Look at the still that conveniently shows the worst point of the incident? It ends up looking as bad as it does because it's such a technically poor challenge, he extends beyond the ball, he hasn't intentionally gone over it to nobble Neto. It's just a wank attempt at a challenge from a bloke who can probably count on one hand the number of similar challenges he's ever had to make on one hand.
Done a bit of searching to see if there's any guidance to see where precedent would lie with potentially conflicting laws, eg would violent conduct supersede double jeopardy or vice versa. Actually quite surprised by the wording for violent conduct on the FA website...
VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent
when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Didn't anticipate that bit in bold being in there at all but then that wording seems to get contradicted in another section about sending off offences...
SENDING OFF
Sending-off offences include (but are not limited to):
delaying the restart of play by the opposing team e.g. holding onto the ball, kicking the ball away, obstructing the movement of a player
deliberately leaving the technical area to:
show dissent towards, or remonstrate with, a match official
act in a provocative or inflammatory manner
enter the opposing technical area in an aggressive or confrontational manner
deliberately throwing/kicking an object onto the field of play
entering the field of play to:
confront a match official (including at half-time and full-time)
interfere with play, an opposing player or a match official
entering the video operation room (VOR)
physical or aggressive behaviour (including spitting or biting) towards an opposing player, substitute, team official, match official, spectator or any
other person (e.g. ball boy/girl, security or competition official etc.)
receiving a second caution in the same match
using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
using unauthorised electronic or communication equipment and/or behaving in an inappropriate manner as a result of using electronic or communication equipment
violent conduct
OFFENCES WHERE AN OBJECT (OR THE BALL) IS THROWN
In all cases, the referee takes the appropriate disciplinary action:
reckless – caution the offender for unsporting behaviour
using excessive force – send off the offender for violent conduct.
Think the formatting might be a bit messed up on that italicized section, capitalized terms seem to be subheadings elsewhere but reckless/excessive force doesn't seem to fit in with objects being thrown to me.
Anyway, seems they've dragged excessive force into violent conduct despite their previous wording suggesting it only applied to off the ball incidents, seems would be easier to just have excessive force as its own offense rather than some fudged logic that goes against their own description but whatever. Still doesn't give any suggestion where precedence should lie between violent conduct and double jeopardy, it's undoubtedly an attempt to play the ball (a successful one of sorts too given he rolls over the top of it) so can see the logic in the booking through double jeopardy as it concedes a penalty. Though can see why some would consider it excessive force, and in turn that's apparently violent conduct which would bring about a red card.
Perhaps the referee has got himself trapped in a pointless logic loop like me but instead decided he's got better ways to spend his time so just gave the booking and opted to put it down as reckless rather than excessive in his report which warrants the caution he granted.
