Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?

JG3001 said:
For those saying “What if he snapped the guys ankle? It’s a red”. Pretty sure the guy who snapped Luke Shaw in half didn’t get a red
Click to expand...
It should have been red. The difference. There was no VAR back then.

The main ref this game didn't even see it as a foul in real time (allowed play to go on lead to Hojlund's counter attack chance). VAR was brought in to correct incident like what happened to Luke Shaw. So now with VAR, you get the baggage it brings regarding accidental fouls
 
Last edited:
Champ said:
Said it at the time, anyone who thinks that's a red card has either not played the game or hasn't played at a decent standard.

An absolute farce of a red card, neither reckless nor endangering an opponent.
Click to expand...
The ship has long sailed.

You catch anyone above the ankle in Europe its a red. They've been clamping down on it for years.

Doesn't matter what you think is or isn't a red. As soon as I seen the replay I knew he was gone because of the standard they have set already.
 
It shouldn't be a red card.

But it's not surprising that it was given.
 
Anyone who thinks that's a red... Now imagine someone attempts a flying volley, I'm thinking Di Canio style or Scholes Vs Bradford esq... Off the ground, sweet strike into the top corner... except on their way down they land on the ankle of a defender who's attempted to close them down.

I assume that's a disallowed goal and a red card?
 
That red is again 100% proof that more ex players or players who maybe get cut after youth football should be encouraged to take up officiating.

rashford was trying shield the ball and the defender has basically put his foot under rashfords. Looks bad slowed down but it’s pure accidental.

football is being ruined by men in office who have never played the game making random gameplay and rule changes to the game and being inforced by men who we’re probably the last picked in school so had to pick reffing
 
The fact that the Udogie tackle (two-footed and off the floor) wasn't given and this Rashford 'tackle' was highlights every single thing that is wrong with refereeing and VAR in two minutes.

The Udogie tackle was reckless, it was out of control and it was dangerous. If Sterling hadn't taken evasive action, that's a leg-breaker. This is the key point - IF Sterling hadn't taken evasive action. We were told VAR had decided it wasn't a red card because minimal contact had been made. That demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the rules and how they should be applied. The point is not whether 'enough contact' was made, the point is a about stamping out dangerous tackles.

Now for the Rashford 'tackle'. Some people seem to fundamentally misunderstand the incident. Rashford was attempting to shield the ball in a completely natural way. When the ball is loose like that, and a player is coming in to make a challenge, you have to get your body between them and the ball, and you have to plant your leg with force so that you can use your strength/body weight to resist the shoulder-challenge thats about to come in from the opponent.

The meer coincidence that the lads foot happened to occupy the same piece of turf that Rashford attempted to plant his foot in for a split second should have absolutely no bearing on the decision. Was Rushford's action dangerous? No, its a run of the mill action that happens so many times in a game without consequence. Was it reckless? No, he's in full control of his body. Was it two-footed or high? No, one-footed and foot heading down towards the ground, not up towards a players knees.

Yeah it's sore for the lad who ends up getting caught but that's football. Sometimes you get hurt. Sometimes there's an incident in game as a result of a coming together or tackle that ends in an injury and its nobody's fault. How is sending players off for accidental in-game collisions going to help anything? We want the dangerous tackles gone, but they're fine apparently as long as the opponent is quick enough and wise enough to hurdle them!
 
Lentwood said:
The fact that the Udogie tackle (two-footed and off the floor) wasn't given and this Rashford 'tackle' was highlights every single thing that is wrong with refereeing and VAR in two minutes.

The Udogie tackle was reckless, it was out of control and it was dangerous. If Sterling hadn't taken evasive action, that's a leg-breaker. This is the key point - IF Sterling hadn't taken evasive action. We were told VAR had decided it wasn't a red card because minimal contact had been made. That demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the rules and how they should be applied. The point is not whether 'enough contact' was made, the point is a about stamping out dangerous tackles.

Now for the Rashford 'tackle'. Some people seem to fundamentally misunderstand the incident. Rashford was attempting to shield the ball in a completely natural way. When the ball is loose like that, and a player is coming in to make a challenge, you have to get your body between them and the ball, and you have to plant your leg with force so that you can use your strength/body weight to resist the shoulder-challenge thats about to come in from the opponent.

The meer coincidence that the lads foot happened to occupy the same piece of turf that Rashford attempted to plant his foot in for a split second should have absolutely no bearing on the decision. Was Rushford's action dangerous? No, its a run of the mill action that happens so many times in a game without consequence. Was it reckless? No, he's in full control of his body. Was it two-footed or high? No, one-footed and foot heading down towards the ground, not up towards a players knees.

Yeah it's sore for the lad who ends up getting caught but that's football. Sometimes you get hurt. Sometimes there's an incident in game as a result of a coming together or tackle that ends in an injury and its nobody's fault. How is sending players off for accidental in-game collisions going to help anything? We want the dangerous tackles gone, but they're fine apparently as long as the opponent is quick enough and wise enough to hurdle them!
Click to expand...

You hit an opponent like this, you get sent off. If you didn't see him coming that's on you. Whether or not it's a regular motion doesn't matter. There are dozens of motions in football that aren't dangerous when you have space but dangerous if you overlook somebody.

No way anybody in here would criticize this red card if it was given against a United rival.
 
Not a red, IMHO, but I can understand why it was given in the modern game. All tackles look bad in freeze frame, but there didn’t seem to be any force in the tackle, though Rashford did go over the ball, which can lead to a red card. I don’t agree with the decision, but there have been far worse VAR errors recently.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Anyone who thinks that's a red... Now imagine someone attempts a flying volley, I'm thinking Di Canio style or Scholes Vs Bradford esq... Off the ground, sweet strike into the top corner... except on their way down they land on the ankle of a defender who's attempted to close them down.

I assume that's a disallowed goal and a red card?
Click to expand...
No, the goal scoring action would be before the reckless play, so the goal would stand. But if you don't care about how you crash into people it could still result in a card
 
If I were selling rose tinted glasses on here, I’d be a millionaire.
 
I'll repeat my post from the other thread here.

It doesn't have to be deliberate. If it's clumsy enough to be dangerous to another player then it's still a red card, in the same way that any dangerous tackle can be a red card even if the player was going for the ball. It's definitely unlucky, but Rashford was clumsy enough to go studs in with pretty much all his weight to the side of the guys ankle. He was very lucky he didn't break the ankle.
 
Zehner said:
You hit an opponent like this, you get sent off. If you didn't see him coming that's on you. Whether or not it's a regular motion doesn't matter. There are dozens of motions in football that aren't dangerous when you have space but dangerous if you overlook somebody.

No way anybody in here would criticize this red card if it was given against a United rival.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I wouldn't anyway because it's not a red card offence.

Yellow at most.
 
We've seen Rashford's red card before with Pogba and other olayers. I had no issue with the red card nor the penalty.
 
Wilt said:
If I were selling rose tinted glasses on here, I’d be a millionaire.
Click to expand...

MadDogg said:
I'll repeat my post from the other thread here.

It doesn't have to be deliberate. If it's clumsy enough to be dangerous to another player then it's still a red card, in the same way that any dangerous tackle can be a red card even if the player was going for the ball. It's definitely unlucky, but Rashford was clumsy enough to go studs in with pretty much all his weight to the side of the guys ankle. He was very lucky he didn't break the ankle.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
stefan92 said:
No, the goal scoring action would be before the reckless play, so the goal would stand. But if you don't care about how you crash into people it could still result in a card
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. If you go for an overhead kick and kick the ball and then kick someone in the head it's a foul.
 
Correct decision for the red but their pen was a joke. To be fair, we got a joke pen as well.
 
Last edited:
Annihilate Now! said:
That doesn't make any sense. If you go for an overhead kick and kick the ball and then kick someone in the head it's a foul.
Click to expand...

If you attempt a bicycle kick in a crowded area, you'll get called a foul for dangerous play. If you hit somebody while attempting a bicycle kick, you'll get called a foul whether it was intended or not. If you attempt one without hitting or endangering anybody, it is fine.

Really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. A movement can be alright in one situation but foulworthy in another one, depending on other players' positionings and movements. Rashford should have opened his eyes before going in like that. It was dumb and clumsy and a deserved red, end of story.
 
MadDogg said:
I'll repeat my post from the other thread here.

It doesn't have to be deliberate. If it's clumsy enough to be dangerous to another player then it's still a red card, in the same way that any dangerous tackle can be a red card even if the player was going for the ball. It's definitely unlucky, but Rashford was clumsy enough to go studs in with pretty much all his weight to the side of the guys ankle. He was very lucky he didn't break the ankle.
Click to expand...

it’s not clumsy at all…Rashford was shielding the ball and If Rashford’s foot come down 1 second earlier then the other player would of taken rashford out from behind and pretty high. Argument is there that the opposition player was more clumsy than Rashford.

Should we go round asking our players to slide in on set pieces in the hope that a defender when heading the ball will land on a player making it look like they forcefully landed on them….. that would be a little silly but is basically the same.

I can see why the still picture and slow motion makes it look bad but I don’t believe it’s even a foul, let alone a red card.
 
I'm moving this to this thread instead of having the conversation in two different threads.

Oranges038 said:
It's not a tackle or deliberate, he has to put his studs down because he's planting his foot for balance to protect the ball. He's not even looked at the player, if he looked at his and threw his full weight down with excessive force that's a red.

That's not what happened, there's no way that should be a red. j
Click to expand...
As I said, it doesn't have to be deliberate.

Rashford chose to step over the ball and try to block an opposition player. He misjudged the way he did it and ended up almost breaking the guys ankle. It was accidental, but the way he did it was clumsy enough that it ended up being dangerous.

A player going to kick the ball, missing it and going studs up hard into an opposition players shin or thigh is a red card. A player going for a slide tackle, missing the ball and hitting an opposition in a dangerous way is a red card. And so on. While intent does matter to some extent, the end result matters more and if somebody misjudges what they are doing and ultimately makes a dangerous play then it's a sending off.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Anyone who thinks that's a red... Now imagine someone attempts a flying volley, I'm thinking Di Canio style or Scholes Vs Bradford esq... Off the ground, sweet strike into the top corner... except on their way down they land on the ankle of a defender who's attempted to close them down.

I assume that's a disallowed goal and a red card?
Click to expand...
With VAR anno2023 and some team out of favor then yeah :D
 
MadDogg said:
I'm moving this to this thread instead of having the conversation in two different threads.


As I said, it doesn't have to be deliberate.

Rashford chose to step over the ball and try to block an opposition player. He misjudged the way he did it and ended up almost breaking the guys ankle. It was accidental, but the way he did it was clumsy enough that it ended up being dangerous.

A player going to kick the ball, missing it and going studs up hard into an opposition players shin or thigh is a red card. A player going for a slide tackle, missing the ball and hitting an opposition in a dangerous way is a red card. And so on. While intent does matter to some extent, the end result matters more and if somebody misjudges what they are doing and ultimately makes a dangerous play then it's a sending off.
Click to expand...

Did the player have to go off because of his almost broken ankle?

Or did finish the 90 mins?
 
Zehner said:
If you attempt a bicycle kick in a crowded area, you'll get called a foul for dangerous play. If you hit somebody while attempting a bicycle kick, you'll get called a foul whether it was intended or not. If you attempt one without hitting or endangering anybody, it is fine.

Really don't get what's so hard to understand about this. A movement can be alright in one situation but foulworthy in another one, depending on other players' positionings and movements. Rashford should have opened his eyes before going in like that. It was dumb and clumsy and a deserved red, end of story.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely ridiculous - the bloke was nowhere near where he went to put his leg down when he started his movement.

The point is ANY movement can be dangerous if an opposition player sticks his ankle under you. Literally walking around a football pitch could be dangerous.
 
Pretty much anything that you choose to view in slow motion or even worse a single frame is going to look terrible compared with normal speed.
And that is the problem with technology/VAR.
 
It’s one that I can remember having seen a few similar instances of so it’s not as hard to swallow as some of the recent nonsense decisions we had against us.

However these things should never even be a yellow nevermind a red. There’s no intent it just a consequence of a contact sport. If Rashfords foot hits the ground first there’s a good chance that the Gothenburg player gets a red. It’s stupid. Neither player has any intent or malice. It’s pure consequence.
 
Oranges038 said:
Did the player have to go off because of his almost broken ankle?

Or did finish the 90 mins?
Click to expand...
Do we need to wait for players to get injured before carding fouls now?
Annihilate Now! said:
That's absolutely ridiculous - the bloke was nowhere near where he went to put his leg down when he started his movement.

The point is ANY movement can be dangerous if an opposition player sticks his ankle under you. Literally walking around a football pitch could be dangerous.
Click to expand...
Any movement can be dangerous yet not all movements actually are. Rashford's movement was dangerous.

Everyone wants to keep bringing intent or chance into the decision but neither of those things had anything to do with the red card. Did Rashford make a foul? Yes. Was the actual foul endangering the other player's safety? Yes. Red card.

Those are the rules. Whether it would have been given before VAR should not be a factor either. That a dangerous action could have been missed in real time doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous and shouldn't be punished.
 
I think both the red and pen were those that you could argue either way, it just feels as though every single debatable decision is going against us at the moment, whereas a Newcastle/City seem to be getting it the other way. If Casemiro had punched someone round the back of the head like Guimaraes did, it would have been a nailed on red card.
 
MadDogg said:
I'll repeat my post from the other thread here.

It doesn't have to be deliberate. If it's clumsy enough to be dangerous to another player then it's still a red card, in the same way that any dangerous tackle can be a red card even if the player was going for the ball. It's definitely unlucky, but Rashford was clumsy enough to go studs in with pretty much all his weight to the side of the guys ankle. He was very lucky he didn't break the ankle.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't clumsy at all. He was shielding the ball, this is something that's taught from a young age and is regularly done. It was an accident, pure and simple and never a red card.
 
antk said:
Do we need to wait for players to get injured before carding fouls now?

Any movement can be dangerous yet not all movements actually are. Rashford's movement was dangerous.

Everyone wants to keep bringing intent or chance into the decision but neither of those things had anything to do with the red card. Did Rashford make a foul? Yes. Was the actual foul endangering the other player's safety? Yes. Red card.

Those are the rules. Whether it would have been given before VAR should not be a factor either. That a dangerous action could have been missed in real time doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous and shouldn't be punished.
Click to expand...

Nope, but if you're going to say he almost broke the players ankle, then you would expect that said player would be hurt, require treatment or have to go off. Did any of that happen?

It was at most a yellow card and a free kick.
 
Would anyone be complaining if an opponent was sent off for the same?

Intent by the letter of the current laws is irrelevant, and it's pretty obvious why this was given.
 
antk said:
Do we need to wait for players to get injured before carding fouls now?

Any movement can be dangerous yet not all movements actually are. Rashford's movement was dangerous.

Everyone wants to keep bringing intent or chance into the decision but neither of those things had anything to do with the red card. Did Rashford make a foul? Yes. Was the actual foul endangering the other player's safety? Yes. Red card.

Those are the rules. Whether it would have been given before VAR should not be a factor either. That a dangerous action could have been missed in real time doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous and shouldn't be punished.
Click to expand...

It wasn't dangerous though - beause he could do that movement 100 times, land normally on the floor and nobody would bat an eye-lid. The game would continue, there wouldn't be a foul, let alone a sending off.

A dangerous movement would be punishable even if it didn't make any contact (think Udogie vs. Chelsea).... otherwise you're punishing a dangerous outcome, not a dangeorus movement, which is exactly what happened here. The outcome was "dangerous" (though it actually wasn't all that dangerous) and he's been punished for that, which is why it's ridiculous, because the outcome of any movement could - in theory - be dangerous.
 
groovyalbert said:
Would anyone be complaining if an opponent was sent off for the same?

Intent by the letter of the current laws is irrelevant, and it's pretty obvious why this was given.
Click to expand...

I would be yes - much like I think the penalty we got was absolutely ridiculous and should never ever be a penalty.
 
seems a bit harsh to get a red for that, although technically it's a red I guess?

sometimes the timing just makes it worse than it is

seems like a sin-bin would be a better punishment for stuff like this
 
To all that say it was a clear red.. So every time someone accidentally steps on someone's foot on a pitch is a clear red now? Because that's what that was. Rashford didn't even know his foot was there!
 
Oranges038 said:
Did the player have to go off because of his almost broken ankle?

Or did finish the 90 mins?
Click to expand...
A player being lucky enough not to receive an injury from a dangerous action doesn't mean it's not a red card. Just like a player being unlucky enough to receive an injury from a perfectly fine tackle doesn't mean it is a red card.

The action is what matters. In this case, Rashford deliberately stepped over the ball to block a player off, and was clumsy enough that he went studs straight into the side of that players ankle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.