

A lot of people saying he shouldn’t even have gotten a red card because he didn’t do it on purpose; it was a reckless tackle and the injury was potentially career ending. If a drunk driver kills a kid you don’t let them of with a slap on the wrist because it was an oopsie.




I’m sorry, I seem to have confused you with my simple analogy, let me make it a bit easier. Imagine a professional racing car driver (professional means someone who’s so good they get paid to do it) is in a race and they really want to win. They see a chance to get ahead but it means driving through a playground full of kids, but they do it and they hit one. Now that driver didn’t hit the kid on purpose but they should have known that was likely to happen when they drove through the playground. Do you understand now?
When evaluating a reckless tackle they take a few things into account like speed (there was some of this), force (there was plenty of this), and control (there was none of this). These are literally the best players in the world, they’re expected to make decisions as to what is safe and what isn’t. Making sure you don’t seriously injure other players isn’t just good sportsmanship, it’s required. If they show they can’t do that they shouldn’t be playing, hence the red card and ban.
This exact thing just happened to an England player and his tackle wasn’t as bad and he got the ball (the latter usually being the difference between a fair tackle and a foul). Even the English commentators were saying he deserved the red. We’ll see what happens to him.