Bogle was certainly very lucky to escape even one booking.
The mistake occurred in strange circumstances. Bogle positioned his body to challenge Tel with his right foot, and while trying to plant his left foot, he stood on the Spurs player’s ankle.
At full speed it seemed harmless, which is probably why referee Brooks chose not to show a card after committing the foul.
Once the replays were watched, it became apparent that the nature of the contact on Tel was very gruesome, including twisting of the ankle.
This could easily have caused the VAR, Tony Harrington, to send Brooks to the pitchside monitor for an on-field review for a red card.
Harrington spent way too much time watching replays, probably thinking he had more time while Tel received his treatment. But longer exams tend to raise doubts about the process.
Harrington finally told Brooks: “I confirm the decision on the field not to card. There is a lack of speed in the challenge and he launches into the tackle. Confirming a reckless challenge.”
A careless challenge is a yellow card, but the VAR is unable to intervene and advise that Bogle should be booked.
According to Harrington, something else is important: “rising to the challenge.”
This does not mean a player cannot be sent off, but it is much less likely to result in a VAR review for a red card, as such challenges naturally come with less force.
How about the comparisons to Mateta’s VAR red card against Spurs last week?
There is an argument that Mateta, who received an on-field warning, made less forceful contact on Micky van de Ven’s ankle. Yet it is the nature of the challenge that is fundamentally different.
Mateta performed a push-and-stretch tackle with lead studs, the type generally considered to carry a higher degree of force and potential danger to the opponent.
That said, and even if Bogle wasn’t really making a challenge, the nature of the contact means many may feel there should have been a VAR review for a red card.
Gn sports
