- Joined
- Apr 23, 2019
- Messages
- 326
Correct call, the opposing player is lucky his ankle wasn't snapped In half.
This. They remove all contexts when reviewing these kinds of tackles, thus creating the illusion of an intent, and particularly distortion the incident for the on-field referee with how they choose to frame it.How to perform an on-pitch VAR review:
1. Start by showing a freeze frame at the absolute worst moment.
2. Show only one angle
3. Only slow motion.
Our new tactic should be to run around sticking our feet under the boots of opposition players.
its a clear red, same with Pogba vs Arsenal and the other one we had the other season for doing the same thing.
Is that the barometer? A player can get badly injured without there even being a foul.
He's endangered an opponent, if it was the other way around, we'd want their player to see red als9.He shouldn’t play football then if he’s worried about being injured by a freak accident.
Head to head clashes mean two people intending to do the same thing, head the ball, that's nowhere near like what happened.So every head to head clash should result in a red card? Since head injuries are much more serious than a lower leg injury.
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
Wat a load of bull... Intention is irrelevant.. He had no intention whatsoever but his timing/judgement was awful, he was way too late and this foul because his leg is stretched and he puts his weight in it is a very unlucky, but very rightful red card..
Genuinely, if a player is sprinting and an opposition player manages to get his ankle under their boot, is that now a red card? Because that is what this decision suggests.
Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid
Ok if you think that but these rarely get given. There was feck all intent (which refs are supposed to consider) and it was an attempt to shield the ball not injure someone.It's an obvious red.
He was clearly trying to shield the ball and he clearly didn't intend to do it, but that's completely irrelevant. He still stamped high on the player's ankle miles away from the ball, with enough force that the opponent could easily have been injured.
If you want't to argue it shouldn't be a red and that intent should count for more, go nuts. But under the actual rules as they are it's a red card.
So it’s a yellow at most then if you judge it to be completely accidental?Yea its a red. Rashford is trying to shield the ball though.
It was clumsy but a red card, player came from behind him sort of also
Every time you touch a player it will be red .. if you start looking in slow motion ..Ok if you think that but these rarely get given. There was feck all intent (which refs are supposed to consider) and it was an attempt to shield the ball not injure someone.
I just completely disagree. Rashford already had possession of the ball and was shielding, it was actually the Copenhagen player challenging for the ball so he was the aggressor. It's very similar to two players challenging for a header with one coming in slightly late.He's endangered an opponent, if it was the other way around, we'd want their player to see red als9.
Head to head clashes mean two people intending to do the same thing, head the ball, that's nowhere near like what happened.
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.