Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitty
I have:
Initial play: intentional
Kick: Flagrant
My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball that was overly aggressive, and the part that made it look so bad at the end was the wall was so close to the endline. If there was a normal amount of room between the endline and the wall, I don't think they crash so hard. No excuse for the kick.
|
In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.
Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.
And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.