That was the reason they gave Bruno Fernandes A Red Card. It wasn’t just the tackle. Now he will miss three important games for Manchester United”-Bruno Fernandes’ controversial red card against Spurs has seriously divided opinion amongst fans as the reason behind the Red card has been revealed.
Fans have been left divided after Bruno Fernandes was shown a straight red card during Manchester United’s Premier League clash with Tottenham on Sunday.
In the 42nd minute at Old Trafford, Fernandes received his first-ever red card for United after a tackle on James Maddison. The Portuguese midfielder’s high-studded challenge connected with Maddison’s shin, and referee Chris Kavanagh judged it to be serious foul play. However, replays suggested that Fernandes appeared to slip just before making the challenge.
Kavanagh’s quick decision to send off Fernandes sparked a heated discussion online. One fan argued, “Bruno Fernandes clearly slipped into the challenge. It was a high tackle, but the slip makes it less intentional. This should not be a straight red card.”
Another fan noted, “While Bruno slipped, the contact was minimal. I can see why the red was given, but the slip makes it seem a bit harsh.”
A third opinion stated, “In slow motion, it looks worse, but Bruno’s slip led to the tackle on Maddison.”
On the other hand, some supporters agreed with the referee’s decision. One commented, “It was a reckless decision by Bruno,” while another added, “It was a dangerous challenge, and the red card was justified.”
The Premier League’s Match Centre, which provides insight from the VAR Hub and PGMOL experts, issued a statement supporting the decision.
“The referee gave a red card to Fernandes for a tackle on Maddison,” the statement read. “VAR reviewed the play and upheld the referee’s decision for serious foul play.”
The Fernandes incident has sparked widespread debate among fans. Some argue that the slip should have been considered, while others feel the tackle’s danger justified the red card. The Premier League’s Match Centre upheld the call, highlighting differing opinions on the application of the rules in this case.
