“The referee issued a yellow card to Martinez for a challenge on Kamada. VAR checked for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s call of no red card, deeming this was a reckless challenge and made no contact with Kamada.”
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Red card for excessive force without a shadow of doubt.
Got lucky for once.
Got lucky for once.
Yep, it's madness that tackle, if you can call it that.
Maybe, thing is rules have changed so much … used to be quite a broad interpretation, down to ref to see how he felt on the day (and no VAR). It’s not now, rightly or wrongly, they’ve tried to define what they think counts as reckless/a yellow and this is what they’ve come up with.
@SilentWitness … the law says serious foul play includes “lunging at an opponent”. I’m assuming ref (and VAR … who’d look at it from a few angles, slow and full speed) felt the distance from him landing to opponent (x inches) meant it didn’t meet that definition and he had some control, so just reckless.. a yellow.
Lands on top of the ball/far side, sure ref would give red.
I think if he jumps up with one leg and plants foot down/lands on opposite side of the ball to Kamara (again, with ONE leg), it’d be a yellow and less uproar. I think the two footed element makes it stand out as usually, when we see those tackles they’re a player sliding INTO an opponent… which is easy for a ref to say categorically it was endangering an opponent.
If I was Ten Hag, I’d be telling him to never do it again though.
Serious foul play - A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Too much playing Space + K in Street Fighter.
Bonkers to jump in like that, when i saw the replay i thought it was nailed on to be a VAR review and a red card
That is part of the rule definition yes. Followed by “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball ….”
Hence why I said I’m assuming ref (and VAR … who’d look at it from a few angles, slow and full speed) felt the distance from him landing to opponent (x inches) meant it didn’t meet that definition and he had some control, so just reckless.. a yellow.
Maybe if refs were interviewed, he could explain the rule and why he came to his decision (backed up by the VAR official and the AVAR official). I’d like to see that personally… on lots of polarising calls.
How anyone can read this and think it wasn't serious foul play is beyond me. The point of these rules are to punish these kinds of dangerous challenges so they happen less frequently.
Last edited:
If he made any contact he would have been off and could have been facing a lengthy ban. But he didn’t, it was all ball despite how shocking the attempt was I think referees have difficulty sending players off when they’ve not made any contact because it probably opens up a bit of a can of worms
It's a tackle that endangers the safety of the opponent and excessive force.
It's utterly daft that it's not a red.
Is he using it 'against the opponent' if he wins the ball off him and takes only the ball, not the man? It only becomes against the opponent if that player is caught or has to take evasive action.
If this was the other way round, and a Palace player got red carded for the same tackle on Garnacho, who reacted histrionically, there would be fingering pointing at us and more media coverage.
We can't win. Plenty arguing last week that Jack Stephens was hard done by the other week for a clear cut red card.
Last edited:
Don’t see the endangerment.
Really?
Take your top red specs off.
That West Ham decision with the clear pull was a shocker. And Martinez was very lucky.
From the refs eyes, Martinez didn’t attempt to jump tackle on opponent” legs,, didn’t lose control of his tackles, didn’t make any contact and also didn’t result on any hurt.
Banned for 4 months? It’s a silly challenge, but no way in hell does it warrant that.
When all else fails eh?
It’s an opinion, same as a few others on here have…. and the ref and VAR did when thinking of the rules.
What you mean is he’s a United player and jumped with two feet so it’s a red regardless of the rules. Yet at some point this season, Everton and other opposing fans will be screaming at refs for not following the rules.
Maybe explain the endangerment to the Palace player. And not “IF he’d landed differently…. he COULD HAVE….”?
Never know why opposing fans get so het up about United or spend so much time working themselves into a frenzy over us (I definitely don’t over other clubs)… or why they think “top red” is an insult. I just laugh at it…
I don't care who he plays for or who he's playing against.
Frenzy? Yeah...okay.
Martinez is an absolute idiot for doing that. How he wasn't sent off there is a mystery.
That happens on a Sunday League, punches are being thrown. Absolute brain dead from Martinez.
Just seen Vicario’s handball outside the box. How did he get away with that 
I don’t think I’ve seen a “tackle” like that in the PL for about 20 years.
Very fortunate to stay on the pitch. Should have been the easiest straight red of the season.
Very fortunate to stay on the pitch. Should have been the easiest straight red of the season.
Just seen Vicario’s handball outside the box. How did he get away with that
I believe because it is not a red card offence or penalty.
Kamada actually luckily for himself sees this ridiculous action incoming. It is why he moves to the side like that. Martinez should have thanked him after the game. It saved him a long suspension.
Well tbh, I was just posting it as someone mentioned it (so video could be seen).
I’d be interested to see a view from across the 18-yard line (be clearer) … if he deliberately handballs it outside the box, it’s just a free kick but if VAR/ref thought it stopped opponent from a goal scoring opportunity that could be different? Be tough though with Spurs defender clearly between him and goal.
If his intent was to injure Kamada, he would not miss from that distance. We can be sure about that. He was going for the ball and did what he was supposed to do. If he would have made any concact there it would have been red. That is how I feel.
They are. As players are allowed to use feet. There is a gray area. A big one. There is also difference between double footed tackles. It is not he came flying in with 100 km/h. He pretty much stood and jumped in to get ball/stand in its way. For me there is no red. We can’t give red cards for what if.
To compare this with swinging punches and fighting is strange.
This is the thing, the rules and the interpretations of them change every year. However now this decision will in a way be guiding for how similar cases will be interpreted for the rest of the season. No contact, no red, even if the tackle is reckless and violent.
It was stupid and many other things, but I doubt the intention was to hurt the opponent.
Bad day for the VAR's yesterday. Martinez and Vicario were shockers.
Has VAR overturned anything subjective this season?
Martinez tackle is 100% a red card. Reckless, dump challenge which could injure an opponent. If the ref has seen it I can’t understand how he doesn’t think that’s a red card. VAR is just pointless.
What do you want VAR to do there? Send him off? A goalkeeper handling the ball outside the box is treated no differently to an outfielder doing it, it only becomes a red card offence if it's preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity. Should have been a free kick and a yellow card but VAR don't get involved in yellows.
Which is one of the daftest things about VAR. Not being able to intervene in certain situations.
I should have said refs in general but surely that has to fall under dogso. He literally uses his hand to stop the striker playing the ball right? Runs out nowhere near the ball, plays it with his hand to stop it reaching the forward. That has to be clear denial of a goalscoring opportunity.
It's just shocking that any of the refs missed that. Even from the side you can see the hand movement and then how the ball trajectory changes if you're the linesman.
Martinez got lucky, no doubt about it.
Doesn't matter where abouts on the pitch you are there's just no circumstance that requires you jump up and down like that near the ball or a player.
Could have no argument if the referee sent him off.
Doesn't matter where abouts on the pitch you are there's just no circumstance that requires you jump up and down like that near the ball or a player.
Could have no argument if the referee sent him off.
Unpopular opinion but I genuinely think Martinez jumps to block the option of the clearance he anticipated then brings his feet together to block the ball. It didn't look like he was attempting to challenge the opponent.
Landed about 1-2 feet from the opponent too.
No intent, no contact. Yellow for potential recklessness felt right.
Landed about 1-2 feet from the opponent too.
No intent, no contact. Yellow for potential recklessness felt right.