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

[Wrecking ralf]

Having had a few mins to settle I think it probably IS a red, albeit a harsh one.

The laws of the game are quite clear about 'dangerous' play being a red, and it was a dangerous way to try and shield the ball

Definitely no intent however and the slow-mo replays need to stop

Players have broken opposition players legs and not been sent off for it. There wasn’t anything reckless in the movement of Rashfords leg, he positions it in the usual way you shield the ball. He’s not to know that’s also where the other player is going to plant his foot given he never looks in his direction. It’s a pathetic red card.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Players have broken opposition players legs and not been sent off for it. There wasn’t anything reckless in the movement of Rashfords leg, he positions it in the usual way you shield the ball. He’s not to know that’s also where the other player is going to plant his foot given he never looks in his direction. It’s a pathetic red card.

First sentence, irrelevant. (doesn't need explaining)
Second sentence, irrelevant. (a red card doesn't have to be for a reckless challenge)
Third sentence, incorrect. You need to be aware of where other players are. If you go for a high ball with your foot thinking no one is near you but kick someone in the head accidentally, you can't say to the ref 'how was I to know he was there!' as a defence.

 

[CoopersDream]

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.

The idea that because this isn't your typical challange for a ball that it shouldn't fall under this rule is absolutely hilarious. So, when you're shielding a ball you can't make serious foul play despite clearly competing for the ball with an opponent. It is grasping at straws and quite frankly daft to argue this.

Also, the reason this is discussed here is clearly because a sizeable portion here do not understand how the law is applied in these instances, not because this is some grey area. The amount of people that keeps mention intent as a factor should tell you the whole story.

 

[Maniron]

Back in the day the refs could use their discretion and I suspect very few would have sent Rashford off, I think many would have viewed it as careless rather than reckless and most would probably have given him a yellow. But we are in the world of VAR now and we can slow the action down frame by frame and look at incidents from multiple camera angles. I think all we can ask for is consistency.

 

[glasgow 21]

Have a look at Panathinaikos penalty V Rennes last night. It is one of the worst decisions made by a Var /ref intervention. The game is in dire straits if the level of incompetence continues.

 

[Alex99]

Why are you ignoring posts which prove you wrong to then start arguments with other posters?

The closest has been the stuff ESPN reported, which makes me understand why it was given, but just highlights how stupid the whole system is.

By the letter of the law, it isn't a red card. You're not going to change my mind on that.

By the largely secret, extra guidance, that only the referees know about (unless someone bothers to share it with the media), I guess it sort of is. But that guidance is demonstrably stupid as an ankle can buckle without contact and a more forceful impact than Rashford's won't buckle it if the angle is slightly different.

Serious foul play is surely not there to punish players with dismissals and suspensions for accidental injuries (in this instance, an injury so minor the player didn't even have to come off) caused by perfectly normal movements? If it was, surely the actual law would be amended to reflect such?

A lot of the "definite red arguments" haven't even referenced the guidance, and instead either refer to it being "studs up" (which it wasn't, a kick/stamp (which it wasn't), and/or a tackle (which it wasn't), or even start bringing up daft comparisons ranging from studs up slide tackles, kung-fu kicks to the face, and even throwing stones at swimmers.

I'll maybe concede that the ridiculous guidance possibly makes it a red, but the two stupid handballs were correctly called when you look at the definitions, yet nobody is going "well actually..." about them.

It can be "never a red" because the laws/guidance are not fit for purpose while actually being one because of those current laws/guidance.

I'd actually argue even then that this was not a tackle/challenge and therefore can't fall under serious foul play. Only the vagueness of the definition of challenge gets you close.

And while we're on that subject, the current protocols for pitch-side monitor VAR checks needs reviewing because it's absolutely bonkers that the first thing a referee sees is a zoomed-in, freeze-frame of the worst angle of the incident, and not a real-time replay from which he can request different angles/speeds/levels of zoom.

 

[Alex99]

The idea that because this isn't your typical challange for a ball that it shouldn't fall under this rule is absolutely hilarious. So, when you're shielding a ball you can't make serious foul play despite clearly competing for the ball with an opponent. It is grasping at straws and quite frankly daft to argue this.

Also, the reason this is discussed here is clearly because a sizeable portion here do not understand how the law is applied in these instances, not because this is some grey area. The amount of people that keeps mention intent as a factor should tell you the whole story.

I'd argue that Rashford was not attempting a tackle or a challenge as he had possession of the ball, and as you have to be attempting one of them to commit an offence of serious foul play, you can't do that while shielding the ball.

Violent conduct is still there though but what Rashford did wasn't that.

 

[Bluelion7]

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?

It is no more difficult to beat someone to a spot you know they will be stepping down than it is to trail a leg in where you know a defender will have to plant. It is absolutely possible, and has already been a way to draw fouls and keep possession for a LONG time if you think you are going to lose in a 50/50.


It’s just never been a straight red before that I can remember. A second yellow maybe if the foot slides up the ankle, but not a straight red.

 

[antohan]

The amount of people that keeps mention intent as a factor should tell you the whole story.

The point many (probably not all) are making IS NOT that intent is required for a red card, but that in the absence of intent there's absolutely no reason to see that as anything but an accident and never an incident warranting a player being sent off.

It's not reckless, studs up, out of control, applying excessive force or anything like that. It was careless at worst, maybe yellow, never a red.

 

[CoopersDream]

The point many (probably not all) are making IS NOT that intent is required for a red card, but that in the absence of intent there's absolutely no reason to see that as anything but an accident and never an incident warranting a player being sent off.

I am not really sure what you are arguing here, but most challenges have no intent and you can apply the same reasoning. Whether it is an accident, with intent or just being clumsy matters not - the outcome matters.

I'd argue that Rashford was not attempting a tackle or a challenge as he had possession of the ball, and as you have to be attempting one of them to commit an offence of serious foul play, you can't do that while shielding the ball.

If you actually think about this for a second it makes no sense. Just because Rashford shields the ball and the other person tries to get it does not mean they play under different rules.

It’s just never been a straight red before that I can remember. A second yellow maybe if the foot slides up the ankle, but not a straight red.

This is not an argument for it not being a red. Rules have changed drastically in terms of incidents like this over the last 15 years.

 

[Alex99]

If you actually think about this for a second it makes no sense. Just because Rashford shields the ball and the other person tries to get it does not mean they play under different rules.

I've not mentioned different rules. I've referred to the laws as they're written, and firmly believe what Rashford did doesn't fit the definition given for serious foul play, which is one of several offenses a player can receive a red card for.

Serious foul play dictates that the player attempted a tackle or challenge, and I don't see how a player in possession, shielding the ball from an attempted tackle/challenge, can also be attempting one.

If he flings an elbow out or kicks out while shielding the ball, he can be sent off, but it would be for violent conduct, not serious foul play. Rashford certainly wasn't guilty of violent conduct.

 

[antohan]

Whether it is an accident, with intent or just being clumsy matters not - the outcome matters.

I'm a big advocate of regulating outcomes and not process and systems (e.g. when it comes to tech and AI).

Football doesn't do that consistently though. You can be sent off for an outcome (eg DOGSO) or for the pure process (reckless endangerment using unnecessary force, whether contact is made or not).

This was neither violent conduct nor serious foul play. If you think so then spell out exactly what makes it so because the grey area/make it up as you go along stuff usually involves handballs and penalties, not grounds for dismissal.

 

[CoopersDream]

I'm a big advocate of regulating outcomes and not process and systems (e.g. when it comes to tech and AI).

Football doesn't do that consistently though. You can be sent off for an outcome (eg DOGSO) or for the pure process (reckless studs up challenge using unnecessary force, whether contact is made or not).

This was neither violent conduct nor serious foul play. If you think so then spell out exactly what makes it so because the grey area/make it up as you go along stuff usually involves handballs and penalties, not grounds for dismissal.

Because he endangered the safety of an opponent. He could have snapped his ankle. Again, he was unfortunate but he could have seriously injured his opponent. Textbook serious foul play.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Because he endangered the safety of an opponent. He could have snapped his ankle. Again, he was unfortunate but he could have seriously injured his opponent. Textbook serious foul play.

If he stood on his foot and broke all of Jelert's toes, should that then be a red card?

I fully get wanting to minimise injuries, but a) this is football and accidents will happen and b) the fact that Jelert actually didn't break his ankle means there probably wasn't a lot of force behind the challenge.

Ultimately this whole incident is being judged solely by the outcome, not the actual"challenge" itself, and that's what I have personally have a problem with.

 

[CoopersDream]

Ultimately this whole incident is being judged solely by the outcome, not the actual"challenge" itself, and that's what I have personally have a problem with.

And that is fair. We can all think the rules should be in one way or another, but this is the way the rules currently are.

 

[caid]

I think by the letter of the law you could give a red for it. But the rule wasn't designed for that incident and its an awkward, stupid fit really.
I'd think of it closer to a 50/50 challenge than a tackle which is how its being interpreted.
I mean you can judge the outcome and say he's stood on a players ankle so red card but then you'll have incidents like shaws years back where his leg gets snapped in two and we dont even get a free kick for it. Player who broke his leg goes on to score and get man of the match.
Other than the outcome theres really nothing to criticise. He tried to trap a ball and was stretching for it which happens about a hundred times a match.
I think it was just an unfortunate collision which has no fault and needs no punishment. Red was excessive, you can claim it was inside the rules (fecking everything is these days) but its not an appropriate punishment for such a nothing offence.

 

[VanKenny]

I find it weird how basically everyone agrees its a fair red card except here in the CAF and a few random pundits who thought it was harsh. The spanish speaking commentators and pundits didnt even question the decision, saw it as an obvious one.

And it was a red card. We know that, because it already happened, ref already pulled out the red card out of his pocket and ejected Rashford out of the game. We can move on now.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Because he endangered the safety of an opponent. He could have snapped his ankle. Again, he was unfortunate but he could have seriously injured his opponent. Textbook serious foul play.

According to the textbook it has to be a tackle or a challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent. That wording is very important because you can't actually make a tackle or a challenge when you have possession like Rashford did.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

I find it weird how basically everyone agrees its a fair red card except here in the CAF and a few random pundits who thought it was harsh. The spanish speaking commentators and pundits didnt even question the decision, saw it as an obvious one.

And it was a red card. We know that, because it already happened, ref already pulled out the red card out of his pocket and ejected Rashford out of the game. We can move on now.

Why wasn't Endos a red card then? It really calls into question if Rashfords deserved a red or just a yellow.

 

[MackRobinson]

I've not mentioned different rules. I've referred to the laws as they're written, and firmly believe what Rashford did doesn't fit the definition given for serious foul play, which is one of several offenses a player can receive a red card for.

Serious foul play dictates that the player attempted a tackle or challenge, and I don't see how a player in possession, shielding the ball from an attempted tackle/challenge, can also be attempting one.

If he flings an elbow out or kicks out while shielding the ball, he can be sent off, but it would be for violent conduct, not serious foul play. Rashford certainly wasn't guilty of violent conduct.

An elbow wouldn't be a challenge though

 

[Thom Merrilin]

If you actually think about this for a second it makes no sense. Just because Rashford shields the ball and the other person tries to get it does not mean they play under different rules.

They actually kind of do. Here's this from the 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."

You are allowed to make different movements than your opponent when shielding the ball.

 

[caid]

An elbow wouldn't be a challenge though

You didn't read that did you

 

[CoopersDream]

They actually kind of do. Here's this from the 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."

You are allowed to make different movements than your opponent when shielding the ball.

Yes, you are correct, this definitely says that you cannot commit serious foul play when shielding a ball. Really got me there.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Yes, you are correct, this definitely says that you cannot commit serious foul play when shielding a ball. Really got me there.

Huh? I never said that. You said "Just because Rashford shields the ball and the other person tries to get it does not mean they play under different rules." and I pointed out that's not actually true.

 

[caid]

Yes, you are correct, this definitely says that you cannot commit serious foul play when shielding a ball. Really got me there.

I mean its a rule that only applies to tackles or challenges so ... yeah, hes kind of right. Violent conduct might be closer to the mark.

 

[Alex99]

An elbow wouldn't be a challenge though

Read the post again.

I'm saying that you can commit a red card offense while shielding the ball, but that would be violent conduct (e.g. an elbow) and not serious foul play, which requires the player being dismissed to have been attempting a tackle or challenge.

Rashford quite clearly didn't do anything that could be considered violent conduct, and he wasn't attempting a tackle or challenge, so it can't be serious foul play either.

 

[CoopersDream]

Huh? I never said that. You said "Just because Rashford shields the ball and the other person tries to get it does not mean they play under different rules." and I pointed out that's not actually true.

Read between the lines, we are talking about serious foul play here. Anyway, that part of the rule only says someone are allowed to shield a ball as long ad they don't actually break any rules doing so (using arms or body, whatever that means). I do not think that means they are not subject to serious foul play.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Read between the lines, we are talking about serious foul play here. Anyway, that part of the rule only says someone are allowed to shield a ball as long ad they don't actually break any rules doing so (using arms or body, whatever that means). I do not think that means they are not subject to serious foul play.

Ok, talking about serious foul play, here's the law:

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.

It comes down to whether what rashford did was a tackle or challenge and I don't think it was.

The only other argument is violent conduct and I don't think it's that either.

 

[CoopersDream]

It comes down to whether what rashford did was a tackle or challenge and I don't think it was.

But arguing this would be like a Man City fan arguing that Rodri shouldn't have been sent off for grabbing somone's neck, because the rule of violent conduct only says you can't deliberately hit someone in the head or face and mentions nothing about the neck.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

But arguing this would be like a Man City fan arguing that Rodri shouldn't have been sent off for grabbing somone's neck, because the rule of violent conduct only says you can't deliberately hit someone in the head or face and mentions nothing about the neck.

That's only part of the violent conduct law. Here's the full thing:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

So that Man city fan would have no ground to stand on seeing as that loophole is accounted for in the law, unlike the serious foul play law.

Do you have a better response?

 

[Matt Varnish]

But ref should have to watch both speeds. That’s the best way

He does.
He is in direct contact with VAR team and can ask to see the incident at any speed, freeze frame and all available angles.
VAR is there as a fifth on field referee to act on incidents the active referee and his assistant may miss.

 

[Alex99]

But arguing this would be like a Man City fan arguing that Rodri shouldn't have been sent off for grabbing somone's neck, because the rule of violent conduct only says you can't deliberately hit someone in the head or face and mentions nothing about the neck.

The violent conduct law covers general excessive force or brutality as well, which would therefore cover grabbing someone's neck.

 

[caid]

But arguing this would be like a Man City fan arguing that Rodri shouldn't have been sent off for grabbing somone's neck, because the rule of violent conduct only says you can't deliberately hit someone in the head or face and mentions nothing about the neck.

Its covered by the laws but now your arguing about the spirit of the rules. I dont think Rashford did anything against the spirit of the rules that warranted immediate expulsion and suspension.

 

[Constable Odo]

One of the problems with modern society is everything is viewed in such black and white terms, it's not just football, all sports suffer for it. Boxing every close decision people label it a robbery, red cards, it's always either the worst decision ever or OMG that's a red. I think it was a harsh red and there was no intent but I can also see why it was given as a red watching back, it does look quite bad.

Not everything has to be a huge outrage. I thought the softest decision on the night was United's penalty but what concerns me most is United's inability to deal with these situations like this, if your Liverpool or City you deal with that and you probably still see the game out, United lose their heads and panic 100% of the time. Did anybody really think we would hold on?

 

[TheRedHearted]

He does.
He is in direct contact with VAR team and can ask to see the incident at any speed, freeze frame and all available angles.
VAR is there as a fifth on field referee to act on incidents the active referee and his assistant may miss.

I’m not saying he should have the ability to ask to see it at another speed.

it should be required to see it at slow motion and at full speed.

 

[antohan]

Because he endangered the safety of an opponent. He could have snapped his ankle. Again, he was unfortunate but he could have seriously injured his opponent. Textbook serious foul play.

He didn't set out to hit or stamp the opponent, just tried to shield the ball, stuck his leg out (a bit late and too far out for my liking, granted) and was unlucky to fully catch his rival's ankle.

Worst case it's a caution or else any player is endangering rivals from the moment they set foot on a pitch wearing boots with studs.

Ultimately this whole incident is being judged solely by the outcome, not the actual"challenge" itself, and that's what I have personally have a problem with.

Not even the outcome but a freeze frame that looks far worse than the real time sequence or the actual outcome.

 

[Bluelion7]

This is not an argument for it not being a red. Rules have changed drastically in terms of incidents like this over the last 15 years.

My first post explained why I didn’t think it was a red. That post was responding to someone who said it was ridiculous to think people could start sliding a foot in under an opponents to draw red cards … like it wasn’t possible.

I’m just saying it absolutely is something you can do.

 

[MackRobinson]

Read the post again.

I'm saying that you can commit a red card offense while shielding the ball, but that would be violent conduct (e.g. an elbow) and not serious foul play, which requires the player being dismissed to have been attempting a tackle or challenge.

Rashford quite clearly didn't do anything that could be considered violent conduct, and he wasn't attempting a tackle or challenge, so it can't be serious foul play either.

Ah I see. My bad

 

[MackRobinson]

You didn't read that did you

No. I just picked a random post to reply to

 

[CoopersDream]

That's only part of the violent conduct law. Here's the full thing:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

So that Man city fan would have no ground to stand on seeing as that loophole is accounted for in the law, unlike the serious foul play law.

Do you have a better response?

The whole point is that it is a stupid argument. Just as saying that you cannot commit serious foul play when you shield the ball is. It's grasping at straws. What do you think the Copenhagen player is doing? Hanging around to see out the match? Talking to Rashford about what Rashford can visit when he is in Copenhagen? Or maybe he is trying to challenge for the ball?

Unless you're arguing that he didn't risk causing injury to his opponent planting his studs on his ankle the way he did (which, to me, would be dishonest) it is serious foul play. Which is exactly why it was cautioned as such.

Either way, let's just agree to disagree here. You're never going to convince me that this wasn't serious foul play and I am obviously never going to convince you that it was. No need to keep doing this.

He didn't set out to hit or stamp the opponent, just tried to shield the ball, stuck his leg out (a bit late and too far out for my liking, granted) and was unlucky to fully catch his rival's ankle.

Worst case it's a caution or else any player is endangering rivals from the moment they set foot on a pitch wearing boots with studs.

Again you are mentioning that he didn't set out to do what he did, that is irrelevant. I agree that he was very unlucky, he certainly didn't mean to make that contact. What's important by the rules is that he did, and he risked causing injury while doing so.

For the last sentence, yes, anyone that makes contact the way Rashford do endanger his opponent. Anyone standing on a football pitch does not endanger his opponent, even if he indeed does have boots with studs. Anyway, this will lead nowhere so no reason to continue this.