@SethNoreen@MrMegaBonus@espn@andydaviesref I actually did you just weren't capable of reading. Intensity of the foul is part of the criteria for a red and intensity is inclusive of intent. It also includes safety. On this play both players safety were equally at risk and it only came down to whos foot came down first
@SethNoreen@MrMegaBonus@espn@andydaviesref Which it did neither of those things. It deserved a yellow card at most. You insist on making my/everyone else's point for us. I really should just sit back and let you handle this ๐
@SethNoreen@MrMegaBonus@espn@andydaviesref It's literally not a red card. You are quite literally the only person other than the ref who has said so. ESPN disagrees. Foreign broadcasts disagree. The picture you showed here disagrees. ๐๐
@SethNoreen@MrMegaBonus@espn@andydaviesref Because youre wrong? The other player was going for the ball too at the same time. If Balogan's foot landed first then his would have landed on top of Balogan's and would have been either nothing or a yellow. Intensity is literally in the rule book which includes intent.
@TorchFootball@JerryHarte@espn@andydaviesref That's not what he said now is it? You said in another comment that "reckless dangerous challenge causing serious injury" but there was no serious injury. You just keep moving those goalposts because you don't know ball.
@andresmmayo@MikeDalton406@espn@andydaviesref It actually does. The second aspect there speaks to intensity which is inclusive of intent. Without intent and without any deliberately unsafe play, a yellow card can be issued but not a red.
@TruePatriot26@espn@andydaviesref Agreed. But the red card was just the most egregious example. He was trash all night long. I didnt think such a thing was possible but he managed to lose control of a game he never had control of.