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

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Will the FA rescind Son's red card?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 26.8%
  • No

    Votes: 85 75.9%

  • Total voters
    112
  • Poll closed .
Not sure they can rescind his mental state, but that's for us to manage.

Which should be the overall learning here--it's not your job to do someone else's job, but it is your job to do your job.

It wasn't Martin Atkinson's job to "do Son a favor" as some neutrals have said because Son was so upset. That's Poch's job, who could handle it with a substitution.

It wasn't Atkinson's job to "prevent a riot," that's the job of security personnel (and of every individual to take responsibility for their own actions and not act violently over a football game).

It was Atkinson's job to call the action appropriately as it happened and not based on the injury that occurred after, and he didn't do his job.

It was VAR's job to review the red card, and yet VAR didn't do it its job.

The only entity that did exactly its job and nobody else's job in the end was the FA who reviewed the red card and rescinded it.
 
I'm obviously delighted, but I don't actually think I agree with the decision.

I have no problem with a player getting red-carded for a reckless challenge that leads to a grotesque injury. Intention is neither here nor there; in legal terms, let's just call it manslaughter.

Fully appreciate that the nature of the injury then becomes the subjective factor, but a chap laying on the ground with his ankle hanging off seems pretty clear cut.

Again, very pleased and let's play him tomorrow, but I wasn't in the slightest bit annoyed or surprised by the red. Actually amazed they've reversed it.
 
I'm obviously delighted, but I don't actually think I agree with the decision.

I have no problem with a player getting red-carded for a reckless challenge that leads to a grotesque injury. Intention is neither here nor there; in legal terms, let's just call it manslaughter.

Fully appreciate that the nature of the injury then becomes the subjective factor, but a chap laying on the ground with his ankle hanging off seems pretty clear cut.

Again, very pleased and let's play him tomorrow, but I wasn't in the slightest bit annoyed or surprised by the red. Actually amazed they've reversed it.
I get your point but the affects of the tackle shouldn't come into it.

There's many a reckless tackle that results in a yellow only, so unless the refs are going to red card everybody, regardless of the result, it should be a yellow only.
 
There's many a reckless tackle that results in a yellow only

Yep - agree. I think our worst challenge of the game was when Ndombele just sliced through one of their players. I thought it was cracking and no more than a yellow. However, had he broken the other players leg in half, well, off you go.

Son's was a difficult example as his tackle itself didn't result in the actual break, but it was most assuredly reckless, it was from behind and it did set off the chain of events. And as you say, it's very difficult to judge just how significant an injury is. Perhaps referees should be able to say, in exceptional circumstances, where a reckless challenge has inflicted severe injury on another player then they're off.

Maybe I'm just a wet bastard, but I actually feel far more fucking sorry for Gomes, laying in a hospital bed, contemplating the end of his career. Whether Son is upset or that he might miss three premier league games is neither here nor there.

Anyway, let's play him tomorrow and get him over it.
 
I'm obviously delighted, but I don't actually think I agree with the decision.

I have no problem with a player getting red-carded for a reckless challenge that leads to a grotesque injury. Intention is neither here nor there; in legal terms, let's just call it manslaughter.

Fully appreciate that the nature of the injury then becomes the subjective factor, but a chap laying on the ground with his ankle hanging off seems pretty clear cut.

Again, very pleased and let's play him tomorrow, but I wasn't in the slightest bit annoyed or surprised by the red. Actually amazed they've reversed it.
Every week you see a deliberate foul to stop a counter attack, which is always a yellow.. (unless last man / already booked) , this should be no different. Horrible for Gomes but was never Sons intention and shouldn’t have been a red card so I agree it should have be rescinded.

If you haven’t seen it look a Guendouzi rugby tackle of Zaha the other week which he only got a yellow for as well
 
Every week you see a deliberate foul to stop a counter attack, which is always a yellow.. (unless last man / already booked) , this should be no different. Horrible for Gomes but was never Sons intention and shouldn’t have been a red card so I agree it should have be rescinded.

If you haven’t seen it look a Guendouzi rugby tackle of Zaha the other week which he only got a yellow for as well

Yeah, you're right.

Truth be told, I just feel really bad for Gomes. And I couldn't get exercised about a three match ban when someone else had their foot hanging off.
 
Every week you see a deliberate foul to stop a counter attack, which is always a yellow.. (unless last man / already booked) , this should be no different. Horrible for Gomes but was never Sons intention and shouldn’t have been a red card so I agree it should have be rescinded.

If you haven’t seen it look a Guendouzi rugby tackle of Zaha the other week which he only got a yellow for as well

He did get a submission too tbf
 
I have no problem with a player getting red-carded for a reckless challenge that leads to a grotesque injury. Intention is neither here nor there; in legal terms, let's just call it manslaughter.

Maybe I have missed some breaking news but, as far as I understand it, Andre Gomes is still alive.

So I hope you don't mind me asking...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
 
Maybe I have missed some breaking news but, as far as I understand it, Andre Gomes is still alive.

So I hope you don't mind me asking...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

Yeah, he’s alive. Might not play football again, but he’s alive.

Just not particularly outraged about a reckless yellow that indirectly lead to a horror injury being upgraded to a red.
 
Yeah, he’s alive. Might not play football again, but he’s alive.

Just not particularly outraged about a reckless yellow that indirectly lead to a horror injury being upgraded to a red.

OK... So where does manslaughter fit into this?

And, by the way, when it comes to manslaughter you can't exactly say 'intention is neither here nor there.'

Intention is a fairly important detail.
It's what distinguishes murder from manslaughter (sigh...)
 
OK... So where does manslaughter fit into this?

And, by the way, when it comes to manslaughter you can't exactly say 'intention is neither here nor there.'

Intention is a fairly important detail.
It's what distinguishes murder from manslaughter (sigh...)

Good fucking Christ. I wasn’t saying he’s committed manslaughter. Rather he inflicted serious injury without intent, but you can still argue that he is responsible for that injury, as per manslaughter.
 
Good fucking Christ. I wasn’t saying he’s committed manslaughter. Rather he inflicted serious injury without intent, but you can still argue that he is responsible for that injury, as per manslaughter.

That's totally different from saying 'let's just call it manslaughter' but thank you for (finally) clarifying what the hell you were talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom