Sunday's Premier League clash between Chelsea and Liverpool was an instant classic, with end-to-end action and incidents galore.
The first of those incidents arrived after only six seconds, when Sadio Mane clashed with Cesar Azpilicueta to earn the quickest yellow card in Premier League history.
However, many in the Chelsea camp felt that the punishment should have been even more severe as Mane's arm connected with the face of Azpilicueta.
Here, the Sports Mole team discuss whether they feel Mane should have seen red.
© Reuters
Barney Corkhill, Editor
"This is one of those that really could have gone either way; had Anthony Taylor deemed it a red-card decision then I am not sure VAR would have overturned it, but as the on-field decision was a yellow, there was not enough evidence to overturn that either.
"In truth I was slightly surprised at only a yellow card being produced on first glance, but the replays showed the mitigating circumstances - eyes on the ball, connection with the wrist rather than elbow and no sign of Mane swinging his arm into Azpilicueta.
"I remember Azpilicueta doing his best to get under the skin of the Liverpool attackers in the reverse fixture and maybe Mane was keen to make his mark on the Spaniard early on in this game. Rightly or wrongly, being just six seconds into the match probably helped Mane's case too.
"There are cases to be made for both a red or a yellow being produced, but ultimately the decision helped pave the way for a Premier League classic which may not have occurred had one team been forced to play the full 90 minutes with 10 men."
Ben Knapton, Senior Reporter
"No. VAR and referees continue to receive incessant criticism week after week – often rightly so – but this time, the correct call was made.
"Sadio Mane's eyes were on the ball the entire time and it would have been extremely difficult for the officials to conclude that the foul was intentional or an act of violent conduct.
"Another referee may have thought differently on the day, which opens up a whole new can of worms regarding inconsistency in decisions. Furthermore, the four-goal spectacle that unfolded at Stamford Bridge would surely not have taken place with 21 players on the pitch.
"Stick that one in the 'seen them given' category and move on."
Darren Plant, Senior Reporter
"A categorical yes. The argument can be made that it was early in the game. VAR can insist that Mane's challenge 'was reckless, not dangerous'. But whichever way you look at it, a precedent has been set for similar incidents going forward.
"Who knows what the true reason was for not dismissing Mane, but players will now feel like they have a free shot of aggression at the start of the game.
"That's not to say that Mane's elbow was pre-emptive or malicious, but the end result was that he was overly aggressive and late. It is a clear red card, and Liverpool and the Senegalese undoubtedly got lucky."
Sammy Wynne, Reporter
"I think Anthony Taylor got this decision spot on, with a yellow card for Mane. Both the Liverpool winger and Cesar Azpilicueta have challenged in the air, with their eyes firmly fixed on the ball, an important aspect towards the referee's decision.
"Mane has caught the Chelsea full-back with his forearm which is why he has received a yellow card, but there was no malicious intent from the Senegal international."
Oliver Thomas, Reporter
"Thomas Tuchel, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink and even Sadio Mane's Senegalese teammate Edouard Mendy are just a few names who believe the Liverpool forward should have seen red for his challenge on Cesar Azpilicueta.
"However, I believe a yellow card from referee Anthony Taylor was the right decision. The fact that Mane made contact with his forearm rather than his elbow probably saved him from taking a very early bath just six seconds into the game."
Joshua Ojele, Reporter
"I have seen players sent off for far less in the Premier League and this is one of several cases where match officials fail to maintain consistency with their calls and decision making.
"The timing and intention of Mane's challenge had nothing to do with its severity and I expected the 29-year-old to have received his marching orders."
Matthew Tranter, Reporter
"It is frustrating to see a lot of the debate surrounding this incident around the fact that it was only six seconds into the game.
"For me, the time in the game should not come into the debate, but despite this, I do not believe Mane should have been sent off against Chelsea because there was no malice or intentional thrust of the elbow into the direction of Azpilicueta's face from the Senegalese forward."
Ben Sully, Reporter
"In my opinion, I thought it was a red card when I saw it live and the subsequent replays only confirmed that belief.
"Mane's saving grace was that the foul took place within a matter of moments of the first whistle, whereas if that challenge occurred in the 60th minute then Mane would had been given his marching orders as the elbow clearly made contact with Cesar Azpilicueta's face, but referees tend to offer more leeway in the opening stages of matches, and that was the case on Sunday."
Olly Allen, Reporter
"Yes, although it is not as clear cut as some have made out. Mane has his eyes only on the ball so there is no intent, but you can't deny the force with which his arm goes into Azpilicueta's face.
"He is endangering his opponent and that should lead to a red card no matter how early in the game the incident comes."
No Data Analysis info
