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

[(...)]

First day of my second year in uni, we challenge the first year students. I did the exact same thing as Rashford, poor guy got his ankle broken and got crutches for 2 months at the most important time of his uni social life.
It's not a red card, var was wrong, I refuse to carry that burden.

 

[Oranges038]

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.

It's still not a red card offence, there's no intent or excessive force.

 

[christinaa]

VAR has fecked football because it's become the MAIN protagonist and is checking many instances that should not be checked.

Now if you told me that VAR should check whether Maradona scored with his hand then yes that needs VAR but now VAR has rendered referees slaves of the VAR team obeying them when they signal anything.

Where's the beauty of football now - waiting 4/5 minutes to rejoice or not for anything under the sun?!
Wicked, crooked and so many other adjectives.

 

[Crimson King]

First day of my second year in uni, we challenge the first year students. I did the exact same thing as Rashford, poor guy got his ankle broken and got crutches for 2 months at the most important time of his uni social life.
It's not a red card, var was wrong, I refuse to carry that burden.

Accidents happen, mate.

 

[tomaldinho1]

It's still not a red card offence, there's no intent or excessive force.

I think it is, it's just unlucky. Kind of like if you didn't know a player was near you and went to control a ball in the air and studded them accidentally in the thigh, if they go down and roll around screaming, the ref really has to give a red.

Problem is consistency because it seems a lottery what VAR will bother to look at.

 

[stefan92]

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!

He didn't step on his foot but his ankle, that's where the line is drawn. Both putting their foot in the same spot on top of each other while protected by the shoe isn't an issue. But Rashford just made contact far too high where the body is vulnerable and isn't protected. That's what made it dangerous play.

 

[antk]

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.

You keep wanting the intent to be judged instead of the outcome, but the rule both in wording and current jurisprudence prioritizes the outcome. Take it to the IFAB and FIFA but for now in football this is an obvious red card.

 

[christinaa]

So how come the VAR team chose to not see the offside in the Copenhagen first goal ?
Do they choose and pick what they want the referee to verify from the comfort of their VAR room ?
Michael Oliver (wearing a Newcastle shirt) will always help Newcastle and come down hard on United from the VAR room.

 

[groovyalbert]

I would be yes - much like I think the penalty we got was absolutely ridiculous and should never ever be a penalty.

But that's presumably a frustration at the laws rather than the decision? They're different responses. I can't see how any decision was wrong yesterday based on the current laws.

I agree that the laws are phenomenally harsh in their current form, but the decisions by those same laws are correct.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

You keep wanting the intent to be judged instead of the outcome, but the rule both in wording and current jurisprudence prioritizes the outcome. Take it to the IFAB and FIFA but for now in football this is an obvious red card.

But the point is - by that standard - ANY action on the football pitch - running, walking, jumping could be a red card offence if the outcome is "dangerous" - which is absolutely ridiculous.

I also don't think this would be a red card in the Premier League by the way, we saw a few instances last season with people putting in tackles above the foot and not getting a red card (VVD definitely had one last season and just got a yellow).

 

[RedIan]

VAR is completely ruining the football Ive adored for 50 years. slowing down and freeze framing video shots of an incident thats over in a fraction of a second. Referees then spending 5-10 minutes studying still shots to make a decision.

Before VAR referee's made instant decisions on what they saw. If they are called to the screen, decisions should be instantly clear, if you need 5 minutes to decide then there is obviously an element of doubt And when in doubt “do nowt”
It seems like every ref called to a screen for a possible red card or offside goal etc then overturns the on field decision.
Im sure there has been isolated incidents where a ref has shown some balls and stuck to the on field decision but I dont recall any.

Not sure what the answer is, pre var, everyone was screaming we need var, now everyones screaming var is ruining football. Its ruining it for me.

 

[stefan92]

So how come the VAR team chose to not see the offside in the Copenhagen first goal ?
Do they choose and pick what they want the referee to verify from the comfort of their VAR room ?
Michael Oliver (wearing a Newcastle shirt) will always help Newcastle and come down hard on United from the VAR room.

They also didn't react to Maguire touching the ball with his hand before the penalty for United. VAR performance was just shit, but somewhat level for both teams

 

[Annihilate Now!]

But that's presumably a frustration at the laws rather than the decision? They're different responses. I can't see how any decision was wrong yesterday based on the current laws.

I agree that the laws are phenomenally harsh in their current form, but the decisions by those same laws are correct.

Oh yeh, the law is an ass - which is my whole point really, and totally goes against common sense.

I do think Rashford has been punished to the the absolute Nth degree of the law though - and I don't think he'd have been sent off in the Premier League.

 

[Escobar]

Is this even up for debate. VAR is fecked and the wrong decision once more.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

So how come the VAR team chose to not see the offside in the Copenhagen first goal ?
Do they choose and pick what they want the referee to verify from the comfort of their VAR room ?
Michael Oliver (wearing a Newcastle shirt) will always help Newcastle and come down hard on United from the VAR room.

Because there wasn't any offside, i guess? Since 1990, a player being behind the defence when the ball is played isn't an automatic offside. Onana has a clear view of the shot, it's not VAR's fault he forgot to extend his arm while diving. That's what actually helps goalies save shots.

 

[GiveItToGi...nowait]

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.

“dumb and clumsy” wtf are you talking about? You are literally taught to get your body between the man and the ball at schoolboy level, he was unlucky the lad decided to place his ankle exactly where his foot was landing. It was an accident where nothing serious happened.

It’s a yellow card at most

 

[Zehner]

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.

Nowhere near Yeah, he totally appeared out of nowhere and threw himself under Rashford's studs, like the masochistic footballer equivalent of a lemming frantically throwing himself off a cliff.

Seriously, even if Rashford didn't see him coming, it is on him. Awareness is a key attribute for a footballer and if you hit somebody like this, you can't blame it on "not having seen him". Honestly, if Rashford didn't see him coming in that situation, that's amateurish. Anyway, Rashford obviously did see him because, you know, he tried to shield the ball from him. Clear red.

 

[norm87cro]

To be honest it was a dodgy decision for the pen a match before as well but Onana saved and nobody made an issue about it. Now that has actually fecked us we have a thread. But this is euro fotball always going against english teams so its not comparible to Oliver. We are in a sorry state but 2 0 there is no reason for the ref to make himself centre of attention

 

[NotoriousISSY]

First day of my second year in uni, we challenge the first year students. I did the exact same thing as Rashford, poor guy got his ankle broken and got crutches for 2 months at the most important time of his uni social life.
It's not a red card, var was wrong, I refuse to carry that burden.

Was his ankle made from rubber bands and paper?

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Nowhere near Yeah, he totally appeared out of nowhere and threw himself under Rashford's studs, like the masochistic footballer equivalent of a lemming frantically throwing himself off a cliff.

Seriously, even if Rashford didn't see him coming, it is on him. Awareness is a key attribute for a footballer and if you hit somebody like this, you can't blame it on "not having seen him". Honestly, if Rashford didn't see him coming in that situation, that's amateurish. Anyway, Rashford obviously did see him because, you know, he tried to shield the ball from him. Clear red.

Well - basically yeah! His leg wasn't anywhere near where Rashford went to plant his leg before he started his move - you're literally expecting him to be a mind reader.

Should all footballers now be expected to predict where oppositions legs are going to go? Is that the bar we're now holding them to? Because that's daft.

 

[ColvaleGoa]

Robbie Savage is a professional troll. He would say the sky was green and the grass was blue if it meant the camera was on him for 10 more seconds

Like someone suggested ,might just be bitter about Charley. But he was on one yesterday.

 

[Zehner]

Well - basically yeah! His leg wasn't anywhere near where Rashford went to plant his leg before he started his move - you're literally expecting him to be a mind reader.

Should all footballers now be expected to predict where oppositions legs are going to go? Is that the bar we're now holding them to? Because that's daft.

What the feck The only reason Rashford does this motion is because he sees the Kopenhagen payer running at him.

Jesus, you guys are like those helicopter moms who can't admit their child did something stupid. It is really, really cringeworthy.

 

[Camilo]

It's clearly a straight red.

This place has gone full Liverpool from 10 years ago. "It's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy, la la la la laaaa, la la la la laaaa".

"Everyone's against us" - no, we're just shit.

 

[Gazautd18]

Torn on this.
Can't say it was definite red or not.
Soon as I saw it thought he was going to get sent off for it.
Sure if it happened to one of ours we would be pissed if the opponent didn't see red.
Reminded me of Van Dijk's challenge vs Onana.
Yellow card given but could have been a red.

 

[mctrials23]

Not a red in my book. When you go to block off a player you have to move your feet. Sometime the opposition player will plant their foot exactly where yours is going. Its bad luck but its not intentionally dangerous. Its not out of control and its not malicious.

Pogba got in trouble for it quite a few times.

It all happened in a split second as well.

 

[Ole's screen]

He didn't step on his foot but his ankle, that's where the line is drawn. Both putting their foot in the same spot on top of each other while protected by the shoe isn't an issue. But Rashford just made contact far too high where the body is vulnerable and isn't protected. That's what made it dangerous play.

He didn't step on either actually. The opposing player moves his foot to where Rashford's foot is about to land unbeknownst to him.

 

[JJ12]

It's clearly a straight red.

This place has gone full Liverpool from 10 years ago. "It's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy, la la la la laaaa, la la la la laaaa".

"Everyone's against us" - no, we're just shit.

I think it was a red, probably.

But, we’ve definitely been shagged by VAR this season in a lot of instances.

 

[Zehner]

He didn't step on either actually. The opposing player moves his foot to where Rashford's foot is about to land unbeknownst to him.

Or in other words, Rashford was too late. The time window in which he could have shielded the ball was already over because the opponent was too close. He tried anyway and - as said - was too late.

I mean, the way you word it, it sounds as if Rashford had already officially declared the land his foot is about to land his own and the opponent player has only himself to blame for occupying space that legally belongs to Rashford.

 

[groovyalbert]

Oh yeh, the law is an ass - which is my whole point really, and totally goes against common sense.

I do think Rashford has been punished to the the absolute Nth degree of the law though - and I don't think he'd have been sent off in the Premier League.

I'd like to think so, but I think Casemiro was sent off for lesser challenges in the PL last season.

I'm still not convinced by the Rashford challenge last night, regardless of the law. Yes he's going to protect the ball but he clearly has no real eye on the opposition player (in a dangerous way) and his leg is as extended as it can be. It was a nasty challenge that could have resulted in a far worse injury and - at best - Rashford wasn't entirely in control of.

 

[Ole's screen]

Or in other words, Rashford was too late. The time window in which he could have shielded the ball was already over because the opponent was too close. He tried anyway and - as said - was too late.

I mean, the way you word it, it sounds as if Rashford had already officially declared the land his foot is about to land his own and the opponent player has only himself to blame for occupying space that legally belongs to Rashford.

Yes if you're jumping and an opponent lies down in front of you after you've jumped and before you land, its not your responsibility if that person gets hurt. And neither should it be on a football pitch.

 

[antohan]

Well - basically yeah! His leg wasn't anywhere near where Rashford went to plant his leg before he started his move - you're literally expecting him to be a mind reader.

Should all footballers now be expected to predict where oppositions legs are going to go? Is that the bar we're now holding them to? Because that's daft.

For the record, I think both you and @Zehner are partially right.

He is right in that Rashford quite clearly stretches his leg far out to prevent the rival knicking the ball from his left. He is aware he is coming for it, his upper body isn't a sufficient shield so he "makes himself big" planting his leg far out on his left.

You are right in that the fact he wound up planting his foot on the rival's ankle was unintended, accidental and only happened because the Copenhagen player went flying into a challenge hoping to either disposses Rashford or make him turn back right and into the other Copenhagen player.

Regular football incident, get up, get on with it. Worst case it's a yellow.

 

[grahamo]

VAR is the only thing making that a red. There was no intention. It isn't malicious. Completely accidental. Without VAR that would not have even been a yellow.

 

[Zehner]

Yes if you're jumping and an opponent lies down in front of you after you've jumped and before you land, its not your responsibility if that person gets hurt. And neither should it be on a football pitch.

Because that's clearly what happened

This thread is a case study for cognitive dissonances. Unbelievable.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

What the feck The only reason Rashford does this motion is because he sees the Kopenhagen payer running at him.

Jesus, you guys are like those helicopter moms who can't admit their child did something stupid. It is really, really cringeworthy.

Nah you're just expecting Rashford to be some sort of footballing savant who can predict where the opponent is going to place his leg. There is a big difference in knowing there's an opposition player in your vacinity then knowing he's going to put his leg where you're going to put yours - you do know the bloke put his foot in right? He wasn't just stood still.

If the bloke was just stood still and Rashford planted his leg into him then yeah, you'd have a point - he probably should open his eyes - but considering he had turned around to shield the ball and the player was moving in simultaenously, it's absolutely ridiculous for you to suggest he should have known the opposition leg is going to be there.

Anyone who has played football before has done a similar movement with opposition players around you.

 

[Lentwood]

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.

Completely flawed logic - by your interpretation, I could attempt to tackle an opponent in full flight with my face, and if I get caught at all by their boot/studs in doing so, that's on them and they should be sent off for endangering me.

This is why VAR doesn't work in football. The rules of football are supposed to be interpreted by experienced professionals who understand them. They were never meant to be hard and fast, black and white rules. That's why games like tennis or cricket suit VAR and games like football don't.

In tennis, a ball is in or it is out. In cricket, the batsman nicked the ball or he did not.

However, if a player catches another player on the top of the ankle with their studs, is that a red card for dangerous play or is it bad luck, an accidental collision? Well, that all depends on the context.

VAR lacks context, as does your interpretation. It is attempting to take the human element out, and that makes the game intolerable and nonsensical.

 

[Lyng]

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.

I want our players to slide under every player going for a. header in the future....easy reds

 

[evil_geko]

It's clearly a straight red.

This place has gone full Liverpool from 10 years ago. "It's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy, la la la la laaaa, la la la la laaaa".

"Everyone's against us" - no, we're just shit.

No conspiracy, just idiotic VAR decisions, and no, it is not a red.

 

[antohan]

Because that's clearly what happened

This thread is a case study for cognitive dissonances. Unbelievable.

I don't think anyone is arguing the oppo player deliberately stuck his foot in to get stamped on.

It all happens relatively quickly, neither was deliberately doing anything with a view to having that stamp as the final outcome.

 

[Matt007a]

I can see for and against really. It's accidental but it's also dangerous.

I think the handball penalties were far worse decisions for both teams.

 

[bosnian_red]

They also didn't react to Maguire touching the ball with his hand before the penalty for United. VAR performance was just shit, but somewhat level for both teams

We got 1 decision, they had 5 match defining questionable decisions (Rashford red, offside on goal, their pen, no 2nd yellow after the hit on hojlund, ball didn't go out of play for a corner before their 3rd). Don't go there.