I thought it was a red - no intent in it, but just a terrible tackling technique which is undoubtedly dangerous - he only made slight contact with Clyne and still managed to injure him, if he'd made any sort of proper contact it would have done real damage.

Typically 'strikers challenge', but still dangerous.

can we appeal the appeal?

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Indeed very silly if they showed a still of every tackle in football you could make it look bad at some point

I think (I may be wrong) the reason the appeal was upheld was because it wasn't actually a tackle but the player (CL) attempting to bring the loose ball under control .Clyne just arrived on the scene as he was wrapping his boot around the ball ,though granted he made a clumsy mess of it . Take Clyne out of the picture and Calvert -Lewin would be making exactly the same movement in getting the ball .
Had Clyne been in possession and CL had done what he did as a tackle then no question its a red . You have to look at the whole incident not just one picture .

Don't really agree - why exactly is it not a tackle? That feels completely subjective.

He's stretching for a loose ball that is not in his control, and raises his studs into an opposing player as a result - no massive amount of contact, but it's dangerous, as evidenced by Clyne's reaction.

If you land your studs midway up someone's shinpads, it's nearly always going to be a sending off, regardless of intent or much else.

How many tackles can produce a still like this?

His foot has gone past the ball, is raised off the ground, stud-first with a straight leg - there is plenty to moan about with VAR, but I don't particularly have an issue with this decision.

Edited by EverybodyDannsNow (10 Jan 2024 4.13pm)

Attachment: Screenshot 2024-01-10 161309.png (393.48Kb)