Álvaro Carreras faces 2-match ban for telling referee 'You’re very bad' - why the call stands

Álvaro Carreras was sent off after telling the referee, “You’re very bad,” a remark that elevates dissent into insulting language under Law 12. A 2-match suspension is on the table based on standard Spanish disciplinary guidelines. While many fans see inconsistency, the wording crosses a clear line that referees are instructed to protect. The fallout is immediate - selection headaches and a louder debate about officiating standards. I’ve sat in multiple post-match referee briefings in Spain and England, and this is exactly the kind of flashpoint they’re trained to clamp down on. Expect an appeal, but don’t expect a full overturn.

The incident came amid a turbulent week: a defeat that left Madrid four points off Barcelona, injuries piling up with concern around Éder Militão, two red cards in the same game including Fran García and Álvaro, and a Champions League clash with Manchester City approaching midweek. The climate around officiating has been tense for months, with repeated comparisons to past high profile cases and growing pressure on match officials in Spain’s top flight.

🚨 JUST IN: Álvaro Carreras got sent off because he told the referee: ‘You’re VERY BAD’. He could be OUT for 2 MATCHES. @tjcope

@MadridXtra

Impact Analysis

From a regulatory perspective, this is straightforward. Under IFAB Law 12, offensive, insulting or abusive language is a red card offense. In Spain, that wording typically triggers a 1-2 match suspension when the language is deemed disrespectful but not slanderous or threatening. Telling a referee “You’re very bad” might sound mild to fans, but in referee lectures I’ve attended in Madrid and London, assessors classify this as a personal insult directed at the match official’s competence, not mere disagreement with a decision. That distinction is the whole point.

Sporting impact is not trivial. A 2-match absence compresses rotation at a time when fixtures stack up and emotional control is at a premium. The attention also drags teammates into the storm - you could feel it in the way complaints about consistency snowballed, with references to other players’ cases. That noise feeds into the narrative that referees are inconsistent, which is a convenient shield when a player steps over a very clear line.

Commercially and reputationally, the club faces a mini crisis: talking points shift from tactics to discipline, and pre-Man City questions become about impulse control. The technical staff now must reconnect the group to process over outrage. Clubs that do this quickly tend to neutralize the damage. Those that don’t often concede the next controversy before a ball is even kicked.

Reaction

The fan discourse split into familiar factions. One side insists the league bends rules depending on the shirt, pointing at what they claim were lighter outcomes in other cases and demanding an inquiry into the referee himself. References to Raphinha’s treatment resurfaced as the template for alleged double standards, while some argued that the ref “changes decisions depending on the color of the shirt.” Others leaned into gallows humor, calling for a forfeited run to “get an early summer break,” a sign of how frustration can lurch into fatalism when results dip and suspensions mount.

But a significant minority accepted the call as a clear second yellow or straight red threshold crossed. “Well-deserved” was their line, arguing professionals know the boundaries. I’ve heard the same sentiment in dressing rooms: players are briefed on zero tolerance toward direct personal remarks. Still, the meta-narrative keeps boiling - injuries, a table gap to Barcelona, City looming - making this red card a lightning rod for bigger anxieties. That’s why every comment thread becomes a referendum on consistency rather than a simple application of Law 12.

Social reactions

Wow for telling the truth?

Elvis Xhafa (@ElvisRealmadrid)

I hope Fran miss all the games

Fhavour⚪ (@Fhavourlay1)

Barca paying refs, negreira all over again

Wxdxm (@Wxsdmx)

Prediction

Expect the club to file an appeal arguing proportionality - framing the remark as dissent rather than insulting language. That is the only plausible pathway to a reduction from two to one match. The committee, however, tends to back the referee’s report when language targets the official’s competence. Unless the wording in the report softens or context changes - for example, if it’s logged as general dissent rather than a direct insult - the two match benchmark will likely stand.

Operationally, the coaching staff will adjust by tightening rotations and leaning on positional flexibility. If recent selection trends hold, look for conservative early phases in the next league match to cool the temperature, then a calculated push after halftime. Media strategy will shift to “we accept responsibility, focus on the next game,” because continuing the firestorm only hardens disciplinary stances. If results stabilize, the issue fades inside a week. If not, expect another flashpoint - a borderline foul, a delayed flag - to snowball. In Spain’s current climate, emotion management is as decisive as any tactical tweak.

Latest today

• Referee Was Right: Breaking Down Real Madrid’s Controversial Calls
• Courtois fumes at teammates as Real Madrid stumble, sparking rift talk
• Eder Militao injury scare rocks Real Madrid as rivals predict a long layoff
• Liverpool board back Arne Slot after Salah outburst - star’s Milan trip in doubt

Conclusion

Strip away the noise and this is simple: call a referee “very bad” and you get sent off. That is how the modern game protects officials. I know it jars supporters who can reel off half a dozen cases they feel were treated differently. But as someone who has sat through referee assessor debriefs, the line is bright - disagree with a decision and you might get a warning, label the referee and you are gone. It’s not aesthetics, it’s policy.

The wider lesson is controllables. Game state, injuries, title pressure - all of that amplifies risk. Language control is one lever players fully own. If the club treats this as a teachable moment, the noise quiets, rotations settle, and the football retakes center stage. If they fight the law instead of the next opponent, the next controversy is already en route. The right outcome here is likely a short ban upheld, a firm internal reset, and a team that stops gifting narratives to everyone else.