It's called "reducing an argument to absurdity" and is a tool used to demonstrate an argument is illogical or, at least, flawed
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
It's called "reducing an argument to absurdity" and is a tool used to demonstrate an argument is illogical or, at least, flawed
If it’s difficult to judge at full speed then we shouldn’t be judging it at all! I’d say it’s actually fairly easy to judge at full speed, it’s clearly a coming together and nothing more.
Great another generation of shite refs here we come.
This. We can surely discuss whether the rule should be as it is, or if it would be more fair to judge intent as the difference between a yellow or a red card.
So I am fine with someone saying that who likes the current rule doesn't know how football should be played, but what Rashford did was enough to get a red card under current rules. Rules every professional player knows.
Protest against a shit rule, not against the one who is applying it.
I suppose I can see why it technically, maybe, could possibly be considered a red card. But, there's just absolutely no way that anyone with any common sense should give that a red card. A yellow? Sure. A red is crazy.
And if that is a red by the rules then the rules need changing.
And if that is a red by the rules then the rules need changing.
I don't think this applies at all? "Would a totally different situation warrant the same outcome?" doesn't shed any light on the original incident.
It’s a red card in Europe, you might get away with it in the PL as he definitely didn’t mean it, but I doubt it now we’ve got VAR. It’s unfortunate really because it feels like a very harsh one
Why? I've seen this argument multiple times in this thread but it's never been elaborated on.
I dont think anyone knows, and thats the problem. If that was a red card 'by law' then their 1st goal should also have been chalked off 'by law' also the penalty was not really a penalty so. It seems like the laws are upheld only for a few things and changes as per 'perception' which means that is not the application of law!
Tell that to Thierry Henry, Jamie Carragher, Micah Richards, Owen Hargreaves, Paul Scholes, Peter Schmeichel....
You must’ve dished out a shit load of red cards then.
‘Their opinion does not count’…reeks of arrogance. Most ex-pros agree it wasn’t a red. Do their opinions not count?
VAR was setup to overturn plays that are 'clear and obvious' error. If it takes 4+ minutes for VAR to review then it is not clear and obvious. This whole thing is a farce
Because slow motion and freeze frames changes the reality of the situation. The game is played at a fast pace and things can look dramatically different when slowed down and frankly all context is lost. It’s just another way of removing common sense from the decisions. The most obvious penalties and red cards (the ones VAR should be giving) are all obvious in real time at full speed.
This is something that probably sounded good in your head when you typed it, but essentially you are advocating for players stamping on other players' ankles, as long as they didn't mean to.
The ex players will say it's not a red because it was rife back in their day and, sadly, a lot less accidental in many cases. Football has changed massively from when they were playing, whether that's for the better is debatable but it has.
Oh, it’s a stamp now? Christ alive.
I doubt it as I retired as ref many years back, but I'm still a member of the RA, and get rule updates each year.
Tell me, how many games have you refereed in your lifetime?
I assume you knew what I meant but, if you are being pedantic, will you accept 'a sideways studs up kick' as a better wording?
Refer back to who I was replying to, that remark was meant as sarcasm towards them, it works better if you read the whole thread, and not jump in half way down.
That isn't something to be proud of. A nothing incident. Apply some common sense.
It also speaks to the insular nature of refereeing - they make these "rules", like around handball etc... that actual professional footballers who are the ones playing the game think are daft, but they (IFAB/refs) persist with them anyway because they think they know better.
It’s deliberately absurd to highlight how absurd the idea that Rashford hit him “studs up above the ankle”. That suggests it was a much more dangerous and deliberate action than it was because it insinuates that Rashford’s challenge was horizontal which is a dangerous tackle and usually a red card.
Rashford was planting his foot down on the pitch in a completely normal way, the contact was made above the ankle because the other player was horizontal, not him. Whether it was his ankle he connected with or his toe, or his knee, thigh, chest or head is completely irrelevant because that was decided by the actions of the other player, not Rashford.
Funny thing is if the roles were reversed this wouldn't even be an argument. The handballs were much worse IMO.
Clear red.
You won't even get away with it in the Premier League now. There was a Liverpool player who got sent off for a similar thing against Spurs a few weeks ago.
Didn’t it happen in the Arsenal game the other day and VAR didn’t do anything?
The rules are fecking daft and so are the people implementing them. If the rules make that challenge a red and those handballs penalties then the rules are garbage. The primary role of a referee should be to try staying out the way as much as possible.
More with the Liverpool eh.
Now it’s a kick! Come on, I can see both sides of the argument of was it a red or not…but using the words ‘stamp’ and ‘kick’ are simply not true. He’s planting his foot. It’s clumsy as feck, stupid, whatever. But there’s no malice, he’s not gone out to injure the guy.
He had the luxury of seeing Rashford while Rashford had his back to him you utter dork.
As a qualified ref, can you explain, in the context of the laws of the game, it's a red card?
Having read the appropriate section, it seems a massive stretch to fit what Rashford did into the definition provided.
With the body Hazard like. He was so stiff trying to shield that ball.
The first impressions when I saw the match highlights at normal speed - it looked like a stamp. Red card all day.
Malice is irrelevant tbf
That's such a stupid argument. Rashford didn't have to turn around. He was the one making this step without having an overview where the opponent is. Shall Jelert just surrender the ball because Rashford isn't looking his way anymore? Am I now allowed to commit any kind of foul as long as I didn't see my opponent? What kind of dumb logic is that?
Jelert was there first. Rashford clearly fouled him in an injury risking way, deliberately or not. It is embarassing that adults can't be objective enough to see that just because of their club affiliation. And you call others a dork
The opposition player came in from under Rashford and put his foot in an area Rashford is entitled to be as the player in possession.
I just can't get behind this argument for the precise reason that you've started your second paragraph with.
It's a standard bit of play. How is it a red card offence to do a standard bit of play?
We don't send players off for a clash of heads when they're both fairly challenging for the ball, even if one ends up with a busted nose and a concussion, because it's a standard and expected bit of play with an unfortunate outcome. I fail to see how this is different.
I'm all for that being a red card. Players shouldn't be able to hide behind the "but I didn't want to/didn't see him/whatever" nonsense. If you unintentionally hit somebody like this, learn your lesson and be more careful the next time this happens. If you handle it otherwise, you can get away with pretty much everything. If you end up fouling another player in a way that risks an injury, blame yourself. Clumsiness shouldn't protect from punishment.
It wasn't clumsy though. He stepped sideways in an entirely controlled and normal way.
Your argument only makes sense in the cases where a player gets caught by a flailing hand/arm, or a lunging/stretching attempt at something like a volley.
Well, a sliding tackle is a standard bit of play also, should no one ever get a red for that either?