Will the FA rescind Son's red card after the statement they made?

[Johnboy40]

You're rarely ever going to be able to judge intent on the pitch, so to me that's a fool's exercise. But if you want to play the intent game, do you believe that Son intended to foul Andre Gomes? I don't believe for a second that he intended to ever injure him that way (and I would feel that way about 99.9% of footballers), but he absolutely was trying to foul him for the elbow just minutes before.

Alternatively, he was chasing back to win a ball because his teams last away win was 10 months ago.

To decide with that he "absolutely was trying to foul him for the elbow"is a dangerous assumption to make...following that logic there is an argument to give him a stretch for assault. After all, it is effectively saying he deliberately have him a premeditated kick.

 

[Nutter-Naylor]

 

[TimothéeAtouba]

Doubt it, the FA have a history of never admitting they are wrong, even in blatant situations.

They'd rather cut off their willies!

 

[Matt1882]

Absolutely no way they'll rescind it.

The refs association are worse than the worst unions IMO.

 

[Kiwi]

IFAB rules paraphrased, [serious foul play (sending off offence) .... a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety ... lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety... ] so technically a sending off as he put the player in a dangerous position, as evidenced by the outcome of the movement being a serious injury.... where as if the player received no injury his safety had not been endangered (but a yellow card given) ... this feels right that if you risk tripping a player, where they may get injured, you bear the risk..... whether players feign injury to get someone carded i don't know... maybe if player has to be subbed then red? but ban reduced if player subsequently available for selection?

 

[VirginiaSpur]

IFAB rules paraphrased, [serious foul play (sending off offence) .... a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety ... lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety... ] so technically a sending off as he put the player in a dangerous position, as evidenced by the outcome of the movement being a serious injury.... where as if the player received no injury his safety had not been endangered (but a yellow card given) ... this feels right that if you risk tripping a player, where they may get injured, you bear the risk..... whether players feign injury to get someone carded i don't know... maybe if player has to be subbed then red? but ban reduced if player subsequently available for selection?

Yup, Son is murderously guilty of having put Gomes off-balance.

 

[SouthStand Billy]

The way the whole refereeing/VAR/FA are going this season, I expect them to rescind the red card but give one to Teddy Sheringham instead.

 

[Airfixx]

IFAB rules paraphrased, [serious foul play (sending off offence) .... a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety ... lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety... ] so technically a sending off as he put the player in a dangerous position, as evidenced by the outcome of the movement being a serious injury.... where as if the player received no injury his safety had not been endangered (but a yellow card given) ... this feels right that if you risk tripping a player, where they may get injured, you bear the risk..... whether players feign injury to get someone carded i don't know... maybe if player has to be subbed then red? but ban reduced if player subsequently available for selection?

Any foul can potentially hurt someone tho'....

In essence one should be able to look at a challenge and deem it "dangerous" or not without knowing any subsequent outcome. As unfortunate as it was, any subsequent injury can't retrospectively form part of said judgement of a challenge....


What Sonny committed was a late, yet not particularly aggressive, reckless or "dangerous" challenge... Yellow card.

 

[mummy]

I voted yes and no, because I have no idea. It made sense at the time.

It SHOULD be recinded, but I don't know if it will be.

 

[ArcspacE]

Doubt it, the FA have a history of never admitting they are wrong, even in blatant situations.

They'd rather cut off their willies!

What willies?

 

[Johnboy40]

IFAB rules paraphrased, [serious foul play (sending off offence) .... a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety ... lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety... ] so technically a sending off as he put the player in a dangerous position, as evidenced by the outcome of the movement being a serious injury.... where as if the player received no injury his safety had not been endangered (but a yellow card given) ... this feels right that if you risk tripping a player, where they may get injured, you bear the risk..... whether players feign injury to get someone carded i don't know... maybe if player has to be subbed then red? but ban reduced if player subsequently available for selection?

Safety being endangered isnt judged by the end result. If I throw a brick at someone I've endangered their safety if I hit them or miss. Every tackle endangers an opponents safety.

 

[mummy]

Safety being endangered isnt judged by the end result. If I throw a brick at someone I've endangered their safety if I hit them or miss. Every tackle endangers an opponents safety.

My tackle certainly endangers safety, hit or miss. Lock up yer daughters.

 

[Kiwi]

Safety being endangered isnt judged by the end result. If I throw a brick at someone I've endangered their safety if I hit them or miss. Every tackle endangers an opponents safety.

So what’s the criminal charge if you miss? And if you hit them?

 

[Johnboy40]

So what’s the criminal charge if you miss? And if you hit them?

Technically its assault either way. Cos you dont throw a brick at someone without intending to hurt them.

.But we are talking about a sport. As lloris showed the other week (despite some fuckers on here claiming he put it on), people get serious injuries in innocuous circumstances.there were 3 or 4 worse tackles in that game. What happened to Gomes was unfortunate. But it wasnt deliberate.

 

[Airfixx]

So what’s the criminal charge if you miss? And if you hit them?

Attempted assualt vs actual assault, presumably.

 

[pondscum]

FA HQ deserves a nukin.

 

[TheRealTI]

I'm not sure how anyone can see a video of Son's tackle and think it's a red card. Here is a video of just the trip (no injury is shown)...



That's not a red card.

 

[Clynelish]

I'm not sure how anyone can see a video of Son's tackle and think it's a red card. Here is a video of just the trip (no injury is shown)...



That's not a red card.

A classic yellow card, although I can imagine that some people think a yellow is a bit harsh.

 

[StripiestPilot]

IFAB rules paraphrased, [serious foul play (sending off offence) .... a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety ... lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety... ] so technically a sending off as he put the player in a dangerous position, as evidenced by the outcome of the movement being a serious injury.... where as if the player received no injury his safety had not been endangered (but a yellow card given) ... this feels right that if you risk tripping a player, where they may get injured, you bear the risk..... whether players feign injury to get someone carded i don't know... maybe if player has to be subbed then red? but ban reduced if player subsequently available for selection?

I wouldn't have such an issue if they’d just said it was an extremely reckless, petulant challenge from the wrong side (it would still be a wrong decision but understandable in the circumstances), but to say that the resulting injury made it a red card is nonsense. Ndombele made a much more wild challenge in the same game and only got booked. You should card based on the nature of the challenge not whether the laws of physics result in an injury afterwards.

If Son had made a strong but fair challenge that resulted in the same injury to Gomes after he was knocked off balance, would it still be a red? This is a contact sport and players are going to get injured sometimes. If the FA’s reasoning is correct then almost every foul should be a red card. You see multiple fouls like Sons in every game of football.

 

[Calgary Spur]

I'm not sure how anyone can see a video of Son's tackle and think it's a red card. Here is a video of just the trip (no injury is shown)...



That's not a red card.

I think that's the clearest view of the tackle and absolutely should be all the FA needs to view to determine that this was never a red card. I personally don't think it's a yellow, but sure, a yellow is acceptable. It's a rather routine foul though with a completely non-routine outcome.