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

[TheRedDevil2019]

Correct call, the opposing player is lucky his ankle wasn't snapped In half.

 

[Neil_Buchanan]

Terrible decision. The ref was looking straight at it and let it go, this wasn’t something that happened behind his back. There are a dozen decisions every game that could be reconsidered if looked at for a different angle. I despise var and it’s making me enjoy the game less.

 

[evil_geko]

VAR single handedly fecked us here, nothing else.

 

[flameinthesun]

Harsh but also his leg goes pretty far out begore making contact witht he player. Harsh decision but stupid play by Rashford.

 

[Lentwood]

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

 

[SNes]

The ref didn't think it was a foul.

 

[Jev]

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.

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.

 

[Hammondo]

I think its not a red. Just seems accidental, he's looking at where his foot is going and hes shielding the ball. I don't get the red, jsut unfortunate.

 

[calodo2003]

Red card.

 

[Gavinb33]

It was clumsy but a red card, player came from behind him sort of also

 

[Escobar]

No way that is a red. Tries to shield the ball, happens all the time. Yellow yes, red no way

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Our new tactic should be to run around sticking our feet under the boots of opposition players.

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.

 

[Reditus]

I think he had to give the red and we would be screaming for it if it was one of theirs committing the tackle

i do think it was unintentional though and was trying to shield the ball

 

[flappyjay]

its a clear red, same with Pogba vs Arsenal and the other one we had the other season for doing the same thing.

Yep I don't know where the surprise is here.

 

[johannes_fd]

Clearly not a red in my opinion. He just tried to put his body infront of the ball. His eyes were on the ball only, there was no intent of foul play. No speed/force is involved either. Just a matter of putting his foot down and being unlucky. Silly ref.

The ref spent like 15 sec deciding, whats that about. Looked at the picture and a round or two of slow motion. Get out of here…

 

[bosnian_red]

NEVER a red card. Their player was tackling Rashford and was falling over and making it an angle where Rashford will step on him. He didn't have a high foot at all. It's a travesty of a decision.

Also the pen, what the feck? Flicked onto Maguire's arm from 1 yard away? Are you kidding me?

 

[RedC]

He deserved it for the effort he was putting in.

 

[pascell]

Is that the barometer? A player can get badly injured without there even being a foul.

He shouldn’t play football then if he’s worried about being injured by a freak accident.

He's endangered an opponent, if it was the other way around, we'd want their player to see red als9.

So every head to head clash should result in a red card? Since head injuries are much more serious than a lower leg injury.

Head to head clashes mean two people intending to do the same thing, head the ball, that's nowhere near like what happened.

 

[BrilliantOrange]

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..

 

[sullydnl]

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.

 

[Hammondo]

I do not understand what the red card is for, what rule does everything think he broke?

 

[iammemphis]

The fact the player was fine should have meant it was no more thsn than a yellow.

 

[Lentwood]

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..

You've never played football

 

[El Zoido]

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.

Apparently a lot of people think this should be the case.

It can’t be stressed enough: just because it looks bad, doesn’t mean it’s a red card.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Yea its a red. Rashford is trying to shield the ball though.

 

[Stretfordender]

Correct call for me. He never looked interested anyway, stinking the place out with his attitude

 

[RK]

Rashford was kicked in the back of the leg by the other player before the challenge. That foul should've been taken into account, at the referees discretion.

 

[Kramer]

Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid

Absolutely not. We’ve all seen enough to know that’s an absolute joke of a sending off. Anyone saying that’s a red has probably never played football themselves.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

It’s red. He had a good moment to see where he was planting his foot to shield the ball. It was lazy at best.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I think it’s a red card.

If you’re going to step over the ball with a straight leg to shield it, you must not hit the opponent with your studs above his ankle. It’s clearly dangerous play.

 

[TheNewEra]

Harsh in my opinion, no malice. Games gone.

 

[SAFMUTD]

100% red

 

[Rado_N]

Unmitigated bullshit

 

[Heinzesight]

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.

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.

 

[Pexbo]

Yea its a red. Rashford is trying to shield the ball though.

So it’s a yellow at most then if you judge it to be completely accidental?

 

[RORY65]

It's a red, it doesn't matter what he was trying to do (there was no intent) because he's ended up putting his studs into an opponents shin. The penalty is very unfortunate, I hate that so many things are now handball but with the way it's officiated it wasn't going to be overturned once the ref gave it but I'm not sure if VAR would have overturned it either if the ref hadn't awarded the penalty.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

It was clumsy but a red card, player came from behind him sort of also

Like the Nani red card given by Cuneyt "The cnut" Cakir. How do you expect a player to avoid contact with someone arriving from the blind side? Have those people never driven a car before?

 

[The_Midfielder]

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.

Every time you touch a player it will be red .. if you start looking in slow motion ..

 

[Thom Merrilin]

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.

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.

 

[Alex99]

Never a red.

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.

Players shield the ball in that manner literally dozens of times every single game, so it can't be that the motion falls under a "tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent".

It clearly wasn't "excessive force or brutality" and it wasn't a lunge.

It's just an unfortunate outcome to a very ordinary movement to shield the ball.