I am really puzzled by the reaction on social media, and football radio shows, regarding the Sadio Mane and Ederson incident and subsequent red card. Yes, the red card did take Liverpool down to ten men and forced us into a goalkeeper substitution, but I’m not sure Liverpool should have been that easy to dismantle. When City went down to ten men against Everton, we were actually in a similar situation. Manchester City was also a goal down before losing the player but in our case, we lost a defender.
Before I go any further though, I am going to state right here, that I do not believe that the Liverpool man intentionally went in to hurt the City keeper. I feel it was more a belief that either he would get there first (as Lukaku did in our pre-season friendly) or that Ederson would pull out, or slow down, at the last-minute for fear of the impact.
When Ederson continued in full-blooded, the consequences would have to be faced from the resulting impact. The red card, according to the laws of the game (in this instance) is given for serious foul play. That is explained as a foul committed using excessive force:
Looking at the replays multiple times and from three angles I am convinced that red was the correct decision, based on the rules as explained above. Mane arrives a split second after Ederson has got his head to the ball. This theory is backed up with the fact that if he hadn’t, then the ball would still be there, and not Edersons head! With Mane attempting to get the ball with his foot at that height, it’s hard to argue he hadn’t endangered the City man’s safety.
Had he gone in with his head and crashed I think he may have gotten away with a yellow at most, but the force and height at which his studs connected leaves little for interpretation.
Arguments for it not being a red card is given as the fact that it wasn’t intentional, and he was going for the ball. In this case, intentional or unintentional makes no difference. How many times have we seen players mistiming their tackles by a fraction, taking the player out a split second after the clattered player has moved the ball on.
Another argument was that Ederson was outside of his goal area and so, as a result, he becomes just another player. I would counter that if it was Otamendi, Stones or any other outfield player whose face got pierced by a high boot, you’d still see the same outcome. Dangerous play is dangerous play!
One of the oddest defenses was that he didn’t see the keeper because he had his eye on the ball. I assume that is to back up the ‘not intentional’ line. Again, I see that Mane was focused on the ball, and didn’t give an obvious sly look at the on rushing keeper. That said, if he didn’t notice Ederson in his peripheral vision then he may need his eyes checked by the Liverpool club doctor. I would suggest that it that was truly the case, surely a better option for getting the ball under control would have been heading or chesting the ball or, alternatively, letting it bounce. So why didn’t he do that?
He knew Ederson was coming out and he knew it was going to be close. I have no doubt that’s why he chose to ‘Karate Kid’ it rather than any of the other options I suggested.
Related Story: Pep Clobbers Klopps Flops
I do like that Sadio Mane has taken to his Facebook page to issue an apology to Ederson. I think that goes a lot towards the fact that it was more bad timed than malicious. If fact, you could tell by the way he stayed on the pitch, sat down, that maybe he was not intending that kind of contact, and was distraught.
That doesn’t change the fact that it happened though and as such, should be punished accordingly.