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 .
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.
Fuck off
 
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.
What if - hypothetically - one player is running for the ball near the touchline and a second player comes in shoulder to shoulder and one of them falls, slips on a bottle of water on the side of the pitch and hits the advertising hoardings head first and breaks their neck. Is it a red card? Is it manslaughter?The outcome cannot be judged without context as to what has come before it; your logic makes zero sense,
 
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.

Just demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about the game, when idiots come on and try and spout PC bollocks 'let's just call it manslaughter' you just look a daft cunt. In law you are not responsible for the consequences of an 'accident' unless it's through negligence. In the same game there were 64 attempted tackles and seventeen fouls ... so how can you claim that Son's was 'negligent' unless you equally apply the same rule to every other tackle/foul ... are you're saying if seventeen red cards had been issued, for seventeen potential 'manslaughter' fouls you'd be OK with that? .... or are you just talking trash?
 
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 see what you're saying but what if the foot was dislocated and not hanging at 90 degrees? What if it was a grotesque injury not clear to the naked eye? What if a tackle causes something internal to go wrong? What if someone eventually knows that making a meal of an injury will subsequently see one of the opposition sent of thus leaving his team with a numerical advantage? All someone would have to do is to get clattered, scream, get subbed and bang it's 11 vs 10 due to this newfound Sonny/Gomes rule.

It was a freak injury and it needs to be treated at such. To alter the rule book for one mental occurrence that nobody saw coming when that tackle was made opens up too many floodgates for other issues. It's a bit sinister yes but the way in which Gomes tries to steady himself caused the break, the tackle didn't it merely out Gomes in a position where he tried to steady himself.

The ironic thing is if the bloke does a swan lake and dives the leg doesn't break. It's shit luck but the negatives far outweigh the positives in letting the red stand. It was a poor challenge, one of yellow proportions, the aftermath made it look like a red but I challenge anyone watching that moment to pause it before we realise what's gone on and to say, first time of watching it that it's any more than a red. Tough one and I'm surprised they reversed it but the knock on effect of letting any foul that leads to bad injury become an automatic red is far too dangerous. Most of the time we don't know the severity of an injury until a day or so after the game so it's just too grey an area to have a set of rules for one thing and to let the others pass on by.
 
Amazed. But the right decision. No winners, though. Gomes will miss a huge chunk of his career and face a painful and long rehabilitation, Son will be affected by something he feels he did, and we were robbed of two points.

VAR and Taylor should be held accountable.
 
VAR and Taylor should be held accountable.

This is exactly what VAR was supposed to be for. Clear and obvious error by the referee. Since VAR is supposed to review all Red Card decisions there needs to be some accountability and an urgent review as to why VAR is being so badly implemented in the EPL.

My recollection of VAR in Russia World Cup was that it was a huge success. The EPL has been a mess since day 1.
 
Just demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about the game, when idiots come on and try and spout PC bollocks 'let's just call it manslaughter' you just look a daft cunt. In law you are not responsible for the consequences of an 'accident' unless it's through negligence. In the same game there were 64 attempted tackles and seventeen fouls ... so how can you claim that Son's was 'negligent' unless you equally apply the same rule to every other tackle/foul ... are you're saying if seventeen red cards had been issued, for seventeen potential 'manslaughter' fouls you'd be OK with that? .... or are you just talking trash?

Well, if anyone of those 17 fouls resulted in a player with his foot hanging off, I’d have no problem them being red carded.

I don’t really see what the outrage is here. Thoroughly pleased Son’s card has been rescinded, just not sure I agree.
 
I see what you're saying but what if the foot was dislocated and not hanging at 90 degrees? What if it was a grotesque injury not clear to the naked eye? What if a tackle causes something internal to go wrong? What if someone eventually knows that making a meal of an injury will subsequently see one of the opposition sent of thus leaving his team with a numerical advantage? All someone would have to do is to get clattered, scream, get subbed and bang it's 11 vs 10 due to this newfound Sonny/Gomes rule.

It was a freak injury and it needs to be treated at such. To alter the rule book for one mental occurrence that nobody saw coming when that tackle was made opens up too many floodgates for other issues. It's a bit sinister yes but the way in which Gomes tries to steady himself caused the break, the tackle didn't it merely out Gomes in a position where he tried to steady himself.

The ironic thing is if the bloke does a swan lake and dives the leg doesn't break. It's shit luck but the negatives far outweigh the positives in letting the red stand. It was a poor challenge, one of yellow proportions, the aftermath made it look like a red but I challenge anyone watching that moment to pause it before we realise what's gone on and to say, first time of watching it that it's any more than a red. Tough one and I'm surprised they reversed it but the knock on effect of letting any foul that leads to bad injury become an automatic red is far too dangerous. Most of the time we don't know the severity of an injury until a day or so after the game so it's just too grey an area to have a set of rules for one thing and to let the others pass on by.

100% agree, and already said my position doesn’t work. I’m just surprised, in hindsight, that the red was rescinded. I think the situation is so unusual, there wasn’t the risk of any president being set.
 
Well, if anyone of those 17 fouls resulted in a player with his foot hanging off, I’d have no problem them being red carded.

I don’t really see what the outrage is here. Thoroughly pleased Son’s card has been rescinded, just not sure I agree.

because your injury result based approach to refereeing is plainly ridiculous as has been laid out kindly by several of the previous posters
 
because your injury result based approach to refereeing is plainly ridiculous as has been laid out kindly by several of the previous posters

And I’ve noted that a couple of times too. Obviously doesn’t work in game.

It’s not, however, as ridiculous in hindsight, when a panel review an incident. If a player has been given a yellow card for their action it means they’ve fouled someone. If that foul results in a horror injury, I’m not outraged by the idea that the offending player should share some of the bad luck and get a red card.
 
100% agree, and already said my position doesn’t work. I’m just surprised, in hindsight, that the red was rescinded. I think the situation is so unusual, there wasn’t the risk of any president being set.
President ?? You mean Trump was involved in all this ? Damn that man he gets everywhere !
 
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.

It doesn't matter if you disagree, tbf. You're wrong.

Now fuck off you fat bastard.
 
Well, if anyone of those 17 fouls resulted in a player with his foot hanging off, I’d have no problem them being red carded.

I don’t really see what the outrage is here. Thoroughly pleased Son’s card has been rescinded, just not sure I agree.

Because you base your whole thinking on a freak accident .... if you can't understand something that several people have patiently explained that's on you.

If you give Son a red you are saying it's Son's fault, you are making him carry that burden ... do you believe for even a second that Son deserves that?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom