Manchester City defender Abdukodir Khusanov’s last-ditch tackle on Arsenal forward Kai Havertz on Monday reignited debate over whether it deserved a straight red. At the centre of the discussion are three linked questions: did Khusanov use excessive force or endanger the opponent, did he deny an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity (DOGSO), and how do the Laws of the Game and VAR protocol apply?
Law and on-field factors
– Excessive force/serious foul play: A straight red is required when a challenge endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force. Referees look at point of contact, follow-through, the degree of force and whether the tackler made a genuine attempt to play the ball.
– DOGSO (including last man): Denying an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity by a foul normally merits a red card. Officials assess proximity to goal, direction of play, likelihood of the attacker keeping or gaining control of the ball, and the number of defenders between attacker and goal.
– Double punishment exception: Since the 2016 amendment, if a player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball, a yellow card plus a penalty (or free kick) can be awarded instead of a red. That exception does not apply if the tackle is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.
Applying the test to the incident
From the available broadcast angles the challenge looked late and forceful, but it appeared to be a sliding attempt to reach the ball rather than an intentional strike at Havertz. If the referee judged Khusanov’s primary intent was to play the ball and the contact was not excessive, the offence would more likely attract a yellow card. Conversely, if the referee considered the tackle to have endangered Havertz or to have plainly denied an obvious goal chance, a straight red would be justifiable.
VAR’s role
VAR intervenes only for clear and obvious errors on red-card incidents. If the on-field officials concluded the challenge did not meet the threshold for a sending-off and the replay did not show a manifestly different outcome, VAR would not overturn the decision.
Conclusion
The outcome hinges on subjective judgements about intent, force and the DOGSO factors. The tackle sits in a grey area where reasonable referees could differ, which explains why incidents like this provoke ongoing debate among players, pundits and supporters.