" Spurs appeal red card that lead to horror injury "

BBC


Tottenham have appealed against Son Heung-min's red card for his tackle on Andre Gomes, which led to the Everton midfielder's horrific ankle injury.

Gomes had surgery on Monday on a fracture dislocation to his right ankle.

Son was distraught when he saw the severity of the injury in Sunday's Premier League game at Goodison Park.

Referee Martin Atkinson initially showed Son a yellow card before he changed it to red.

TV replays suggested that Gomes suffered the injury after Son's tackle and before he collided with full-back Serge Aurier.

Explaining Atkinson's decision, the Premier League said: "The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player, which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."

Tottenham boss Mauricio Pochettino said the forward had no intention of injuring Gomes and believed VAR should have been used to overturn the sending off.

"It was clear it was never the intention of Son to create the problem that happened afterwards. It is unbelievable to see a red card," he said.

If the appeal is not successful, Son will miss Premier League matches against Sheffield United, West Ham and Bournemouth.

Never a sending off IMO

Never a sending off IMO

Agree 100%

Yellow at most. It was a horrible accident compounded by Aurier’s challenge.

Never a sending off IMO

No and explanation given by refs leaves any trip like that one is open to red card because technically player is endangering opponent as they point out...

Sons tackle wasn’t a red, yellow at best for the ankle tap, the injury came from the defender coming in at the same time and went through Gomes and ball

Red card rescinded by independent panel

Some refs seem intent on dishing out cards in line with the injury when the two are not linked. The lad has an horrific injury but the red card was ridiculous.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Agree RV. Would save a lot of bother and a sending off in a game as result effecting as a disallowed goal. Additional thing in such a case is referee has plenty of time to review as the game has stopped anyway so that argument against goes out the window.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

VAR varies game to game because who the second rate ref in the VAR box { the better ones are actually on the field } changes game to game. different people see incidents differently..
so now you have pundits arguing over the var blokes decision where previously it was over the ref.
wasn't this always going to be the case ?

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

There is such a thing as an accident and injuries can arise from unintentional or inoccous situations. 50/50 aerial duel leaves one player with a broken nose, is that a red card if ref gets spooked by blood? Son was probably relieved to be off the pitch but it was an accident and when card is so readily overturned it makes a mockery of onfield decision.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

his point is it was clearly not a red ….clearly not...so isn't that what VAR should be doing ?
and not for me mate ,you can not be sending people off to defuse ..

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Completely agree.

With this situation, it would have taken them 20 seconds to tell the referee that it was not a red card.

The main issue I have with VAR in the Premier League is referees not looking at the monitors on the side of the pitch for themselves.

The Premier League said at the start of the season that they didn't want referees to do that because of the time involved. But VAR decisions are taking several minutes anyway, so surely they may as well just let referees look at the pitch side monitors.

At least that way, the on-pitch referee will regain full control over decisions.

Definitely not a sending off, yellow at most, its the way he landed that did the damage.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

his point is it was clearly not a red ….clearly not...so isn't that what VAR should be doing ?
and not for me mate ,you can not be sending people off to defuse ..

Didn't say sent of to diffuse situation....said it helped diffuse situation! We all know the tackle was a yellow card even ref did at 1st but when he saw the injury that it caused it automatically became a red car on the field due to rules (endangering opponent) var would have said same if used? but as I put earlier it was always going to be overturned otherwise any trip like son's could be a red card....

Hopefully this explains why he was shown red?
What constitutes serious foul play is somewhat subjective and is ultimately up to the judgement of the referee. Examples can include actions such as two-footed tackles "and any other activity that can endanger the safety of another player " sons tackle endangered opponent dont you agree? As point of reference players have been sent off for pushing player in back and sending them over advertisement board normally yellow card if on field but because he endangered player by his action he got sent off! That in essence is what son did inadvertently..

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

his point is it was clearly not a red ….clearly not...so isn't that what VAR should be doing ?
and not for me mate ,you can not be sending people off to defuse ..

Didn't say sent of to diffuse situation....said it helped diffuse situation! We all know the tackle was a yellow card even ref did at 1st but when he saw the injury that it caused it automatically became a red car on the field due to rules (endangering opponent) var would have said same if used? but as I put earlier it was always going to be overturned otherwise any trip like son's could be a red card....

Hopefully this explains why he was shown red?
What constitutes serious foul play is somewhat subjective and is ultimately up to the judgement of the referee. Examples can include actions such as two-footed tackles "and any other activity that can endanger the safety of another player " sons tackle endangered opponent dont you agree? As point of reference players have been sent off for pushing player in back and sending them over advertisement board normally yellow card if on field but because he endangered player by his action he got sent off! That in essence is what son did inadvertently..

you cant have the penny and the bun Al..
it was either a red card or not...… red because it will obviously be overturned bit like the sin bin ? that's new.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

A referee cannot allow himself to be influenced by the extent of an injury. Martin Atkinson knew that was a yellow card challenge, everyone saw the card was out. I don't care what they say but nothing will convince me that the VAR office didn't tell him he had to go red. They made an absolute arse out of what was already a horrid situation. The reasoning they gave at the time was pathetic and it was rightly overturned.

You cannot just dish out cards to diffuse situations. We'd have multiple red cards every other week.

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

his point is it was clearly not a red ….clearly not...so isn't that what VAR should be doing ?
and not for me mate ,you can not be sending people off to defuse ..

Didn't say sent of to diffuse situation....said it helped diffuse situation! We all know the tackle was a yellow card even ref did at 1st but when he saw the injury that it caused it automatically became a red car on the field due to rules (endangering opponent) var would have said same if used? but as I put earlier it was always going to be overturned otherwise any trip like son's could be a red card....

Hopefully this explains why he was shown red?
What constitutes serious foul play is somewhat subjective and is ultimately up to the judgement of the referee. Examples can include actions such as two-footed tackles "and any other activity that can endanger the safety of another player " sons tackle endangered opponent dont you agree? As point of reference players have been sent off for pushing player in back and sending them over advertisement board normally yellow card if on field but because he endangered player by his action he got sent off! That in essence is what son did inadvertently..

you cant have the penny and the bun Al..
it was either a red card or not...… red because it will obviously be overturned bit like the sin bin ? that's new.

Totally agree but why did he change mind? Var didn't tell him something he didnt already know ? Ok not obvious be overturned but as I said tripping players is not red card but doing it and causing danger to opponent is! When go to appeal presumably theyve looked at it subjectively and thought it cant be red or every trip will be in future? What is needed is them to give reason for overturning red card then fans can understand rationale for it? Put it simply it was both a yellow card offence but also a red card offence according to the rules .. a catch 22 for ref who I feel took easy way out of the situation by using red

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

A referee cannot allow himself to be influenced by the extent of an injury. Martin Atkinson knew that was a yellow card challenge, everyone saw the card was out. I don't care what they say but nothing will convince me that the VAR office didn't tell him he had to go red. They made an absolute arse out of what was already a horrid situation. The reasoning they gave at the time was pathetic and it was rightly overturned.

You cannot just dish out cards to diffuse situations. We'd have multiple red cards every other week.

What you cannot argue is son endangered an opponent with his trip or are you saying he didn't? And that is a red card according to laws of game? In fact any tackle that endangers opponent is Red even if dont make contact it's the action that defines card........As for diffusing situation I said it helped diffuse situation not that ref did it to diffuse it.. ....slight difference

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

A referee cannot allow himself to be influenced by the extent of an injury. Martin Atkinson knew that was a yellow card challenge, everyone saw the card was out. I don't care what they say but nothing will convince me that the VAR office didn't tell him he had to go red. They made an absolute arse out of what was already a horrid situation. The reasoning they gave at the time was pathetic and it was rightly overturned.

You cannot just dish out cards to diffuse situations. We'd have multiple red cards every other week.

What you cannot argue is son endangered an opponent with his trip or are you saying he didn't? And that is a red card according to laws of game? In fact any tackle that endangers opponent is Red even if dont make contact it's the action that defines card........As for diffusing situation I said it helped diffuse situation not that ref did it to diffuse it.. ....slight difference

bloody hell...you've spent months slaughtering VAR .
someone makes a comment very much defending every VAR point you've ever made and you swap sides ….

Surely this is what VAR should be for, they should be in his ear saying, you might want to have another look at that mate, it's not a red rather than worrying about if a player is offside by an armpit hair

Nothing to do with var ref went to give yellow as you'd expect for such a trip, but on seeiing the end result of the tackle he changed to red because as law states he endangered the opponent and that is red card! Dont think he had option at the time....and it was always going to be overturned otherwise can say all trips on pitch are endangering opponent?
Tbh sending him off dufused whole situation so right call at time .

A referee cannot allow himself to be influenced by the extent of an injury. Martin Atkinson knew that was a yellow card challenge, everyone saw the card was out. I don't care what they say but nothing will convince me that the VAR office didn't tell him he had to go red. They made an absolute arse out of what was already a horrid situation. The reasoning they gave at the time was pathetic and it was rightly overturned.

You cannot just dish out cards to diffuse situations. We'd have multiple red cards every other week.

What you cannot argue is son endangered an opponent with his trip or are you saying he didn't? And that is a red card according to laws of game? In fact any tackle that endangers opponent is Red even if dont make contact it's the action that defines card........As for diffusing situation I said it helped diffuse situation not that ref did it to diffuse it.. ....slight difference

Basing it on the Scottish FA disciplinary system(for obvious reasons given my location), Trip or attempting to trip an opponent is a an offence punishable with a caution, that is what Son did.

Endangering an opponent comes under serious foul play and is a sending off offence. Does a trip of the type Son committed endanger an opponent? Not for me and not for most people hence why it was rightly overturned on appeal.

Not all of the above is aimed at you in particular Allan, as I know you're a knowledgeable chap but you often read things on here with regards to offences and sanctions that don't match up. The amount of times I've read that a reckless challenge should result in a sending off is unreal given it is quite clearly stated that a reckless challenge is punished with a caution!

I know what you mean about helping to diffuse the situation but regardless, it was still the wrong call by the officials in my opinion.

I love these types of debates - most of the time it is all down to opinion anyway