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

TrustInJanuzaj said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's your logic to your statement? Isn't the whole point of var that it helps with situations that cannot be decided at full speed? Seems a really stupid comment.
 
pogbasformerbarber said:
What drives me nuts is that intent should have a lot to do with a Red Card. At least thats always been my feeling in the past. Either you are dangerously reckless and completely lack common sense or your intent was to hurt or foul badly to stop a coring chance. What Rashford did here was try to make a football move and landed awkwardly on a limb.

The refs need to take extremely care in a Red Card decision because it greatly impacts a game. I feel like it something you basically "know it when you see it"...these VAR Red Card decisions should only be applicable it if something, with intent, thats off ball and not caught in the general play.

I honestly don't know what Rashford was supposed to do. Just like I don't know what Harry was supposed to do on that stupid handball penalty. Penalties in general, but especially RC or penalties int he box, should not be just because of chance...the random bounce of the ball, or the odd misstep of a player trying to retain ball control...They should be intended or overly reckless actions to influence the game outside of rules. Where we are now is madness, and truly something that should not be a part of football or sports in general...
Click to expand...
I agree with this but the issue is when you bring something like 'intent' into the rules it makes things much more subjective. How will they judge it, if a player doesn't look at his opponent is he therefore not guilty? There'll be so many instances where it's not clear and we'll moan about it.

Re what Rashford should do, he could just clear the ball or contest the 50/50 with his right foot or play the ball with his left and take the foul + get a freekick. There's no reality where that was his only choice of action. I get he wanted to keep the ball but it's just bad luck.
 
Objectively, that should have been nothing more than a yellow card. Even in the slowest of slow modes you can see no violent or malicious intent. Call it a foul, call it a yellow card, but it was never a red card offense.

But this is what I'm worried about and I don't see a discussion of this point here (but it's probably right in front me). Since the referee did not call a foul in real time, once he went to VAR it seems as though he may not have the discretion if he saw a foul -- which is fair to say there was -- to show a yellow card. It had to be, under that circumstance so it seems, a red.

If so, fukking hell.
 
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet but look at this. No card for Copenhagen and no VAR check I believe.



Astonishing to be honest. FAR worse than Rashfords too.

Gotta be honest lads I'm feeling a bit disillusioned now. On the verge of crazy conspiracy theories. I'm feeling like checking out for the season, because what with City not even getting done yet, it just feels like justice is passing us by and nobody except us United fans even give a shit anymore.
 
lex talionis said:
Objectively, that should have been nothing more than a yellow card. Even in the slowest of slow modes you can see no violent or malicious intent. Call it a foul, call it a yellow card, but it was never a red card offense.

But this is what I'm worried about and I don't see a discussion of this point here (but it's probably right in front me). Since the referee did not call a foul in real time, once he went to VAR it seems as though he may not have the discretion if he saw a foul -- which is fair to say there was -- to show a yellow card. It had to be, under that circumstance so it seems, a red.

If so, fukking hell.
Click to expand...


I believe it shouldn't be a red, however this is a good argument.

He has a point, but I still think it doesn't go far enough for a red. A yellow would be reasonable or nothing at all.
 
GazTheLegend said:
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet but look at this. No card for Copenhagen and no VAR check I believe.



Astonishing to be honest. FAR worse than Rashfords too.

Gotta be honest lads I'm feeling a bit disillusioned now. On the verge of crazy conspiracy theories. I'm feeling like checking out for the season, because what with City not even getting done yet, it just feels like justice is passing us by and nobody except us United fans even give a shit anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100 percent sure of the rules on this. In terms of a handball I'm not sure what counts as a red card. In terms of him elbowing Højlund I cannot take it seriously, he barely touches him.
 
Intent used to be a factor. Back when the Ryan Shawcross's of the world were happily flying into tackles with heavy force while claiming they had no ill-intent.

And people back then complained that intent couldn't just be seen as a get out of jail free card for recklessly endangering opponents, so the rules changed to reflect how people felt the game should be. Intent doesn't matter, it's on you to make sure you don't endanger your opponent.

So when people argue for intent being a factor again, they should be careful what they wish for. Because it would invariably result in more reckless play from players who then think that as long as it looks like they're making a genuine attempt at a tackle they can happily risk their opponents' safety.
 
GazTheLegend said:
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet but look at this. No card for Copenhagen and no VAR check I believe.



Astonishing to be honest. FAR worse than Rashfords too.

Gotta be honest lads I'm feeling a bit disillusioned now. On the verge of crazy conspiracy theories. I'm feeling like checking out for the season, because what with City not even getting done yet, it just feels like justice is passing us by and nobody except us United fans even give a shit anymore.
Click to expand...

This is the one that really got me. The offside for the first goal is more raw because we got done for the Maguire incident but it's so clear the defender (didn't he score their winner?) did that deliberately. if they are reviewing Rashford's - an honest mistake that was unlucky, how on earth this wasn't even looked at does make you wonder if there is bias going on. I would understand if everyone missed it but the commentary team were saying it should be a card even.
 
sullydnl said:
Intent used to be a factor. Back when the Ryan Shawcross's of the world were happily flying into tackles with heavy force while claiming they had no ill-intent.

And people back then complained that intent couldn't just be seen as a get out of jail free card for recklessly endangering opponents, so the rules changed to reflect how people felt the game should be.

So when people argue for intent being a factor again, they should be careful what they wish for. Because it would invariably result in more reckless play from players who then think that as long as it looks like they're making a genuine attempt at a tackle they can happily risk their opponents' safety.
Click to expand...
True but then you have to judge if his actions were unreasonable, and nothing that he does is unreasonable.

He doesn't see him, he looks at the ball, and if you removed the defender out of the video then Rashford's actions look completely natural.
 
@Hammondo "barely touches him"? What's he doing if he's not swinging his elbow at Hojlund? And he does catch him too doesn't he?
 
GazTheLegend said:
@Hammondo "barely touches him"? What's he doing if he's not swinging his elbow at Hojlund? And he does catch him too doesn't he?
Click to expand...
He does a little push and barely makes contact. You can see from his reaction it's not natural, he's making the most of it playing to the ref.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I agree with this but the issue is when you bring something like 'intent' into the rules it makes things much more subjective. How will they judge it, if a player doesn't look at his opponent is he therefore not guilty? There'll be so many instances where it's not clear and we'll moan about it.

Re what Rashford should do, he could just clear the ball or contest the 50/50 with his right foot or play the ball with his left and take the foul + get a freekick. There's no reality where that was his only choice of action. I get he wanted to keep the ball but it's just bad luck.
Click to expand...

But thats my point. It's just bad luck. Everyone knows he wasn't trying to hurt anyone...it was just a misstep. And he wasn't going cleats up on a slide tackle irresponsibly...he was just putting his foot down to try and collect the ball. How could he possibly have known the player would slide under him? It's a split split second decision.

If there was history between them during the game...then maybe hes more aggressive and I could...maybe...see it more. but there wasn't. And everyone knew it. It's just amazing now that if you cleat a player by accident because they slide under you that you will get a Red Card because it looks bad in slow motion on VAR. thats the sad reality we live in right now...
 
Daydreamer said:
If you drive at 20mph in a 20mph zone, no problem.

If you drive at 30mph in a 20mph zone, you’ll get points on your licence and a fine.

If you drive at 30mph in a 20mph zone and run a kid over… you may be going to prison.

In none of those scenarios are you intending to hurt anyone. Serious foul play isn’t about trying to hurt someone, that’s violent conduct. Serious foul play is unintentional pretty much by definition.
Click to expand...
What is this analogy?

Rashford is the driver, the FCK player is an insurance scammer jumping in front of a car that's driving within the legal limit.
 
Hammondo said:
True but then you have to judge if his actions were unreasonable, and nothing that he does is unreasonable.

He doesn't see him, he looks at the ball, and if you removed the defender out of the video then Rashford's actions look completely natural.
Click to expand...

Aye.

But, as the ESPN article posted a few pages back noted, "a player is expected to be aware of where their opponent is and not play in a way that could cause them injury".

If he endangers his opponent partly because he didn't see him, as far as the rules are concerned that's still on Rashford. It's his responsibility to make sure he knows where his opponent is so that his attempt to shield the ball doesn't end up with his studs impacting on someone's ankle in a way that's deemed dangerous.

Inevitably the rules being drawn that way will lead to players being harsly red carded as a result of bad luck and bad outcomes, as you obviously can't always 100% be aware of your surrounding and in full control. Shit happens, people will commit bad-looking challenges by sheer accident. But I assume the thinking in removing intent was that it's worth those unlucky red cards in order push players to take fewer risks with each others' safety.

I mean it's pretty clear that the game is less dangerous now than it used to be, so they'd probably say removing intent as a factor has been a success.
 
Last edited:
sullydnl said:
Intent used to be a factor. Back when the Ryan Shawcross's of the world were happily flying into tackles with heavy force while claiming they had no ill-intent.

And people back then complained that intent couldn't just be seen as a get out of jail free card for recklessly endangering opponents, so the rules changed to reflect how people felt the game should be. Intent doesn't matter, it's on you to make sure you don't endanger your opponent.

So when people argue for intent being a factor again, they should be careful what they wish for. Because it would invariably result in more reckless play from players who then think that as long as it looks like they're making a genuine attempt at a tackle they can happily risk their opponents' safety.
Click to expand...

Im not arguing totally for intent...but I think in the case of something like this it should be intent that creates the red. If there's recklessness thats also a red, and should be. But he wasn't being reckless, nor did he have intent to harm. Thats my issue. If you spike a player by mistake with no intent...at most it should be a yellow...although I could argue it's no foul at all. I'm biased, but I feel I'm usually fair. He was just putting his foot down to collect the ball...the player slide under his foot. Thats not even a foul IMHO...
 
sullydnl said:
Aye.

But, as the ESPN article posted a few pages back noted, "a player is expected to be aware of where their opponent is and not play in a way that could cause them injury".

If he endangers his opponent partly because he didn't see him, as far as the rules are concerned that's still on Rashford. It's his responsibility to make sure he knows where his opponent is so that his attempt to shield the ball doesn't end up with his studs impacting on someone's ankle in a way that's deemed dangerous.

Inevitably the rules being drawn that way will lead to players being harsly red carded as a result of bad luck and bad outcomes, as you obviously can't always 100% be aware of your surrounding and in full control. Shit happens, people will commit bad-looking challenges by sheer accident. But I assume the thinking in removing intent was that it's worth those unlucky red cards in order push players to take fewer risks with each others' saftey.

I mean it's pretty clear that the game is less dangerous now than it used to be, so they'd probably say removing intent as a factor has been a success.
Click to expand...
Ok that's fair enough, but I would argue that the defender but it foot under Rashford's, Rashford Is only human, he can't dodge everything.

He didn't do anything dangerous, or ignorant tbh.
 
philipos said:
Absolute rubbish. In nearly every game you see a player’s foot being stood on accidentally - how often is a red card given for studs making contact with the opponent’s leg? Hardly ever.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't the player's foot, it was his ankle. It could easily have broken the player's ankle or leg. Did Rashford intend to do that? No, but it's irrelevant.

This season in the PL we've seen numerous players red carded by var for similar challenges which were unintentional but put an opponent in danger. Probably yellow cards back in the day, but not now with var.
 
GazTheLegend said:
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet but look at this. No card for Copenhagen and no VAR check I believe.



Astonishing to be honest. FAR worse than Rashfords too.

Gotta be honest lads I'm feeling a bit disillusioned now. On the verge of crazy conspiracy theories. I'm feeling like checking out for the season, because what with City not even getting done yet, it just feels like justice is passing us by and nobody except us United fans even give a shit anymore.
Click to expand...

Feck sake that’s about as bad as it gets ….appalling
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
But it wasn't the player's foot, it was his ankle. It could easily have broken the player's ankle or leg. Did Rashford intend to do that? No, but it's irrelevant.

This season in the PL we've seen numerous players red carded by var for similar challenges which were unintentional but put an opponent in danger. Probably yellow cards back in the day, but not now with var.
Click to expand...

We've also seen players get away with similar.
This is a bit like that AWB one against Young Boys, a while later we saw KDB do similar if not worse and escape punishment.

Rashford's should be a yellow card, Endo this evening also only a yellow card offence. Nothing more.
 
Hammondo said:
True but then you have to judge if his actions were unreasonable, and nothing that he does is unreasonable.

He doesn't see him, he looks at the ball, and if you removed the defender out of the video then Rashford's actions look completely natural.
Click to expand...
I don't think you do - that's the point.

There will always be edge case where laws seem unfair. As @sullydnl said, the laws used to be unfair to the Aaron Ramseys of the world who had their leg smashed to bits and has been booed by Stoke fans ever since for the privilege. In this particular case it’s unfair (if you want to call it that) to Marcus Rashford, as he clearly meant no harm.

There’s a definite trade-off there, but I think it’s worth it to disincentivise the likes of Ryan Shawcross claiming there was no intent behind their actions that threaten the careers of their fellow professionals.
 
CoopersDream said:
This is clearly not a similar foul in accordance to the rules of the game. I really, really don't get how this can be so hard for some of you to understand.
Click to expand...
This is clearly a very similar foul but should be a yellow just like Rashford’s.
 
philipos said:
This is clearly a very similar foul but should be a yellow just like Rashford’s.
Click to expand...
You might argue it's a similar foul, but it's not a similar foul according to the rules. They very specifically talk about the height of the contact, which clearly differs between these fouls. Not admitting that is just being dishonest.
 
GazTheLegend said:
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet but look at this. No card for Copenhagen and no VAR check I believe.



Astonishing to be honest. FAR worse than Rashfords too.

Gotta be honest lads I'm feeling a bit disillusioned now. On the verge of crazy conspiracy theories. I'm feeling like checking out for the season, because what with City not even getting done yet, it just feels like justice is passing us by and nobody except us United fans even give a shit anymore.
Click to expand...


The atrocious refereeing decisions (and that is a perfect example you posted) I guess aren't highlighted that much because we don't kick up a fuss and the bigger story is how shite we've been. But we should absolutely be nailing these refs and calling them out.
 
antk said:
I don't think "owning the ball" is a concept that exists in football, except for the goalkeeper with the ball in his hands.

Same as above, you think this can't constitute as serious foul play because you think it can't qualify as a "challenge" for the nebulous reason that Rashford was somehow in possession of the ball, a concept that once again doesn't seem to exist in the rules of football.

Others, including the refs that night, disagree. It's a dangerous challenge, therefore it's a red. You refusing to entertain the idea doesn't mean the reasoning isn't sound.
Click to expand...
This from the FA's laws of the game:

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent

It both implies that a player can have possession of the ball without using that word exactly and seems to apply to the Rashford situation.
 
Hammondo said:


I believe it shouldn't be a red, however this is a good argument.

He has a point, but I still think it doesn't go far enough for a red. A yellow would be reasonable or nothing at all.
Click to expand...


If it were a Chelsea player he'd argue to oppsite viewpoint. He's still hasn't let that gift of a pass go yet, eats away at him every time Utd get brought up.
 
sullydnl said:
It's one thing if people want to argue the rules should be different. But it's another when people say a red card was the wrong decision because *insert random rules they've just invented*

So no, it isn't more of a red card because Endo wasn't in possession of the ball. Because being in possession of the ball doesn't give you license to do something more dangerous to your opponent than if you didn't have possession of the ball. The actual thing you do is what you're judged on.

All that matters is whether what Rashford did was more dangerous, as per how referees are told to assess the degree of danger.
Click to expand...
The bolded is actually not true. You are justified in making different movements when shielding the ball compared to challenging for the ball. Here's this excerpt from the FA's laws of the game:

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent
 
Hammondo said:
What's your logic to your statement? Isn't the whole point of var that it helps with situations that cannot be decided at full speed? Seems a really stupid comment.
Click to expand...
No the point is to see the same incident again from another perspective. That can still be done whilst keeping the context of the incident in its original form. Slowing it down, freezing the frames, all that does is skew the perspective.
 
Thom Merrilin said:
The bolded is actually not true. You are justified in making different movements when shielding the ball compared to challenging for the ball. Here's this excerpt from the FA's laws of the game:

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent
Click to expand...

That has no bearing on what I wrote. It says you're allowed to shield the ball when you're in possession. It doesn't say your shielding of the ball can be more dangerous than the challenge of someone who isn't in possession. In possession or not, you're judged based on the actual action you do.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
The thing for me is, this is a perfect example of how the game has completely lost sight of what the purpose of a red card is.

The idea of a red card is you've done something so bad/dangerous/against the game that you no longer deserve to be on the pitch.

Can anyone really say that a player trying to shield a ball and accidentally standing on a guys ankle (who by the way has moved his foot into a position to be stood on) deserves to not be on the pitch?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Never a red for me.
 
sullydnl said:
Intent used to be a factor. Back when the Ryan Shawcross's of the world were happily flying into tackles with heavy force while claiming they had no ill-intent.

And people back then complained that intent couldn't just be seen as a get out of jail free card for recklessly endangering opponents, so the rules changed to reflect how people felt the game should be. Intent doesn't matter, it's on you to make sure you don't endanger your opponent.

So when people argue for intent being a factor again, they should be careful what they wish for. Because it would invariably result in more reckless play from players who then think that as long as it looks like they're making a genuine attempt at a tackle they can happily risk their opponents' safety.
Click to expand...

Intent or recklessness is what should be required. Havertz’s slide against Newcastle for example was clearly reckless even if he had no intent to injure. Same with the two-footed jump tackle in the Spurs game. Both should have been red cards.

Rashford just put his foot down in a standard way with no knowledge that another player’s foot would be there. That is not and never should be a red card. The Liverpool one today is far worse, as the player could at least see the player in front of him. Even then, but for the horrible inconsistency, I’m comfortable with that being a yellow card.
 
van Nistelrooy said:
Fair enough.

However, if we're saying these sort of challenges shouldn't result in a red, assuming the opposing player gets up and there was no intent by the offender... Then I think we would be seeing a lot more of these no-look lunges which could be planted on an opposition player's leg. If there is no consequence, then players can mask their true intent by placing one on a player whilst looking in the opposite direction. Footballers are crafty. Eventually, it will result in a serious injury if there isn't a zero-tolerance policy to this.
Click to expand...

You can't have a zero tolerance policy on accidental physical contact, unless you remove physical contact from the sport altogether. You can nearly always tell by a players body movement if they mean it or not.

In rugby they have mitigation for high tackles etc, that same theory could be applied to football.
 
Oranges038 said:
You can't have a zero tolerance policy on accidental physical contact, unless you remove physical contact from the sport altogether. You can nearly always tell by a players body movement if they mean it or not.

In rugby they have mitigation for high tackles etc, that same theory could be applied to football.
Click to expand...
Not so much now as seen in the recent RWC
 
Oranges038 said:
You can't have a zero tolerance policy on accidental physical contact, unless you remove physical contact from the sport altogether. You can nearly always tell by a players body movement if they mean it or not.

In rugby they have mitigation for high tackles etc, that same theory could be applied to football.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to general physical contact. Specifically, a player putting force behind their studs against a planted lower leg (below knee to ankle) of an opposition player.

Rugby may have mitigation, but they appear to upgrade more yellows to red now for non-wrap or tip tackles. I'm all in favour of a sin-bin for football, it may even help speed the game up and save us all from delays with VAR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.