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

[Zehner]

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.

This is getting ridiculous. Rashford sees him coming, he misjudges the amount of time he has left before the opponent arrives, attempts a last second shield and hits the player in red worthy manner on shin height. Not the first time it happened, won't be the last time and it is a red now and then. It is actually quite easy, he tried to put his foot where somebody else already was in an active and conscious way, not by tumbling or falling or by any other way in which you could void him of any blame. As I said, there would be zero discussion about whether or not the red was justified if it happened the other way round.

And I've played enough football in my life and to a decent enough standard to know that this is bad awareness and timing by Rashford. It is clumsy and stupid, nothing more to it.

 

[Houdini]

I have no problem to criticise players for being donkeys expeceally when they are sent off but this time th eVAR fecked us bi time. Rashfords form is attrocious but this was not his fault at all. Stupid decision. Both pens were soft as feck and it just ruins the flow of the game. These decisions about handballs are not consistent it is completly random.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

This is getting ridiculous. Rashford sees him coming, he misjudges the amount of time he has left before the opponent arrives, attempts a last second shield and hits the player in red worthy manner on shin height. Not the first time it happened, won't be the last time and it is a red now and then. It is actually quite easy, he tried to put his foot where somebody else already was in an active and conscious way, not by tumbling or falling or by any other way in which you could void him of any blame. As I said, there would be zero discussion about whether or not the red was justified if it happened the other way round.

And I've played enough football in my life and to a decent enough standard to know that this is bad awareness and timing by Rashford. It is clumsy and stupid, nothing more to it.

Yeah you almost certainly haven't.

Rashford should "open his eyes" .... Christ.

 

[evil_geko]

Also, where was the second yellow/red for Copenhagen player elbowing Rasmus? VAR didn't even check that ffs.

 

[christinaa]

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

The main difference being that United were playing with ten men - so nothing level.

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.

He was disturbing Onana's view and Ten Hag said it too.

 

[Zehner]

Yeah you almost certainly haven't.

Rashford should "open his eyes" .... Christ.

Believe what you want. Fact is, Rashford sees Jelert coming and realizes that the ball is open and Jelert has a pace advantage. He has not enough time to dribble away so the more primising option is block Jelerts path to the ball, so Rashford tries to position his body between the ball and Jelert, turning his back towards him losing sight but being completely aware that he's arriving. But Jelert is quicker than Rashford estimated and places his foot where Rashford wanted to place his. Rashford hits him redworthy at shin height. Rashford didn't see this coming but he knew it could happen as Jelert was approaching him - in fact, that was the very reason for his blocking attempt. Jelert was going for the ball and Rashford was simply too slow, the same way defenders are sometimes too slow when attempting tackles. And when you're too slow and hit an opponent, that's on you.

Rashford should have realized that the ball is lost and it is too late to shield it. Maybe clear it for a throw in or let Jelert get to it and then pressure him again. But it was too late for shielding. He risked it anyway and almost broke Jelert's ankle. Clear red.

 

[SouthMancRed]

In the VAR world it was but in the real world it wasn't. Sadly we live in the VAR world now.

 

[JohnnyLaw]

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.

So say two players butt heads whilst challenging for a header, should both of them be sent off because they could’ve given eachother a concussion?

 

[lex talionis]

The Rashford red card was insane yet entirely predictable. Even on VAR you see it was neither violent nor reckless.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

The main difference being that United were playing with ten men - so nothing level.



He was disturbing Onana's view and Ten Hag said it too.

He wasn't obstructing Onana's view at the time of the shot, and i believe no one had even mentioned it before ETH's presser. The red card incident is a matter of debate, since either decision can be justified by the rules of the game. But, as someone mentioned, we're slowly getting to RAWKish levels of paranoia with the officials. It's true that we can't catch a break, but the main reason we so desperately need that break is because we are a very bad football team. Not because everybody's out to get us.

 

[rcoobc]

In Sunday league, I get my foot stood once every few matches.

Ive never cried about it.

 

[Acrobat7]

I am confused that there is such a big thread about it. I saw it yesterday and instantly thought: "clear red".

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Believe what you want. Fact is, Rashford sees Jelert coming and realizes that the ball is open and Jelert has a pace advantage. He has not enough time to dribble away so the more primising option is block Jelerts path to the ball, so Rashford tries to position his body between the ball and Jelert, turning his back towards him losing sight but being completely aware that he's arriving. But Jelert is quicker than Rashford estimated and places his foot where Rashford wanted to place his. Rashford hits him redworthy at shin height. Rashford didn't see this coming but he knew it could happen as Jelert was approaching him - in fact, that was the very reason for his blocking attempt. Jelert was going for the ball and Rashford was simply too slow, the same way defenders are sometimes too slow when attempting tackles. And when you're too slow and hit an opponent, that's on you.

Rashford should have realized that the ball is lost and it is too late to shield it. Maybe clear it for a throw in or let Jelert get to it and then pressure him again. But it was too late for shielding. He risked it anyway and almost broke Jelert's ankle. Clear red.

I mean that's a lot of ways to be wrong in one post:



Pace Advantage: Nope. Not enough time to dribble? Nope - Rashford could quite easily have ran off with the ball if he opted to.




And Rashford moves to shield the ball with a good bit of distance between himself and Jelert. This is where he starts at movement and at no point would he think he's about to land on Jelert's ankle.




This is literally just before Rashford's foot goes down - at this point any normal player would stop, realising the ball is about to be shielded, however Jelert doesn't and goes in for a ball he can't win and takes the hit.

The idea that you think Rashford has lost the ball is plainly wrong... and that he should "open his eyes" and could have predicted that outcome is daft. A reminder - this was your original post.

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.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I mean that's a lot of ways to be wrong in one post:



Pace Advantage: Nope. Not enough time to dribble? Nope - Rashford could quite easily have ran off with the ball if he opted to.




And Rashford moves to shield the ball with a good bit of distance between himself and Jelert. This is where he starts at movement and at no point would he think he's about to land on Jelert's ankle.




This is literally just before Rashford's foot goes down - at this point any normal player would stop, realising the ball is about to be shielded, however Jelert doesn't and goes in for a ball he can't win and takes the hit.

The idea that you think Rashford has lost the ball is plainly wrong... and that he should "open his eyes" and could have predicted that outcome is daft. A reminder - this was your original post.

That's a good point. The ball was never there for Jelert to win. He tried to go through the back of Rashford to get at it and paid a price. The referee saw all of this unfold in real time. Rashford shielding the ball, Jelert trying to kick through him and coming off worse. So playing on was the correct decision.

Only when we have slo mo/freeze frame replays (and the whole world looking over the referee's shoulder, after he's been asked to second guess his original call) does this look like anything other than a correct onfield decision.

 

[Grande]

Having had a few mins to settle I think it probably IS a red, albeit a harsh one.

The laws of the game are quite clear about 'dangerous' play being a red, and it was a dangerous way to try and shield the ball

Definitely no intent however and the slow-mo replays need to stop

No, I disagree strongly with both this interpretation of the rules, and the interpretation of the situation.

All that should be itrelevant, because the VAR ref shall not intervene on something they deem to ‘probably warrant a red card’. They are instructed to only intervene in tha case of a clear AND obvious error. So by your descrption, should never hve been given.

Still, it is not correct that all that can be considered dangerous play shall be a red, this is not the laws of the game. Dangerous play is mentioned in the context of indirect free kicks, and the Kbh player is as responsible under that law as Rashford, seeing as Rashford is closest to the ball and the Kbh player throws himself into his way, similar to if you lower your head and a player almost kicks or undeliberately hits you, it is you who are responsible for the dangerous play.

Sending off demands Violent conduct, and excessive force or use of brutality, direct challenge with excessive force or deliberate use of brutal means. None of these apply in the faintest to Rashford, who tries to shield the ball, is at worst clumsy, and he uses no more force than what is normal in setting down your foot. To confuse this with violent conduct, deliberate excessive force or brutality is clearly misjudgement.

And what it definately can never be, is a clear and obvious error the view it differently.

 

[Grande]

Believe what you want. Fact is, Rashford sees Jelert coming and realizes that the ball is open and Jelert has a pace advantage. He has not enough time to dribble away so the more primising option is block Jelerts path to the ball, so Rashford tries to position his body between the ball and Jelert, turning his back towards him losing sight but being completely aware that he's arriving. But Jelert is quicker than Rashford estimated and places his foot where Rashford wanted to place his. Rashford hits him redworthy at shin height. Rashford didn't see this coming but he knew it could happen as Jelert was approaching him - in fact, that was the very reason for his blocking attempt. Jelert was going for the ball and Rashford was simply too slow, the same way defenders are sometimes too slow when attempting tackles. And when you're too slow and hit an opponent, that's on you.

Rashford should have realized that the ball is lost and it is too late to shield it. Maybe clear it for a throw in or let Jelert get to it and then pressure him again. But it was too late for shielding. He risked it anyway and almost broke Jelert's ankle. Clear red.

Thats an extremely fanciful and onesided way to view the incident … and even by that description it isn’t a red card. I think probably you conflate the action and the consequence.

And even allowing for fanciful interpretation and conflating the relevant with the irrelevant, it is a good demonstration that this can never bea clear and obvious case.

 

[Shinjch]

Struggling to rationalise the justifications for this red card. Just because someone gets hurt in an action can not mean that it is automatically a red card. Just because someone gets hurt by an action shouldn't even mean it has to be a foul. Totally changed the game too as we were in total control.

 

[glazed]

I'm always quite happy to side with the officials on marginal calls against us. This one was 95% a yellow in the EPL but foreign refs have different rules.

 

[Ole'sattheWheel]

It’s unfortunate but the guy did get his shin stamped on.
Red card by the letter of the law

 

[Zehner]

I mean that's a lot of ways to be wrong in one post:



Pace Advantage: Nope. Not enough time to dribble? Nope - Rashford could quite easily have ran off with the ball if he opted to.




And Rashford moves to shield the ball with a good bit of distance between himself and Jelert. This is where he starts at movement and at no point would he think he's about to land on Jelert's ankle.




This is literally just before Rashford's foot goes down - at this point any normal player would stop, realising the ball is about to be shielded, however Jelert doesn't and goes in for a ball he can't win and takes the hit.

The idea that you think Rashford has lost the ball is plainly wrong... and that he should "open his eyes" and could have predicted that outcome is daft. A reminder - this was your original post.

Come on mate, you can make screenshots from misleading frames all you want. Rashford did see him, Rashford had a momentum/pace disadvantage as he came out of a change of direction without any velocity and Jelert accelerated earlier than him. He would have gotten the ball without Rashford's shielding attempt since Rashford first touch was a little bit to long. They weren't "a good distance apart" which is evidenced by Jelert's foot actually being closer to the ball than Rashford's when the contact happens. Also the height of the contact tells you that Rashford's foot was still midair when Jelert's had already touched the ground.

And he doesn't need to "predict" this outcome, he just needs to be aware of the risk of it happening. In the end, Jelert has every right to place his foot whereever he wants as Rashford. And when Jelert places his foot on the spot before Rashford can and Rashford then hits him, it is a foul and when it is as bad as this contact, a foul is a red. And this is the only place where this is even discussed.

 

[KikiDaKats]

Let’s stop playing silly for goodness sake. It was a clear red card and the ex players saying the ref lacks context are lying. Scholes does not have a leg to stand on in this one because these were the type of foot planting he was consistently sent off for.

 

[sullydnl]

I am confused that there is such a big thread about it. I saw it yesterday and instantly thought: "clear red".

I suspect it's a consequence of the sense of aggrievement and/or conspiracy thought that has been building on here as a result of several decisions going against us this season.

If this had happened at a time when things were going well and we'd had a few decisions in our favour, people would probably be more inclined to see it as a fairly straightforward red card.

 

[Zehner]

“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

'Decided to place his ankle exactly where is footmwas landing' is such a great way of phrasing it. Why don't we say 'Rashford decided to place his foot where Jelert's foot had already landed'?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I suspect it's a consequence of the sense of aggrievement and/or conspiracy thought that has been building on here as a result of several decisions going against us this season.

If this had happened at a time when things were going well and we'd had a few decisions in our favour, people would probably be more inclined to see it as a fairly straightforward red card.

I don’t think so. There were similar levels of indignation when Pogba was sent off in an almost identical scenario. Don’t want to be all “why always us” but can you think of any other example of a player being sent off for trying to shield a ball they were already in possession of?

The amount of force involved is so different to a tackle. It’s maddening that this wasn’t taken into account.

 

[christinaa]

He wasn't obstructing Onana's view at the time of the shot, and i believe no one had even mentioned it before ETH's presser. The red card incident is a matter of debate, since either decision can be justified by the rules of the game. But, as someone mentioned, we're slowly getting to RAWKish levels of paranoia with the officials. It's true that we can't catch a break, but the main reason we so desperately need that break is because we are a very bad football team. Not because everybody's out to get us.

Everybody's out to get us and I don't care about Rawk.
Since Sir Alex retired we've been squashed by refs media var Klopp etc.
Ten Hag couldn't do any better yesterday. He's without Martinez, Shaw, Casemiro and Varane coming back from an injury. Have you seen our best defence playing together this season? No, not once.
Last night was disgraceful var and ref.
Var has fecked football and is now the main protagonist in games unfortunately.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Come on mate, you can make screenshots from misleading frames all you want. Rashford did see him, Rashford had a momentum/pace disadvantage as he came out of a change of direction without any velocity and Jelert accelerated earlier than him. He would have gotten the ball without Rashford's shielding attempt since Rashford first touch was a little bit to long. They weren't "a good distance apart" which is evidenced by Jelert's foot actually being closer to the ball than Rashford's when the contact happens. Also the height of the contact tells you that Rashford's foot was still midair when Jelert's had already touched the ground.

And he doesn't need to "predict" this outcome, he just needs to be aware of the risk of it happening. In the end, Jelert has every right to place his foot whereever he wants as Rashford. And when Jelert places his foot on the spot before Rashford can and Rashford then hits him, it is a foul and when it is as bad as this contact, a foul is a red. And this is the only place where this is even discussed.

Yeah, you can even make them show exactly what happened! Mad isn't it?

 

[Hammondo]

Not sure if anyone posted the video.

 

[MackRobinson]

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.

It has to at least be a yellow. He could have caused serious injury.

 

[Cutch]

I am confused that there is such a big thread about it. I saw it yesterday and instantly thought: "clear red".

Because it's split the footballing world with far more players and pundits in the game nothing to do with united thinking it's not a red, and so there's a debate to be had

 

[Zehner]

Yeah, you can even make them show exactly what happened! Mad isn't it?

No you can't. Imagining using screenshots to refute the argument somebody had a pace advantage. What's next, are you using images to prove a player insulted another player? Black and white images to prove the sky is actually red?

 

[Salford_Red83]

Incorrect decision.

At most it was a yellow.

Those in this thread that say its a red, give your head a wobble.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

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.

Bang in and frankly this is the exact reasoning why I never wanted VAR in the first place and said it wouldn’t work. The only thing VAR should have potentially be used for are “clear and obvious errors” and I mean clear and obvious like mistaken identity, or serious violent conduct not caught by the ref, or to prevent ghost goals etc. If it was going to be used it should have been kept miles away from handballs, offsides and these stupid red card decisions because it’s removed what little common sense was left in the game.

 

[RedChisel]

Even my Liverpool supporting brother in law who is as blinkered as they come when it comes to United said it was never a red.

 

[antk]

ESPN

As has been explained in our Premier League VAR Review in the past, a few things are taken into consideration when evaluating whether a player has endangered the safety of an opponent. One is contact high above the boot with the studs, another is the buckle of the ankle to indicate a level of force.

Rashford is unfortunate in that he wasn't making a tackle, yet intent was taken out of the laws several years ago. Instead, a player is expected to be aware of where their opponent is and not play in a way that could cause them injury.

Many former players have said they disagree with Rashford being sent off, but in the modern game this is always likely to be a red card -- especially with the video referee watching everything again.

Marcus Rashford's catches Elias Jelert high above the ankle. TNT Sports
There will be questions about the referee being shown the incident in slow motion, and a freeze frame of point of contact. Yet the point of the pitchside monitor is always lost in this: the screen exists to present the evidence for the referee to change his decision, and not for a second look. It's not an impartial process, but it's not meant to be -- because the point of the VAR process is that a clear and obvious error has already been identified. It's always going to be an area that supporters will struggle to grasp, especially as the lawmakers continue to refuse to allow the broadcast of the discussion with the VAR.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Not sure if anyone posted the video.

Imagine watching that and thinking “yep that’s a red card” that’s the view VAR should get btw. None of this freeze frame, slow motions bullshite. I stand by it, anyone condoning this as a red (along with the Pogba one a few years ago) is a massive part of the problem and belong to degrade the quality of the game.

 

[Pexbo]

ESPN

High above the ankle is so fecking disingenuous when Rashford’s foot is facing downwards and 4 inches from planting vertically on the pitch. It’s the equivalent of the player sliding his head under Rashford’s foot as he runs and Rashford getting a red card for having his foot at head height and dangerously making contact.

 

[antk]

High above the ankle is so fecking disingenuous when Rashford’s foot is facing downwards and 4 inches from planting vertically on the pitch. It’s the equivalent of the player sliding his head under Rashford’s foot as he runs and Rashford getting a red card for having his foot at head height and dangerously making contact.

I don't know why so many are bringing up absurd hypotheticals that are always very different from the current situation in this thread.
Was Rashford running here or was he making a deliberate movement in preparation of a predictable collision with another player?
Can we expect a player's head to randomly be on the ground and can we expect a challenging player to try getting the ball with his foot?

 

[Hammondo]

Imagine watching that and thinking “yep that’s a red card” that’s the view VAR should get btw. None of this freeze frame, slow motions bullshite. I stand by it, anyone condoning this as a red (along with the Pogba one a few years ago) is a massive part of the problem and belong to degrade the quality of the game.

Uhh I don't think it's a red, but I think it's a difficult one to judge quickly, especially at full speed.

 

[Matt Varnish]

We should save this thread for future reference. If you think that's a red, you've never played football and your opinion hereby does not count

I played football at a reasonably high level, and qualified as a referee at semi pro level.
It's a red card all day long.
I've sent players off for exactly the same offence, Intent was taken out of the rule years ago.
Anyone who thinks it wasn't a red has never played above pub team level or refereed a game, their opinion does not count.

 

[Smores]

Red for me, despite there being no intent it was a deliberate action that could cause injury. It wasn't accidental or a inevitable part of the motion it was an action relying on the other player to back off to avoid injury.

It is unfortunate though as it is a standard bit of play and 95% of the time nothing comes of it. I don't see that as an excuse though, there's lots of actions you take on the pitch which if it goes wrong may get you in trouble.