The recent Premier League matches have sparked debate regarding the consistency of officiating, particularly in light of controversial tackles involving Rodrigo Bentancur and Moises Caicedo. In each instance, both players went in with studs-first challenges. The referees’ contrasting reactions raised concerns over how and when foul severity is judged.
In the clash at Arsenal, Caicedo was sent off for a horrendously bad tackle on Mikel Merino. Bentancur was lucky to escape without a straight red for his shocking studs-up challenge on Reece James. Neither player landed their hit, boxing each other out in the process. This led to a lot of pressure and analysis over decisions from referees and Video Assistant Referee (VAR) officials.
These are the concerns outlined by Enzo Maresca, Leicester City’s manager. What concerns him the most is the inconsistency in how referees apply the rules to similar situations. He noted that the two tackles had enormous similarities in how they were executed and in what context, but led to completely different discipline.
While the Football Association (FA) felt confident in their rules prohibiting tackling and charging opponents, they argue that any action that endangers the safety of an opponent or is comprised of violent force should be considered a red card offense as serious foul play. This rule raises the question: did both tackles meet the criteria for serious foul play?
During every incident analysis, there are a few important aspects that you should always focus on. Consider the rate of speed of the player committing the foul, how violent the act was, if it was a high tackle, and if it was a studs-up tackle. Caicedo’s tackle was deemed more “dangerous” due to the force and location of his challenge, which involved a small jump before making contact with Merino’s ankle.
Bentancur’s challenge went straight for James’ standing leg in the same area of the foot. This time, though, the referee decided a yellow card would suffice. Then to make matters worse, VAR officials John Brookes and Craig Pawson made completely opposite judgments on these two tackles.
Maresca highlighted the inconsistencies in officiating calls. He added, “The only thing I find difficult to wrap my head around is the alternative way to evaluate.” He further remarked on the similarity of both tackles: “Because what about Bentancur against Reece [James]? It is exactly the same foul for me.”
Daniel Sturridge weighed in on the situation, noting that while Bentancur’s tackle looked nasty, it was initially judged as a yellow card, leading to questions about whether VAR was effectively re-refereeing the match. “It sounds horrible,” Sturridge said. Initially, that’s what the referee was going to do, caution him with a yellow card, so this seems like sort of a double re-refereeing.
Perhaps most interestingly, Maresca finished his criticism by questioning why one of those tackles deserved a red card and the other didn’t. As for myself, I think tonight [it was a red card against Caicedo], and that was a red card. How come one is a red card, one is not a red card. This difference you sometimes struggle to understand.
As calls for officiating standards in the Premier League reach a firestorm, it’s the job of referees to keep a level head with their choices. VAR officials are critical in upholding that consistency. How these cases are resolved will go a long way toward shaping the interpretation of foul play going forward and holding players accountable.
Leave a Reply