And while the penalty announcement for Achim Pen's foul used the words "hit with the arm" similar to Karanga's, the actual process was markedly different.
First of all, at that time, Henan released the ball on the edge of the backfield near the center line. Achimpen, who was ready to receive the ball, made a shoving (pushing) motion that looked related to the opposing defender (Song Haoyu). The latter covered his face and fell to the ground, triggering a skirmish between the two players. After watching the video replay, the referee showed Achimpen a red card and sent him off.
In fact, it would be accurate to say that Achim Pen was trying to get away from his opponent's pulling (note that word) by reaching out and pushing his opponent as he began to burst forward. It should be noted that this is a very common offensive and defensive entanglement move in soccer. At the very least, Achim Pen did not stop to look at his opponent, nor did he subjectively and intentionally "hit" his opponent.
If the referee hadn't called the foul on Karanga, then Achimpen's red card would have been the correct call. But taking a step back, even if Achimpen's foul was subjective and intentional, it was much less serious and less damaging to the opponent than Karanga's foul.
The second is a reading of the rules that penalizes Achimpen significantly more.
The penalties for Karanga and Achimpen are based on Rules 48 and 53 of the CFA Disciplinary (2024) (hereinafter referred to as the Code). A case-by-case reading of these two rules requires an accurate understanding of the penalty imposed by the CFA on Achimpen.
Article 48 falls within the definition of severe punishment in chapter II, general provisions, section V, Decision and enforcement of penalties, of the guidelines. It covers two situations, one of which is "head, face, crotch and other parts of the body that are violated".
Article 53 is in chapter III, "Penalties", section I, "Disciplinary acts in matches". It emphasizes four types of misconduct against an opponent (other than a match official): serious foul play (especially brute force), unsportsmanlike conduct (offensive, insulting or degrading words, gestures or gestures), violent acts (elbows, punches or kicks, etc.), and spitting at an opponent or another person.
According to the penalty announcement, Achimpen's foul was characterized as an act of violence. The corresponding fine, at least 3 matches suspension, a fine of at least 30,000 yuan. Because the "hit" is the opponent's "neck", it is recognized as an act that must be severely punished. Taken together, the above penalties were finally meted out.
Based on the above analysis, Karanga's strike was a very clear act of foul play or in retaliation for being pinned down by an opponent (resulting in a loss of possession). The FA personally thought his penalty was very accurate.
In contrast, Achimpen's foul had two distinctive features: first, he did not commit the foul in situ, but pushed forward in order to escape from the opponent's pull; second, from the whole process, Achimpen's "strike" was not intended to strike, that is to say, he did not have the obvious subjective foul and malicious retaliatory intent. There is a fundamental difference between Achimpen's foul and Karanga's foul, which was at least retaliatory in nature.
In other words, Archimphon's hand (arm?) did make contact with his opponent's head, but whether it was a "push" or a "hit" is debatable. did make contact with the opponent's head, but whether it was a "push" or a "hit" is debatable. During the match, side B accidentally pushed or even caught side A's head (neck, face, etc.). . Are they all recognized as "strikes"? Are they all characterized as "committing an act of violence" and must be punished severely?
Of course, as a bystander, it's hard to tell whether Achimpen's foul was intentional or unintentional, a factor that isn't considered in the guidelines (the referee is commenting on or considering it). But as noted above, it is indeed difficult to characterize Achimpen's foul as violent.
The conclusion is that a red card would have sufficed for the foul committed by Achim Pen. If an additional penalty is to be imposed, it should be characterized as a "serious foul", i.e., a one-match suspension and a fine of $10,000 to top it off.
To add insult to injury, Karanga ended up only stopping four games because he missed the red card. Achimpen received an automatic one-game suspension for the red card, plus an additional penalty for a five-game suspension. In contrast, Achimpen and Henan suffered more.
