There's a marked difference between flying into a tackle with your studs up and stepping with your studs facing to the ground.
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
There's a marked difference between flying into a tackle with your studs up and stepping with your studs facing to the ground.
I think it was fairly obvious that the suggestion was in jest, nobody could possibly even think otherwise. Maybe you've got some tape holding your brain together too.
The whole idea of a red card is totally warped beyond its original intention now anyway. Not sure Rashford deserved to be removed from the field of play and banned for subsequent games for what is clearly just an unfortunate accident that could happen to any player at any time should circumstances align. I think it’s time we banned players from lifting their feet off the ground, because those feet have to come back down, studs and everything, which is extremely dangerous for the players.
See, you may be able to distinguish between 99% absurdity and a 100% absurdity easily but from the other side of the spectrum, everything you say just sounds so stupid it has to be jest until you make clear you actually meant it. So don't blame me for believing you meant it (still do tbh)
If there wasn't a marked difference, there would be no point im making this argument. It is to illustrate that whether or not the hit was intended doesn't matter, it is the result that counts.
It's just common sense.
Something that doesn't seem to be applied or displayed much anymore. Especially not in football.
So what if a player is running at full speed, and an opposition player hurls themselves head first into their feet Jones style, and they end up getting kicked right to the head. Should the running player be sent off? They’re simply running but now they’ve “endangered” someone else.
Your logic doesn’t quite fit this situation because Rashford wasn’t throwing stones, he was performing a very normal football action such as planting his foot on the ground. It’s as normal as running around the pitch. It’s expected even.
Exactly this. That incident did not warrant changing the entire rhythm of the game which was looking to be a decent result for Utd. As soon as that happened and the crowd got up, it then took another ridiculous decision for them to score while an offside Copenhagen player was blocking Onana's view. It was an absolute fix job - can't believe there isn't more written about the whole circus.
No, it's just tribal ignorance.
The result is not what counts. If you launch yourself into a slide tackle, two footed but so out of control that you miss the player completely, you should be sent off. Conversely, if you make a perfectly normal shoulder charge and the opponent happens to fall awkwardly and breaks an ankle then you should not be sent off.
Rashford’s is the latter scenario, your example was the former.
It is about benefit of the doubt. Rashford plants his foot on the ground to block Jelert and doesn't hit him, he gets the benefit of the doubt and you believe he had everything under control and didn't risk his health. He hits him, it is clear he didn't and gets sent off. And then there are challenges that are so reckless that you cant give somebody said benefit of the doubt.
When you go shoulder to shoulder and somebody gets injured, that's not a hard foul. There are criteria of that, in this case a hit above the ankle (check) and the ankle buckles (check). If Rashford had hit Jelert's foot below the ankle, it would never have been a red.
The ‘skipping stones’ example was given to demonstrate how the principle of a duty of care extrapolates in general life.
So no I didn’t say that Rashford was skipping or even ‘throwing’ stones, that was you misquoting me in a cheap attempt to make your perverse perspective look a little less ridiculous.
If you want a footballing example that illustrates it in a fashion that doesn’t require any thought to understand, then look at the ‘raised studs’ example that I gave.
The particular incident I had in mind was when iirc Mane(?) playing for the dippers ripped city’s keepers face with his studs and he got a red. If he’d put his studs at head height to take the ball down when nowhere near another player it wouldn’t have been a foul.
He certainly didn’t intend to rip the keepers face but he had a duty of care to make sure that hid actions didn’t injure another player so he was sent off and rightly so.
Rashford's studs were facing the ground, the opposition player's foot was not there when he moves his leg, it is only because the Copenhagen player is reaching his leg in trying to make a tackle that any contact occurs, is it dangerous? reckless? endangering? intentional? no none of the these ..... if this is a standard for a red card then we will soon have players trying to get trodden on by sliding their feet/ankles under boots in order to get opposition players sent off.
Yet again we have VAR showing the referee selected angles and replays to emphasise what they want him to see, IMO if the ref goes to the monitor he should watch all angles and as well as slow/freeze frames in real time
Yet again we have VAR showing the referee selected angles and replays to emphasise what they want him to see, IMO if the ref goes to the monitor he should watch all angles and as well as slow/freeze frames in real time
It wasn’t a tackle and the studs were down. Other than that, you’re post is valid!!
It's nowhere near the equivalent of taking a running jump to control the ball and smashing a player in the face.
Seeing as I'm 49 years old and starting playing when I was 4, I'm guessing that I've been playing for longer than you have, and yes, that's a red card. It was unlucky as Rashford had absolutely no intent on stepping on his ankle, but he did. You can't do that, and "intent" is not a part of the SFP or VC. But seeing as you thought it wasn't a red, if that happened to one of our players and it broke his ankle, would you still feel the same way and let the player continue?
Please read my whole post again, I never said Rashford actually skipped stones
I fully understood your example and explained why it isn’t valid with another specific footballing example which you’ve conveniently completely ignored
EDIT: Actually to make this more clear for you, the equivalent of “skipping stones” would definitely be a Mane like situation as you’ve said. Your foot has no place in such a position if there are other players around.
Rashford’s foot was not in such a position however, in fact itwas in a completely normal position for a football match. His studs were facing the grass (you know, exactly where they’re supposed to face) and he was planting his foot to step on said grass. It’s the equivalent for punishing someone for swimming in the lake and kneeing someone under the water who they had no idea was there in the first place
In the argument that this would be fine if no other player were there it is similar.
Let's play around with the situation. Let's say that the other player had the ball, and Rashford tried to challenge for it and planted his studs on the other players ankle exactly like he did. Then I would assume most here would have accepted it as a red, because there definitely was a risk of him getting seriously injured. The thing is this now, according to the rules, it doesn't matter that Rashford was trying to shield the ball or whatever - it is the same foul. It is a red card, nothing more to it. The fact that it was unfortunate and accidental literally does not matter.
I get arguing that the rules shouldn't be as they are and should differ in these situations but they don't and there's literally nothing more to it.
It's totally fair, you lose pretty much all creditability by claiming that Rashford was second favourite to the ball. He is literally closer to it at all times, and moves towards it before Jelert does - and considering there are videos/pictures that demonstrate this it's completely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Even people that do think Rashford should have been sent off realise he's the one in possession of the ball and that it was an accident. You're the only one who seemingly a) thinks Rashford had lost the ball and b) Rashford should have known Jelert foot would be there.
Also claiming that Jelert almost had his ankle broken at least 10 times in this thread doesn't help... I can only assume you saw his X-Rays?
What makes it worse is that this is an unintentional incident resulting in a highly subjective red card, then the Copenhagen defender gets away with an intentional elbow that escapes censure in a highly subjective decision. It’s a joke.
Makes it even worse that the defender is in the danish press saying Garnacho is a clown.
Makes it even worse that the defender is in the danish press saying Garnacho is a clown.
Where in the rules does it specify that regardless of the players movement or intention, the height of the studs on the leg and the ankle buckling are the deternining factors during contact to warrant a red card offence?
Well the rules state that
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Whether you like it or not he risked snapping the ankle of his opponent with his action. It's serious foul play and thus a red card.
Then it was very well explained what they take into consideration when determining this in this espn article, clearly outlining that height of contact and buckling of ankle is imperative in determining this.
Intent was removed from the law around 10 years ago. So its absense is telling you intent is irrelevant.
The details about studs on the leg and ankle buckling are from the current guidance issued to referees, which form the de facto rules of game and aren't available to the public except on an ad hoc basis via referees themselves, their organisations and/or journalists.
Exactly, it doesn't specifically state it in the rules that this is a red card offence. It's in the subjective application of the rules. Which as we've seen with other incidents in the past and will see again on another day would see that as a yellow card. AWB and KDB a couple of years ago are great examples, AWB v Young Boys over ran the ball and got sent off for his attempt to retrieve it. A while later in a much bigger game, KDB did almost the exact same thing and didn't.
So you say it's in the rules, and the laws of the game etc etc. But it's not specifically stated, the guidelines are there and each action is judged against those guidelines. Specifically looking at only the point of contact is the most asinine way of judging whether or not physical contact warrants a red card. It's entirely subjective and not at all contained in the laws of the game. If Law 12 stated that any contact by studs above the ankle was a red card, there would be no arguing about it at all.
You think if Haaland or Mbappe does this in a CL semi final or final, they'd dish out a red card for it?
Last edited:
Thinking about this game, it felt like VAR was given free rein to curate the narrative of the game as it progressed.
The Rashford accidental foul - we were cruising and maybe VAR thought this was the opportunity to mix things up a bit
Copenhagen pen - borderline at best but lets spice things up a bit more, and give them a leg up
United pen - similar to the Copenhagen one so reluctantly we'll have to let United have one as well
The Rashford accidental foul - we were cruising and maybe VAR thought this was the opportunity to mix things up a bit
Copenhagen pen - borderline at best but lets spice things up a bit more, and give them a leg up
United pen - similar to the Copenhagen one so reluctantly we'll have to let United have one as well
Just becsuse they fecked up giving De Bruyne a red doesn't mean they should feck up every time someone does something similar.
It's True that Law 12 doesn't specifically say anything abovf ankle is red, but it does state that anything endangering the safety of an opponent is a red, which it clearly does. Of course, you could argue that many challenges does exactly this and doesn't get penalized with a red, but it is hard to argue this does not in itself.
First things first, what we're discussing here is actually irrelevant to the question whether it is a red or not. In the end, what counts is that he hit Jelert like he did and fouling somebody like this always has to be a red.
Now regarding the development of the situation: #30 of Kopenhagen takes on Wan-Bissaka, Rashford doubles him with his back towards the field. Win-Bissaka gets on the ball but isn't able to control it so that it bounces in Rashford's direction who still has his back towards the open field but turns around and lays up the ball a meter or so towards the byline. However, as he has no eyes in his back, he only then realizes that Jelert is close by. In this moment, Rashford may be closer to the ball but he hasn't got his body between it and the approaching Jelert.. Jelert could start his sprint a couple of moments before Rashford and also goes in a straight line whereas Rashford comes out of a turn. He realizes that he can't get to the ball before Jelert and instead decides to block his path by enlargening his body. The problem is that it was already to late for it as Jelert is aready besides him when he plants his foot on the ground, unfortunately for Rashford hitting him with his studs above the ankle. So in essence, Rashford was closer to the ball but that doesn't matter, what matters is who is able to get to it quicker. You can actually see this very well when pausing the video right aber Rashford's first touch of the ball. Jelert is probably 2 meters away from the ball, Rashford maybe 1 meter but Jelert closes down the distance much quicker. And Rashford obviously anticipated that because he decided to shield the ball this way to begin. His blocking attempt was simply too late.
But maybe that's something you don't see when "you haven't played the sport yourself on a decent enough level" to use your logic
It’s ok that you don’t understand the concept of having a duty of care but that doesn’t alter the fact that it was a red card.
All I can recommend is that you take the red tints off, look at the rules and try to let it sink in, as you’ll only carry on being all cut up and sadly out of shape about it unless you can get a grasp of that very simple concept.
From what I’ve seen of how your head works in your posts in here, it won’t be easy for you so the very best of luck mate.
I always stick up for the underdog so I’m rooting for you
Please read my whole post again, I never said Rashford actually skipped stones
I fully understood your example and explained why it isn’t valid with another specific footballing example which you’ve conveniently completely ignored
EDIT: Actually to make this more clear for you, the equivalent of “skipping stones” would definitely be a Mane like situation as you’ve said. Your foot has no place in such a position if there are other players around.
Rashford’s foot was not in such a position however, in fact itwas in a completely normal position for a football match. His studs were facing the grass (you know, exactly where they’re supposed to face) and he was planting his foot to step on said grass. It’s the equivalent for punishing someone for swimming in the lake and kneeing someone under the water who they had no idea was there in the first place
What on earth are you rambling on about? Give your head a wobble mate, it’s not a difficult thing to understand.
It doesn’t matter if you’re stamping up, or stamping out, or stamping down . .
If you’re doing any stamping whatsoever then you have a duty of care to not stamp on another player . . Simple eh?
PS. And I say this despite being a bloke who likes Rashford and who fully understands that he didn’t intend his actions to have such consequences . . But he knew full well that another players was coming in (just like Mane knew the city keeping was coming in) so he had a duty of care that he failed to exercise and got himself rightly sent off because of that.
Last edited:
Trying to insult me while ignoring every point I make is a bit weak, try harder.
he’s putting his foot into the grass, not another player. He’s not even aware that there’s someone’s foot there. That’s why this whole thing is a debate and why numerous amount of people, professionals and fans alike are astounded that it’s a red card. Maybe give your own head a wobble
That’s why this whole thing is a debate and why numerous amount of people, professionals and fans alike are astounded that it’s a red card. Maybe give your own head a wobble
Not over here at least. The opinion it's a red card is pretty much universally agreed. But I guess it is just another conspiracy against United
By the letter of the rule yes. But that rule is clearly not meant by the letter.
Anyone who has actually played at even a semi decent level will understand why this doesnt work in pratice.
If what you claim to be duty of care was to implemented to the letter of the rule then anyone could simple slide under anyone going for a header and they would be sent off, because tecnically they are stamping down on the guy sliding in.
What rules? There's no rule that says its a red card for studs above the ankle. Another, who can't look at an incident and say, that doesn't deserve a red card, because it's an accidental coming together.
It's not rose tinted glasses either. That should never be a red card for any player. Even I was Jelert, I wouldn't want a player sent off for that.
Nothing to do with United. Henry, Micah, and numerous other non-united pundits universally agree it's not a red.
I don't think our penalty was a penalty either. I'm simply discussing decisions which I think were made a complete mess of. VAR and the rules need to evolve to work better with each other, because right now they're making massive situations out of things that shouldn't even be looked at again.
Quality control
The rules are the rules so why don’t you start a thread moaning about the rules rather than whinging in here about a player getting himself sent of for breaking them?
I‘m getting out of this thread because it’s acting like a magnet to the mentally frail and if I wanted to spend time amongst the chronically deluded I’d have gone on rawk instead.
Seeing how everybody is trying to use the rules as black and white….Rashford did not make a tackle nor make a challenge so in that case those rules should not apply.
Also seeing how this incident is still being discussed should show that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error so VAR should not of intervened.
Last edited:
The irony is astounding
People need to revisit Venn diagrams and work out the overlap of stamp and studs up.
When does a step become a stamp?
Why are you ignoring posts which prove you wrong to then start arguments with other posters?