T O P

[Pearce] Struijk’s appeal rejected. The red card for his challenge on Harvey Elliott stands

[Pearce] Struijk’s appeal rejected. The red card for his challenge on Harvey Elliott stands

theewarnec

I know even Harvey said it was an accident and shouldn’t be a red card etc, but it was just too reckless. better to not set a precedent of risky challenges that could endanger players careers


BurnMyFaceOff

I'm a huge fan of Harvey, he's just being too nice, Harvey probably hadn't watched it back before commenting, and he didn't get the best view of it initially because he was right behind him, it was a very reckless tackle, deserved red


tyresaredone

and the sad part is that he only got a red cos Harvey actually got injured. if it didn't happen anything then the leeds player would be fine. it's a shame that they punish according to the consequence rather than the actual dangerous action/tackle


emodevo1

Hey at least it’s an improvement from last season, ie VVD.


Lazarquest

Yes. These tackles need to be reds even when it doesn’t injure someone and even when Liverpool players do it (thankfully they don’t that often).


mrperiwinkleblue

yeah, you have to let the red stand to send a message to the players diving into tackles. It’s good to see the game flow but reckless tackles need to be punished every now and then.


SamuraiiChampluu

No surprise. Was the correct decision. For anyone who wants a more detailed explanation I'd suggest Dale Johnson's Twitter [thread](https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1437382309188145152)on the topic.


elbonderro

I’m glad he explained the Cooper challenge that happened couple minutes after Harvey injury because at the time I was really pissed of thinking that Leeds players keep doing the same kind of challenges that injured Harvey Edit: Also really good read on why the challenge was dangerous and different kind than Son vs Gomes. My friends were bringing up Son incident as a counterweight to Strujik challenge and red card


SamuraiiChampluu

Yes, I even made a comment at the time about how at the time I thought Cooper should have been sent off for the challenge (should have been sent off in the first half for the one on Jota though). I don't quite agree with everything Dale says 100% of the time, but I really do look forward to his insights after every gameweek


TADAM96

Wow this is an excellent thread thank you for sharing, he gets a follow from me


deanlfc95

I don't think that anyone should really be commenting on it too deeply seeing as we haven't seen any replays at all. Basically comes down to trusting the referees as the process hasn't been transparent at all.


SamuraiiChampluu

I'm sure the league can provide transparent explanation to the concerned party (aka Leeds United), if necessary in the form of video material. Obviously VAR will have seen the replays in detail, so that's no concern. But there really is no need for us common fans to see any more replays (you can also just watch them for yourself if you want. they are there). The one angle from the game is more than enough to see that the tackle was reckless and deserving of a red card.


deanlfc95

I'd like to see what makes this a red though. My initial reaction was that it was a good tackle. Obviously wasn't so I'd like to see a replay from another angle which I haven't been able to see (if anyone has seen one can they point me in the right direction). There's no reason for us to see a replay of anything but we do, this is no different. I'd like to see for myself rather than just blindly trusting the incompetent referees and listening to others who also have not seen other angles of the foul.


bufed

It is a red because he jumps into the challenge. His trailing leg also hits Elliott's ankle at around the same time he first touches the ball with his right foot. The jumping with both feet off the ground makes it reckless as he is not in control of the tackle.


deanlfc95

As I said >I'd like to see for myself rather than just blindly trusting the incompetent referees and listening to others who also have not seen other angles of the foul.


bufed

It's easy to see from the original angle that both feet are off the ground. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/k8PCtx1.png) is a still of the second before he hits Elliott's ankle and plays the ball for the first time.


deanlfc95

Is there a video of that angle? Literally all I want to see. Think it's mad if they haven't shown it.


bufed

On Motd2 they had two different angles, that one and one from behind. [Another angle, highlight by me.](https://i.imgur.com/9uFnu2G.png)


deanlfc95

I'll have to try and find it again. Was nothing on my Twitter or on here the other day. If people have seen other replays then fair play. Assumed everyone was going off the one angle which you can't make anything out from.


Zak369

[Angle just after initial contact](https://images.app.goo.gl/nNg7qjr2chz2Wg5F6) That’s a really clear picture, you can google the low quality but look where his trailing leg calf is on top of Harvey’s ankle. The initial impact from that was Struijk’s foot with a fair bit of force if his momentum has carried him through that far (from what I could tell from the angle anyway, which makes sense if they’re upholding the red). Also if you see him running from behind he does get a bit of air when he initially performs the tackle (again difficult to gauge how much from the low quality). So an out of control lunge from behind, dangerous tackle (clearly true since it injured Elliott). I can see why it’s still red even without malice. The only exact law is as follows: “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.” Lunged, from behind, endangered the safety of Elliott. Can’t really argue otherwise.


deanlfc95

As you say in your comment it's low quality. I think it's a bit ridiculous that there hasn't been a replay of it from a better angle so that we can properly see what makes this a red rather than interpreting it from one bad angle.


Zak369

It’s simply not up to us to interpret it, the angles shown are enough to see. Though a clearer angle would be nice it isn’t necessary when you can see from the angle that it’s dangerous. There’s also no reason for them to show graphic content such as an ankle break like that with the family element of football. They made the decision to avoid showing the extra angles to avoid the scrutiny. When it’s graphic we don’t really need to question the decision.


deanlfc95

It's football, we get replays of absolutely everything. This is a footballing incident, it isn't like Eriksen where it had nothing to do with football.


Zak369

An 18 year old broke his ankle, that’s not a football matter. They don’t show graphic injury replays. It’s not what football is about and it’s about respecting the injured player and their family.


deanlfc95

It's definitely a football matter. It's a foul in a football match. Another user has told me they showed more angles on MOTD anyway so I'm guessing people who are making commenting as if they know all about this have seen them which is fair enough.


[deleted]

[удалено]


deanlfc95

No but what does that have to do with football fans not having replays of major incidents in football matches?


Weirdmaybe123

I’m glad about this. I would hate for tackles like this to go unpunished as it’s so dangerous and reckless.


Mi20Ru

It was an accident. A reckless moment for a youngster. You can't blame him for it. But accident or not it's a solid red. I wish more red cards would be handed out for accidents or near misses. Too often players get away with increadibly dangerous moves all because nobody got injured or because it wasn't intentional.


HnNaldoR

Yup. A scissor tackle from the back. It's a red. It's dangerous and it's not easily able to be controlled. The PL is right to discourage this.


Jellitin

There's definitely a bit of scissor motion, but that's more a consequence of trying to win the ball with his heel. [This article](https://remarkable.letterdrop.com/p/harvey-elliott-dangerous) explains it well.


TylerZip

Tbf it wasn’t really a scissor tackle. The issue was more that he jumped in and had both feet off the ground and then his trailing leg lands on Harvey’s ankle. Still always a red whenever a player completely leaves the ground for the exact reason of you can land on and seriously injure your opponent.


thehibachi

Yep one of the things that can happen in football is getting punished for an accident, whether that be giving away a penalty or losing your footing in possession.


Mi20Ru

Which isn't strange....or football exclusive at all. A foul is a foul. If your reckless behaviour leads to an accidental foul its still a foul. The leeds kid will learn from this that he needs to be more careful


APebbleInTheSky

Thank god.... This would've set a horrendous precedent if it worked


abhishekpokhrel5

It is the correct decision. Reckless challenge should not be promoted is any ways whatsoever. It can end someone's career, this is not about being a nice guy or so, everybody should be careful.


Level-Gain-3715

Someone needs to sit Harvey down and tell him this is a red card challenge and why.


J539

good


Sifan2

Fair enough


MerkelousRex

Need to go find this thread on /r/soccer and grab your popcorn. Going to be a great read if you sort by controversial


GremmieCowboy

Honestly, a bit of a slap in the face that it was even appealed.


SyruporSyrup

Harvey is handling this so well, and I mean tactically as well as being a stand-up guy (very Kloppesque). First, there's no point in continuing beef about the foul. It is what it is, focusing on it doesn't help him get back any faster. The fans and anyone who sees it knows it's a red anyway. And why fight about it when Struijk seems like a decent kid and made a mistake (no one is saying he meant to hurt Harvey). So it makes sense not to put that on someone's conscience. This will be old news soon and we can get back to despising Ramos and Pickford


kax256

The issue I have with the way Harvey is handling it is that when he tweets out it shouldn't be a red, it could have affected the appeals decision. Similarly to how any posts about Hillsborough were locked during the trial, he shouldn't have tweeted that before the decision. If they deemed it not a red, it sets a precedent that those tackles are OK and further risks more players getting severely injured. I do agree with the stuff he said about him not meaning it and consoling him on that fact, but it definitely needed to be punished so other players know that it's dangerous and they shouldn't do it.


SyruporSyrup

That's a great point. I don't like people talking about it as some kind of routine type of challenge


8u11etpr00f

At the end of the day everyone's entitled to their opinion, whatever Harvey thinks I still believe it should have been a red card. I also think if the roles were reversed our fans would be trying to rationalise why it shouldn't be a red card.


FederalStudent5

Boo hoo. 18 year has his season ended (well, even though he will probably again this season his season has been completely ruined). This player will have to miss a whole THREE matches.


con10001

Come on man, it wasn’t intentional. What do you want the league to do, ban him for as long as Harvey is out?


FederalStudent5

Most of the time footballers don't intentionally break other player's bones so not very unique there. Never said I want him out as long as Harvey - just think there shouldn't be a big deal made out of him missing 3 games. From the reaction of the player and the team mates protesting the red while Harvey had a backwards bent ankle, to the commentating and now to the red card appeal attempts - all a bit pathetic and lack of empathy imo. Like just accept the red, applogise for your reckless challenge on tbe 18 year old, miss the 3 games and move on. The only person here who is truly fucked over is Elliot.


SalahHaveMyBabies

Sorry but it wasn’t a red card for me. And it clearly wasn’t a red card for the referee either, as he didn’t even give the foul to begin with but then gave a red without VAR intervention.


bufed

He gave the red card without VAR intervention. He gave it after talking to his linesman and 4th official.


MerkelousRex

I think you should probably see the statements from the referee before you make yourself look like an absolute dumbass.


SalahHaveMyBabies

Firstly, no need to be a cunt. Second, I’m not quite sure what quotes you’re referring to? I saw this from the Athletic: “The Athletic understands that referee Craig Pawson told the FA that the decision to issue the red card was his, despite him failing to award a foul initially.” And if you’re calling me an “absolute dumbass” for having an opinion that is different than yours then you’re also calling Harvey (and around half of the footballing world) a dumbass so 🤷‍♀️


MerkelousRex

No no I'm calling you a dumbass because your opinion about the ref/red card is in direct conflict with what the referee stated himself, thus you're absolute dumbass. Clearly he thought it was a red after discussing with the other officials. Harvey can think its not a red, but Harveys not saying the ref who gave the red card didn't think it was a red.


SalahHaveMyBabies

Whats your point?????? The ref did not think it was a red card. Fact, as he didn’t give a foul. VAR did not say it was a red card. Fact, confirmed by the FA. Did the fourth official give their input? Probably yeah. So what? It isn’t relevant to the point i was trying to make. A large portion of the population, including the three people involved (Harvey Elliot, Struijk and Pawson) did not think it was a red.


MerkelousRex

Damn you really are that stupid. I'm sorry.


SalahHaveMyBabies

Funny how you have literally no answer for any of my arguments so you just result to name calling. You know you’re wrong and it’s pathetic


MerkelousRex

I clearly addressed them in my first post, if you cant understand that, thats what you're that stupid. Players don't make or know the rules so listening to them is really stupid to begin with, pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate.


penis-fart

i agree with you


tattybojangles1234

I'm curious... if Harvey got up straight away and was unharmed would have the challenge not even been a yellow? If Harvey was not injured, I can see it just being "he got the ball, all good".


rydleo

Didn’t even call a foul as I recall, so no injury and play likely goes on.


tattybojangles1234

So it's not a red card then?


rydleo

It wouldn’t have been, no. He didn’t even call a foul, how would it have been a red card?


tattybojangles1234

Why is it a red card?


rydleo

I didn’t say it was?


tattybojangles1234

I asked a question? Because it was a red card


rydleo

You asked if Elliot isn’t injured if it’s a red. Clearly it wouldn’t have been as a foul hadn’t even been called. If you’re asking if it *should* have been, that’s a different question.


Catholic_Spray

The tackle wasn't a bad one, but I certainly think breaking someones leg should be punished. He should have gotten more games imo.