Norgaard's red card is rescinded on appeal

Most people I would imagine will welcome the decision to overturn the red card and suspension, but then why have rules which specifically says that Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

I imagine that if the Brentford player's actions had put Pickford out of the Everton team for a few weeks, or longer, then we may not have been so sympathetic towards the overturning of the red card and three-match ban.

If that didn't threaten to injure Pickford, I don't know what would.

There was no intent to cause injury and the lad had every right to challenge for the ball and the crowd gave one of the biggest cheers of the day when the player was sent off!

A lot of us thought that would handicap us, not help us, and so it would turn out that way.

Maybe justice was served for Brentford, and as I said on Monday, I hoped that Brentford would appeal the sending off.

Match of the Day pundits Alan Shearer and Ashley Williams were in agreement that Brentford midfielder Christian Norgaard was unlucky to see red for his challenge on Jordan Pickford in Saturday's 0-0 draw at Everton.

Norgaard was dismissed late in the first-half after catching the Toffees' goalkeeper at knee height while challenging for the ball.

Bees boss Thomas Frank said post-match it was "never a red card" and "there needs to be more common sense".

"I agree with Thomas Frank," Premier League record goalscorer Shearer told Match of the Day.

"I think it's two players running towards the ball at pace. Norgaard has to try and get that ball otherwise his manager says 'Why on earth are you not going for it?'

"It's one of those that doesn't look good in slow motion but he has to go for that ball. It's completely accidental and I would have loved Chris Kavanagh to say to the VAR official who sent him to the screen 'No, I saw it on the pitch and didn't think it was a bad challenge and I'm going to stick with my decision'.

"I think he should have done that."

Former Everton defender Williams added: "I agree with everything Alan said. Even though he goes to the monitor you'd like him to to say, 'I've seen it and I don't think it is a red card'."

Really kind of annoying when you think about it if you believe it may have helped to ruin the game as a spectacle (Ha!).

Totally unnecessary interference in the game by the VAR. Although no guarantee that it would have been any better as Dino Dyche is our manager.

11 against us might have led to a defeat

I'm taking that as an indication of how utterly embarrassing an episode this was for the FA, PGMOL, VAR and the refereeing of the game.

The referee had seen nothing untoward. But the VAR presumably persuaded him to go to the monitor, where he decided on the red card.

If that was a clearly wrong decision, as it appears now to have been, it becomes a glaring example of completely unwarranted interference with the refereeing of the game by VAR — something they said they were going to eradicate.

Heads should roll!

I felt like walking out the ground when the ref produced the red card, and although some people thought it was a red card, my own view was that I thought it was a pathetic decision, and the referee showed no common sense whatsoever.

Anyone who has played football knows when something is intentional, or overly aggressive, and my own view was that, if this had been the case in this instance, then Pickford's leg would have been snapped.

Son's red card was rescinded, like Norgaard's, on that basis.

All very subjective, which is what I wrote in my first sentence @12, and I personally think that Son got off with it because he was deemed to not be that type of player (snide) although his actions after Gomes got injured showed the actions of a man who knew he had done wrong.

Just my own subjective opinion, that last one, Stan! The game is getting ruined – has been ruined – by VAR because, even with a hundred cameras, consistency is still a very long way away.

If the pundits had hailed the decision to send the lad off, would the appeal panel have arrived at the same decision?

The problem with pundits, however, is that their bias for some teams would be directed in a completely different direction – for example, do you think that if that incident had happened against one of the favoured teams, it would have been questioned as it has been?

I have some sympathy for referees due to the hypocrisy of pundits but surely this was what VAR was supposed to stop. If an incident was flagged and then reviewed by the official but then overturned days later, then the system and the game is screwed.

I remember Son got a red a game or two later for the kind of challenge he was said to be incapable of by the media. Great player but not a likeable one.

The bias that was always there has just been transferred from the pitch to the VAR studio, even though it still remains on the field in plenty of incidents.

That's why I said, in an earlier post, the red card produced one of the biggest cheers of the day. Those who cheered the sending off didn't give a fuck if the lad was innocent or guilty – they just wanted him off the pitch, not a scent of fair play!

“I say, referee, jolly unfair of you to send that player off, after just raising his studs into the knee of the opposition goalkeeper. Could have caused serious injury, but hey ho, for the sake of fairness, please let him stay on.”

The problem's with the rules IMO.

No, I've never heard a home crowd booing the sending off of a home player but, like I said to the fella who sits in front of me, the crowd would be booing if an Everton player was sent off for that offence.

The lad had every right to challenge for that ball, there was no malice in him going for the ball, same as there was no malice in Pickford when he attacked the ball saving from Van Dijk which did cause an injury.

I couldn't believe it when the VAR came up on the big screen.
My brother and I were bewildered and when the red was given we couldn't boo, cheer or anything else as we were both gobsmacked. Everyone around us was similar to us.

Personally, in my opinion, it hampered us as we have nobody crafty or good enough to break down a well-organised defence. Yet another reason why VAR in its entirety should be binned.

It's natural for a home crowd to cheer an opponent being sent off, just as it's natural for them to boo a home player sent off. It's only when you see the incident later on that you realise the decision was correct.

Another thing as well. If that challenge happens anywhere else on the pitch, most say it's the right decision to send him off. Why, after all a player has as much right to challenge for a ball outside the area as he has inside. That was a red all day long for me, and nobody will convince me otherwise.

Two Premier League referees come to the right conclusion, yet the decision is overturned by some old codger sitting on an FA panel who's probably never kicked a ball in his life.

Jordan got booed for the rest of the match, but I am certain that most of the Brentford supporters would have changed their mind watching it back.

They seemed to have it in for Tarkowski as well for some reason.

I think when Tarkowski left Brentford, their fans felt let down by him.

Lancs Live reported:

He was 23 when he left Brentford under something of a cloud having made himself unavailable for selection against the Clarets in a key Championship contest.

Not only was the transfer talk swirling but, as Tarkowski detailed in a statement on Brentford's website, he was dealing with his mum suffering from an incurable illness, with the distance between him and his family the reason for seeking a move to the north west and Burnley, who were in talks to sign the centre back.

He was disciplined by Brentford for missing the game and some Bees supporters, while sympathetic, felt things could have been handled better.

While sympathetic to your injury years ago, I can only relate to Saturday's incident and there was absolutely no intent by the Brentford player to injure Pickford.

I am the opposite of you, Rob, in that was never a red card for me and I take no notice of pundits and their opinions – same as the referee saw nothing wrong with the challenge close up but was persuaded to change his mind by the VAR in the studio.

We've all seen what happens there loads of time in the past, doesn't make it right.

But, can you imagine the red shite fans having this discussion?

I was glad he was sent off where it was correct or not. My only frustration was that we were too inept to take advantage of this.

That's the issue though, it doesn't require any intent by the player to warrant a red card; if it's deemed to be dangerous play then it's a red card.

The rules may be wrong from a purely footballing perspective but the rule surrounding dangerous play for a red card is there, even if it's not always implemented.

Perhaps, the referee would have been better advised to award a yellow during the game, but that would have left him open to not fully observing the rule as it's written.

My take is that some officials are hiding behind VAR by failing to take responsibility and making what might be considered controversial decisions in real time and thus complicating things for everybody.

If that same incident had happened at the home of one of the chosen clubs, there would have been no debate on the sending-off, many of the pundits would have all claimed it was unfortunate but fully justified.

I thought it was harsh as well. I didn't even notice it at first. As usual, VAR gets involved, slows everything down, and it always looks worse in slow motion.

If that was a sending-off, then so was Pickford's on Virgil van Dijk.

Not saying Pickford did anything wrong but the ref has to be more sympathetic towards what the player is trying to do and what he simply can't foresee.

For injustice, it reminded me of the Calvert-Lewin sending off when he was simply focussed on trapping the ball with his lower leg. Can't remember if that one was overturned or not.

There just has to be a clear distinction between what is genuinely deliberately threatening injury and what is genuinely only trying to play the ball.

All pretty unsavoury and it did us no favours either. Anyway, never a red card and VAR continues to fight the case for its abolition.

For me, whether Tarkowski told him to stay down and the trainer came on late is irrelevant.

The player may have been genuinely going for the ball, but it was a dangerous tackle. Studs up, knee height and Pickford could have got seriously hurt.

The problem is that "studs up" has become the standard. But anyone who has played knows what a "studs up" challenge used to mean. The dangerous, cowardly type of challenge.

That wasn't one of those. No-one where I was sat (right behind it) was outraged by it.

For me, that was dangerous play.

Remember last season when Villa scored at Goodison, and it went to VAR for a suspected offside? It sounded like the whole of the ground was singing “Fuck VAR, Fuck VAR, Fuck VAR” even though the only team that could have benefited from VAR at that moment was Everton.

I'm sorry, but if you go in for the ball, and miss it, the way Norgaard did, and catch an opponent, then there should only be one outcome.

It's those challenges that spawned the cry of "studs up". In the amateurs it was pretty much self-policing because everyone understood what they had seen.

Nowadays "studs up" has become its own thing in refereeing and fan judgement. Your studs do come up at times. They kind of have to if you want to make any movement that doesn't involve standing still (which might explain why our side don't seem to do it).

On Saturday, a guy slid in at the far post to try to make contact with a knock back across the box. His fans would slate him if he didn't because it was such an obvious thing to do.

It happened right in front of the Street End to no reaction.

It was pretty unfortunate that Pickford got a slight ding on his leg at the very end of the follow through... but that was pretty much the worst case scenario that occurred. I can't see how that could have been worse.