Podcasts
Did Johnny Russell deserve red for this tackle?
Johnny Russell was sent off with a straight red card in SKC’s win over Houston, his first red card in MLS. But did he deserve it?
In the 39th minute of Sporting KC’s 2-1 win over the Houston Dynamo on Saturday, Johnny Russell was shown his first red card in the six years he’s been in MLS. The passionate, fiery Scotsman has earned the name “JFR” for good reason, but he’s never malicious and generally stayed out of trouble.
“Malicious” is exactly the word referee Chris Penso used in telling Russell he was endangering players. Here’s the play:
Here is the Russell red in slo-mo. The announcers called it a harsh red. #SportingKC #SKCvHOU pic.twitter.com/RmSumAzYw3
— Chad Smith (@PlayFor90) September 24, 2023
This is a tackle in which Russell was absolutely confident he was going to get the ball. It’s a hard tackle because of that confidence. He knew he would get the ball, and he did. But it is not malicious. Neither referee even called a foul initially because he so clearly got the ball!
The ball takes the entire force of the tackle as he puts his foot directly on it. It’s actually such a perfect foot on the ball, that it doesn’t bounce away in another direction. Therefore, his foot does indeed roll over the ball and catch Nelson Quinones. Again, Quinones didn’t take the actual force of the tackle. The ball did. But he makes the most of it and his being down on the ground during the discussion did no favors for the SKC winger.
"I’ve never in my entire career went out to injure a player, and for [Penso] to come and tell me that it’s malicious, and I’m endangering players I think is an absolute joke, to be honest."
Full-quote from #SportingKC captain Johnny Russell: pic.twitter.com/twt8pUBfwy
— Daniel Sperry (@sperrydaniel94) September 24, 2023
The bottom line is that Johnny’s foot DOES go over the ball and catch the player. We’ve seen plays like this also result in a red card.
So personally, I don’t think it’s a terribly outlandish call. But it is VERY unlucky for Johnny. Other referees, not named Chris Penso, would not have given this red card.
On this episode of Shades of Blue, we’re analyzing Johnny’s red card as well as Peter Vermes’ yellow card for showing too much emotion. Plus we look at the MLS Playoff picture and get ready for this weekend’s match against St. Louis CITY.
We’ve got some absolute gold post-game audio from Peter Vermes who was told he shows too much emotion by a fourth official. Plus, Benny Feilhaber also received a yellow card on the sideline during SKCII’s win over STL this weekend, and we hear his thoughts on the matter.
Find the KC Soccer Journal wherever you get your podcasts. Please subscribe, rate, & review! You can yell at Cody @ThatCodyTho, Thad @TheBackpost, and Robert @SpKCLife.
Spotify | Apple
An Ode to the No Longer Current: 2026
Across State Lines: Da Silva Joins Milwaukee on Loan
Sporting KC announces coaching staff
Juice Boxes and Post Game Stats: Comets Record 200th Win
Roster Tracker USMNT World Cup 2026: Weah, Sands, Wright tally
Rumor: ESPN Has Sporting KC Paying over $1 Million for Cesar Inga
Sporting KC Win Their Preseason Opener
Roster Tracker USMNT World Cup 2026: Weah, Sands, Wright tally
Sporting KC are Under New Ownership
I didn’t like the red. I do understand the message that Penso wanted to send. Maybe Johnny shouldn’t have been quite that reckless. But intent should play a role. He got most of the ball and should have gotten a yellow with a stern warning. A straight red is too harsh.
They actually define reckless in section 12 of the laws and I don’t think Johnny met it, and even if he did they don’t define reckless as a sending-off. “Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.” A sending off for an on-the-ball tackle requires serious foul play which is defined as the ever nebulous “endangers the safety” or the more clear “excessive force.” It’s more clear because it’s defined explicitly as neither careless nor reckless (which are both also defined) and “when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety (there it is again) of an opponent.”
In other words it’s 100% up to interpretation. The laws never use the word “intent” but they talk a lot about the “spirit of the game” as a measuring stick when there are undefined areas and they go to great lengths to use words and phrases that basically translate to “what was the player’s intent?”
TL;DR: Johnny clearly didn’t have ill intent. He got the ball and physics did the rest. He wasn’t uncontrolled. He wasn’t retaliatory. He wasn’t angry or frustrated. It was a soccer tackle with incidental contact and it should not have been a red.
That being said, if Pulido got tackled in a way that resulted in freak studs to the shin I’d be screaming for a red. And we probably wouldn’t get it no matter who the ref was.
I think people take issue due to the lack of consistency more than the call itself. I saw Johnny go in with a straight leg, studs up on a ball that made contact with a planted leg.
I am not objecting to the red card, that tackle was almost horrible on the outcome.
Have worse tackles been done to us? Yes, but I won’t criticize this call due to relative poor officiating.
I generally don’t have a problem with the red. He is in control of his weapon. It went over the ball and his studs got a planted leg. I don’t think it was excessive force, but when studs (even just the toes) get someone that far up, we’ve seen red numerous times.
My biggest issue is how long the review took. It was called a throw on the field (not a foul) when the AR and Ref are both right there. So, to then take longer to review it than Johnny took to leave (we don’t know for sure, but he’s shown walking out off the field less than a minute after the card is shown), seems ludicrous.
I think hearing the communication between VAR booth and Penso would probably clarify that duration.
That’s fair. Maybe it’ll be on the inside video review this week from PRO. They only show plays where they “get it right.”
I don’t even think it should have been a foul but red is ludicrous.
I didn’t think it was a red, but as soon as I saw Johnny’s studs bow that kid’s leg (just a little) I knew they would give it. Any time you see a plant leg bend I think you just get an emotional reaction, like when prosecutors show murder photos to a jury. There is usually no evidence there but they want the jury ready to punish someone – anyone – for what they see.
For what it’s worth as a homicide prosecutor: Usually the murder photos are meant to prove cause and manner of death more than to evoke an emotional reaction.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt but not all of lawyerdom. Grizzly crime scene photos are generally less useful than a more clinical autopsy photo (for example) in establishing cause. But I’ll concede the point and reverse gear: “…like when a defense attorney puts his client in a tailored suit, combs his hair, and hides his neck tattoos.” Better, right?