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. 
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
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.
But at the same time, could have snapped the Copenhagen players leg.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No, I wouldn't.
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.
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.
Yep, and now that a precedent has been set we should see similar red cards every week, we won't though.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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah right ….course you wouldn’t
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.
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.
Guarding the ball is dangerous play now?
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.
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.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.
What the feck are you even on about?
Careless at worst, clown show decision at best
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.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.
Of course it was ffs.
Shielding the ball is a dangerous play now? Ok.
Guarding the ball by stomping on another player's ankle is a dangerous play, yes.
His studs were literally down though.
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.
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.
I'd argue that anyone who thinks that is a red card has never played a game of football in their life.
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?
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.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.
I guess he should just drag his feet and run like that by their logic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Stomping
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.