Extremely harsh. Clearly an accident and clumsy at worse. No malice in and he doesn't look at anything other than the ball. Couldn't believe it was even under review.
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
Ah Scholes and Hargreaves should be refs then, we'd never see an incorrect decision made ever again
Although based on the actual rules of the sport, they are wrong and it is a red, but nevermind
It’s always nice to see someone talk sense on the Internet. Thank you, sir.
Red cards are extremely harsh. Only intentional fouls should be red cards. Double yellows or unintentional fouñd should get a 15 min time out or something.
Its not a red card and anyone who thinks it is hasn't played/doesn't know football. The penalty was very harsh too.
That was garbage. I don’t think the ref could have decided differently based on what he was shown. Never a red otherwise.
What happened then? His studs are not up? His studs aren’t just above the ankle/shin? He didn’t take a step towards him whilst trying to protect the ball?
Bollocks decision in my opinion. I understood the Pogba one vs PSG but this one was a bit more controlled. Looked nasty but could have been given a yellow.
Football is dead. The fact the VAR can just freeze frame on the absolute worst looking part and show the ref that, and even in that Rashford is quite clearly looking the other way and has no idea the guy's leg is there, and that's not just a foul or a yellow, but is a straight red. Dead.
Last edited:
Scholes and Hargreaves both said exactly what people are arguing on here. Clueless and deluded former professional footballers with close to a thousand games between them.
Silly boy for shielding the ball.
Hyperbole much?
Completely agree but also think based on what they have been doing I wasn't surprised it was a red
If opponents foot already there, it’s not a discussion… it’s a red. Question is do players have to think “Im making a movement but I have to think/work out where might opponent put his?”. Not happening.
If Rashford was behind him and opponent shielding ball, it’s a red fine as Rashford is the tackler, onus on him. But tonight, he’s not… he’s in front, he’s shielding the ball, he puts his foot across to stop player getting to ball and player steps to same spot (split second ahead) that Rashfords foot goes to.
Can see it given especially in Europe where they look at outcome not how it happened but don’t think ref is looking at situation (and that’s been the case on lots of VAR decisions this season for all clubs. Too many stills and slow motion shots).
The pen?
If Rashford was behind him and opponent shielding ball, it’s a red fine as Rashford is the tackler, onus on him. But tonight, he’s not… he’s in front, he’s shielding the ball, he puts his foot across to stop player getting to ball and player steps to same spot (split second ahead) that Rashfords foot goes to.
Can see it given especially in Europe where they look at outcome not how it happened but don’t think ref is looking at situation (and that’s been the case on lots of VAR decisions this season for all clubs. Too many stills and slow motion shots).
The pen?
Feels like an occupational hazard rather than a red card offence. What is a player supposed to do?
Extremely harsh. It's one thing if he goes for in a tackle and catches him on the ankle. You can argue that's reckless or dangerous. But all he's trying to do is guard the ball, no eyes on the other player at all. It's completely accidental, clumsy at worst.
Football is a contact sport. Unless you're gonna stamp out all contact whatsoever then it's inevitable that you'll get accidental clashes like this.
Football is a contact sport. Unless you're gonna stamp out all contact whatsoever then it's inevitable that you'll get accidental clashes like this.
Last edited:
Should he drag his feet then? He was literally shielding the ball only ffs.
I believe Mings did something similar to Ibrahimovic and didn't get punished. I know that's a long time ago and before VAR but it shows how the game has changed.
Edit: nevermind, Mings got a 5 game ban but wasn't sent off during the game.
Then he shouldn’t have been thick as pig shit putting his leg there, I wouldn’t have a go at the train driver if he ran me over while I was pissing on the tracks.
Next time a CPH player jumps we should have someone put their leg under where they will land. Then its a red for them. Nice.
Its not a red card imo. It might be a yellow, but never a red.
Its not a red card imo. It might be a yellow, but never a red.
We'd ask for it the other way round.
VAR is actually showing refs to have less genuine knowledge of the game than I gave them credit for.
Of course its a red. We know what this place would be like if it was one of their players doing that to our player. Accidental or not, that could be an ankle break on another day. But don't worry. Everyone has found their excuse for losing as if we're the first team in history to play with 10 men and as if 10 men is a death sentence.
Deary me.
Calm down mate (sorry to use that phrase, but the caps). I wasn't referring to this incidence, but generally a player can get injured without being fouled. Arguing against the point made that it was a red because he could have been badly injured. Two players can come together in a 50/50, you can foul someone and injure yourself, etc. etc.
A yellow would be the right call imo. it was a foul, but not reckless enough to be a red.
I think it's a harsh red, but I can understand that it might be given. Like many controversial situations, when you look at them in isolation, they are not "outrageous". However, if you look at complete picture I just think it's unbeliveable how many of those "on the edge" decisions go against luck.
He hasn't gone for the ball and he's crunched into the players ankle.
Rob Green is commentating on my stream and he said "as an ex-player" he thought it was never a red, and would only be given by someone who hasn't ever played football.
If that's a red you can manipulate that in games to get a man sent off.
By this logic, someone leaping in front of your car means you're going to jail for running them over.
It takes a special level of stupidity and hate-bias to consider this "the most obvious red card you could possibly see." Shielding the ball is a routine move in football, one that players do dozens of times per game. Someone then comes sprinting from behind him and literally inserts his ankle where his foot is coming down, as one's foot always does when taking a step. If that's an obvious red in your book, you are out of your mind.
No. Its bollocks. Obviously.
An unlucky red. Not intentional but dangerous. That's the rules these days
Shielding the ball makes no difference, It’s a red, accidental but still a red …if it were on a Utd player we’d all be screaming RED!!Silly boy for shielding the ball.
Pathetic decision. Completely accidental.
It's in the orange area for me. No intention to hurt the opponent or do any harm but endangers the opponent unfortunately.
Because they’re not biased at all
It’s a red card. He goes in with his studs up. We’ve known for years that the minute you do that and catch an opponent you’re getting sent off. This isn’t something new. Rashford is an idiot for giving the red a decision to make. Just like any other player that decides to take such a risk with such a stupid challenge.
If an opposition player did the exact same to one of our players this place would be frothing at the mouth calling for a red. There’s just no objectively on this forum. Everything’s a conspiracy and everyone’s out to get us.
Jamie Carragher is also utterly deluded and part of our fan base now . Brainless statement
In slow motion it looks like a deliberate stomp. In real time, it very clearly isn't. The ref was shown a still and slow motion clip that made it look like an obvious red card. Which is not uncommon with VAR. The technology is beyond useless, in no way helping improve the credibility of referees and gives referees and lines-men a handicap in being able to do their jobs.
It's not good for fans, not good for players or good for referees. All it is good for is getting us used to random breaks so that TV networks and clubs can sell advertisement into that space. It's a blatant cash grab that doesn't improve football one iota.
It's not good for fans, not good for players or good for referees. All it is good for is getting us used to random breaks so that TV networks and clubs can sell advertisement into that space. It's a blatant cash grab that doesn't improve football one iota.