Question Number: 31231

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/6/2017

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

The challenge by Mata on Vardy in the recent Man U v Leicester City was spectacular. Removing the spectacular aspect (if at all possible), what was it that kept this to a yellow card only.

Should it have been a red?

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/870649923712/Matas-controversial-tackle-on-Vardy

As the commentary indicate, maybe that his leading foot was low may have helped. Certainly, if it had been in the air to any degree, then Red would be a much hight probability/possibility of serious foul play.

LOTG " Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

It looked to cover the above SPF conditions, so as to help us distinguish foul levels, what did the ref see (or not see " i.e., was not present in the challenge) that kept this to a yellow.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
Yes from what we saw on video this should have been a red card for serious foul play. Matas boot clearly makes contact with his opponents ankle with his cleats showing in a manner that posed a risk to the safety of an opponent.
The difficulty for the referee would be that it happened so quickly with Vardy going over the top of Mata. Does the referee think that it is Matas hip that knocks Vardy up in the air and misses the foot contact? I suspect that it did. Referee Taylor may have been unsure of the extent of the contact by Mata and sometimes uncertainty and reputation by both players can influence the call.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
the spectacular bias of the slow motion review certainly leads me to think red instead of yellow but in real time the decision is not as obvious for several reasons. . Principally the angle of view by the referee , the low angle of impact, it was not at done at top speed more of a lunge, it looked as if the player toppled over the hip rather than jumped up due to the foot contact, and the reputation of the player is not one of ill repute. In cases where the referee knows it has a stamp of ugly but is not completely sure yellow is often the preferred choice. Note the goodwill between the players offering apologies as well.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

I think every reason for it looking 'spectacular' was why it should have been a red - it sent the opponent flying because it was a challenge with far, far too much force that hit the opponent hard.

Several years ago, 'challenges an opponent' was included in the 'careless, reckless or excessive force' categories - now updated to 'tackles or challenges'.

This is to highlight that even if the player gets the ball, tackles that use too much force and put the opponent at risk can still result in a card.

The fact that the sliding player ends up several yards past the opponent is itself an indication that too much force was used.

I find this to be a surprising decision, but know from experience that sometimes you'll just process the event wrong.

With the sheer amount of force involved, and the studs-up contact on the ankle this is a very, very clear red. This is an extremely dangerous tackles with a very serious risk of broken bones.

I wonder if the referee thought there was no contact on the player - even if it wasn't raised studs right on the leg there would still be a very good chance of a red simply by how unnecessarily hard the tackle was.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 31238