I think he's been lucky there...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Christian Norgaard red card overturned
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,163
The photo looks bad but I think he's going for the ball in a goalmouth scramble, not a red for me.
There was no intent at all, and most of the force was a result of Pickford rushing into the impact.
BUT, there's no doubt it still was dangerous - whether by design or not.
I'm surprised it is rescinded.
BUT, there's no doubt it still was dangerous - whether by design or not.
I'm surprised it is rescinded.
Braggfan
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
- May 12, 2014
- 1,998
If he meant to challenge the keeper like that, then it was dangerous and he deserved a red. If he didn't mean to challenge the keeper like that, then he didn't have control over the challenge because it was dangerous where he caught Pickford, that's also a red. As discussed on here many times, intent is irrelevant.
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
In my playing days, never a yellow - these days - it's a red IMO
Surprised it's been overturned.
Surprised it's been overturned.
Lucky for him it wasn't merely a second yellow....
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,313
And if he was going for the ball, trying to turn it in and the momentum of both players trying to get there caused the collision ?
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
I thought it was harsh at the time, I wasn’t shocked at a red but the situation is just part of football, forwards try and score, keepers sometimes get knocks trying to prevent forwards from trying to score.
From what I have seen. very similar to Billy Gilmour's red against Everton last season, I would say.
No intent to make contact (I know that's not a 'get out of jail free' card in itself) and neither was 'reckless' IMO, so neither should have been a red card.
No intent to make contact (I know that's not a 'get out of jail free' card in itself) and neither was 'reckless' IMO, so neither should have been a red card.
Braggfan
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
- May 12, 2014
- 1,998
Trying to look at it logically step by step.
The first thing is he stuck his leg out, so he has made a challenge. Regardless of how he gets there, he makes contact. So he makes a challenge and he makes contact.
The first question then is, is it dangerous?
Well it hits Pickfords standing leg, high, above the knee with force. So yes its dangerous.
The second question, did he mean it?
If yes then its a red. If no, then it raises the third question,
Was he in control?
The answer is no, because if he was in control then it means he intentionally lands his foot there, which is a red. If he wasn't in control, then thats dangerous, which is also a red.
Last edited:
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,940
My immediate thought too
Exactly this. I don't think it's a red but it's certainly not clear cut. The inconsistency over what is and what isn't rescinded is maddening. I wonder if Baleba's one match ban could be overturned? I know there is no going back on two yellows but, similarly to FH's red earlier in the season where he didn't serve a ban but the red wasn't actually overturned, it would be good for the FA to acknowledge that a ban for a 100% error is not acceptable.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Strikers have slid in trying to make contact with crosses for ever, and will continue to do so. Sometimes they collide with the keeper, most often they don't, but they will never stop sliding in trying to get the ball, its instinctive and its innate, its what strikers do.
So you can send this guy off if you want but it won't change anything, strikers will continue to slide in instinctively and will continue to occasionally collide with the keeper.
I think the FA have recognised this by rescinding it, its the right decision.
So you can send this guy off if you want but it won't change anything, strikers will continue to slide in instinctively and will continue to occasionally collide with the keeper.
I think the FA have recognised this by rescinding it, its the right decision.
Yes. A red gets overturned - so no ban.
An equal-effect punishment in the game can't get looked at - and so the one game ban stands.
Yet the tackle for the overturned red was far more dangerous / out of control / impactful than the non-tackle for the second yellow and shirt pull for the first combined.
Sliding in, and even a 'safe' collision - fine. Leg up in the air with studs pointing right at the keeper - not quite the same thing.
Red on the day, and a red today.
Shouldn't have been overturned.
Shouldn't have been overturned.
Well presented logic, but wasn't he just trying to kick the ball into the net? And then Pickford rushed towards him to "make the challenge"?
Anyway, we can see from this discussion among ourselves that this is clearly not a clear-cut decision.
PS Haven't I done well in avoiding mentioning Pickford's previous for reckless challenges on opposition players in his goal area.
Unless, of course, Pickford was bleeding cut clearly.
brighton_tom
Well-known member
- Jul 23, 2008
- 5,600
I saw it as a harsh red, but still a red. It surprises me that it’s been overturned. VAR looked at it on the day & decided it was a red, so why is it now not? Maybe not much malice in it, but he did connect with Pickford’s knee studs up. It might be harsh but I don’t think there’s enough reasoning to overturn it. It’s not like new camera angles are showing that no contact was made…