Was the penalty correct?

Yes — there was contact that impeded Kane’s opportunity, so awarding a penalty was correct.

Should Quansah have been sent off?

Probably not; slow-motion suggests he attempted to play the ball, which under DOGSO guidance usually results in a yellow inside the area.

Will the red likely be overturned?

An appeal has a reasonable chance if the FA deems the footage shows a genuine attempt to play the ball; precedents exist for downgrades in similar cases.

Guru Watch: Quansah’s Challenge — Red Too Far, Penalty Right

The flashpoint came when Jarell Quansah and Harry Kane tangled in the box, producing both a penalty and a straight red card. On the surface the decision looked inevitable: Kane halted, the referee pointed to the spot, and the man in red was marched off. But layers beneath the frames tell a different story than the headlines.

Law 12’s DOGSO guidance matters here: a genuine attempt to play the ball converts what would be a red into a yellow when the foul is inside the area. Slow-motion shows Quansah committing to the ball — his boot clips turf and there is contact with the ball before the collision with Kane. That split-second intention is small but decisive under the rules.

VAR and the on-field referee clipped the nuance; they punished consequence rather than intent. The penalty itself is justified because contact impeded a clear shot, yet the sending-off feels like an overreach given the evidence Quansah tried to play the ball. Procedural haste and limited camera angles handed the game a punitive twist it did not need.

My forecast: Liverpool should appeal the red and have reasonable grounds for a downgrade to yellow on retrospective review. The FA must instruct VAR to foreground intent over optics in similar incidents — otherwise high-profile errors will keep deciding results. I recommend the penalty stand, the red be rescinded, and clearer VAR protocols be issued before the next heavyweight fixture.