Should Van de Ven Have Received a Red Card for Tackle on Isak?

Match Overview

Tottenham Hotspur defender Micky van de Ven made a hurried attempt to block a shot from Alexander Isak, who scored for Liverpool at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Despite scoring, Isak sustained an injury that could keep him off the pitch for an extended time.

The Incident: Collision or Foul?

The question arises: was this a natural collision between a striker and a defender, or should Van de Ven have been penalized with a red card? Typically, defenders are seldom punished for their challenges following an attacker’s shot, even though similar tackles in other areas of play could result in penalties.

In a recent analysis, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) panel controversially voted 3-2 against awarding a penalty to Manchester City during their match at Newcastle, even after a clear foul.

Given that Isak completed his shot before the incident occurred, there is no argument for a penalty in this case. However, could VAR have identified it as a serious foul worthy of a red card?

Natural Collision or Serious Foul Play?

Opinions on Van de Ven’s tackle may be colored by the injury suffered by Isak, though it’s crucial to recognize that injuries can result from unfortunate circumstances rather than foul play. Monitoring how Van de Ven executed his challenge can shed more light on this debate.

As Isak took his shot, Van de Ven rushed in to intercept. Unfortunately, Isak planted his shooting foot between Van de Ven’s legs, leading to his lower leg injury. If Van de Ven had made direct contact with Isak’s standing foot, the conversation might have been different.

Nevertheless, his action was a legitimate attempt to block the shot rather than a reckless tackle deserving of punishment. While a player can be dismissed for causing a serious injury in such a situation, this specific challenge seems more like an accidental collision.

In past scenarios, such as when Luke Shaw suffered a double leg fracture from a scissor tackle with Hector Moreno, the arrest of the defender was generally deemed acceptable. In that case, there was no VAR intervention due to the timing of the incidents, yet now, a similar tackle might attract scrutiny.

Diverging Opinions on VAR Decisions

Regarding another game, Tottenham’s manager Thomas Frank voiced his discontent over the officiating during their 2-1 defeat to Liverpool, especially highlighting the red card shown to Xavi Simons. This occurred after Simons made contact with Virgil van Dijk while trying to close him down. The referee initially issued a yellow card until VAR prompted a review leading to the red.

Many analysts backed this disciplinary action taken against Simons. In contrast, Alejandro Garnacho of Chelsea faced less scrutiny for a foul on Jacob Ramsey earlier that day, leading to only a yellow card. This inconsistency stands out, as the latter incident involved minimal contact during a tackle where the ball was actively in play.

Controversy Over Ekitike’s Goal

Another point of contention arose from Liverpool’s second goal when Huge Ekitike scored amid claims by Frank that he committed a foul on Cristian Romero. Frank insisted that Ekitike’s actions warranted a dismissal of the goal, yet there was no significant force in the alleged foul.

The KMI panel determined that while Ekitike’s hands were on Romero, there wasn’t sufficient contact to justify disallowing the goal. This parallels another recent incident where an earlier goal stood despite similar physical interactions, indicating such decisions remain complex and subjective.

Overall, as these instances highlight, discussions around refereeing inconsistencies continue, influencing how games are officiated and the strategies employed by players to navigate these significant moments.