Note that the panel only voted 3-2 in favour of saying Bruno’s intentional forearm to the head of Jorginho should have been reviewed and been a red card.
The rules are very clear that striking someone intentionally in the head is violent conduct and a red so there is no excuse for getting this wrong. But why might that be the case?
Well this independent panel includes 3 ex players and or coaches. Why are they deemed competent to know the rules and give valid opinions? As we know from punditry players often have shit takes because when they played football they could two foot people from behind or elbow people in the face as they jump up for headers.
Note that the panel only voted 3-2 in favour of saying Bruno’s intentional forearm to the head of Jorginho should have been reviewed and been a red card.
The rules are very clear that striking someone intentionally in the head is violent conduct and a red so there is no excuse for getting this wrong. But why might that be the case?
Well this independent panel includes 3 ex players and or coaches. Why are they deemed competent to know the rules and give valid opinions? As we know from punditry players often have shit takes because when they played football they could two foot people from behind or elbow people in the face as they jump up for headers.
So you can’t trust the referees to get it right? And you can’t trust ex-players? And you can’t trust ex-coaches?
Who do you think should be making these assessments? Fans who have never actually read the Laws of the Game?
I agree, you should decide Melvin!