In reply to: Was that one originally called 'no foul'? * posted by wcnitz
So...I'm not sure what the interpretation was here, because Cavallini clearly went into the back with the shoulder/arm. Even if you think the foot contact that came after was a foul (I don't think it was), the attacker still committed a foul first.
This one reeks of a referee who tweaked a decision instead of correcting it, because he was so over-the-top wrong with the initial one.
... being up 3-0 at the time, it didn't really matter so long as the red card was rescinded.
Also, if you watch the replay, his positioning was awful when the incident occurred.