Red card?

[selkirkhmfc1874]

Very harsh red card

[Debut 4]

2 minutes ago, 4marsbars said:

 

I'm not an expert on the rules so looked them up.

 

The sending off could only have been for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. 

 

The foul was blatant, as you point out (an obvious yellow card) but in no way endangered the safety of the opposing player, or used excessive force or brutality.

 

 

 

 

It’s just the nature of it for me, mate.  I don’t like it.  Tackle with your feet and make a foul, ok, that’s the game.   I don’t see why in a snapshot Leonard’s type of foul should be seen as less a foul if he’d swiped the guy with his feet instead?  
 

Endangering or not, it’s basically a non attempt to play the ball and clearly obvious what the intent is to do.  
 

This grappling and holding is like a get out for inferior players (not saying Leonard is) who aren’t good enough in the true essence of the game to defend or tackle properly.   I suppose my point there is more about the game in general as the Leonard incident was about desperation, last ditch stuff.

 

 

 

 

[OTT]

5 minutes ago, EH11 2NL said:

I think DOGSO is a stretch considering where he is and we have a defender centrally running back with less ground to cover. The foul in isolation is not a red, doesn't matter how blatant or cynical it is. 

 

I assume thats been the reasoning behind the red. 

 

TBH I'm sick of VAR intervening to overturn a fairly agreeable decision into a contentious one. 

 

Was it a booking? Yes, 100%. 

 

Was it a red? Well on what basis? His next action isn't to take a shot, so I don't believe this falls under DOGSO, It was a professional foul on the halfway line to stop the development of an attack. 

 

Players would have got back, and the volume of work required by the attacker goes far & beyond anything which IMO falls into DOGSO. 

 

 

[bertracoon]

3 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

I assume thats been the reasoning behind the red. 

 

TBH I'm sick of VAR intervening to overturn a fairly agreeable decision into a contentious one. 

 

Was it a booking? Yes, 100%. 

 

Was it a red? Well on what basis? His next action isn't to take a shot, so I don't believe this falls under DOGSO, It was a professional foul on the halfway line to stop the development of an attack. 

 

Players would have got back, and the volume of work required by the attacker goes far & beyond anything which IMO falls into DOGSO. 

 

 

Most reasonable take so far. The fact he did it in the last minute means it doesn't really make much difference to the outcome of the game but does result in a suspension for a player. He had to take at least 5 touches to even get himself into a position to maybe make it a goalscoring opportunity so no need for VAR to get involved.  

[Shaggy2]

It’s simple maths. If Altena is on halfway in line with our goal (55 yards approx) and Muirhead is 35 yards to the right of goal on halfway, using Pythagoras theory, Muirhead is over 65 yards from goal. He has to collect the ball and probably be engaged by Altena somewhere in the region of 25 yards or more from goal. While I have to say that I believe that type of foul is worthy of more than a yellow, under the current laws and how they’re implemented that’s exactly what it is. We play to laws not morals.
No way on God’s earth is that a clear DOGSO. 

[OTT]

1 minute ago, bertracoon said:

Most reasonable take so far. The fact he did it in the last minute means it doesn't really make much difference to the outcome of the game but does result in a suspension for a player. He had to take at least 5 touches to even get himself into a position to maybe make it a goalscoring opportunity so no need for VAR to get involved.  

 

The big point here with DOGSO is the first O - Obvious. 

 

There is nothing Obvious about the opportunity. You can absolutely do some mental acrobatics to get there, but fundamentally, he's got a power of work still to do to fashion a chance. If Taverniers foul against Killie at Ibrox isn't even card worthy, then I'm sorry but questions need to be asked on why this was, but that wasn't. 

 

I'm at the end of my tether with referees. They don't need further training, they need to lose their jobs. We've got far too many inconsistent ones who seem to show up as such against specific teams. and generally benefitting specific teams consistently.. 

 

Rangers want a discussion about the refs, happy if Hearts support that, but at the same time, Rangers are one of the biggest beneficiaries of "honest mistakes" in the league. We need the Referees led by an external appointment. Can't be going down the West based nonsense of what side of the city do they come from..

[stirlo]

25 minutes ago, 4marsbars said:

 

I'm not an expert on the rules so looked them up.

 

The sending off could only have been for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. 

 

The foul was blatant, as you point out (an obvious yellow card) but in no way endangered the safety of the opposing player, or used excessive force or brutality.

 

 

 

 

Yes - I don't know why people keep pointing to the fact that it's intentional. The question is whether it's DOGSO. Given that Altena is closer to the goal than Muirhead I don't understand how VAR comes to the conclusion that it's a red.

[stirlo]

4 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

It’s simple maths. If Altena is on halfway in line with our goal (55 yards approx) and Muirhead is 35 yards to the right of goal on halfway, using Pythagoras theory, Muirhead is over 65 yards from goal. He has to collect the ball and probably be engaged by Altena somewhere in the region of 25 yards or more from goal. While I have to say that I believe that type of foul is worthy of more than a yellow, under the current laws and how they’re implemented that’s exactly what it is. We play to laws not morals.
No way on God’s earth is that a clear DOGSO. 

 

In a nutshell. It seems to me just pretty basic maths.

[ArcticJambo]

It's dodgy, nothing else! Who was on VAR, for the record?

 

e: 'Don Robertson, who refereed Hearts’ most recent game, a 1-0 win over Dundee, will be on VAR duty, assisted by Gary Hilland.'

Edited April 6 by ArcticJambo

[EVHearts]

Not a red for me.  Not an obvious scoring opportunity imo 

Muirhead is a cart horse and would have been caught easily by retreating players 

[Pasquale for King]

46 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

It’s just the nature of it for me, mate.  I don’t like it.  Tackle with your feet and make a foul, ok, that’s the game.   I don’t see why in a snapshot Leonard’s type of foul should be seen as less a foul if he’d swiped the guy with his feet instead?  
 

Endangering or not, it’s basically a non attempt to play the ball and clearly obvious what the intent is to do.  
 

This grappling and holding is like a get out for inferior players (not saying Leonard is) who aren’t good enough in the true essence of the game to defend or tackle properly.   I suppose my point there is more about the game in general as the Leonard incident was about desperation, last ditch stuff.

 

 

 

 

He could’ve actually challenged him shoulder to shoulder and got away with it, or just ran back. 

[Pasquale for King]

31 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

The big point here with DOGSO is the first O - Obvious. 

 

There is nothing Obvious about the opportunity. You can absolutely do some mental acrobatics to get there, but fundamentally, he's got a power of work still to do to fashion a chance. If Taverniers foul against Killie at Ibrox isn't even card worthy, then I'm sorry but questions need to be asked on why this was, but that wasn't. 

 

I'm at the end of my tether with referees. They don't need further training, they need to lose their jobs. We've got far too many inconsistent ones who seem to show up as such against specific teams. and generally benefitting specific teams consistently.. 

 

Rangers want a discussion about the refs, happy if Hearts support that, but at the same time, Rangers are one of the biggest beneficiaries of "honest mistakes" in the league. We need the Referees led by an external appointment. Can't be going down the West based nonsense of what side of the city do they come from..

There’s no Hearts player within 20 yards of him, he’s two touches away from a one on one with the GK, it’s a red card all day long in 2026. 

[Shaggy2]

4 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

There’s no Hearts player within 20 yards of him, he’s two touches away from a one on one with the GK, it’s a red card all day long in 2026. 

There’s a Hearts player 10-15 yards closer to the goal though, albeit central, who will probably reach Muirhead before he’s 25 yards from goal. That’s never been a goal scoring opportunity. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

There’s a Hearts player 10-15 yards closer to the goal though, albeit central, who will probably reach Muirhead before he’s 25 yards from goal. That’s never been a goal scoring opportunity. 

All the players bar Schwolow are in their half, the guy you are talking about is on the other side of the pitch and at best 6 yards closer.
Did you think Trusty was harshly red carded too?

Edited April 6 by Pasquale for King
Spelling

[Shaggy2]

5 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

All the players bar Schwolow are in their half, the guy you are talking about is on the other side of the pitch. 
Did you think Trusty was harshly red carded too?

No. Kabore was central and closer to goal than anyone, about 35 yards from goal. He gets to the ball first no question probably no more than 18 yards out.

As I’ve said earlier the junction of the halfway line and the touchline is SIXTY FIVE yards from goal. Altena is probably 50 yards from goal and will have to be beaten unless Muirhead plans on shooting from 30 yards. Altena slows him up and McCart is back by then. 
I’ve said fouls like that are reds in the spirit of the game but not in the laws of the game. 

Edited April 6 by Shaggy2

[H2]

First time I have seen a red card for an obvious goal scoring opportunity in the opponents half.

Sets a precedent?

[JimmyCant]

It’s not a goal scoring opportunity in the usual sense but it’s totally against the spirit of the game and I think that level of ‘cheating’ deserves a red card

[luckyBatistuta]

Said at the time at the game that it was a red and after watching it online,  I still believe it’s a red. If it was the other way around, I’d be screaming for a red. 

[luckyBatistuta]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

It’s not a goal scoring opportunity in the usual sense but it’s totally against the spirit of the game and I think that level of ‘cheating’ deserves a red card

Not in the spirit of the game and cheating=red

 

thats Boyle sent off pretty much every game, make it so

[Pasquale for King]

12 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

No. Kabore was central and closer to goal than anyone, about 35 yards from goal. He gets to the ball first no question probably no more than 18 yards out.

As I’ve said earlier the junction of the halfway line and the touchline is SIXTY FIVE yards from goal. Altena is probably 50 yards from goal and will have to be beaten unless Muirhead plans on shooting from 30 yards. Altena slows him up and McCart is back by then. 
I’ve said fouls like that are reds in the spirit of the game but not in the laws of the game. 

He’s not on the touch line, Altena is further back than the incident and 40 yards wide of it, they’re not going to the goal line ffs, McCart is at least ten yards behind them for some unknown reason. 
It’s an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a red card, we won’t appeal it which is extremely telling imo. 

Edited April 6 by Pasquale for King
Spelling

[indianajones]

Having just watched the highlights....

 

Football is absolutely finished if a foul not even in your own half and right on the touchline can be classed as a red card. A farce. 

[Bob Loblaw]

2 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

He’s not on the touch line, Altena is further back than the incident and 40 yards wide of it, they’re not going to the goal line ffs, McCart is at least ten yards behind them for some unknown reason. 
It’s an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a red card, we won’t appeal it which is extremely telling imo. 

How are you looking at that and saying it's obvious and dismissing what the other poster is saying? The ball is going down the touchline. He'd have to catch it and turn in towards goal. There's absolutely every chance Altena gets back to cause him issues as he can close the space in a straight line. 

 

Muirhead isn't fast, would need two touches minimum to get himself into a shooting area and if he wants to beat Altena he has to hit it from about 30 yards.

 

It's a ludicrous red card and VAR should never be getting involved.

 

 

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

7 hours ago, Pasquale for King said:

There’s no Hearts player within 20 yards of him, he’s two touches away from a one on one with the GK, it’s a red card all day long in 2026. 

I agree with this 💯. 

 

There's no danger any Hearts player was going to catch him. 

[ArcticJambo]

Some utterly bizarre takes!

[busby10]

On 05/04/2026 at 17:32, cazzyy said:

There's been examples of no red card for more obvious dosgos and red cards for less obvious.

Refs and var haven't got a clue.

This is what gets me ,Clancy is nearer the incident than don robertson is ,and thought a yellow card was appropriate ,yet Robertson the arsehole decides from an office ,that  it’s a red ,what does Robertson know,that Clancy doesn’t know ? Now,if it had been a Celtic player pulling muirhead back ……… no var ,I’d wager 

[bertracoon]

I get that this is a Hearts forum, but the answers on this thread show that VAR shouldn't have got involved in it. Never an obvious error. Now, if he'd sent him off for it, it also probably shouldn't have got involved.  

[Pasquale for King]

43 minutes ago, Bob Loblaw said:

How are you looking at that and saying it's obvious and dismissing what the other poster is saying? The ball is going down the touchline. He'd have to catch it and turn in towards goal. There's absolutely every chance Altena gets back to cause him issues as he can close the space in a straight line. 

 

Muirhead isn't fast, would need two touches minimum to get himself into a shooting area and if he wants to beat Altena he has to hit it from about 30 yards.

 

It's a ludicrous red card and VAR should never be getting involved.

 

 

It’s ten yards in from the touchline, which is in the shade, Altena is the speck in the distance 40-50 yards away, Muirhead is 10 yards away from the ball which is spinning in towards goal, McCart is behind him and unlikely to catch him before he’s going to shoot. 
It’s a red card all day long, someone get back to me when we appeal, we won’t.

[Bob Loblaw]

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

It’s ten yards in from the touchline, which is in the shade, Altena is the speck in the distance 40-50 yards away, Muirhead is 10 yards away from the ball which is spinning in towards goal, McCart is behind him and unlikely to catch him before he’s going to shoot. 
It’s a red card all day long, someone get back to me when we appeal, we won’t.

Not appealing it doesn't mean Hearts think it's a red card. It's because appealing a VAR decision is almost certainly futile.

[waterboy11]

It's a farce of a decision to upgrade it to a red. Foul was in the Livingston players half, secondly Altena is travelling faster than the Livi playercoming across from the centre cirlce (based on the angles / distance Altena is closer to the goal). The Livi player with the ball under control has to run in the direction toward Altena. Unless he is going to pull the trigger from his own half it cannot be classed as a CLEAR goal scoring opportunity 

[chrystaf]

1 hour ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

I agree with this 💯. 

 

There's no danger any Hearts player was going to catch him. 

100%.  But I'm more concerned as to why we got ourselves in that position in the first place.

[brux]

This descision just cements the view from inside and outside this country that our referees are incompetent and made bizarre descisions almost weekly.

[munro9]

It shouldn’t have been a red. In no way was it clear and obvious error by the onfield referee . He had a clear view of the incident, he made his call and it should never have resulted in him being pressurised into changing his decision via VAR. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

I agree with this 💯. 

 

There's no danger any Hearts player was going to catch him. 

Exactly, seems the rules these days is a struggle for some. 

[Pasquale for King]

44 minutes ago, chrystaf said:

100%.  But I'm more concerned as to why we got ourselves in that position in the first place.

Yeah that was a real cluster****, alongside the two goals. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, Bob Loblaw said:

Not appealing it doesn't mean Hearts think it's a red card. It's because appealing a VAR decision is almost certainly futile.

Futile because it’s a red card, the precedent being set in our favour against Celtic months ago, that little ***** Collum even explained it apparently. 

[Bob Loblaw]

5 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Futile because it’s a red card, the precedent being set in our favour against Celtic months ago, that little ***** Collum even explained it apparently. 

It's not the same as the Trusty incident at all.

 

And it's futile because VAR doesn't get overturned. The Motherwell boy for diving is the only one, they close ranks.

 

Doesn't mean that was the correct decision. 

[Romulus]

I don’t think we can have many complaints about it and possibly saves us a point.

[Diego10]

1 hour ago, Romulus said:

I don’t think we can have many complaints about it and possibly saves us a point.

Robbie Muirhead isn't scoring from there in a million years. 

 

Altena is closer to the goal, quicker and would probably get across to him before he's within 30 yards.

 

Genuinely don't think there's another league in the world that gets given as a red, but our refs have chucked it because they had to send off a Celtic player

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, Bob Loblaw said:

It's not the same as the Trusty incident at all.

 

And it's futile because VAR doesn't get overturned. The Motherwell boy for diving is the only one, they close ranks.

 

Doesn't mean that was the correct decision. 

They are according to the rules, I didn’t invent them. Plenty others have been overturned, it’s not the refs that decide it ffs. 

[Diego10]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

They are according to the rules, I didn’t invent them. Plenty others have been overturned, it’s not the refs that decide it ffs. 

One of the key elements of that rule is proximity to goal.   The foul takes place nearly 70 yards from goal.   

 

It's a nonsense decision and the fact people are convinced it's correct is a good indication of how shite our referees are

[Pasquale for King]

37 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

One of the key elements of that rule is proximity to goal.   The foul takes place nearly 70 yards from goal.   

 

It's a nonsense decision and the fact people are convinced it's correct is a good indication of how shite our referees are

No it’s not 70 yards, it’s the half way line and he doesn’t have to go to the goal line to shoot, and there’s nobody near him to catch him before he takes a shot. It’s DOGSO nothing mentions proximity, there could be 80 yards to goal with nobody in the way for instance. 
 

Edited April 6 by Pasquale for King
Spelling

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

7 hours ago, Diego10 said:

Robbie Muirhead isn't scoring from there in a million years. 

 

Altena is closer to the goal, quicker and would probably get across to him before he's within 30 yards.

 

Genuinely don't think there's another league in the world that gets given as a red, but our refs have chucked it because they had to send off a Celtic player

No he isn't. 

[Diadora Van Basten]

The DOGSO is a dogs dinner and I blame this on Collum. As a referee Collum considerably sent off more players than any other referee. Now his opinion of “obvious” is leading to a lot of sending offs (not just this one) that ruins games. 

[Ron Burgundy]

8 hours ago, Diego10 said:

Robbie Muirhead isn't scoring from there in a million years. 

 

Altena is closer to the goal, quicker and would probably get across to him before he's within 30 yards.

 

Genuinely don't think there's another league in the world that gets given as a red, but our refs have chucked it because they had to send off a Celtic player

Aye but apparently Altena can't defend so it would be a certain goal.

 

The red card should have been for Leonard's 7 year old primary school boy fringe.

I was past caring by then if I'm honest if he got a red or not, he slows everything down. (Yes, yes, he crossed one ball well in 90 mins for Shankland's goal).

[Eddiepolio3]

To be honest, I think VAR have done us a favour. Other than his cross for the goal, Leonard was terrible and slowed us down at every opportunity. Swanning around like Danny Swanson thinking he's Billy Big boots with his 3 yard sideways or backwards passes. At least someone like Spittal tries to drive forward at every opportunity (granted he's slow as week in the jail). Devlin and Leonard just doesn't work. So frustrating because it looks like there is a player in Leonard but needs to up the tempo and start playing passes forward and through the lines/in behind.

[Horatio Caine]

10 hours ago, munro9 said:

It shouldn’t have been a red. In no way was it clear and obvious error by the onfield referee . He had a clear view of the incident, he made his call and it should never have resulted in him being pressurised into changing his decision via VAR. 

While I do actually think it was inevitable that VAR would intervene, I think Clancy was annoyed that they did. His face told it all. He almost apologetically pulled out the red card. He had made what he believed to be the right decision.

[schillaci]

8 hours ago, Diego10 said:

Robbie Muirhead isn't scoring from there in a million years. 

 

Altena is closer to the goal, quicker and would probably get across to him before he's within 30 yards.

 

Genuinely don't think there's another league in the world that gets given as a red, but our refs have chucked it because they had to send off a Celtic player

Interesting last comment. Watching Hull v Coventry last night. Similar scenario. No red card. Again in dying moments of the game. 

[Ron Burgundy]

4 minutes ago, schillaci said:

Interesting last comment. Watching Hull v Coventry last night. Similar scenario. No red card. Again in dying moments of the game. 

If it's the incident I am thinking of there was a covering defender far far closer than Altena was on Sunday.

[Spellczech]

Altena was so confident of getting back he hadn't even started sprinting yet.  Wasn't a DOGSO as I understand it.  Was a professional foul, and there was no intent to play the ball. TBH I find it a difficult one to complain about...

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

No he isn't. 

Even from your own photo he clearly is. You need a geometry lesson...