Interesting that the ref initially gave a yellow, but then gave a red after he saw the injury. But the Comms on the stream I was watching suggested that the tackle wasn't too bad but that it was the way Gomez landed that did the damage. The decision didn't seem to depend on a VAR intervention.
Looked to me like the damage was done went Gomms landed badly. I thought it was a dislocated ankle as his foot was pointing in the wrong direction. I hope that is not because his leg is broken.
But that should have no bearing on the colour of the card.
The Premier League have said: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."
BBC suggesting the initial tackle caused Gomez to crash into another player (?Aurier) and that it wa sthe result of that (?uncontrolled) impact that the injury occurred.
Seems to fit with Aurier's reaction (our stream showed himafterwards with his head in his hands.. and then praying, then after that, Gazzaniga came over and appeared to be supporting him.
The Premier League have said: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."
from the BBC
If that’s the case then that is very poor. Sons challenge was no different that 20 others during that game. Son could not have foreseen that Gomms would get his studs stuck in the pitch.
Looks like the decision was made as a result of the injury.
saw the tackle doesn't look red worthy. Gomes might have just suffered a career ending injury though his foot was 90 degrees bent in the wrong direction.
Then there was Richarlason, who either side of a horrific injury to a team mate continued to throw himself to the ground each time he sensed a Spurs player near him.
He spent most of the game trying to conn the ref, pretending he had been hurt by a challenge.
Appalling behaviour.
I’ll venture HE should have been the recipient of a red card.
Son could easily have been given a yellow earlier on for simulation - To be fair there was no simulation when he looked at Gomes injury, he looked genuinely distraught.
Son could easily have been given a yellow earlier on for simulation
chicago, I don't think it it was a penalty, but there was contact/leg on leg. It pushed him off balance a little bit, so I don't think I would call it simulation. It wasn't a foul though :ok:
Shocking referee decision. Son makes a take one for the team tackle as he is no where near the ball, its a yellow every day of the week. Referees too often ref the reaction and in this case the injury. You simply cant do that.
The biggest example where players contribute to this is when players jump for a ball an arm brushes someone's face, often not enough to smudge their make up and the guy goes down complaining of elbows to try and get the ref to ref his reaction rather than what he saw.
There is a suggestion the player who came in second should have got the red as he went in on his foot, but at least he was going for the ball, the ball was so far away from Son when he went in he would have had to shout to it to be heard. His contact however unlike the second player was not dangerous.
The cause of the injury was Son's 'take one for the team' tackle. No one else, nothing else. You have a duty of care and you can't tackle from behind. Perhaps, in future, players will consider not 'taking one for the team'.
The cause of the injury was Son's 'take one for the team' tackle. No one else, nothing else'.
I'm not convinced. If a swooping seagull poked Gomez's eye out after the tackle... Would you say Son was responsible because if he hadn't made the tackle Gomez wouldn't have been in that precise spot on the pitch?
Son could easily have been given a yellow earlier on for simulation
chicago, I don't think it it was a penalty, but there was contact/leg on leg. It pushed him off balance a little bit, so I don't think I would call it simulation. It wasn't a foul though :ok:
I agree that there was contact and i can buy that it might have knocked him of balance, however the contact was nowhere enough to make him flop up like someone shot him with 50,000 volts, and the way his head snapped up towards the ref was a dead giveaway for me
Comments
I wonder if Spurs will appeal?
Looked to me like the damage was done went Gomms landed badly. I thought it was a dislocated ankle as his foot was pointing in the wrong direction. I hope that is not because his leg is broken.
But that should have no bearing on the colour of the card.
Wish Gomes a speedy recovery.
from the BBC
Seems to fit with Aurier's reaction (our stream showed himafterwards with his head in his hands.. and then praying, then after that, Gazzaniga came over and appeared to be supporting him.
Looks like the decision was made as a result of the injury.
He spent most of the game trying to conn the ref, pretending he had been hurt by a challenge.
Appalling behaviour.
I’ll venture HE should have been the recipient of a red card.
#needaliedown
:hug:
The biggest example where players contribute to this is when players jump for a ball an arm brushes someone's face, often not enough to smudge their make up and the guy goes down complaining of elbows to try and get the ref to ref his reaction rather than what he saw.
There is a suggestion the player who came in second should have got the red as he went in on his foot, but at least he was going for the ball, the ball was so far away from Son when he went in he would have had to shout to it to be heard. His contact however unlike the second player was not dangerous.
Perhaps, in future, players will consider not 'taking one for the team'.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc = logical fallacy.
Done :ok:
For anyone just joining us, an image that might have been the injury was posted in good faith, but isn't the injury.
Brings back memories of Suzypoos's foot injury
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50309594
More evidence that VAR isn't doing what it is supposed to.