Day 17: England vs Germany | Sweden vs Ukraine (Ro16 7&8)

This is very similar to the Nani sending off. If you thought that wasn't a red then this shouldn't be either. But since that was given and thats the direction the game's been going for decades now I'm not surprised he gave it.
 
Stop lunging at the ball with your studs for feck sake. It's that simple.
 
If you raise your leg in that fashion to clear a ball, you run the risk of serious injury to the opposition players as it is inevitable that they would also be challenging for the ball. That is why a red card has to be given in this instance.

Simple as that. No debate.
 
I'm guessing most who say it's a red are going only by a photo as their evidence rather than the actual incident right?

Cos ive seen descriptions of it as a tackle and a lunge towards the opposition
 
The rules of the game:

'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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.'

Sounds like you're the one more likely to have not played the game.

He didn’t lunge ‘at the player’. He played the ball completely clear of the opponent. The contact was quite separate to the playing of the ball.
 
Imagine the reactions here if this happens to England player next game.
Red card all day.

Phillips did one just before half time, don't think it was as high but wasn't close to winning the ball.

Don't think there was even VAR review which was surprising.
 
He “tried to break his leg” while he didn’t even know he was gonna be there? What a genius!
You’re having a mare tonight you lad, go have a whinge about Southgate to cool off.
 
The rules of the game:

'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 and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.'

Sounds like you're the one more likely to have not played the game.
He has not lunged at the opponent though, right? He has moved fractionally to kick upward through the ball to clear it. It's not even a challenge because there was absolutely no opportunity for the opposition player to get there before him.
 
Is it dangerous play? He just tries to clear the ball like happens dozens of times a game. Just because an injury occurred doesn’t change it. He had eyes only for the ball and couldn’t have known the contact was coming.

Yes, when your follow through results in you flying forward studs up it's pretty dangerous. Unlucky for the player but he can't complain.
 
I don’t think it was a red card. He cleared the ball and the player ran into the challenge. Sometimes the outcome skews people’s view but an injury can be unlucky.
This is clearly what's happening. Because the Ukrainian guy was badly hurt, people can't separate that and the actual challenge. Which wasn't even a challenge. It's a classic mistake, people judging the result rather than what led to the result. What happened to the player is essentially irrelevant, yet that seems to be the main argument for some: He was hurt, ergo it's a red card. Simplistic.
 
I’d call the clumsy fecker who nearly broke someone’s leg clearing a ball at knee height the offender mate.
Looking at the end result would result in a lot more red cards than what we are used to. In my opinion it was a clearance (just like a shot) not a challenge.
 
Blatant red.

Some on here must be watching on shite TV’s
 
I hate extra time. It's pointless, the football is usually shit because both teams are tired, players start getting cramps and sometimes other injuries etc.

Just go to pens.
 
That's a red for me. This wasn't a strange incident, like when Son tripped Andre Gomes and his awkward fall meant he broke his leg. The follow through was dangerous, even if accidental.
 
But what is the solution for this?

With the actual rules you are risking a red card if you clear the ball in the air and an opponent is close. Because you can't stop what happens after the tackle, nobody can't react that fast.

In sport sadly accidents like this happen - i don't think the Sweden player has fault for this.
 
Helander got away with that big time, think Ukraine will get a big chance last 10 minutes.
 
The anyone who disagrees with me has never played football line makes anyone saying it sound like a petul
What was reckless about it? When you kick a ball in that position, your studs are going to be showing, there's no other way to kick that ball from the position the player was in. Then the Ukrainian guy was running into his path and they collided. Unfortunate, and that's it.
Ref and VAR didn't agree.
 
It's not a tackle. It's a clearance. The ukranian is late to the ball and runs into Danielson's foot. Looks bad, but I think it's unfair.

I think if you see a leg bending that horribly the tackler is going off. Given Danielson's cleared the ball, then the Ukrainian has run into the bottom of his foot with his leg I can understand people saying it's harsh, it seems like the red is produced because of the graphic nature of the leg bend rather than the intention of the player. In terms of the conduct being dangerous; if a player jumps to score a header and a defender finds himself underneath the striker, is stamped on and ends up with a broken leg I'd feel uncomfortable about the striker being shown a red for dangerous conduct. That said, maybe going in for a horizontal challenge with studs up anywhere near an opponent needs to be outlawed as the dangers faced by on-running players are too high.

Either way it's an interesting incident and debate, and I don't think it's as clear cut as some are making out in the thread.
 
Is it dangerous play? He just tries to clear the ball like happens dozens of times a game. Just because an injury occurred doesn’t change it. He had eyes only for the ball and couldn’t have known the contact was coming.

Reds get judged based on what happened. Not what might have happened, what was intended to happen or what happens in other situations.

In this instance he went to clear the ball and in attempting to do so he made high, dangerous, forceful studs first contact with his opponents leg. So it's a red.
 
A defender’s foot _always_ comes first, and then either the ball or the other player comes into the foot’s path, you know.

With that logic a defender can never do wrong. “Nooo ref didn’t you see? He was running and I aimed not at him, but just slightly in front of him, and then some time passed and all of sudden his leg comes running into the same spot I was aiming at! he can’t just run into my tackles right that!”
 
I reckon a red by the letter of the law, which the ref is bound to apply. I cannot argue with his decision.

However, I do think it was rather unfortunate. I really don't think he thought he was making what turned out to be a tackle. Completely unintentional.

However, this is probably irrelevant, the only prerequisite is that he challenges for the ball and it is dangerous. This means that as soon as you put your foot in that position it is strict liability, as soon as anything goes amiss you are in a position to be sent off whether intentional or not, aware of the challenge or not. Challenge plus dangerous = off and unfortunately for that lad that's what happened.
 
This is clearly what's happening. Because the Ukrainian guy was badly hurt, people can't separate that and the actual challenge. Which wasn't even a challenge. It's a classic mistake, people judging the result rather than what led to the result. What happened to the player is essentially irrelevant, yet that seems to be the main argument for some: He was hurt, ergo it's a red card. Simplistic.
Rooney should have got a red card against Newcastle when he blasted the ball into Neville's face.
 
It wasn’t even a tackle!

I was only half watching, so I didn't see it in real time. Just the slow motion replays. Harsh red.

It reminds me a little of the West Ham red card when the player's clearing foot landed on Chilwell's calf. Most of us didn't think that was red either and that was eventually overturned.
 
That's a red for me. This wasn't a strange incident, like when Son tripped Andre Gomes and his awkward fall meant he broke his leg. The follow through was dangerous, even if accidental.

I still think that was worse. Son was wound up and went in for a petulant challenge and although it wasn't a bad challenge, the intent led to terrible consequences.

Granted I think this is a red but less worse because Danielson didn't see the man. If that makes any sense.
 
But what is the solution for this?

With the actual rules you are risking a red card if you clear the ball in the air and an opponent is close. Because you can't stop what happens after the tackle, nobody can't react that fast.

In sport sadly accidents like this happen - i don't think the Sweden player has fault for this.

Accept that broken feet are part of football and the price players play for playing at that high level sometimes. But we can't for various reasons that people don't like to think about.
 
(especially as it doesn't exaggerate the force of the challenge).

It does, actually.The force om the collision come fromthe ukranian player who is running into Danielson's foot, not Danielson himself, who is lying still on the ground. Your photo makes it look the other way around.
 
I'm guessing most who say it's a red are going only by a photo as their evidence rather than the actual incident right?

Cos ive seen descriptions of it as a tackle and a lunge towards the opposition
The photo makes it look horrific because you assume he’s lunging at the guys leg. But that didn’t happen, he kicked the ball and the guy run into his foot.

I don’t know, it turned my stomach but it was kind of accidental and not even a tackle. Harsh but can see why it’s a red for looking dangerous
 
I reckon a red by the letter of the law, which the ref is bound to apply. I cannot argue with his decision.

However, I do think it was rather unfortunate. I really don't think he thought he was making what turned out to be a tackle. Completely unintentional.

However, this is probably irrelevant, the only prerequisite is that he challenges for the ball and it is dangerous. This means that as soon as you put your foot in that position it is strict liability, as soon as anything goes amiss you are in a position to be sent off whether intentional or not, aware of the challenge or not. Challenge plus dangerous = off and unfortunately for that lad that's what happened.

Great summation. 100% agree.