Manager Enzo Maresca criticized Premier League refereeing for a lack of consistency after Moses Caicedo was sent off against Arsenal on Sunday.
That’s because Rodrigo Bentancur was only given a yellow card for a foul on Reece James last month, but the Chelsea manager said the challenge was “exactly the same foul”.
Maresca admitted Caicedo deserved a red card for his foul on Mikel Merino at Stamford Bridge, but said he could not understand why Bentancur had not also received a red card a month earlier.
“The only thing that is difficult to understand is that the judges are different,” Maresca told Sky Sports after the match. “Because what about Bentancur on Reese (James)? It’s the exact same foul to me.
“For me, tonight was a red card (of Caicedo) and that was also a red card. Why is one a red card and one not a red card? Sometimes it’s difficult to understand the difference.”
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca has called for consistency from referees following Moises Caicedo’s sending off against Arsenal, suggesting Tottenham’s Rodrigo Bentancur should have been sent off for the “exact same” challenge on Reece James.
While there are definitely similarities between the two fouls on Bentancur and Caicedo, there are also differences, which referee PGMOL will no doubt point to as an explanation.
Before we analyze the two issues in detail, the first thing to emphasize is that red cards for serious offenses are based on subjective opinion. The referee’s decision is not based on facts such as offside or whether the ball crossed the goal line.
This will be assessed by the on-field referee (and VAR) as to whether the foul was reckless (resulting in a yellow card) or dangerous (resulting in a red card).
There are several criteria that referees use to evaluate the severity of a foul, including but not limited to:
The speed of the player committing the foul The strength or power used The height of the receiving player’s challenge Whether the challenge was stud-first Whether the tackler used a straight or bent foot Whether he stomped downward during the challenge
The FA Regulations relate to red cards for serious offenses, stating: “A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent, or excessive force or brutality, shall be sanctioned as a serious offence. A player who lunges at an opponent with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, whether from the front, from the side or from behind when aiming at the ball with one or both feet, is guilty of a serious offence.”
And serious foul = red card.
Now let’s look at the similarities between the two challenges. Both players missed the ball. When Bentancur challenged James, he made contact with the ankle in a downward motion, similar to Caicedo’s foul on Merino.
Caicedo caught Merino’s leg.
Bentancur caught James in a similar leg area.
Bentancur’s tackles, like Caicedo’s, were definitely stud-first. However, one has to wonder whether each challenge had the same level of force, and in this respect the referee may be justified in determining that there is a difference between the two challenges.
Importantly, Caicedo made a very small jump just before making contact with Merino’s ankle. His feet left the ground for a moment and he lost control of the challenge.
This can rightly be interpreted as more force applied by the referee and VAR than Bentancur’s challenge on James when the Tottenham man always had one foot on the ground. And Caicedo appears to have made contact with the leg slightly higher than Bentancur.
As a result of these two factors, it could be argued that Caicedo’s challenge was more “dangerous” to his opponent and therefore deserved a red card.
But in reality, the difference between the two fouls was so small that Caicedo was called a red and Bentancur was called a yellow.
In fact, the biggest question is why VAR intervened in one incident (Caicedo) and not in another (Bentancur).
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
In this edition of Ref Watch, Dermot Gallagher and Jay Bothroyd consider Rodrigo Bentancur’s possible sending-off for his challenge on Reece James.
Referee Howard Webb has stressed to all parties that VAR’s job is not to re-try the match, and that on-field decisions should take precedence unless there is a “clear error”.
Speaking on Sky Sports’ Chelsea v Arsenal coverage, Daniel Sturridge said: “It looks terrible but initially the referee made the decision to give him a yellow card so we’re doing a bit of a retrial.”
“He left with the ‘help’ of VAR, but I don’t think it was such a bad tackle if you look at it at high speed.”
Both challenges were initially shown as yellow cards on the pitch, but VAR manager John Brooks believed it was a clear mistake to give Caicedo a yellow and decided to intervene at Stamford Bridge, but Tottenham v Chelsea VAR Craig Pawson decided not to intervene and Bentancur’s yellow stood.
Again, whether the VAR feels there was a clear and obvious mistake is a subjective opinion from the VAR and the exact same criteria will be used when the original decision was made. There is always a tipping point where VAR is involved, but again this is subjective.
Maresca clearly has one, but when it comes to referees’ subjective decisions, such obvious inconsistencies are unavoidable under the rules.
These are based on judgments based on the opinion of the referee and VAR on the day, taking into account the individual circumstances of each challenge, and importantly, no two fouls can be exactly the same.
