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

[Alex99]

Well, a sliding tackle is a standard bit of play also, should no one ever get a red for that either?

A sliding tackle is an attempt to retrieve the ball from an opponent that can vary between a load of things from a well-timed dispossession, a hefty-but-fair knock to put the ball out of play, a cynical trip from behind, or a two-footed lunge straight through an opponent's leg.

Rashford had the ball. It wasn't even a challenge. The movement was pretty much the exact same movement literally any other player would make to shield the ball. The only variation is how the opponent (that he can't even see) attempts to challenge him.

As I said, we don't punish a player in a clash of heads during a fair challenge for the ball with a red card just because the other guy came off worse. How is this different?

 

[Alvaro Maestre]

Lots of clueless ex-pro wannabe referees around here. The whole world says is a yellow card, a player shielding the ball while giving his back to the opp player.

 

[gaffs]

The way the rule is written now, it is a red as the tackle endangered an opponent.

Very unluck as it was clearly not Rashford intention, but as it has been said before, intent is no longer in the rules.

 

[Oranges038]

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 think it's different if he goes into a tackle and catches him on the shin with studs up, that's a mistimed tackled and you know what's coming.

But

Where is the rule that says unintentionally putting your studs on a player, when they've slid under you from behind, while your making a natural body movement is a red card?

 

[tomaldinho1]

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.

Haha why are are being so pedantic with the wording? Ok it ends up being a lunge given the foot never touches the ground, is that better?

I get he steps over the ball but you can’t say - he just stepped on him because there’s a decent bit of force there given he’s reaching quite far with his foot. I think most would just say it’s an unintentional stamp given the pressure is across then downward but that seems to ruffle your feathers.

 

[Alex99]

The way the rule is written now, it is a red as the tackle endangered an opponent.

Very unluck as it was clearly not Rashford intention, but as it has been said before, intent is no longer in the rules.

It wasn't a tackle though. Rashford had the ball and made a perfectly normal movement that just had an unfortunate outcome.

 

[Zehner]

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.

He almost broke his ankle unintentionally and you say that isn't clumsy? He was obviously not aware of his surroundings.

 

[Zehner]

Lots of clueless ex-pro wannabe referees around here. The whole world says is a yellow card, a player shielding the ball while giving his back to the opp player.

Somebody's been living in an echo chamber

 

[Daydreamer]

I think the reason he’s been sent off is because it was a foul that seriously endangered his opponents safety. There’s not really any more to it than that. Clearly accidental, but that’s not relevant.

You could possibly argue about whether it’s a well-written law. But are people actually debating whether the law has been accurately applied here? Because it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[Alex99]

He almost broke his ankle unintentionally and you say that isn't clumsy? He was obviously not aware of his surroundings.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

It wasn't a clumsy movement in the slightest.

He was also aware of his surroundings. As evidenced by the fact he was shielding the ball when it happened.

It was just very unfortunate that the guy got hurt in his attempt to challenge Rashford.

As I said, if it's a fair challenge for the ball, you don't see a player getting sent off for a clash of heads just because the other came off worse.

Football is a contact sport, and sometimes freak accidents happen when contact occurs and causes injuries. It doesn't make them all red card worthy offences though. Some aren't even fouls.

 

[Alex99]

I think the reason he’s been sent off is because it was a foul that seriously endangered his opponents safety. There’s not really any more to it than that. Clearly accidental, but that’s not relevant.

You could possibly argue about whether it’s a well-written law. But are people actually debating whether the law has been accurately applied here? Because it seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Quote the bit of the law that makes it "cut and dried".

To me, it seems a massive stretch to try and fit this under serious foul play given that he wasn't even making a tackle/challenge and was simply stepping sideways to shield the ball.

 

[Hester_manc]

Jelert, the Danish player Rashford stepped on, says it was just an unfortunate situation and Rashford was just trying to shield the ball. Incidentally, he got an apology quickly from Rashford.

 

[Daydreamer]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

It wasn't a clumsy movement in the slightest.

He was also aware of his surroundings. As evidenced by the fact he was shielding the ball when it happened.

It was just very unfortunate that the guy got hurt in his attempt to challenge Rashford.

As I said, if it's a fair challenge for the ball, you don't see a player getting sent off for a clash of heads just because the other came off worse.

Football is a contact sport, and sometimes freak accidents happen when contact occurs and causes injuries. It doesn't make them all red card worthy offences though. Some aren't even fouls.

But he doesn’t win the ball, he bring his foot down on his opponents ankle. So it’s a foul. A foul that seriously endangered his opponent.

If we all happy to say that the only reason the player was hurt was because he was unfortunate, what’s so unjust about Rashford being sent off because he too was unfortunate?

 

[Red in STL]

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

It doesn't have to be either to be a red card, pre-VAR, if the ref had seen it he'd have been off, especially in a European game, in the PL you might have gotten away with it but not always

 

[gaffs]

It wasn't a tackle though. Rashford had the ball and made a perfectly normal movement that just had an unfortunate outcome.

You are right, it wasn't a tackle, he was trying to shield the ball. So more of a "challenge".

But regardless, the rules are that if you endanger a player, deliberately or completely accidently, then its considered serious foul play.

I think more context should be added to decisions like this, but that is not how the rules have been created to work. They want to take subjectivity and context out of it.

And who sits on on the ifab advisory panel creating the rules - ex players and managers like Wenger, Nakata, Zvonimir Boban and Luis Figo.

 

[Daydreamer]

Quote the bit of the law that makes it "cut and dried".

To me, it seems a massive stretch to try and fit this under serious foul play given that he wasn't even making a tackle/challenge and was simply stepping sideways to shield the ball.

It’s serious foul play because it was a foul that seriously endangered the safety of his opponent. It’s unfortunate for Rashford because, as you say, he wasn’t attempting to do so. But it’s more unfortunate to be on the receiving end of an unintentional stamp.

 

[Marcus]

But he doesn’t win the ball, he bring his foot down on his opponents ankle. So it’s a foul. A foul that seriously endangered his opponent.

If we all happy to say that the only reason the player was hurt was because he was unfortunate, what’s so unjust about Rashford being sent off because he too was unfortunate?

Can't wait for an Arsenal player to do the same and get sent off. Let's see you die on the same hill then.

 

[Oranges038]

It doesn't have to be either to be a red card, pre-VAR, if the ref had seen it he'd have been off, especially in a European game, in the PL you might have gotten away with it but not always

But the ref did see it in real time and waved play on, he was looking right at it from 5 yards away.

At most, this is bordering on careless.

“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

Spoiler: Referee advice

Careless, Reckless or Using Excessive Force – an evaluatation on reckless challenges and serious foul play

Referees at Select Group level continue to meet up on a regular basis to discuss, review and debate decisions that are made at National List level within the PGMOL. One of the most difficult situations for a referee, for various reasons, is to differentiate between a reckless foul and a challenge that is considered to be one of serious foul play. At a recent seminar referees identified a series of criteria which they believe will help referees at all levels distinguish between these two types of offences.

Firstly, a reminder of what Law 12 states:

“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)

When deciding whether a challenge is worthy of a sanction i.e. punishable by a yellow or red card, take into consideration the following factors:

The position of the ball, what are the chances of playing the ball in a fair manner? A tackle may still be considered reckless (or even with excessive force) even though the ball is played. Where contact is made with the ball and opponent at speed and without consideration for the potential danger to the opponent, it should be punished appropriately.

The speed or the intensity of the challenge. Is the player in control of his actions, or is he “off the ground” and out of control when he makes the challenge?

The part of the body used in the challenge. Has the opponent used his studs to cause serious injury to an opponent or does he use his leg or foot to tackle unfairly?

Where on the field of play has the offence taken place, for example, a handball offence can have three different outcomes depending where the offence was committed.

The element of Intent or malice – is the player purely focused on his opponent and with no concern for the position of the ball.

Final Conclusion and Advice If a player uses excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, it does not matter whether the tackle is from behind, the front, of from the side. Particular emphasis should be placed on the elimination of challenges where a player gives no consideration to the safety and welfare of an opponent. Challenges of this nature must be considered as serious foul play and the offender must be sent off. Brutality must always result in a red card.

 

[Alex99]

But he doesn’t win the ball, he bring his foot down on his opponents ankle. So it’s a foul. A foul that seriously endangered his opponent.

If we all happy to say that the only reason the player was hurt was because he was unfortunate, what’s so unjust about Rashford being sent off because he too was unfortunate?

There is no ball for him to win. He literally had the ball in his possession.

He didn't make a challenge. He had the ball. He was being challenged (from behind).

If he'd swung a bit wildly and caught him with an elbow in the face, I'd understand.

Hell, if he'd done anything remotely resembling a stamping or kicking motion, I'd understand.

He didn't. He stepped sideways, as players will do pretty much every time they shield the ball from an opponent trying to challenge them from behind.

You are right, it wasn't a tackle, he was trying to shield the ball. So more of a "challenge".

But regardless, the rules are that if you endanger a player, deliberately or completely accidently, then its considered serious foul play.

I think more context should be added to decisions like this, but that is not how the rules have been created to work. They want to take subjectivity and context out of it.

And who sits on on the ifab advisory panel creating the rules - ex players and managers like Wenger, Nakata, Zvonimir Boban and Luis Figo.

Tackle/challenge are fairly interchangeable in this instance.

Rashford wasn't tackling anyone or challenging for anything. He had the ball.

It's this fact that's being constantly ignored and is why I believe it to be a massive stretch to try and fit what Rashford did into the IFAB definition of serious foul play.

It’s serious foul play because it was a foul that seriously endangered the safety of his opponent. It’s unfortunate for Rashford because, as you say, he wasn’t attempting to do so. But it’s more unfortunate to be on the receiving end of an unintentional stamp.

I asked you to quote it. Here you go:

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

Rashford wasn't making a tackle (because he already had the ball) and he wasn't making a challenge (because he already had the ball).

As I said, it's a huge stretch to make it fit the definition.

The only other thing it could possibly fit into is violent conduct, and at that's clearly farcical.

 

[Daydreamer]

There is no ball for him to win. He literally had the ball in his possession.

He didn't make a challenge. He had the ball. He was being challenged (from behind).

If he'd swung a bit wildly and caught him with an elbow in the face, I'd understand.

Hell, if he'd done anything remotely resembling a stamping or kicking motion, I'd understand.

He didn't. He stepped sideways, as players will do pretty much every time they shield the ball from an opponent trying to challenge them from behind.



Tackle/challenge are fairly interchangeable in this instance.

Rashford wasn't tackling anyone or challenging for anything. He had the ball.

It's this fact that's being constantly ignored and is why I believe it to be a massive stretch to try and fit what Rashford did into the IFAB definition of serious foul play.



I asked you to quote it. Here you go:

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

Rashford wasn't making a tackle (because he already had the ball) and he wasn't making a challenge (because he already had the ball).

As I said, it's a huge stretch to make it fit the definition.

The only other thing it could possibly fit into is violent conduct, and at that's clearly farcical.

Rashford quite clearly didn’t have the ball at the moment when he fouled his opponent.

 

[Zehner]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

It wasn't a clumsy movement in the slightest.

He was also aware of his surroundings. As evidenced by the fact he was shielding the ball when it happened.

It was just very unfortunate that the guy got hurt in his attempt to challenge Rashford.

As I said, if it's a fair challenge for the ball, you don't see a player getting sent off for a clash of heads just because the other came off worse.

Football is a contact sport, and sometimes freak accidents happen when contact occurs and causes injuries. It doesn't make them all red card worthy offences though. Some aren't even fouls.

It's not unfortunate, it is Rashford's fault, plain and simple. The rules are in place to prevent such fouls from happening and if a footballer commits a foul like this he obviously hasn't been careful enough. When a player is about to go past me and I make a step like this to block his way, I have to be sure that I am quicker than him in order not to hurt him. If I'm too late, that's on me the same way it is on me when my slide tackle is too late and hits only the legs of my opponent.

I mean, if I attempt to volley a ball but am too late and only hit the knee of my opponent, is that just bad luck either? No it is not, it's my fault because if I make a motion that has the potential to injure my opponent I have to be sure that I won't hit him. That easy.

 

[Daydreamer]

Can't wait for an Arsenal player to do the same and get sent off. Let's see you die on the same hill then.

I’d have the same reaction. I’d think that’s its unfortunate to be sent off for something completely unintentional.

I’d also still think that it’s far more unfortunate to be on the receiving end.

 

[gaffs]

Tackle/challenge are fairly interchangeable in this instance.

Rashford wasn't tackling anyone or challenging for anything. He had the ball.

It's this fact that's being constantly ignored and is why I believe it to be a massive stretch to try and fit what Rashford did into the IFAB definition of serious foul play.

He put his foot down past the ball to shield it from the defender. Rashford look at the player first. He knows the player is about to make the challenge and is trying to plant his foot down to do so. It is a challenge as he is engaging with the opponent to block him from taking the ball. You don't have to be out of position of the ball to challenge for it.

 

[sullydnl]

Quote the bit of the law that makes it "cut and dried".

To me, it seems a massive stretch to try and fit this under serious foul play given that he wasn't even making a tackle/challenge and was simply stepping sideways to shield the ball.

But that's irrelevant, because they specifically removed intent from the law years ago.

It doesn't matter that he wasn't trying to make a tackle, it doesn't matter that he had no intent to hurt the player and it doesn't matter if 99% of the time that action ends with him succesfully shielding the ball in a standard way.

All that matters is that this time the outcome was Rashford's studs making contact with his opponent's leg, above the boot, with sufficient force to "buckle" the ankle, which they deem to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant a red card.

And the rules are designed such that when that happens it's Rashford's problem, even if from a common sense POV we might say it was just bad luck. Because the entire point of them deliberately removing intent from the rule was to remove those excuses. The expectation is now on the player (in this case Rashford) be aware of where their opponent is and ensure that this isn't the outcome. It's his responsibility to make sure he doesn't do something they deem as dangerous to an opponent, accidentally or otherwise.

Similarly, if the timing had been just slightly different and it ended with the opponent making contact with Rashford in a similarly dangerous manner, the opponent would have been in trouble. Outcome > intent, even when outcome largely comes down to chance.

 

[redflash]

I just can't get with people who think that's a red. Bad contacts happen in football. They happen all the time! I've read the rule around serious foul play and I think they are where the problems lie with the game. They are designed to allow interpretation so terms like "endangered a player" are subjective. In my opinion that phrase implies intent, and that's the way that I've grown up playing and watching this sport...however modern adaptation of the rules around serious foul play seem more concerned with the outcome than the intent.

For me this was an accidental contact and as such probably the right action (in my opinion) is a yellow card and a free kick awarded. But you can see the ambiguity in the reactions of different people in the sport.

Even on TNT last night savage as commentator was adamant that's a straight red but switch to the studio and both Hargreaves and Scholes said never a red.

For me though that isn't ever a red, not in the sport I know. Maybe I just don't know the sport anymore

 

[FerociousCorgis]

i mean i think the fact there is so much division makes it perfectly clear this wasnt a "clear and obvious error"

 

[sullydnl]

I just can't get with people who think that's a red. Bad contacts happen in football. They happen all the time! I've read the rule around serious foul play and I think they are where the problems lie with the game. They are designed to allow interpretation so terms like "endangered a player" are subjective. In my opinion that phrase implies intent, and that's the way that I've grown up playing and watching this sport...however modern adaptation of the rules around serious foul play seem more concerned with the outcome than the intent.

For me this was an accidental contact and as such probably the right action (in my opinion) is a yellow card and a free kick awarded. But you can see the ambiguity in the reactions of different people in the sport.

Even on TNT last night savage as commentator was adamant that's a straight red but switch to the studio and both Hargreaves and Scholes said never a red.

For me though that isn't ever a red, not in the sport I know. Maybe I just don't know the sport anymore

Explicitly so. They literally removed intent from the law around serious foul play around 10 years ago.

 

[Daydreamer]

i mean i think the fact there is so much division makes it perfectly clear this wasnt a "clear and obvious error"

I don't get this line of reasoning. Whether something is a clear and obvious error is about how the incident lines up with laws of the game. It's got nothing to do with how many people on an online forum (myself included) agree or disagree with the decision.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

I don't get this line of reasoning. Whether something is a clear and obvious error is about how the incident lines up with laws of the game. It's got nothing to do with how many people on an online forum (myself included) agree or disagree with the decision.

if all the pundits, ex refs, the whole damn world pretty much is so divisive it goes against the idea of something being clear and obvious. If the laws of the game made this a "clear and obvious error" the only ones bitching about it would be us on the Caf.

 

[stefan92]

I just can't get with people who think that's a red. Bad contacts happen in football. They happen all the time! I've read the rule around serious foul play and I think they are where the problems lie with the game. They are designed to allow interpretation so terms like "endangered a player" are subjective. In my opinion that phrase implies intent, and that's the way that I've grown up playing and watching this sport...however modern adaptation of the rules around serious foul play seem more concerned with the outcome than the intent.

For me this was an accidental contact and as such probably the right action (in my opinion) is a yellow card and a free kick awarded. But you can see the ambiguity in the reactions of different people in the sport.

Even on TNT last night savage as commentator was adamant that's a straight red but switch to the studio and both Hargreaves and Scholes said never a red.

For me though that isn't ever a red, not in the sport I know. Maybe I just don't know the sport anymore

It was accidental, but only because Rashford didn't make sure where his opponent was moving. Also the fact that he was in possession doesn't help - his movement wasn't intented to play the ball but to prevent his opponent from getting to it, so it can be classified as a challenge on another player.

If you challenge a player you have to make sure that you do not endanger him, and Rashford didn't make sure of that, that's what did get him sent off. It's clear that he didn't intend to and it's equally possible that he would have missed that leg and nothing would have happened here, but both players were unlucky in that situation.

But riding your luck this way is risky and Rashford payed the price for it.

 

[sullydnl]

i mean i think the fact there is so much division makes it perfectly clear this wasnt a "clear and obvious error"

Not really. You could have division because half the people know what the rule is and half don't. That doesn't impact whether it's clear and obvious as per the actual rules.

 

[redflash]

Explicitly so. They literally removed intent from the law around serious foul play around 10 years ago.

But that's an issue, say for example same thing happens last night but player jumps back up and continues. Still a red? I doubt it?

In a world where the same actions can yield different sanctioning based on outcome. Somethings wrong in my opinion

 

[Alex99]

Rashford quite clearly didn’t have the ball at the moment when he fouled his opponent.

He literally knocks the ball away from one opponent then shields it from another.

How doesn't he have the ball?

It's not unfortunate, it is Rashford's fault, plain and simple. The rules are in place to prevent such fouls from happening and if a footballer commits a foul like this he obviously hasn't been careful enough. When a player is about to go past me and I make a step like this to block his way, I have to be sure that I am quicker than him in order not to hurt him. If I'm too late, that's on me the same way it is on me when my slide tackle is too late and hits only the legs of my opponent.

I mean, if I attempt to volley a ball but am too late and only hit the knee of my opponent, is that just bad luck either? No it is not, it's my fault because if I make a motion that has the potential to injure my opponent I have to be sure that I won't hit him. That easy.

Of course it's unfortunate. I'd also argue that the laws are not there "to prevent such fouls from happening". The Serious Foul Play law is there to stop players lunging in at full sprint. Not to stop them shielding the ball in a manner literally every player will.

He put his foot down past the ball to shield it from the defender. Rashford look at the player first. He knows the player is about to make the challenge and is trying to plant his foot down to do so. It is a challenge as he is engaging with the opponent to block him from taking the ball. You don't have to be out of position of the ball to challenge for it.

Rashford knows a challenge is coming in and steps across the ball to shield it from the player making the challenge. This happens multiple times a game.

You literally cannot challenge for a ball you have possession of. You can only defend it from a challenge.

But that's irrelevant, because they specifically removed intent from the law years ago.

It doesn't matter that he wasn't trying to make a tackle, it doesn't matter that he had no intent to hurt the player and it doesn't matter if 99% of the time that action ends with him succesfully shielding the ball in a standard way.

All that matters is that this time the outcome was Rashford's studs making contact with his opponent's leg, above the boot, with sufficient force to "buckle" the ankle, which they deem to be sufficiently dangerous to warrant a red card.

And the rules are designed such that when that happens it's Rashford's problem, even if from a common sense POV we might say it was just bad luck. Because the entire point of them deliberately removing intent from the rule was to remove those excuses. The expectation is now on the player (in this case Rashford) be aware of where their opponent is and ensure that this isn't the outcome. It's his responsibility to make sure he doesn't do something they deem as dangerous to an opponent, accidentally or otherwise.

Similarly, if the timing had been just slightly different and it ended with the opponent making contact with Rashford in a similarly dangerous manner, the opponent would have been in trouble. Outcome > intent, even when outcome largely comes down to chance.

I've not mentioned intent. However, as we're quoting laws, the law is pretty clear that serious foul play can only be committed by a player making a tackle or challenge.

I fail to see how a player in possession of the ball can make a tackle or challenge.

The only offence he could commit while in possession was violent conduct, and it certainly wasn't that.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

Not really. You could have division because half the people know what the rule is and half don't. That doesn't impact whether it's clear and obvious as per the actual rules.

yes that would be the case if i wasnt including all the pundits/ex refs/ex players who have come out talking about it. Clearly that is the group im focusing on when i talk about there being such a division about this call.

 

[redflash]

It was accidental, but only because Rashford didn't make sure where his opponent was moving. Also the fact that he was in possession doesn't help - his movement wasn't intented to play the ball but to prevent his opponent from getting to it, so it can be classified as a challenge on another player.

If you challenge a player you have to make sure that you do not endanger him, and Rashford didn't make sure of that, that's what did get him sent off. It's clear that he didn't intend to and it's equally possible that he would have missed that leg and nothing would have happened here, but both players were unlucky in that situation.

But riding your luck this way is risky and Rashford payed the price for it.

I just can't agree with that view point, he's not endangered the opponent as he's done an action that is coached in to players early in the game and a key part of retaining passion done literally 10000's of times every weekend. The contact was a result of both the attempt to steal the ball and the attempt to shield the ball. Literally an accident

 

[Zehner]

But that's an issue, say for example same thing happens last night but player jumps back up and continues. Still a red? I doubt it?

In a world where the same actions can yield different sanctioning based on outcome. Somethings wrong in my opinion

If he hits him it is a red, whether the fouled player jumps back up or not. If he misses the ankle narrowly, you give Rashford the benefit of the doubt and assume he had everything under control. If he hits him (as he did) it is a red as it is clear he didn't have it under control (recklessness). Similarly, if a challenge is so obviously risking an opponent's health that you can't give the fouling player the benefit of the doubt, he'll get sent off even if he misses and nothing happens.

 

[gaffs]

Rashford knows a challenge is coming in and steps across the ball to shield it from the player making the challenge. This happens multiple times a game.

You literally cannot challenge for a ball you have possession of. You can only defend it from a challenge.

Semantics.

To me, preventing a challenge is no different to a challenge. You are still competing for the ball.

Or, you saying that just because ifab only says challange or tackle in their serious foul play rules, then a player can defend the ball in any way they see fit?

 

[Alex99]

Again, for those who keep bringing up the rules.

Here are the reasons a referee can issue a red card:

Sending-off offences



A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:



denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
serious foul play
biting or spitting at someone
violent conduct
using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
receiving a second caution in the same match
entering the video operation room (VOR)

Rashford didn't deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity, didn't bite or spit, didn't use offensive language, didn't receive a second yellow, and didn't enter the video operation room.



That leaves us with it being either violent conduct or serious foul play.



Here's the definition of violent conduct:

Violent conduct

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.



In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

And it clearly wasn't that.



So that leaves serious foul play:

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.



Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Firstly, it wasn't even a tackle or challenge. He had possession of the ball and was shielding it. However he was challenged by the opponent.



Secondly, that exact motion to shield the ball will happen many times a match. The only way it "endangers the safety of an opponent" is if an opponent is simply incredibly unlucky in how their own challenge positions their leg in relation to the player shielding the ball. It's a massive, massive stretch to try and fit shielding the ball into this definition of serious foul play.



It's there to stop players flying into tackles and then going "I won the ball" after glancing it slightly. Not punish a player because an opponent happened to stick his leg under their studs during a normal motion.



As for the rest of it, it wasn't "excessive force or brutality" and it wasn't a lunge.

 

[Longshanks]

It’s serious foul play because it was a foul that seriously endangered the safety of his opponent. It’s unfortunate for Rashford because, as you say, he wasn’t attempting to do so. But it’s more unfortunate to be on the receiving end of an unintentional stamp.

I would argue that the only player who endangering anyone was the Copenhagen player. It his attempted challenge that as endangered himself. His attempt to come through Rashford by going to ground as Rashford is cleary going to quite legitimately shield the ball is what caused the coming together.

But of course because it's Rashfords studs that come down on the Copenhagen players ankle that looks bad in slo mo and still images he is the one that gets punished.

Common sense has left the football officiating altogether now.

 

[Oranges038]

I just can't agree with that view point, he's not endangered the opponent as he's done an action that is coached in to players early in the game and a key part of retaining passion done literally 10000's of times every weekend. The contact was a result of both the attempt to steal the ball and the attempt to shield the ball. Literally an accident

A point that goes over too many people heads.

As per the wording, it was careless at the very worst.