Gio - Red Card or No Red Card? | Vital Football

Gio - Red Card or No Red Card?

muttley

muttley

Alert Team

I think a few of us discussed this during the game thread, but interested to hear whether objectively you think Gio should have faced red or not?

If I watch the body language of our player first I'm pretty certain there was no major intent to hurt Azpilicueta. His immediate reaction was to reduce pressure and he turned his body in and arm out to see if the Chelsea captain was OK. For me, Gio's body language was of a player who had made a bad choice in how he went in and probably deserved a yellow.

If I watch the body language of Azpilicueta, there was clearly a moment where he felt Gio's weight and studs down his leg and that clearly hurt. Did he milk it after that? Probably, most players would nowadays and you probably can't blame him for that.

All in all, I think we were lucky to keep 11 men on the pitch as it could have easily been given. Any appeal wouldn't have had much of a case to be overturned if he had been sent off as the stud went down the leg. I'm pleased we weren't penalised though after the Robertson, Cantwell and Capoue tackles went unpunished.

Final thought. More evidence of the referees union sticking up for each other. Once Peter Walton had realised that VAR had retracted their initial opinion, he retracted his. Funny that !!!

Interesting what everyone thinks on another big moment in the life of VAR and the officials?
 
muttley said:

I think a few of us discussed this during the game thread, but interested to hear whether objectively you think Gio should have faced red or not?

If I watch the body language of our player first I'm pretty certain there was no major intent to hurt Azpilicueta. His immediate reaction was to reduce pressure and he turned his body in and arm out to see if the Chelsea captain was OK. For me, Gio's body language was of a player who had made a bad choice in how he went in and probably deserved a yellow.

If I watch the body language of Azpilicueta, there was clearly a moment where he felt Gio's weight and studs down his leg and that clearly hurt. Did he milk it after that? Probably, most players would nowadays and you probably can't blame him for that.

All in all, I think we were lucky to keep 11 men on the pitch as it could have easily been given. Any appeal wouldn't have had much of a case to be overturned if he had been sent off as the stud went down the leg. I'm pleased we weren't penalised though after the Robertson, Cantwell and Capoue tackles went unpunished.

Interesting what everyone thinks on another big moment in the life of VAR and the officials?
Click to expand...

Final thought. More evidence of the referees union sticking up for each other. Once Peter Walton had realised that VAR had retracted their initial opinion, he retracted his. Funny that !!!
I think it may have been unintentional but nevertheless the result looked really bad so should have been a red....a bit like someone plays a practical joke on someone that goes wrong and the recipient dies...it wasn’t intentional so it’s manslaughter rather than murder. I suppose using that analogy I should have said a yellow!

Having said that it didn’t seem that Azpilicueta was actually injured once he had stopped rolling around and I’m glad we weren’t penalised after the tackles you mentioned went unpunished.
 
In real time I thought it wasn't a red, Azpilicueta slid under his leg as he was bringing it down. Does look very bad on repeated viewings. Not sure how much Azpi made a meal out of it tbh - they showed the wound a while later and it looked a sore one from the impact.

Saw a poll online that had 85% say red card. Every rival fan online and every pundit I've seen believes it was a red. I guess if it was a player against us I'd probably be screaming for one, but I don't buy it as a deliberate stamp either.

Ultimately though Walton's a mug and after that if I were Sky I'd think about getting rid of him as he serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
 
It was a red, dangerous challenge

as was Sterlings which is the same sort of thing.
 
freundorfoe said:
In real time I thought it wasn't a red, Azpilicueta slid under his leg as he was bringing it down. Does look very bad on repeated viewings. Not sure how much Azpi made a meal out of it tbh - they showed the wound a while later and it looked a sore one from the impact.

Saw a poll online that had 85% say red card. Every rival fan online and every pundit I've seen believes it was a red. I guess if it was a player against us I'd probably be screaming for one, but I don't buy it as a deliberate stamp either.

Ultimately though Walton's a mug and after that if I were Sky I'd think about getting rid of him as he serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Click to expand...



As you say , if that tackle was on one of our players I'd want to see a red card.
 
I don’t see how it could be a yellow because that would be seen to be reckless in its conclusion . It’s either not penalised at all , as it was , , it was not even given as a foul I don’t think , (Oliver just gave the chavs a throw in .) or it’s a red .
I cannot believe the ref in the park not giving anything after fifty seven slow motion replays from thirty five different camera angles , and to then say there was no foul play but half an hour later say he got it wrong . What chance would he have refereeing a game now in the future .
Red for me , reckless challenge , maybe not intentional but it’s what I would have done if Azpilicueta was laying under my boot ! .
There is something going on though because the Maguire Studs in the Gonads episode was ignored and laughed at by all the chaps involved . As was Walkers assault on Chilwell. That’s three straight reds for me totally ignored .
Red for Peter Walton, total knob , been saying it for ever , waste of space, as Freund said , will only ever agree with every other of his ref mates .Laughable that he changes his mind when they change their mind . Human error is obviously spreading .
Red for BT sport, condescending coverage , awful commentary , that ‘kin Fletcher bloke coming out with forty seven monosyllabic words without pausing for breath when two would do , ,Ruinous , continuous , in house adverts for all their other broadcasts “ in ultra HD ! “. ‘Kin winds me up !
 
I was at the game and could see it clearly and really didn't think it was red at the time - azza slid in from the side and Gio was (I thought at the time) focused on protecting the ball. And funnily enough almost everyone around me agreed.

When I watched it on the monitor after the game; you take a sharp in-take of breath and say to yourself, that was a clear red, as everyone who saw it also then did!
 
Orange at most for me. Zero intent and not much else he can do because the Chav player comes in so fast and so hard. When I look at it, you can see the only thought that comes into Lo Celso's mind is 'get my body in the way to protect the ball' and all he misjudges is how quickly their player comes in. In that time he cannot adjust his body weight, but you can see him trying to the minute he realises that he is suddenly stood on a leg.

IF a leg had been broken, I still think it would have been an orange because I don't know how else we expect the likes of Lo Celso to be able to react in that situation. Does he not try to protect the ball? Does he just stand back and lose the ball in that split second?

Slow motion can make things look so much worse. Like most people have said, at full speed it looks like nothing... and thats because it technically was. When we watch things in ultra-slow-mo we are able to process the information logically but the problem is, the game wasnt being played at that speed so how can we expect Lo Celso to behave any differently?

Was it a stamp? No! You can see it wasnt intentional. Therefore, no red for me.
 
I guess the question becomes whether "leaving a bit on" an opponent is yellow or red nowadays. I don't think Gio is innocent in any way because he left a bit on Azpilicueta. In most scenarios that normally means yellow in football. There's a massive difference between that and using the words "leg breaker". That's why I was disappointed with Lampard playing to the gallery in his interview by using those words as he's played the game and knows the difference. He knew Gio reduced the pressure so as to avoid serious injury. Anyone that has played the game at any level should know that right?

When men were men, Azpilicueta would have acknowledged that Gio could have seriously hurt him and chose not to. He would be waiting for their next interaction and be ready to leave a bit on himself. He's not exactly a shy and retiring character himself.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the game itself nowadays. It should never be the biggest talking point of that game.
 
muttley said:
I guess the question becomes whether "leaving a bit on" an opponent is yellow or red nowadays. I don't think Gio is innocent in any way because he left a bit on Azpilicueta. In most scenarios that normally means yellow in football. There's a massive difference between that and using the words "leg breaker". That's why I was disappointed with Lampard playing to the gallery in his interview by using those words as he's played the game and knows the difference. He knew Gio reduced the pressure so as to avoid serious injury. Anyone that has played the game at any level should know that right?

When men were men, Azpilicueta would have acknowledged that Gio could have seriously hurt him and chose not to. He would be waiting for their next interaction and be ready to leave a bit on himself. He's not exactly a shy and retiring character himself.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the game itself nowadays. It should never be the biggest talking point of that game.
Click to expand...

It's virtually a non-contact sport now with 100% simulation and OTT reaction to being touched, so what can we really expect? At times now the ref's job is almost impossible.
 
Spursex said:
It's virtually a non-contact sport now with 100% simulation and OTT reaction to being touched, so what can we really expect? At times now the ref's job is almost impossible.
Click to expand...

Said this many times, but it's back to the intrinsic relationship between the governing bodies, the rules and the implementation of those rules by the officials. It starts at the top though. If there is no acknowledgment that there is a problem with simulation and OTT reactions then the rules and the officiating won't change.

I'm so glad the rugby came along on Sunday to cheer me up. It was nice watching men do their thing and commentary teams being objective and not manipulated by the governing bodies and TV companies. Football is in such a dark place !!!
 
muttley said:
Said this many times, but it's back to the intrinsic relationship between the governing bodies, the rules and the implementation of those rules by the officials. It starts at the top though. If there is no acknowledgment that there is a problem with simulation and OTT reactions then the rules and the officiating won't change.

I'm so glad the rugby came along on Sunday to cheer me up. It was nice watching men do their thing and commentary teams being objective and not manipulated by the governing bodies and TV companies. Football is in such a dark place !!!
Click to expand...

Let's be honest we've seen some of the dark arts both on and off the field creep into Rugby over the years too.

But the one thing I am grateful to Rugby for is to see men act like men and not roll all over the floor looking for an oscar.
 
Spursex said:
It's virtually a non-contact sport now with 100% simulation and OTT reaction to being touched, so what can we really expect? At times now the ref's job is almost impossible.
Click to expand...
It’s not non-contact though is it....Liverpool and others do enough leaning to build their own tower, but it’s always leaning with movement designed to make the opponent fluff their pass or whatever....you see forwards knocked off the ball in the penalty area and the pundits refer to it as eased off, not enough for a pen for me, plus the CBs hands, knees and anything else, including feet on the ankles of forwards who are in a position to win headers or hold-up passes...and that’s without the Greco-Roman wrestling exercise that takes place at every corner.

every team does these things and it drives me up the wall, especially with the inconsistency between referees in dealing with any of this, and the more players get away with the more the likelihood of serious injuries as they become increasingly reckless.

On that point I would argue Azpilicueta was reckless in the way he went into that tackle and deserved what happened.
 
Later on in the game Loco had his foot stamped on in a challenge and got nothing. It was intentional IMO. Both players were on their feet. Loco didnt slide in under the Chavs studs. When looking at the potential leg breaker the movement of both players was simultaneous. I'm not sure Loco could have reacted in time to pull out or hop over.
 
Harry-Kari said:
It’s not non-contact though is it....Liverpool and others do enough leaning to build their own tower, but it’s always leaning with movement designed to make the opponent fluff their pass or whatever....you see forwards knocked off the ball in the penalty area and the pundits refer to it as eased off, not enough for a pen for me, plus the CBs hands, knees and anything else, including feet on the ankles of forwards who are in a position to win headers or hold-up passes...and that’s without the Greco-Roman wrestling exercise that takes place at every corner.

every team does these things and it drives me up the wall, especially with the inconsistency between referees in dealing with any of this, and the more players get away with the more the likelihood of serious injuries as they become increasingly reckless.

On that point I would argue Azpilicueta was reckless in the way he went into that tackle and deserved what happened.
Click to expand...

No of course it isn't, but given players ridiculous over the top reactions now, you'd think it was.
 
Red card. I can see how Michael Oliver missed it but there is no excuse for the VAR official to deem it as not serious foul play.
Can't blame technology with this one it is solely down to an inept decision. Lo Cel has got very very lucky there especially as no retrospective action can be taken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.