I urge you to watch it back again at normal speed. I think the most telling thing is nobody, not the ref nor the opponents reacted at all. The only player who reacted (and rightly so) was the player who got hurt. If this was any sort of foul play someone would have reacted asking for a free kick or some action from the ref.If he hits him it is a red, whether the fouled player jumps back up or not. If he misses the ankle narrowly, you give Rashford the benefit of the doubt and assume he had everything under control. If he hits him (as he did) it is a red as it is clear he didn't have it under control (recklessness). Similarly, if a challenge is so obviously risking an opponent's health that you can't give the fouling player the benefit of the doubt, he'll get sent off even if he misses and nothing happens.
How does what "is coached in to players early" mean that it can't be endangering? He's obviously endangered the opponent since he hit him in a way that could injure him. In football you can make every move you want as long as you don't endanger an opponent. A kung fu kick when nobody is around you? No problem. A kung fu kick when somebody stands in front of you? Bad idea.I just can't agree with that view point, he's not endangered the opponent as he's done an action that is coached in to players early in the game and a key part of retaining passion done literally 10000's of times every weekend. The contact was a result of both the attempt to steal the ball and the attempt to shield the ball. Literally an accident
It's not semantics when the wording is important. He wasn't tackling a player in possession or challenging for a neutral ball. He had it himself.Semantics.
So you saying that just because ifab only says challange or tackle in their serious foul play rules, then a player can defend the ball in any way they see fit?
So because they didn't see it correctly, it is not a red? That makes no sense at all. Not every foul/handball/offsite/whatever is easy to spot. It's the rules that count not somebody's perception.I urge you to watch it back again at normal speed. I think the most telling thing is nobody, not the ref nor the opponents reacted at all. The only player who reacted (and rightly so) was the player who got hurt. If this was any sort of foul play someone would have reacted asking for a free kick or some action from the ref.
I respect your opinion but it's just one I can never agree with
He didn't stamp though, unless you're suggesting every single step a player takes is a stamp?How does what "is coached in to players early" mean that it can't be endangering? He's obviously endangered the opponent since he hit him in a way that could injure him. In football you can make every move you want as long as you don't endanger an opponent. A kung fu kick when nobody is around you? No problem. A kung fu kick when somebody stands in front of you? Bad idea.
Same goes for the shielding movement. Shield the ball without kicking an opponent? No problem. Stamping on the opponent's ankle with your studs while trying to shield a ball? Bad idea. The latter happened which is why he's got sent off. It's in his responsibility to not endanger an opponent (as in: foul him in a way that's risking an injury).
This lady can explain it for you....It's not semantics when the wording is important. He wasn't tackling a player in possession or challenging for a neutral ball. He had it himself.
They can't punch, elbow, kick or grapple a player because that's then violent conduct. Rashford did none of those things.
The ref was 5 yards away and looking right at it in real time and waved play on.So because they didn't see it correctly, it is not a red? That makes no sense at all. Not every foul/handball/offsite/whatever is easy to spot. It's the rules that count not somebody's perception.
You can injur someone doing a perfectly legal tackle. Football is a contact sport and body's can be fragile. I've seen seen players dislocate their shoulder in a shoulder to shoulder challenge, I've seen a tib and fib break in a fair 50/50. And in my experience my coaches have never taught me how to injured a playerHow does what "is coached in to players early" mean that it can't be endangering? He's obviously endangered the opponent since he hit him in a way that could injure him. In football you can make every move you want as long as you don't endanger an opponent. A kung fu kick when nobody is around you? No problem. A kung fu kick when somebody stands in front of you? Bad idea.
Same goes for the shielding movement. Shield the ball without kicking an opponent? No problem. Stamping on the opponent's ankle with your studs while trying to shield a ball? Bad idea. The latter happened which is why he's got sent off. It's in his responsibility to not endanger an opponent (as in: foul him in a way that's risking an injury).
It doesn't even matter how you call it because he hit him in a way that risks injury. But yeah, it definitely is a stamp as Rashford put his bodyweight on the left foot when putting it down.He didn't stamp though, unless you're suggesting every single step a player takes is a stamp?
And players have been sent off for flying in without making contact, or getting the ball first. Rashford didn't fly in though, he stepped across in a perfectly normal way to shield the ball.
Who cares? He was obviously wrongThe ref was 5 yards away and looking right at it in real time and waved play on.
The fact that he made a perfectly normal step shows that he was in full control of his movement. If a perfectly normal step ends up on the ankle of another player it is either malicious or reckless (because he definitely knows the player is rushing on to him)He didn't stamp though, unless you're suggesting every single step a player takes is a stamp?
And players have been sent off for flying in without making contact, or getting the ball first. Rashford didn't fly in though, he stepped across in a perfectly normal way to shield the ball.
I would assume the thinking was to discourage recklessness. If it was just about intent then players could lunge into tackles as violently and forcefully as they liked, even if they knew there was high risk of injuring an opponent, as long as it was a genuine attempt at a tackle. And of course the ref would have a near impossible task trying to divine their intent.But that's an issue, say for example same thing happens last night but player jumps back up and continues. Still a red? I doubt it?
In a world where the same actions can yield different sanctioning based on outcome. Somethings wrong in my opinion
Yeah but a shoulder to shoulder situation is hardly risking injury. Stepping on somebody ankle in a way that it bends is risking injury.You can injur someone doing a perfectly legal tackle. Football is a contact sport and body's can be fragile. I've seen seen players dislocate their shoulder in a shoulder to shoulder challenge, I've seen a tib and fib break in a fair 50/50. And in my experience my coaches have never taught me how to injured a player
He doesn't actually have possession of the ball. There's no intention to play the ball with this action (in fact his weight is actually shifted away from the ball). Where has he shifted his weight? Towards his opponent and (unfortunately for both of them) the force of his body weight comes down on his opponents ankle.He literally knocks the ball away from one opponent then shields it from another.
How doesn't he have the ball?
Of course it's unfortunate. I'd also argue that the laws are not there "to prevent such fouls from happening". The Serious Foul Play law is there to stop players lunging in at full sprint. Not to stop them shielding the ball in a manner literally every player will.
Rashford knows a challenge is coming in and steps across the ball to shield it from the player making the challenge. This happens multiple times a game.
You literally cannot challenge for a ball you have possession of. You can only defend it from a challenge.
I've not mentioned intent. However, as we're quoting laws, the law is pretty clear that serious foul play can only be committed by a player making a tackle or challenge.
I fail to see how a player in possession of the ball can make a tackle or challenge.
The only offence he could commit while in possession was violent conduct, and it certainly wasn't that.
Spot onI would assume the thinking was to discourage recklessness. If it was just about intent then players could lunge into tackles as violently and forcefully as they liked, even if they knew there was high risk of injuring an opponent, as long as it was a genuine attempt at a tackle. And of course the ref would have a near impossible task trying to divine their intent.
Whereas by removing intent and placing the focus on outcome, it forces players to be more conscious of the risk they're taking with even genuine attempts to win the ball. Which they probably saw as better for the game and better for players' chances of avoiding injuries, even if it meant unlucky outcome-based red cards.
It's bollocks and she's also not reading the law correctly. She's literally ignored a key part of the wording to agree with the decision.This lady can explain it for you....
The tackle ypur describing is world's apart from the action rashford made last night. And I'd suggest that falls under wrekless I.e. you've dived in with such force and a lack of control that you've wrecklessly endangered your opponent.I would assume the thinking was to discourage recklessness. If it was just about intent then players could lunge into tackles as violently and forcefully as they liked, even if they knew there was high risk of injuring an opponent, as long as it was a genuine attempt at a tackle. And of course the ref would have a near impossible task trying to divine their intent.
Whereas by removing intent and placing the focus on outcome, it forces players to be more conscious of the risk they're taking with even genuine attempts to win the ball. Which they probably saw as better for the game and better for players' chances of avoiding injuries, even if it meant unlucky outcome-based red cards.
You don't understand the laws at all.It doesn't even matter how you call it because he hit him in a way that risks injury. But yeah, it definitely is a stamp as Rashford put his bodyweight on the left foot when putting it down.
I mean, what are we talking about? Does even one poster think that the Kopenhagen player couldn't have been injured? If not, then it is a dangerous tackle and Rashford has to be sent off. It doesn't matter if it was intended or not.
Across - yes. On the player - noNot a red. Rashford had possession and he has a right to protect the ball by stepping across the defender. It's not Rashford's fault the defender just happened to place his foot where Rashford is stepping. Terrible call and it will probably cost us getting out of group. The referee needs a talking to after that decision.
Not really. Where does it fit?Who cares? He was obviously wrong
A perfectly normal step that he's in full control of can't be reckless as that's contradictory, and it clearly wasn't malicious.The fact that he made a perfectly normal step shows that he was in full control of his movement. If a perfectly normal step ends up on the ankle of another player it is either malicious or reckless (because he definitely knows the player is rushing on to him)
What is Jelert thinking. Audacious to place his foot in the very spot Rashford just wanted to occupy. He should clearly back off because Rashford has priority and is more important.Not a red. Rashford had possession and he has a right to protect the ball by stepping across the defender. It's not Rashford's fault the defender just happened to place his foot where Rashford is stepping. Terrible call and it will probably cost us getting out of group. The referee needs a talking to after that decision.
But by your logic a should injury sustained as a direct result of a shoulder challenge is endangering a player as it caused the shoulder to dislocate.Yeah but a shoulder to shoulder situation is hardly risking injury. Stepping on somebody ankle in a way that it bends is risking injury.
You know what's also taught to players? Shooting. And slide tackles. Nothing wrong with them as long as I time them well. But if I hit a player badly doing one of those, even if it wasn't intentional, I'll be sent off.
I agree there was no reaction from another player even the guy who caught didn't react that much and game went on, only VAR deemed it necessary to inform the ref..and there were massive screens in that Staduim unlike OT as its used for International games.. and then you get the super Slow motion that makes it look even worse, the Ref had no chance , had to give red.I urge you to watch it back again at normal speed. I think the most telling thing is nobody, not the ref nor the opponents reacted at all. The only player who reacted (and rightly so) was the player who got hurt. If this was any sort of foul play someone would have reacted asking for a free kick or some action from the ref.
I respect your opinion but it's just one I can never agree with
After seeing the images, I'd definitely accept the decision, yes. If you end up bending your opponent's ankle like this, it is a red, end of story. And it's either reckless or excessive force as he clearly risks injuring his opponent.Not really. Where does it fit?
To me it's careless at worst.
“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent. (A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned)
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent. (A player who uses excessive force must be sent off)
For everyone that's played football and thinks it's a red.
You'd be 100% happy to be sent off for that in a big game your team had to win?
It's not reckless or excessive force, there's no momentum for excessive force, it's not reckless because he is in control of his actions.After seeing the images, I'd definitely accept the decision, yes. If you end up bending your opponent's ankle like this, it is a red, end of story. And it's either reckless or excessive force as he clearly risks injuring his opponent.
You make a great point re VAR but I'm not jumping down that rabbit hole.I agree there was no reaction from another player even the guy who caught didn't react that much and game went on, only VAR deemed it necessary to inform the ref..and there were massive screens in that Staduim unlike OT as its used for International games.. and then you get the super Slow motion that makes it look even worse, the Ref had no chance , had to give red.
It's the way VAR is being used is the problem it spoilt a game utd were in total control.
It wasn’t a tackle. He was in possession of the ball.The way the rule is written now, it is a red as the tackle endangered an opponent.
Very unluck as it was clearly not Rashford intention, but as it has been said before, intent is no longer in the rules.
Yeah, and when you shield the ball like Rashford did in training, almost breaking the ankles of your team mates, I'm sure your coach will have a word with you on how to shield a ball properly as well. It usually doesn't happen (and is not dangerous) because players do it with the right timing. Rashford's timing was ill because it was a desperate attempt at keeping the ball.But by your logic a should injury sustained as a direct result of a shoulder challenge is endangering a player as it caused the shoulder to dislocate.
I've never seen a player for mistiming a shot (maybe subbed), and as for slide tackles when you get coached how to do it your coach explains the risks you take when sliding and the importance of timing it right as if you dont it will be at best a foul or at worst a red card. That's why when you're coached how to slide tackle control and timing are key to the skill being performed.
This isn't drilled when shielding a ball as its a low risk move that very rarely goes bad.
It happened very quick and Rashford had no time to change.Across - yes. On the player - no
It would be careless if he would have stepped on a player that he didn't know was there and didn't look for. But he did know that this player was there because he reacted to that with exactly this movement that resulted in the foul.It's not reckless or excessive force, there's no momentum for excessive force, it's not reckless because he is in control of his actions.
“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
So in a game you'd be quite happy to get a red card for that and then watch your team lose? And you wouldn't be one bit annoyed by it?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who’s played would accept that as a justified red card.
He way going for (a block of) the player, not the ball, so that's irrelevant.It wasn’t a tackle. He was in possession of the ball.
I don't see how you can watch that an conclusively say Rashford was in possession, VAR will treat that as a 50/50 ball.It wasn’t a tackle. He was in possession of the ball.
It happens. Both players went to place their foot at the same spot and the defender got there a split second before. The defender, btw, had no chance at getting the ball with that lunge and it was impeding Rashford. It's really a foul on the defender.What is Jelert thinking. Audacious to place his foot in the very spot Rashford just wanted to occupy. He should clearly back off because Rashford has priority and is more important.
That's why I think everyone agrees that it is unlucky that it even happened. The discussion is only about how the rules should be applied, not about whether it was unlucky or deliberate.It happened very quick and Rashford had no time to change.
I think both things can be true. I'd be very much annoyed and not at all happy if I was sent off in Rashford's situation, causing my team to lose. That doesn't alter whether or not it is serious foul play, though.It's not reckless or excessive force, there's no momentum for excessive force, it's not reckless because he is in control of his actions.
“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
So in a game you'd be quite happy to get a red card for that and then watch your team lose? And you wouldn't be one bit annoyed by it?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who’s played would accept that as a justified red card.
If it wasn't excessive force, why did the ankle bend like this and almost gave in?It's not reckless or excessive force, there's no momentum for excessive force, it's not reckless because he is in control of his actions.
“Careless” means that a player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution. (No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is considered to be careless)
So in a game you'd be quite happy to get a red card for that and then watch your team lose? And you wouldn't be one bit annoyed by it?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who’s played would accept that as a justified red card.
And the player who got there first is the one being fouled because he occupied the space, not Rashford. And if the player didn't have a chance at getting the ball, why did Rashford even feel the need to shield it? And how come Jelert's foot is actually already behind Rashford? He was basically already past Rashford's blocking attempt when he was hit.It happens. Both players went to place their foot at the same spot and the defender got there a split second before. The defender, btw, had no chance at getting the ball with that lunge and it was impeding Rashford. It's really a foul on the defender.
