He's not even made a challenge. He's stepped on him. No one is getting a broken ankle from anything like that. Never a red card.
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
Shielding the ball doesn’t mean you endanger the player. Intentional or not that was an ankle breaker.
He wasn't endangerining the player, the player decided to slip his foot there, he endangered himself.
His foot is literally 3 inches off the floor when he makes contact because the player slid his leg under his foot. You can’t call that a high boot. Clueless
By this logic, literally everytime you put your foot across/over the ball to shield it you have endangered your opponent.
If the Copenhagen lad puts his foot a yard to the left and doesn't get stood on, does anyone think that Rashford has made a dangerous challenge? Of course not.
If the exact same thing happens against a United player I'll demand a red card because of the precedent thats been set. I don't think what Rashford did should be a red but apparently it is. It's a case of what should be vs. reality imo.
The point is: VAR doesn't need to take action for it imo as it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake. VAR is just not used correctly in England and in Europe as well.
Cant even call it a tackle, in my opinion. Just putting his foot down.
Reposting this from the matchday thread:
Here are the reasons a referee can issue a red card:
Rashford didn't deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity, didn't bite or spit, didn't use offensive language, didn't receive a second yellow, and didn't enter the video operation room.
That leaves us with it being either violent conduct or serious foul play.
Here's the definition of violent conduct:
And it clearly wasn't that.
So that leaves serious foul play:
Firstly, it wasn't even a tackle or challenge. He had possession of the ball and was shielding it. However he was challenged by the opponent.
Secondly, as I pointed out, that exact motion to shield the ball will happen many times a match. The only way it "endangers the safety of an opponent" is if an opponent is simply incredibly unlucky in how their own challenge positions their leg in relation to the player shielding the ball. It's a massive, massive stretch to try and fit shielding the ball into this definition of serious foul play.
It's there to stop players flying into tackles and then going "I won the ball" after glancing it slightly. Not punish a player because an opponent happened to stick his leg under their studs.
As for the rest of it, it wasn't "excessive force or brutality" and it wasn't a lunge.
Here are the reasons a referee can issue a red card:
Rashford didn't deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity, didn't bite or spit, didn't use offensive language, didn't receive a second yellow, and didn't enter the video operation room.
That leaves us with it being either violent conduct or serious foul play.
Here's the definition of violent conduct:
And it clearly wasn't that.
So that leaves serious foul play:
Firstly, it wasn't even a tackle or challenge. He had possession of the ball and was shielding it. However he was challenged by the opponent.
Secondly, as I pointed out, that exact motion to shield the ball will happen many times a match. The only way it "endangers the safety of an opponent" is if an opponent is simply incredibly unlucky in how their own challenge positions their leg in relation to the player shielding the ball. It's a massive, massive stretch to try and fit shielding the ball into this definition of serious foul play.
It's there to stop players flying into tackles and then going "I won the ball" after glancing it slightly. Not punish a player because an opponent happened to stick his leg under their studs.
As for the rest of it, it wasn't "excessive force or brutality" and it wasn't a lunge.
Completely ridiculous? He was moving with his studs up on another player’s ankle with weight behind it. Again, intentional or not that’s dangerous play. On another day that would break the ankle. How’s that completely ridiculous?
The rules
So a red card requires either
Or
While a caution, a yellow card, should be given if the player...
The lack of force, intent of a challenge, Marcus' unawareness and the fact that it was committed while shielding the ball should constitute a reckless action, not a serious foul.
So a red card requires either
Or
While a caution, a yellow card, should be given if the player...
The lack of force, intent of a challenge, Marcus' unawareness and the fact that it was committed while shielding the ball should constitute a reckless action, not a serious foul.
Can understand why it was a red although it was clearly totally accidental. The bigger issue is that if that's a red then all of the ridiculous flying challenges that happen every week need to be a red as well and not many are given. Havertz at the weekend was a prime recent example, he missed with the flying foot but it was obviously a wild lunge and dangerous.
It's a different competition I know but these things need to be standardised across the game. You either need to send all players off for dangerous play whether intentional or not, or start giving yellows where it's clearly accidental. This current model of sometimes a red, sometimes a yellow, sometimes ignored simply isn't fair on the clubs getting reds which change games.
It's a different competition I know but these things need to be standardised across the game. You either need to send all players off for dangerous play whether intentional or not, or start giving yellows where it's clearly accidental. This current model of sometimes a red, sometimes a yellow, sometimes ignored simply isn't fair on the clubs getting reds which change games.
Because it's literally only endangered the other player because the other player is making a challenge in a very specific way. Yes, on another day that breaks an ankle, but 99% of the time he just plants his foot on the ground, as he intended to do.
It would seem such incidents are debated when there’s a risk of serious injury. I keep hearing “he could have broken his ankle.” That’s true, but bad injuries are part and parcel of competitive sport, they can’t be entirely eliminated.
Even if Rashford had broken his ankle, it still wasn’t a red card. Would have been horrible for the injured player, but accidents happen.
Opinions seem more easily swayed when ankles are involved.
In this incident a while back, Luiz nearly killed Jiminez, broke the poor chap’s skull and his career has never been the same. It was an accident, it happens, this is supposed to be sport. Luiz was correctly not booked.
Even if Rashford had broken his ankle, it still wasn’t a red card. Would have been horrible for the injured player, but accidents happen.
Opinions seem more easily swayed when ankles are involved.
In this incident a while back, Luiz nearly killed Jiminez, broke the poor chap’s skull and his career has never been the same. It was an accident, it happens, this is supposed to be sport. Luiz was correctly not booked.
Nobody is saying he deliberately was trying to endanger the player. But unintentionally he did endanger the player with his movement just like a defender gives a handball penalty unintentionally with the movement of his arms. Rashford stood on his ankle with weight behind it. If it was other way around this forum would be screaming for red card.
Never a red. Ref saw it clearly.
VAR judges the outcome and ignores the fact that players do the same exact action all the time.
The only reason this was different was because the Copenhagen player, unbeknownst to Rashford, slid his leg in the way.
It’s as much a red as a clash of heads or sticking your leg under a player who’s jumping for a corner
VAR judges the outcome and ignores the fact that players do the same exact action all the time.
The only reason this was different was because the Copenhagen player, unbeknownst to Rashford, slid his leg in the way.
It’s as much a red as a clash of heads or sticking your leg under a player who’s jumping for a corner
It would seem such incidents are debated when there’s a risk of serious injury. I keep hearing “he could have broken his ankle.” That’s true, but bad injuries are part and parcel of competitive sport, they can’t be entirely eliminated.
Even if Rashford had broken his ankle, it still wasn’t a red card. Would have been horrible for the injured player, but accidents happen.
Opinions seem more easily swayed when ankles are involved.
In this incident a while back, Luiz nearly killed Jiminez, broke the poor chap’s skull and his career has never been the same. It was an accident, it happens, this is supposed to be sport. Luiz was correctly not booked.
Eugh, spoiler that grotesque stuff. I had almost forgotten that.
Apparently we’ve just gotten to the point that if studs connect with ankles, for whatever reason, it’s a red card.
The argument can be broken down in simple terms:
Conversely, if you're answering no to either of them, I don't know what footage you've been watching because you are delusional.
- Was it a foul?
- Was it dangerous for the fouled player?
Conversely, if you're answering no to either of them, I don't know what footage you've been watching because you are delusional.
Its orange as one of the mods stated. On that slowed down close up image the referee looked at in the screen, its a red. But in general play the ref saw nothing wrong with it. Context is everything - he was trying to shield the ball.
I think they will have to stop showing the close up slowed down replays. If you did that for every single challenge you could make an argument for all of them.
I think they will have to stop showing the close up slowed down replays. If you did that for every single challenge you could make an argument for all of them.
Harsh
Red card, bit harsh as Rashford's intention was to put himself between the ball and player but he totally misjudged it and his studs went into the player's ancle, ref had no choice but to give it since VAR brought it up.
You can get injured in an innocuous challenge, so all challenges can be dangerous, potentially.
It's a subjective call of what is undue risk of injury. The people who think it's not a red would consider the lack of force used, the people who say it's a red focus on the studs up. You can see why it's given, but it's not some brutal challenge that gets a red every time.
When VAR was first being tested we were promised it would take an average of 6 seconds and be used once every 4 or 5 games…
VAR poring over everything that could possibly result in a red card, penalty or goal disallowal is not what was intended and is absolutely terrible for the game.
If the red was given in real time I could see why, there was no reason at all to get VAR on this though. Ruining the game.
VAR poring over everything that could possibly result in a red card, penalty or goal disallowal is not what was intended and is absolutely terrible for the game.
If the red was given in real time I could see why, there was no reason at all to get VAR on this though. Ruining the game.
Can you explain how that was in any way “studs up”?
The way VAR is being used it's a fecking joke.. if he's making a challenge for the ball I'd say OK.. the guy stepping over the ball to protect it and stands on the guy.. there was no appeals from players it was just VAR slowing it down to look worse as always.. .. another game it's not seen or given .. I've given up on VAR
Orange. Rashford unclucky
Not in a million years a red card, the game is fecked with these bellends making these decisions against still screen images without taking any context into consideration.
Never a red and changed the game and morale. Horrible refereeing tonight and we were once again at the end of all the bad decisions
It was the correct decision, but that guy who elbowed Hojlund should have gotten a red as well. At least a Var check, but Nope.
His studs are above the ground and on the ankle of the player. What would you call it then? It’s not a de Jong on Alonso but it’s still foot on the ankle or just above with him catching the player with his studs landing on the ankle.
People are looking at this from the wrong frame again.
Stop giving the refs a reason to give you a "soft" red.
If you don't forcefully plant your studs on the opposition's shin, then the ref can't send you off. I don't believe for a second you can't avoid nearly breaking someone's ankle.
It was clumsy, be more responsible with your surroundings. 22 players started the game and 21 of them somehow managed to not forcefully plant their studs on anyone's shin.
I thought the same when Casemiro planted his studs mid-shin last season. Tackle in a more responsible manner, everyone else on the pitch that day managed to not roll over the top of the ball.
At some point you have to stop moaning about being unlucky with the refs and start taking responsibility to make sure they don't have a decision to make.
Stop giving the refs a reason to give you a "soft" red.
If you don't forcefully plant your studs on the opposition's shin, then the ref can't send you off. I don't believe for a second you can't avoid nearly breaking someone's ankle.
It was clumsy, be more responsible with your surroundings. 22 players started the game and 21 of them somehow managed to not forcefully plant their studs on anyone's shin.
I thought the same when Casemiro planted his studs mid-shin last season. Tackle in a more responsible manner, everyone else on the pitch that day managed to not roll over the top of the ball.
At some point you have to stop moaning about being unlucky with the refs and start taking responsibility to make sure they don't have a decision to make.
not a red, an accident (no intent). VAR deliberately freeze frame to influence the on field ref's decision. Not a clear and obvious error. VAR is now being used for unclear and dubious decisions.
Clearly he had no intention to hurt or even foul but it did look awful. In the premier league he may have just got away with it but in Europe no.
Has anyone responded to this properly as to why they think this is the most obvious red card ever with reference to the rules?
It's absolutely fecking ridiculous that Rashford was sent off while Udogie was allowed to continue - obviously different competitions and blah blah blah but the point remains that if referees are making decisions based on outcomes it's a huge plague on the game. Judging these things on the outcome and not the action is beyond idiotic - Sterling should have left his leg in to get broken for the red to be given?
So what should Marcus do? Not protect the ball?
Of course you wouldn't, you'd be dead.
Who cares to be honest. I'm sure there were 5 other tackles like that in the other games this week that weren't.
Game is gone and this season has been like a parody, week in week out. If it wasn't the red, it probably would have been some other brainless decision from either VAR or one of our other players.
Truth is that we got back in front from a ridiculous pen in the second half and then hit self implode in those last 10 minutes. It's pathetic really.
Why do we even bother watching a sport that has literally the worst standard of officiating of anything out there, all the while suffering watching a team that have literally not put together a single 45 mins of a decent performance in almost 4 months of football this season.
Game is gone and this season has been like a parody, week in week out. If it wasn't the red, it probably would have been some other brainless decision from either VAR or one of our other players.
Truth is that we got back in front from a ridiculous pen in the second half and then hit self implode in those last 10 minutes. It's pathetic really.
Why do we even bother watching a sport that has literally the worst standard of officiating of anything out there, all the while suffering watching a team that have literally not put together a single 45 mins of a decent performance in almost 4 months of football this season.