalie falls awkwardly?
I totally agree with your definition Tbf however It is wide open to the refs interpretation Which is where I am coming from regarding it not actually being clear We assume it’s clear because we think behind is obvious But as I said in my game on Sunday the ref and I had a totally different idea on ‘behind’
