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

[Thom Merrilin]

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.

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.

How is it a stupid argument? If the violent conduct law only said "it's violent conduct if you strike a players head or face" then by definition striking sobody in the neck isn't violent conduct. That's the situation we have here with the serious fould play law. It clearly states a player must commit a tackle or a challenge.

I agree that what Rashford did risked injuring the other player. That's irrelevant though if you don't believe Rashford was committing a tackle or a challenge.

Fair enough, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Matt Varnish]

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.

Google is your friend !
All the rules and guidance for referee's is there for everyone on the IFAB website
Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct | IFAB (theifab.com)

VAR
VAR is a fifth referee, it's position in the game was updated a couple of seasons back, it is there for the benefit of the four match officials to bring to their attention incidents that the match officials may or may not have seen, it's important to remember this for those stating "the Ref didn't give a free kick", that is irrelevant now with VAR.

While we are at it, I would like it if people read the whole thread.
One last time, it doesn't matter if Rashford meant to do it or not, the fact is, he did it, as others have said, "intent" was removed from the rule around 10 yrs ago.

Rashford knew the player was there, if not, why did he attempt to shield the ball in the such a strong way.
Rashford went outside of what would be considered a "normal stance" in an attempt to shield the ball, in doing so he fouled a player without making contact with the ball.
All this adds up to serious foul play/endangering a player.
It's a red.

Now on to pundits.
As an ex Referee I can categorically state that I wouldn't need to take my mittens or boots off to count the number of players who know the rules of the game, and the guidance given by the IFAB.
Pundits express opinions, that's all they are opinions, and just like assholes we all have one.

 

[Matt Varnish]

How is it a stupid argument? If the violent conduct law only said "it's violent conduct if you strike a players head or face" then by definition striking sobody in the neck isn't violent conduct. That's the situation we have here with the serious fould play law. It clearly states a player must commit a tackle or a challenge.

I agree that what Rashford did risked injuring the other player. That's irrelevant though if you don't believe Rashford was committing a tackle or a challenge.

Fair enough, let's agree to disagree.

Violent conduct and serious foul play are totally different.

Violent conduct would be intentionally hitting a player (headbutt, punch, elbow etc)
Serious foul play is a foul/tackle considered to be dangerous and likely to cause injury to another player, (two footed challenge, going over the ball, high tackle etc)

 

[Alex99]

Google is your friend !
All the rules and guidance for referee's is there for everyone on the IFAB website
Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct | IFAB (theifab.com)

VAR
VAR is a fifth referee, it's position in the game was updated a couple of seasons back, it is there for the benefit of the four match officials to bring to their attention incidents that the match officials may or may not have seen, it's important to remember this for those stating "the Ref didn't give a free kick", that is irrelevant now with VAR.

While we are at it, I would like it if people read the whole thread.
One last time, it doesn't matter if Rashford meant to do it or not, the fact is, he did it, as others have said, "intent" was removed from the rule around 10 yrs ago.

Rashford knew the player was there, if not, why did he attempt to shield the ball in the such a strong way.
Rashford went outside of what would be considered a "normal stance" in an attempt to shield the ball, in doing so he fouled a player without making contact with the ball.
All this adds up to serious foul play/endangering a player.
It's a red.

Now on to pundits.
As an ex Referee I can categorically state that I wouldn't need to take my mittens or boots off to count the number of players who know the rules of the game, and the guidance given by the IFAB.
Pundits express opinions, that's all they are opinions, and just like assholes we all have one.

The irony of you talking about reading the whole thread.

I've quoted that multiple times. I've also not mentioned intent.

Now find me the bit on that site where it specifically mentions the buckling of the ankle, which is the (flawed) guidance in addition to the law, only available to the public if an official bothers to share it.

My point is that serious foul play specifically mentions a player attempting a tackle or challenge. Rashford had the ball, so surely can't have been attempting either?

Read the thread.

 

[Matt Varnish]

The irony of you talking about reading the whole thread.

I've quoted that multiple times. I've also not mentioned intent.

Now find me the bit on that site where it specifically mentions the buckling of the ankle, which is the (flawed) guidance in addition to the law, only available to the public if an official bothers to share it.

My point is that serious foul play specifically mentions a player attempting a tackle or challenge. Rashford had the ball, so surely can't have been attempting either?

Read the thread.

I have read the thread, all of it.

I wasn't having a direct go at you, I was merely trying to clear some misunderstandings on how players and fans see the game to how laws are interpreted.

Eg; Fans see Rashford attempting to shield the ball, by moving his foot over it, whilst attempting to hold off another player, that is a technical and tactical part of the game.
A referee/VAR see's a player stepping over the ball and in the process of doing that apparently injuring another player, that is a foul, what he also see's is that his boot has gone over the ball to gain possession, which in the eye's of the law is a high tackle, and serious foul play, so it's a red card offence.

If Rashfords foot had gone over the ball and landed on the grass without touching the player, then it's not a foul, but contact was made, that is what the interpretation is, did he or did he not make contact with the player leg, you could argue that they (VAR) were also looking to see if the player was faking injury.

 

[Alex99]

I have read the thread, all of it.

I wasn't having a direct go at you, I was merely trying to clear some misunderstandings on how players and fans see the game to how laws are interpreted.

Eg; Fans see Rashford attempting to shield the ball, by moving his foot over it, whilst attempting to hold off another player, that is a technical and tactical part of the game.
A referee/VAR see's a player stepping over the ball and in the process of doing that apparently injuring another player, that is a foul, what he also see's is that his boot has gone over the ball to gain possession, which in the eye's of the law is a high tackle, and serious foul play, so it's a red card offence.

If Rashfords foot had gone over the ball and landed on the grass without touching the player, then it's not a foul, but contact was made, that is what the interpretation is, did he or did he not make contact with the player leg, you could argue that they (VAR) were also looking to see if the player was faking injury.

But you've not cleared up anything.

You quoted me and patronisingly pointed to a site that I've repeatedly quoted and that doesn't even include all of the information you believe it to.

You've also not addressed the point/question I've posted multiple times - the law for serious foul play requires the foul to have been an attempted tackle or challenge. Rashford had possession of the ball, so surely couldn't have been attempting either? With that in mind, it can't have been serious foul play, and it certainly wasn't violent conduct, and therefore it wasn't a red card offense.

 

[gorshed]

Never a red card, rashford wasn’t even looking at the player or were his foot was landing, totally accidental which should definitely be taking into account, VAR is ruining football so many dodgy calls, spoke to loads of people who support other teams like Liverpool and arsenal and agree was a joke of a sending off, anyone saying pundits agreed with the decision please use common sense, most are loving the situation at United now so a bad decision against us they are never going to agree or say was wrong call.

 

[tomaldinho1]

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.

This is just a wall of text which is no way adds new information or responds to what I said to you. Writing more doesn’t make a difference if you’re just rehashing what you’ve said before.

The fact you are unable to accept it was a studs up incident - studs make contact with the player’s leg/ankle is genuinely comical.

 

[Alex99]

This is just a wall of text which is no way adds new information or responds to what I said to you. Writing more doesn’t make a difference if you’re just rehashing what you’ve said before.

The fact you are unable to accept it was a studs up incident - studs make contact with the player’s leg/ankle is genuinely comical.

The studs weren't even up!

What's comical is the complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.

 

[antohan]

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.

Nothing dishonest about it.

The whole point is most of us think he only risks it if he does it deliberately, which you admit elsewhere he did not.

It is only an unfortunate outcome that could have caused injury to an opponent, so it may be worthy of a caution.

In your own Freudian slip you call it caution because that's precisely what it warranted. What it got was punishment to the player, the team and altering the course of the contest for what was no more than unfortunate and coincidental timing.

 

[CoopersDream]

Nothing dishonest about it.

The whole point is most of us think he only risks it if he does it deliberately, which you admit elsewhere he did not.

It is only an unfortunate outcome that could have caused injury to an opponent, so it may be worthy of a caution.

In your own Freudian slip you call it caution because that's precisely what it warranted. What it got was punishment to the player, the team and altering the course of the contest for what was no more than unfortunate and coincidental timing.

Well, he clearly doesn't only risk injury if it was deliberate, the risk is there regardless. If you think that, then fine, but very few referees are going to agree with you on that one.

Okey, so I used the wrong word. It's not like English is my native language anyway. But I guess, point to you.

But you know, I'm not gonna stop you from having your opinion.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The studs weren't even up!

What's comical is the complete misrepresentation of what actually happened.

You’ve lost the plot

 

[Alex99]

You’ve lost the plot

Studs up tackle, was it? Despite him having the ball and his studs pointing to the ground?

 

[manichester]

Every time a player raises his foot it has to be a red card, how many times do referees in European games give a freekick for a high or raised foot, often without a yellow card. Except if you are a United player and named Nani against R.M.

 

[antohan]

Well, he clearly doesn't only risk injury if it was deliberate, the risk is there regardless. If you think that, then fine, but very few referees are going to agree with you on that one.

Okey, so I used the wrong word. It's not like English is my native language anyway. But I guess, point to you.

But you know, I'm not gonna stop you from having your opinion.

It's not my native language either but that's probably what it boils down to as we are discussing the nuance of how the term risk is meant to be interpreted.

If you stamp on someone's ankle there's obviously and unquestionably a risk of injury. The issue is whether Rashford acts in a way where he deliberately puts a fellow player at risk. That's not just about intent but careless lack of control or use of excessive force (i.e. "you should know better even if you didn't mean to"). If he does not then you can't send him off for the unfortunate outcome.

E.g. players knock heads regularly when going for headers, some get concussed and must leave the pitch, but when was the last time you saw anyone sent off for it?

 

[Snow]

I have read the thread, all of it.

I wasn't having a direct go at you, I was merely trying to clear some misunderstandings on how players and fans see the game to how laws are interpreted.

Eg; Fans see Rashford attempting to shield the ball, by moving his foot over it, whilst attempting to hold off another player, that is a technical and tactical part of the game.
A referee/VAR see's a player stepping over the ball and in the process of doing that apparently injuring another player, that is a foul, what he also see's is that his boot has gone over the ball to gain possession, which in the eye's of the law is a high tackle, and serious foul play, so it's a red card offence.

If Rashfords foot had gone over the ball and landed on the grass without touching the player, then it's not a foul, but contact was made, that is what the interpretation is, did he or did he not make contact with the player leg, you could argue that they (VAR) were also looking to see if the player was faking injury.

You're wrong about this. He does the worst thing possible when trying to shield the ball he's in possession off and he gets sent off, presumably for endangering the safety of a player despite the fact that the player was perfectly fine seeing as there was no force applied and thus there isn't much of any endangerment going on.

Let's say that it was a dangerous movement. He slightly misses the player, he then should get a straight red card according to the rules. If you saw that movement from Rashford hitting nothing and thought nothing of it then what's the danger here?

That's the main argument here. The force applied from Rashford was so little that it wasn't dangerous. A tackle where AWB comes from behind, bends his foot and hooks the ball is perfectly fine but if you're telling me that he's in no way endangering the player (or anyone that tackles at all for that matter) when doing so because the end result is a player not getting hurt then you're basing your opinion on whether or not a player gets hurt or not which is not the way in which the rules are worded.

That is why people disagree with this red card. They saw it in real time, just like the referee did, and no one thought anything of it. The player didn't get hurt despite the worst possible outcome because it actually wasn't a dangerous challenge. Ankles are designed to bend and the force applied from Rashford foot wasn't dangerous.

Now, refs in Europe don't follow the handball rules as they are written either. If they have a different guideline then they should explain them so everyone knows where the line are. As of now we're still dealing with arbitrary decisions that are defining too many games.

 

[CoopersDream]

If you stamp on someone's ankle there's obviously and unquestionably a risk of injury. The issue is whether Rashford acts in a way where he deliberately puts a fellow player at risk. That's not just about intent but careless lack of control or use of excessive force (i.e. "you should know better even if you didn't mean to"). If he does not then you can't send him off for the unfortunate outcome.

That is not the issue. Which has been stated over and over again. Other challenges with equal outcome with no intent and no excessive force and so have seen players sent off multiple times this season already. So obviously he can be sent off for it. Again, very, very few referees would agree with you here.

The rule is formulated in a way that you should be aware of you surroundings, and considering Rashford did what he did you can easily argue that he had a careless lack of control in his action.

 

[NicolaSacco]

That is not the issue. Which has been stated over and over again. Other challenges with equal outcome with no intent and no excessive force and so have seen players sent off multiple times this season already. So obviously he can be sent off for it. Again, very, very few referees would agree with you here.

The rule is formulated in a way that you should be aware of you surroundings, and considering Rashford did what he did you can easily argue that he had a careless lack of control in his action.

It’s absolutely astonishing how, 900 posts in, so many people are still mentioning intent. Fair play to those who respond correctly each time, but I can’t help but feel it’s falling on deliberately deaf ears.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Studs up tackle, was it? Despite him having the ball and his studs pointing to the ground?

How can you say that when the contact is a sideways movement into the leg/ankle of another player with those little things that are on the sole of a football boot, I can’t remember what they’re called though, can you help me out?

 

[Rockets Redglare]

How can you say that when the contact is a sideways movement into the leg/ankle of another player with those little things that are on the sole of a football boot, I can’t remember what they’re called though, can you help me out?

It wasn’t studs up though was it. Whether you think it was a red or not is irrelevant, his studs were pointing towards the ground when they made contact with the other player.

 

[tomaldinho1]

It wasn’t studs up though was it. Whether you think it was a red or not is irrelevant, his studs were pointing towards the ground when they made contact with the other player.

Explain.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Violent conduct and serious foul play are totally different.

Violent conduct would be intentionally hitting a player (headbutt, punch, elbow etc)
Serious foul play is a foul/tackle considered to be dangerous and likely to cause injury to another player, (two footed challenge, going over the ball, high tackle etc)

Yeah I know all of that. Did you read my conversation with the other poster before repying?

 

[Daydreamer]

Explain.

I completely understand (and could possibly be convinced of) the argument that this shouldn’t be a red card.

Where I’m lost is the idea that this isn’t a foul that seriously endangered the safety of an opponent. It quite clearly is, therefore it’s a red card according to the laws as they’ve been written for the last decade.

Maybe they should be changed, but until they are - it’s a red.

 

[Vernon Philander]

Correct call with the current standards

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

That is not the issue. Which has been stated over and over again. Other challenges with equal outcome with no intent and no excessive force and so have seen players sent off multiple times this season already. So obviously he can be sent off for it. Again, very, very few referees would agree with you here.

The rule is formulated in a way that you should be aware of you surroundings, and considering Rashford did what he did you can easily argue that he had a careless lack of control in his action.

No, you still need a mens rea of intent or recklessness. If not, a player could dive in front of a running player and when they make contact with them on the floor they would have eNdAnGeReD aN oPpOnEnT.

Intent (i. e. deliberate) or recklessness (through excessive force, high foot, etc.) are inferred in the rules through thousands of previously upheld decisions.

Rashford was not intentional or reckless. It's never a red.

 

[Daydreamer]

No, you still need a mens rea of intent or recklessness. If not, a player could dive in front of a running player and when they make contact with them on the floor they would have eNdAnGeReD aN oPpOnEnT.

Intent (i. e. deliberate) or recklessness (through excessive force, high foot, etc.) are inferred in the rules through thousands of previously upheld decisions.

Rashford was not intentional or reckless. It's never a red.

You’re phrasing this as a hypothetical, but that’s how the rules are currently written (and have been for 10 years). So why haven’t we seen players doing as you’ve suggested?

Probably because trying to get your ankle caught under the full weight of a professional athlete isn’t exactly a full-proof plan.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

You’re phrasing this as a hypothetical, but that’s how the rules are currently written (and have been for 10 years). So why haven’t we seen players doing as you’ve suggested?

Probably because trying to get your ankle caught under the full weight of a professional athlete isn’t exactly a full-proof plan.

The rules don't specifically say with intent/recklessness but that's how they've been interpreted fairly consistently. Deviation from those rules to strictly interpreting them at face value usually invokes furore and controversy. Nani red card against Real Madrid in 2013 CL QF comes to mind.

Football rules are like a legal system. You have your legislation (football rules) but you then have a body of case law (previous decisions) to assist Judges (referees) in correctly making judgments. Making decisions which technically fit the legislative wording but disregard binding case law would be unlawful in a legal system. I don't see football as being different.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I completely understand (and could possibly be convinced of) the argument that this shouldn’t be a red card.

Where I’m lost is the idea that this isn’t a foul that seriously endangered the safety of an opponent. It quite clearly is, therefore it’s a red card according to the laws as they’ve been written for the last decade.

Maybe they should be changed, but until they are - it’s a red.

Yeah this is what I don’t get. I completely understand people are annoyed that it’s a red but most of them seem to understand why it is a red card in today’s game. It’s one or two who I suspect just can’t let it go but probably have realised by now.

 

[CoopersDream]

No, you still need a mens rea of intent or recklessness. If not, a player could dive in front of a running player and when they make contact with them on the floor they would have eNdAnGeReD aN oPpOnEnT.

There has literally been several red cards this season where it has neither been any intent nor a reckless challange/tackle (but the contact and result has been very similar to that of Rashford). So no, it is not needed (not in the way you think, at least). As for the second part, for the umpteenth time, that would be a terrible and very difficult tactic to employ and. Not only would you risk getting seriously injured while doing that, you could just as easily be red carded yourself for such a thing.

 

[Bobski]

The most credulity stretching decisions in that game were the guy not being sent off for elbowing Rasmus, and the penalty Utd got, that pen just had me thinking I don't understand the game anymore. The penalty against Utd was ridiculously soft as well, should never a be a pen. The Rashford red at the very least is debatable, you can understand how the decision was reached.

 

[LDUred]

It's more likely that Rashford used his body thinking he could buy a free kick because he was going to be tackled from behind. If he had been a millisecond quicker, that's exactly what would have happened.

After watching a blatant stamp go unpunished in today's game I am amazed some of you are still splitting hairs over this trying to convince yourselves it was a fair decision.

It's palpably clear to anyone without some bitter agenda that a straight red card was a very poor decision, largely because the ref was told to decide whether it was a red or not. If you give him a 'red card check' rather than just asking him to watch the footage back, obviously he's going to be more likely to produce a red card. VAR planted the seed.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

There has literally been several red cards this season where it has neither been any intent nor a reckless challange/tackle (but the contact and result has been very similar to that of Rashford). So no, it is not needed (not in the way you think, at least). As for the second part, for the umpteenth time, that would be a terrible and very difficult tactic to employ and. Not only would you risk getting seriously injured while doing that, you could just as easily be red carded yourself for such a thing.

Provide examples please.

 

[CoopersDream]

Provide examples please.

Neither Gusto's nor Jones' challenges had any intent whatsoever, neither had excessive force nor were they particularly reckless. Both are very unfortunate in those situations. The thing they both get sent off for? The fact that the outcome of the tackle/challenge was studs on/above ankle, and buckling ankle making it a potentially endangering challenge. Nothing more to it.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

Neither Gusto's nor Jones' challenges had any intent whatsoever, neither had excessive force nor were they particularly reckless. Both are very unfortunate in those situations. The thing they both get sent off for? The fact that the outcome of the tackle/challenge was studs on/above ankle, and buckling ankle making it a potentially endangering challenge. Nothing more to it.

Not seen either but for Rashford's the opposition player came in underneath him and placed his foot exactly where you'd anticipate the person in possession of the ball to place their foot. The player endangered their self and it's not a red card by current or any former rules.

 

[CoopersDream]

Not seen either but for Rashford's the opposition player came in underneath him and placed his foot exactly where you'd anticipate the person in possession of the ball to place their foot. The player endangered their self and it's not a red card by current or any former rules.

Okay, whatever you say. Very, very few referees would agree with you there given the current rules.

 

[MackRobinson]

It's more likely that Rashford used his body thinking he could buy a free kick because he was going to be tackled from behind. If he had been a millisecond quicker, that's exactly what would have happened.

After watching a blatant stamp go unpunished in today's game I am amazed some of you are still splitting hairs over this trying to convince yourselves it was a fair decision.

It's palpably clear to anyone without some bitter agenda that a straight red card was a very poor decision, largely because the ref was told to decide whether it was a red or not. If you give him a 'red card check' rather than just asking him to watch the footage back, obviously he's going to be more likely to produce a red card. VAR planted the seed.

Why do people post crap like this? Like seriously, what's the use of this accusation?

 

[caid]

I completely understand (and could possibly be convinced of) the argument that this shouldn’t be a red card.

Where I’m lost is the idea that this isn’t a foul that seriously endangered the safety of an opponent. It quite clearly is, therefore it’s a red card according to the laws as they’ve been written for the last decade.

Maybe they should be changed, but until they are - it’s a red.

A still image isn't the best representation of the incident to be fair.
My objections are long winded and complicated and involve a thousand other incidents though, I'm fine with that being a red in principle. Its basically about variance and interpretation and bias.
I mean people keeping referring to a rule thats specifically about tackling and making challenges. If people think it should just refer to any and every situation then maybe they should remove the reference to tackles and challenges? That would be clear cut. I could have some vague faith that the rule would be applied consistently in that scenario.
Its a similar situation to my objection to the Maguire offside - I'm fine with that in principle, it not being applied consistently is where my problem lies and it happened in our very next game - thats an issue.

 

[norm87cro]

Guys you can go about it all you want but do you genuenly believe the ref would do that if it was 0 0? Or if it was Casemiro playing for Real? I personally dont and that is what is making this whole charade inconsistent. Especially CL football where english teams get the shorter end of the stick. Surley a yellow and a word of caution would be enough? Rashford isnt Roy Keane ffs. No we play well for the first time in the season, look to have a glimmer of hope progressing and the ref decides he should be centre of attention by giving a red
(what I think he thought would be a lifeline for Copenhagen and gets a shady legal excuse to f... us). F... him.The McTominay penalty was extremley soft too but it had no reprecussions otherwise we would have a big 20 page thread about it too.

And another thing what colour was the card when Shaw suffered a possibly career ending horror injury and what competition was it?

I rest my case.

 

[LochGormanAbú]

Never a red card, rashford wasn’t even looking at the player or were his foot was landing, totally accidental which should definitely be taking into account, VAR is ruining football so many dodgy calls, spoke to loads of people who support other teams like Liverpool and arsenal and agree was a joke of a sending off, anyone saying pundits agreed with the decision please use common sense, most are loving the situation at United now so a bad decision against us they are never going to agree or say was wrong call.

Liverpool v Spurs, Arsenal at Newcastle, everyone club has their own tale of woe, plenty of questionable decisions but no conspiracies, just some inept officiating

 

[Lentwood]

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?

The word 'intent' keeps coming up as a means to defend Rashford and/or by those saying 'intent doesn't matter'...and that is correct, to a degree, but it's more nuanced than that.

'Intent' is a small part of the defence, but only a small(ish) part of the larger defence, which is that Rashford was not even making a tackle and therefore it's incredibly harsh to claim he was 'endangering an opponent', which is the larger and more important part.

For example, say I attempt a bicycle-kick in midfield and kick an opponent in the head. I didn't intend to do it, but I was reckless an endangered an opponent. So it's a red card.

Likewise, if I go thundering into a tackle with great force and speed and slip as I do, clattering two-footed into my opponent above the ankle, then again, I have been reckless and endangered an opponent.

What Rashford did was not reckless and it was not dangerous - it's a run of the mill attempt to shield the ball that goes on many times during a game without consequence.

A player getting hurt does not mean the opponent was reckless. Funnily enough, I don't actually play football now, I can't even manage 5-a-side because of a recurring injury I sustained from a tackle. I first dislocated my kneecap and ruptuted my MCL after an opposition CF collided with me after I had cleared a bouncing ball - it was just bad luck on my part his weight fell against mine, my leg was planted, two heavy blokes...its unfortunate. Now I cant keep the knee in the socket, popped out twice more through routine collisions. Nothing can be done, you know when you step onto the pitch it's possible you can get hurt.