AgileSloth1B

Because the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go with the attacker, as in “its a goal unless you can find conclusive/undisputable reasoning not to allow it”.

I dunno which goal you’re referring to, but if its like you said, it sounds more like they fucked up there than with this decision.

Errrr you realise the discussion on Havertz isn’t about whether it’s a foul or not, it’s about how dangerous the tackle was, right?

He jumped into it, studs up, caught longstaff halfway up the shin with his leading leg, then caught him again with his trailing leg. Its so dangerous because it was CMs away from a leg breaker, and Havertz was completely unable to control his momentum when he jumped into it.

If Havertz completely missed (albeit close to longstaff), it could still be a dangerous tackle that should be a red because of the level of danger. You don’t get away with it just because your opponent largely avoids the contact.

It would be more interesting as a percentage of attendance vs max capacity.

This way, it’s just big teams with bigger stadia. There’s going to be “smaller” teams with max capacity every match that don’t get the credit because they just have less seats.