Cole Palmer should have been shown a straight red card for violent conduct when he barged into Mateus Fernandes in Tottenham’s 2-0 win at Chelsea, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has ruled, and the same panel says Spurs should have had a late penalty as well.
Palmer did eventually go, sent off for a second yellow card in the 80th minute. But the panel’s verdict means the England international got away with a one-match ban when the right call would have cost him three games.
For Spurs, the ruling changes nothing about the result at Stamford Bridge. It does show how much more comfortable the scoreline could have been, and how close Chelsea came to playing the last 20 minutes with ten men for a far worse offence.
What did the KMI Panel say about the Cole Palmer red card?
Referee Chris Kavanagh booked Palmer around the 70-minute mark after he barged into Fernandes with such force that the Portugal international’s head snapped back.
The five-member panel voted 3-2 that Kavanagh should have shown a red card on the field. The majority described it as “clear contact to the head as well as unnecessary, dangerous and made with excessive force”. The two dissenting panellists saw it as “aggressive with no excessive force”, which would support the yellow.
The panel was unanimous, though, that the VAR, John Brooks, was right not to step in, because the on-field decision did not meet the bar for an overturn. The second booking ten minutes later was backed 4-1.
How many games would Palmer have missed?
A straight red for violent conduct carries a three-match ban. Because Palmer was dismissed for two yellows instead, he served only one game, missing Chelsea‘s League Cup exit at Liverpool.
A violent conduct red would also have ruled him out of last Saturday’s 2-0 win over Manchester United, in which he scored a penalty, and Chelsea’s trip to Sunderland this weekend. That is a huge difference for Xabi Alonso’s side, and it is exactly why Spurs fans felt aggrieved on the night.
It is a familiar subject at N17 at the moment. Crystal Palace appealed the red card that opened up Tottenham’s win over them, and lost, so Jean-Philippe Mateta now serves a three-match ban. De Zerbi’s side have been on both ends of the red card debate in the space of a week.
Should Solanke have had a penalty?
Yes, according to the panel. It voted 3-2 that Dominic Solanke should have been awarded a penalty in the 85th minute for a foul by Moises Caicedo.
The majority felt that “Caicedo was persistently holding Solanke whilst facing away from the ball and impacting the ability of the opponent to progress”. Again, though, the panel backed the VAR’s decision not to intervene, also by 3-2.
That one stings a little for the striker. Solanke has been waiting for a goal and a late spot-kick at Stamford Bridge was exactly the kind of chance that could have got him going.
Why the ruling matters for Spurs
On the scoreboard, it doesn’t. Spurs won 2-0 through Mike Penders’ own goal and a Mathys Tel solo goal that has just been voted the club’s Goal of the Month, and the three points are banked.
What it does underline is how rattled Chelsea were by the 70th minute. Spurs had controlled the game, and a barge like that on Fernandes looked like the reaction of a side that had run out of answers.
Verdict: Kavanagh got the big one wrong
A 3-2 vote shows it was not a clear-cut call, and that is the reason VAR stayed out of it. But a barge that snaps a player’s head back is what violent conduct is for, and the panel’s majority said so.
Spurs fans will take the more useful point from this: Tottenham beat Chelsea comfortably even with the officials leaving a penalty and a red card on the table. That is not a lucky win. That is a team that was simply better.
