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

By the logic of "it's a red" crowd, you can just plant your leg where opponent player is running, he steps on you and it's a red. :wenger:
 
Its one of those. He was trying to plant the foot to block out the player, so not something he could really have prevented.

But at the same time, could have snapped the Copenhagen players leg.
 
It’s a red. Intentional or not his studs are on the shin whilst taking a big step towards him.

It's not a challenge though, he had the ball. Completely ridiculous decision. And the way VAR frames decisions like that for the ref is just a disgrace. That sort of evidence isn't allowed in courtrooms as it's well known that slow motion biases the watcher into thinking actions are intentional, never mind starting at the point of contact. It's a kangaroo court at that point, particularly if the ref has no balls which none of them do.
 
by the law of judging this is a PURE red, i don´t think most red cards, are people not trying to injure people with Intent..
Rashford might have looked away, but he came in with high risk, that is the placement of the foot, had Jelert not had his foot there, then yes nothing would have happened, but Rashford needs to be in control with his reaction.

And this could have been a career ending injury, it HAS to be red. the intent in my book, would have defined if it is a 1 match ban, or a multiple match ban, if there was real intent, then it could have been multiple matches he could have been banned.

It is a shame the game went so well, would have loved a Højlund hattrick but there is still time.
 
By the logic of "it's a red" crowd, you can just plant your leg where opponent player is running, he steps on you and it's a red. :wenger:
Yep, and now that a precedent has been set we should see similar red cards every week, we won't though.
 
10 minute sin bin at the most.

It couldn't be more accidental and that should be part of the rules of football. Still images and slo-mos are making this sport completely unwatchable as a spectator.
 
When a player literally inserts his ankle in the place where another player is in the process of stepping down, it isn't reckless or violent. The "offending" player can't do anything about it. No human being can react in a nanosecond. Rashford did nothing wrong, he was shielding the ball in a routine maneuver that players do dozens of times in every game. He can't help it if somebody inserts his fecking foot in the exact place that he's moving his. It's never a red card, and it's unbelievably idiotic that anyone could ever interpret that as reckless or violent. You legitimately have to be an imbecile to see it that way. It's like if somebody leaps out in front of your car while you're driving below the speed limit and somehow you're done in for reckless driving.
It's because many people cannot seperate an outcome and an actual action/interpretation so in their mind as soon as something unsavoury happens it must be a red.

That or don't realise that when you throw bodies together there are a myriad of ways that things can happen that potentially cause a player to take a whack that have nothing to do with dangerous play, it's just random occurrence based on actions that happen hundreds of times per match and by statistical likelihood will be near certain to be uneventful, but occasionally won't be.

Dangerous play should be an action that always has the potential to endanger opponents. Diving in front far out with force, two feet, going excessively high. They're all dangerous actions irrespective of what the outcome is and that's why it should be categorised as dangerous. The random element in those scenarios is far more likely to involve injuring an opponent or someone taking a big hit. Another reason it should be categorised as dangerous.

Trying to shield a ball doesn't fall into that and should never be a red. Even more so when you have the full context here of a player coming on the blindside, Rashfords body direction - it paints a grim picture of a clueless overly officious ref and VAR.
 
VAR is actually showing refs to have less genuine knowledge of the game than I gave them credit for.
It's not just refs. You've got the whole VAR panel as well who have just looked at that incident and thought 'gosh we better show the ref this'. It is actually mind boggling.
 
That is an absolutely atrocious decision. One of the worst I have seen.

A person who has played the game understands that Rashford was simply planting his foot to defend the ball

You see the Udogie one in the week. Wild tackle, two footed and out of control. Not given because Sterling moves. That's a dangerous tackle, those are the tackles we're trying to rid the game of.

Only a fat nerd in a TV studio who nobody let join in the kickabouts at school and who has never played the game thinks that the Rashford 'tackle' is a red.
This man has never played football
We should save this thread for future reference. If you think that's a red, you've never played football and your opinion hereby does not count
You've never played football
Let me just explain something for the people who have never played the game.

When the ball breaks loose, as it did in that split second, you react to shield the ball.

In order to do that, you need to plant your foot and set yourself, so that you can withstand the contact/challenge from the opponent.

You are NOT making a tackle. You are planting your foot so you can use your bodyweight to shield the ball.

If an opponent HAPPENS to stick their foot/shin/leg in the way, as you go to put your foot on the ground, that is bad luck on their part. Nothing more. Its a run of the mill in-game incident that happens over and over and over and over again all over the country in games all across the weekend.

ONLY in top level football, where we slow everything down, use 20 angles and have games officiated by fat schoolmasters are they ever red cards
So do you think it was a red?
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.
Guarding the ball is dangerous play now?
 
Hyperbole much?

Studs up. Into the oppositions ankle.
He was getting sent off the moment we all saw that replay. And we all knew it.

Like it or not it’s been that way for years. You go in with your studs up and catch the opponent you get sent off. It happens every week.
 
Because they’re not biased at all :wenger:

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.
Did you even see the challenge? How can you say studs up? He’s literally placing his foot down. He’s standing up and his foot and studs are facing towards the ground.

What the feck are you even on about?
 
Careless at worst, clown show decision at best
 
By the logic of "it's a red" crowd, you can just plant your leg where opponent player is running, he steps on you and it's a red. :wenger:
Pogba has been red carded for this exact same thing before. That is the risk you run when you do it. Putting your leg down with force on the leg of abother person, whether intentional or not, is seriously endangering the opponent and is a red card.
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.
Shielding the ball is a dangerous play now? Ok.
 
Studs up. Into the oppositions ankle.
He was getting sent off the moment we all saw that replay. And we all knew it.

Like it or not it’s been that way for years. You go in with your studs up and catch the opponent you get sent off. It happens every week.
His studs were literally down though.
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.

Ah, but they've played football at random-shlub-posting-on-the-internet level. That gives them more insight into the current technicalities of red cards than actual knowledge ever could.
 
Its one of those. He was trying to plant the foot to block out the player, so not something he could really have prevented.

But at the same time, could have snapped the Copenhagen players leg.

David Busst suffered a career ending injury against United in 1996, and almost had to have his leg amputated. Neither Denis Irwin nor Brian McClair were sent off for it, because common sense prevailed back then apparently.

Just because it looks bad doesn’t mean it’s a red. Just because someone got hurt doesn’t mean it’s a red. The outcome should never dictate the decision.
 
It’s the most obvious red card you could possibly see. How anyone is arguing against it is hilarious and shows how utterly deluded this fan base is.

I'd argue that anyone who thinks that is a red card has never played a game of football in their life.
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.

Genuine question, a player is running for the ball, an opposition plants his leg in front of them and they come down on their ankle, is that then a red card?
 
By the logic of "it's a red" crowd, you can just plant your leg where opponent player is running, he steps on you and it's a red. :wenger:

The thing is that Rushford wasn't just running there. He was deliberately putting his food out of his stride in order to shield the ball. In my opinion those kind of actions should be regarded as duels and Rashford was clearly late. This was by no means intentional or malicious, but I think a red card is deserved.
 
Did you even see the challenge? How can you say studs up? He’s literally placing his foot down. He’s standing up and his foot and studs are facing towards the ground.

What the feck are you even on about?
I guess he should just drag his feet and run like that by their logic.
 
I'd argue that anyone who thinks that is a red card has never played a game of football in their life.

And I'd argue that the fact it has so heavily split opinion, even amongst 'neutrals' both online and who I know in person, shows that it wasn't a 'clear and obvious' error. So, why did VAR get involved? The threshold seems to be a lot lower when we play.
 
I have no idea how some could think this isn't a red card other than simply not knowing the laws of the game. It's a very dangerous play that could have resulted in a broken ankle. Intent doesn't matter at all.
The law in question is this correct?

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

I don't see how what Rashford did applies to that law. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a different part of the law though. I don't think it could be violent conduct since that does imply intent.
 
Was Nani against Real Madrid a red card? Because technically he studded the bloke in the chest...

This is the problem with giving power to people that don't play or understand football. You strip away the context and you get mechanical black and white decisions, when clearly there is nothing malicious about what Rashford has done there what so ever.
 
I’d argue that anyone who thinks he wasn’t going to get sent off hasn’t watched a game of football in the last decade.

Knowing he was going to get sent off and thinking it's a sending off are two different things.

Also he wouldn't have been sent off in the Prem ( as we've seen players come down on ankles and not be sent off) so what does that tell you? That CL refs are stricter sure, but again, that doesn't mean it should be a red card.
 
Did you even see the challenge? How can you say studs up? He’s literally placing his foot down. He’s standing up and his foot and studs are facing towards the ground.

What the feck are you even on about?




He was never not going to get a red card for that. 5/10 years ago? Yeah probably. But in todays game? Not a chance.
 
It’s a red card you can’t go over the top of the ball it’s a lazy way to try and guard the ball, I know it’s soft but it’s a red.
 
Studs up. Into the oppositions ankle.
He was getting sent off the moment we all saw that replay. And we all knew it.

Like it or not it’s been that way for years. You go in with your studs up and catch the opponent you get sent off. It happens every week.


Umm it's a marginal call at best, it's far less dangerous than the Saka one on Bruno that wasn't given. You're making it sound like Keane on Haaland so you sound mental
 
David Busst suffered a career ending injury against United in 1996, and almost had to have his leg amputated. Neither Denis Irwin nor Brian McClair were sent off for it, because common sense prevailed back then apparently.

Just because it looks bad doesn’t mean it’s a red. Just because someone got hurt doesn’t mean it’s a red. The outcome should never dictate the decision.

And example from 27 years ago!

I was in the ground that day. Was nasty.

Football has changed. Anything that endangers the player is seen as a sending off these days. Just the way it is. Even if it is not meant.
 
Guarding the ball by stomping on another player's ankle is a dangerous play, yes.
Stomping :lol: give over.

By your logic then, players just shouldn't even bother trying to guard the ball just in case someone puts their foot in. Just let the opposition take the ball in that case.

It's a contact sport. It's inevitable that you get accidental points of contact like this. That's the game. It doesn't make every accidental clash dangerous play. It's only because of VAR overanalysing every single touch that it's even given.
 
The total bias on here is just ridiculous. You lot can never cry again when one of our players is on the end of an unintentional but dangerous tackle (and it will inevitably happen) because you have made it clear tonight that as long as it is not a player's intention to hurt another player, it can't ever be a red card.