Monday 20 April 2026 09:57, UK
Manchester City defender Abdukodir Khusanov’s last-ditch challenge on Arsenal forward Kai Havertz sparked debate about whether it merited a straight red card. On viewing the incident, the key questions are whether Khusanov used excessive force or denied an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity (DOGSO), and how the Laws of the Game and VAR protocol apply.
Law and on-field factors
– Excessive force/serious foul play: A straight red is required if a challenge endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force. That assessment looks at point of contact, force, follow-through and whether the tackler made a genuine attempt to play the ball.
– DOGSO (including last man): If a player denies an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity by a foul, a red is usually warranted. Referees consider four factors: proximity to goal, direction of play, likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball, and number of defenders between the attacker and the goal.
– Double punishment: Since the 2016 amendment, if the foul is a genuine attempt to play the ball, a yellow plus a penalty (or free kick) can be given instead of a red. If the tackle is careless, reckless or uses excessive force, red still applies.
Applying the test
From broadcast angles the challenge was late and forceful but appeared to be a slide aimed at the ball rather than a deliberate strike on Havertz. If the referee judged Khusanov to have made a bona fide attempt to play the ball and the contact was not excessive, a yellow would be appropriate. If the referee felt the tackle endangered Havertz or clearly denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, a straight red would be justified.
VAR’s role
VAR can intervene for clear and obvious errors on red-card decisions. If on-field officials concluded the challenge was not a sending-off offence and replays did not show a clear mistake, the decision would stand.
Conclusion
Whether Khusanov was “lucky” depends on subjective judgement of intent, force and DOGSO criteria. The tackle sat in a grey area where reasonable referees could reach different conclusions, which is why such incidents continue to provoke debate.