It says that you are allowed to position yourself between your opponent and the ball, which Rashford did. It quite clearly implies that the person shielding the ball is allowed to position themselves differently to the person challenging for the ball. I never said it allows you to be more dangerous than your opponent. However that is exactly what you're doing when shielding the ball, it's an inherently dangerous position for both yourself and the player challenging because it usually ends up being a wrestling match.
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
I know.
What you did was quote me saying "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", said that was wrong, then as proof pointed to something completely unrelated.
I'm assuming that means you didn't understand the sentences you quoted, not that you are actually arguing that being in possession allows you to be more dangerous to your opponent.
Last edited:
It's harsh in that it wasn't on purpose, but the laws of the game don't take intent into account for these kinds of fouls. It sucked, and we've seen refs not give red for this, but for me, it was a red card
Intention is only irrelevant until it isn't. Bump heads accidentally during a fair contest vs a headbutt for example. Accidentally standing on someone when it would have been impossible to anticipate or stop it happening is an absolutely ludicrous way of getting a red card. It wasn't even careless or clumsy.
Last edited:
Intention is irrelevant for serious foul play (explicitly so). It still factors into violent conduct (like a headbutt).
A fifty-fifty head clash isn’t given as a foul because neither player has fouled the other. That doesn’t apply here as Rashford committed a foul on his opponent.
I was trying to illustrate that being in possession does allow you to do things that you couldn't do while not in possession. Some of those things are dangerous to your opponent but still allowed by the letter of the law.
We're talking past each other I think.
For example, most players will hold their opponent off with their arm while shielding, that's an inherently dangerous move that could result in injury but it's rarely called as a foul and almost never a red card.
There is simply not enough force in that movement to use the term 'violent conduct'.
There is no excessive force either.
I actually feel stupid even pointing this out but here we are, debating yet another terrible VAR call.
Last edited:
Disagree, from a biomechanical point of view. when Rashford's leg was coming down to be planted on the ground, that piece of grass was vacant. He didn't see the defenders foot there and go - i'll hit that, or, I've got another option of where to put my foot.
Only after Rashfords foot is about to be planted does the defender get his foot down first.
Where's he supposed to put his foot?
Try and take his foot away last moment and fall into him in a rugby like tackle?
If this is what's going to happen from now on, everyone is just going to try and throw a foot/leg under an opposition player.
During the original play, nobody thought it was even a foul.
now you look at the Havertz and Udogie tackles..... nothing.
World has gone mad.
Never a Red. Not close for me really. The other guy got his foot to the spot slightly ahead of Rashford. He’s obviously trying to block out, primarily looking at the ground and the ball.
Can’t make a call like that.
Can’t make a call like that.
It even being a foul is utter nonsense. The player came in under where Rashford's foot landed. In League (and no doubt other sports) where head contact in a tackle is regulated against there is no foul if the player who suffers a head hit dips into the tackle as the player tackling them couldn't anticipate their head would be where their chest would normally be (for example). No way could Rashford anticipate that the players leg could end up under where his foot planted.
VAR in 2023
Thats what I wanted to say but you said it better.
If intent doesn’t matter (by the letter of the law) then why not send off the Copenhagen player as well? If Rashford was a fraction of a second quicker, he would get a full on stud on his Achilles, so why was he the only one at fault in that instant? Was that not serious foul play by the other player that put both him and Rashford under risk of injury as well?
Game has gone fecking mad if that is a red card offence, the common sense thing to do would be to wave play on, as the ref did initially, or at worst caution both about the contact. As long as this is still a contact sport, you cannot penalise that with a card, because if that were consistent we would have a dozen cards per game just for those.
Game has gone fecking mad if that is a red card offence, the common sense thing to do would be to wave play on, as the ref did initially, or at worst caution both about the contact. As long as this is still a contact sport, you cannot penalise that with a card, because if that were consistent we would have a dozen cards per game just for those.
But how can it be deemed serious foul play when he is barely in movement, just swinging around his body to make him big and shield the ball. No intent, he is not frustrated, not worked up with adrenaline, absolutely 100% purely unlucky.
We see lunging, wreckless tackles hurting or even injuring opponents all the time and the refs are sometimes content with just a freekick.
Just take Kovacic lunging in, straigth leg, studs up hitting Rices ankle not long ago. I mean why do the refs consider that less foul play? He did the same thing twice in 5 minutes if memory serves me right. I remember Fabinho almost snapping Evan Ferguson in half after a very late and extremely wreckless challenge, refs are content with a yellow.
And that kind of thing happens all the time.
It was a studs up tackle everyone, unintentional or not, studs up is always a red card.
That's just Rashford's clumsiness on the tackle.
That's just Rashford's clumsiness on the tackle.
Indeed, having ex pros in the vAR booth won't guarantee better decision making.
It’s not a tackle, he had the ball. It’s an awkward attempt at planting his foot to make himself big. We see those attempts dozens of time every weekend, especially when a team is trying to run out the clock at corners. The difference this time is the player trying to get the ball from behind got his ankle caught by sliding in from behind, instead of the usual wrestling and jostling.
It was neither a tackle nor studs up. His studs were facing down.
This is really poor logic.
Let’s say I want to shield the ball and see a player coming so I put out my arm to fend off the player but he’s a little quicker than I thought and I end up whacking him across the face. Biomechanically all I’m doing is attempting the action that would allow me to get my arm out straight and hold him off but I have to deal with the consequences of not being fast enough. That’s exactly the same as this situation, Rashford has made a fair attempt to shield the ball but he’s misjudged where the other player is.
Other tackles from a different competition aren’t really relevant. They should be - as in it would be easier for everyone - but European comps have always been much softer. That’s not news to anyone. The Endo tackle is much more relevant albeit it’s Europa League and just shows the inconsistency albeit Rashford’s looks worse as the initial contact was a bit higher.
It was dangerous play. He was about to loose possession and planted his foot in a manner that endangered the safety of the opponent.
His studs were literally facing the ground as he wanted to put his foot thereI'm still somewhat on the fence on Rashford's red card. I can see why it was given in that it ended up being a pretty dangerous "challenge" but I also think it's pretty harsh considering that there isn't really anything that he could learn to do differently next time because of the punishment.
With that said, I am bitter enough to get annoyed at the "Well ackshually, intent doesn't matter" crowd because I distinctly remember the consensus opinion of non-United fans being that Hector Moreno not receiving a red card for snapping Luke Shaw's fecking leg was the correct decision just because he didn't mean to do it.
With that said, I am bitter enough to get annoyed at the "Well ackshually, intent doesn't matter" crowd because I distinctly remember the consensus opinion of non-United fans being that Hector Moreno not receiving a red card for snapping Luke Shaw's fecking leg was the correct decision just because he didn't mean to do it.
The comment I read here that resonates the most is the one where it said, if the opponents foot was 10cm to the left would anyone say that Rashfords actions were dangerous/endangering an opponent. No they wouldn't. It obviously was a clearly accidental coming together that can happen countless times in a contact sport. The endangering an opponent term is far too loose and may aswell result in overhead kicks for example being banned from the game. The referee surely has scope to apply common sense and consider intent even if that term has been removed from the laws of the game. I'm sure he had a perfect view of the incident at the time to consider force, endangerment and context, and called it correctly.
He was 5 yards away, saw it perfectly. And waved play on. Only the clown in the VAR room, decided to drag it back and then slow it down and only look at isolated images.
If he had played on and it wasn't pulled back, I can guarantee you most people would say it was the correct call, because it was an accidental contact from a natural and trained body movement in how to protect the ball.
The problem is when you slow it down only look at the point of impact, then apply the letter of the law, then you end up with a red card. But anyone with half an ounce of common sense who's ever played the game will have done something similar or been on the end of something similar and knows it's not a red, but at most a yellow card.
Oh my god, you should hide that in a spoiler and warn them that the video contains excessive violence. Imagine a child would have seen that, it is potentially traumatizing
I mean, that people in here keep saying such obvious nonsense is proof that most siding with Rashford are unablento objective. Just for a second, try to visualize what you just said. Do you really think there is any possibility somebody could do this "plant your foot where your opponent is about to step" nonsense?
Just think about it for a while. I mean, we can do the maths to prove that it is complete and utter drivel and physically impossible to do but it should actually be enough to just visualize it to understand this. Maybe you can team up with @Oranges038 who had the same idea, you could even showcase us how you're doing it. Don't worry about injuring him, he is a tough guy who would never get hurt by somebody stamping on his ankle.
I think the point you miss is that you can stamp your foot down all you like but you have a duty of care to ensure you don’t stamp on another player when you do it.
As example: if a player raises a foot to head high with studs showing to kick a high ball away then that’s fine unless they put another player in danger (intentionally or otherwise) by doing so.
We’ve all see it. Player on his own miles from anyone else raises foot to head height = no problem / player competing for the ball raises foot to head height and rips another players face = sending off.
It’s not a case of intent, it’s a case of the perpetrator having a duty of care to not injure anyone.
Did you even see the incident? How can your studs be up if they’re facing the ground?
It also wasn’t a tackle, he was facing away from the player and he was hardly being clumsy when he just went to plant his foot to shield the ball.
No way worthy of a red card. Poor decision.
All anyone is saying here is that accidentally standing on someone who happens to move under your foot just as you are about to plant it should not be a red card. It’s obvious that the rules weren’t intended to cover this sort of situation and it’s also obvious, in my view, that Rashford’s actions weren’t deliberate or reckless.
If the wording of the rules currently means that this should be a red card (and I’d argue there is enough scope for common sense here even under the current rules as it’s not a “tackle”), then they should be changed. There is no sense or benefit in punishing a player for something completely accidental.
This sending off has obviously created a lot of debate, but posters claiming it’s a ‘stamp’ or ‘studs up’ are certified bonkers.
After Endo's last night, I think Rashford and United can feel hard done by.
Yes they should've had enough about them to see the game out, but to then get immediately done by an offside goal was a real blow.
Varane and Dalot's defending inexcusable second half, but the first two calls set the tone for how the game was going to pan out.
Yes they should've had enough about them to see the game out, but to then get immediately done by an offside goal was a real blow.
Varane and Dalot's defending inexcusable second half, but the first two calls set the tone for how the game was going to pan out.
It is nothing, but still on par with Rashford accidently stepping on someones leg. That being a straight red opens up for a lot of stupid discussion, like this.
It's a suggestion that is mostly a joke. Let it go man, we can't all made of match sticks and tape and snap at the slightest bit of contact. Jelert didn't snap either, in fact he played the whole game. So obviously not everyone who gets stood on snaps in two.
"Standing on someone who happens to move under your foot" is an understatement of what happened. Rashford almost broke the guy's ankle. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not. If he ends up in a situation like this "accidentally", then he has only himeslf to blame because it is his responsibility as a player to make sure he's not hitting somebody like this. Most red cards weren't "intended". If I fly into a slide tackle, trying to get the ball, but hit you on the ankle studs first, then I'll be sent off for that although I didn't even mean to do it.
Intention doesn’t come into it and of course it should be a red card.
In the same way that skipping stones across the sea is a fine thing to do, it becomes dangerous play if there are bathers in the water and it becomes a criminal offence if you hit a bather with one of them whether accidental or otherwise.
It makes no odds if you didn’t notice the bathers because you have a duty of care to make sure that you don’t put other folk at risk.
This basic principle applies right across the spectrum of daily life.
Whenever you’re engaged in doing something that could potentially harm someone else you take on a duty of care to make sure that doesn‘t happen and that applies whether you’re driving a car, throwing a javelin or stamping your studs down when playing football.
Ok, you are just taking the piss in here.
He was planting his foot to achieve balance so he could protect the ball, this is a trained action that all footballers will use from time to time during games. It is not a deliberate stamping action to drive his studs into the player.
What if you're throwing a javelin and just after you've commited to the action that you've done thousands of times and some idiot runs across the field and it goes through their head. Should you be arrested and sent to jail for murder?
Or what if someone jumps out in front of your car while you're performing a perfectly normal manouvre that you've done thousands of times, and you don't have time to stop. You hit them, they die. Should you be arrested go to jail for murder?
Because this isn't the same as throwing a javelin into a crowd of people or running someone down. It's was purely an accidental coming together.
Maybe you should make that more clear next time because basically everything you say sounds like a joke to anyone with half a brain.
Rashford didn't, rightly so.