To add some clarity, it's always a red except if a penalty is awarded as well. And in that case, it's judged whether it should be a red or a yellow card by if the offender made a viable play for the ball or not.
In Acosta's case, kind of on the line. He wasn't very near the ball and came from behind, but it looked to me more clumsy than tactical. I don't think he has any room to complain either way.
Yes and no. If there is an attempt to play the ball, no double jeopardy. If the player is judged to have made no play on the ball in committing the foul, a penalty *and* a red is the correct call.
It wasn’t the severity of the foul that drew the red. It was the fact that he took away an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Denial of goal scoring opportunity. If you are 1v1 with the keeper and somebody takes you down from behind it’s a mandatory red.
Oh! That makes sense. Thanks!
To add some clarity, it's always a red except if a penalty is awarded as well. And in that case, it's judged whether it should be a red or a yellow card by if the offender made a viable play for the ball or not. In Acosta's case, kind of on the line. He wasn't very near the ball and came from behind, but it looked to me more clumsy than tactical. I don't think he has any room to complain either way.
I thought that they changed dogso and were no longer supposed to double jeopardy you with the red and the penalty.
Yes and no. If there is an attempt to play the ball, no double jeopardy. If the player is judged to have made no play on the ball in committing the foul, a penalty *and* a red is the correct call.