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

[Swiss_Red89]

That's more of a red as the one for Rashford yesterday. Because unlike Rashford, Endo is not the owner of the ball.

I stand by my point: Scandalous decision which will probably cost us the Knockout stage.

 

[Swiss_Red89]

Much lower hit and the ankle doesn't bend. Not comparable..

lower hit?? Its exactly about the same high imo.

 

[Zehner]

lower hit?? Its exactly about the same high imo.

You guys are funny

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

A key difference is the nature of the impact. In the Rashford incident, you actually see the defender's ankle "buckle" underneath Rashford:

That doesn't seem to happen in the incident you posted, where the Liverpool player effectively stamps on his foot. And, as per ESPN, that's one of the specific elements VAR looks at when assessing whether a player has actually endangered their opponent:

A few things are taken into consideration when evaluating whether a player has endangered the safety of an opponent. One is contact high above the boot with the studs, another is the buckle of the ankle to indicate a level of force.

 

[Alex99]

Disagree but, again, it doesn't actually matter what we think, the refs just have to make up their mind. For the sake of the game they should probably say it is a guaranteed yellow and then VAR can upgrade if there is excessive force or your foot is much higher etc. As it stands though, Rashford's was a red.

I've posted a few times now and still not received a decent response explaining how Rashford's was a red.

By the laws of the game, it seems a massive stretch to make it a red card offense.

 

[Drz]

In Sunday league, I get my foot stood once every few matches.

Ive never cried about it.

I was never fortunate enough to play at your level, but been through the same : Stamped regularly, once had the nail on my big toe come off and once had the skin off my knee-cap ripped. Played through all of it, no foul, no fuss.
This is just not football that we watch these days, it's princess-ball. Funny how Wenger seems to have got his wish, soon there will be no contact at all allowed.

 

[Buster15]

A key difference is the nature of the impact. In the Rashford incident, you actually see the defender's ankle "buckle" underneath Rashford:

That doesn't seem to happen in the incident you posted, where the Liverpool player effectively stamps on his foot. And, as per ESPN, that's one of the specific elements VAR looks at when assessing whether a player has actually endangered their opponent:

It is important to remember the the ankle is by definition a flexible joint. You don't have to put much load on it to flex it sideways.

In terms of endangering the opponent, was the Copenhagen player carried off injured?

 

[Alex99]

It is important to remember the the ankle is by definition a flexible joint. You don't have to put much load on it to flex it sideways.

In terms of endangering the opponent, was the Copenhagen player carried off injured?

The Copenhagen player finished the match.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I've posted a few times now and still not received a decent response explaining how Rashford's was a red.

By the laws of the game, it seems a massive stretch to make it a red card offense.

If you won't accept other people's explanations, it doesn't mean you are correct.

For me it's a red - it is accidental but foot off ground, studs into ankle, there is force as he's stepping over the ball.

It is subjective but there's a clear case for the opponent's safety being endangered. This stuff is subjective but it's not hard to see why a lot of people think it's a red.

 

[Buster15]

The Copenhagen player finished the match.

Thank you. That is what I thought. So he was hardly endangered by Marcus Rashford.
And it is worth noting that the referee didn't even give a free kick.

 

[Pexbo]

Much lower hit and the ankle doesn't bend. Not comparable..

Endo’s studs were literally up against a planted leg whereas Rashford was stepping down onto a player who had slid in. Endo’s is much worse.

 

[antk]

That's more of a red as the one for Rashford yesterday. Because unlike Rashford, Endo is not the owner of the ball.

I stand by my point: Scandalous decision which will probably cost us the Knockout stage.

I don't think "owning the ball" is a concept that exists in football, except for the goalkeeper with the ball in his hands.

I've posted a few times now and still not received a decent response explaining how Rashford's was a red.

By the laws of the game, it seems a massive stretch to make it a red card offense.

Same as above, you think this can't constitute as serious foul play because you think it can't qualify as a "challenge" for the nebulous reason that Rashford was somehow in possession of the ball, a concept that once again doesn't seem to exist in the rules of football.

Others, including the refs that night, disagree. It's a dangerous challenge, therefore it's a red. You refusing to entertain the idea doesn't mean the reasoning isn't sound.

 

[antk]

Thank you. That is what I thought. So he was hardly endangered by Marcus Rashford.
And it is worth noting that the referee didn't even give a free kick.

If you play a game of Russian roulette and don't die, were you not endangered? What a weird line of reasoning.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Thank you. That is what I thought. So he was hardly endangered by Marcus Rashford.
And it is worth noting that the referee didn't even give a free kick.

What is wrong with people?!
You don't wait to see the result to decide if the action endangered someone. If Rashford punched him but he wasn't knocked out and was fine to play the game, is that fine?

 

[Zehner]

Endo’s studs were literally up against a planted leg whereas Rashford was stepping down onto a player who had slid in. Endo’s is much worse.

There is absolutely no way that foul is worse than Rashford's. Endo was lucky to hit below the ankle, Rashford connected above it. Much more dangerous.

 

[Berbaclass]

There is absolutely no way that foul is worse than Rashford's. Endo was lucky to hit below the ankle, Rashford connected above it. Much more dangerous.

No it's not it's a comparable challenge. Neither is 'much more dangerous' than the other.

 

[Alex99]

If you won't accept other people's explanations, it doesn't mean you are correct.

For me it's a red - it is accidental but foot off ground, studs into ankle, there is force as he's stepping over the ball.

It is subjective but there's a clear case for the opponent's safety being endangered. This stuff is subjective but it's not hard to see why a lot of people think it's a red.

Of course his foot is off the ground. He's stepping sideways.

This is the farcical nature of the argument for it being a red. The logical conclusion is that simply running with the ball, if you're unfortunate enough to have an opponent slide in and get their leg under your foot, is now a red card worthy offense.

Football is a contact sport and sometimes that results in weird injuries from otherwise innocuous things. This was one of them.

Rashford fairly shielded the ball from a player trying to tackle him, but the outcome (which ultimately wasn't even that bad) has led to hysteria about endangering opponents with run of the mill football techniques.

The action is what should be punishable. Not the freak outcome.

 

[sullydnl]

It is important to remember the the ankle is by definition a flexible joint. You don't have to put much load on it to flex it sideways.

In terms of endangering the opponent, was the Copenhagen player carried off injured?

No, but it would be pretty silly to argue that if he wasn't injured then he can't have been endangered.

As for your point about the ankle, while that's obviously true it doesn't really matter. Because Rashford got sent off based on how referees are told to apply the law, not how they perhaps should be told to apply to the law. If they're told to look out for that visible impact on the ankle and they see it.... *shrugs*

 

[antk]

Of course his foot is off the ground. He's stepping sideways.

This is the farcical nature of the argument for it being a red. The logical conclusion is that simply running with the ball, if you're unfortunate enough to have an opponent slide in and get their leg under your foot, is now a red card worthy offense.

Football is a contact sport and sometimes that results in weird injuries from otherwise innocuous things. This was one of them.

Rashford fairly shielded the ball from a player trying to tackle him, but the outcome (which ultimately wasn't even that bad) has led to hysteria about endangering opponents with run of the mill football techniques.

The action is what should be punishable. Not the freak outcome.

Are you arguing about the laws or the decision?

 

[sirAlexsglasses]

If you won't accept other people's explanations, it doesn't mean you are correct.

For me it's a red - it is accidental but foot off ground, studs into ankle, there is force as he's stepping over the ball.

It is subjective but there's a clear case for the opponent's safety being endangered. This stuff is subjective but it's not hard to see why a lot of people think it's a red.

if this is the case then every player will have to stop at every opportunity what another player is doing anywhere remotely near to them. Rashford was only doing what any player would do, he was looking away and brought his foot down to shield the ball, he can’t be blamed for an action that he can not see nor control. If we let players get red carded for this then they can red carded for literally anything as it could be argued that anything that another player does could cause injury. It should have been a yellow at best as it was in no way Intentional or aggressive.

 

[Buster15]

If you play a game of Russian roulette and don't die, were you not endangered? What a weird line of reasoning.

We are talking about VAR and football. No?

 

[TheGame]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[antk]

We are talking about VAR and football. No?

I can make it simpler. Can't you be in danger without ultimately getting injured?

 

[Hammondo]

If it’s difficult to judge at full speed then we shouldn’t be judging it at all! I’d say it’s actually fairly easy to judge at full speed, it’s clearly a coming together and nothing more.

That's what var is for...

 

[Alex99]

Are you arguing about the laws or the decision?

Both, I suppose.

I don't think, as things are written, what Rashford did can be reasonably considered a red-card offense. You could probably reasonably argue for it to have been a foul or a caution, but that's not what is being discussed.

However, it has exposed that the law clearly needs further detail to avoid these circumstances as we've just seen a near identical challenge in another game get waved off as a yellow, with the only difference being half an inch in height and the angle of contact not making the ankle buckle.

The fact that it's essentially down to luck of where your foot lands or how the opponent tries to tackle you is ridiculous.

 

[philipos]

That's been a red card ever since VAR came in. Any time a player's studs make contact with an opponent's leg, accidental or not, whether trying to win or shield the ball, it's been a red. We've seen it multiple times this season, so I knew it was going to be a red as soon as I saw the replay, before the ref was even sent to the screen.

Absolute rubbish. In nearly every game you see a player’s foot being stood on accidentally - how often is a red card given for studs making contact with the opponent’s leg? Hardly ever.

 

[sullydnl]

That's more of a red as the one for Rashford yesterday. Because unlike Rashford, Endo is not the owner of the ball.

I stand by my point: Scandalous decision which will probably cost us the Knockout stage.

It's one thing if people want to argue the rules should be different. But it's another when people say a red card was the wrong decision because *insert random rules they've just invented*

So no, it isn't more of a red card because Endo wasn't in possession of the ball. Because being in possession of the ball doesn't give you license to do something more dangerous to your opponent than if you didn't have possession of the ball. The actual thing you do is what you're judged on.

All that matters is whether what Rashford did was more dangerous, as per how referees are told to assess the degree of danger.

 

[Daydreamer]

if this is the case then every player will have to stop at every opportunity what another player is doing anywhere remotely near to them. Rashford was only doing what any player would do, he was looking away and brought his foot down to shield the ball, he can’t be blamed for an action that he can not see nor control. If we let players get red carded for this then they can red carded for literally anything as it could be argued that anything that another player does could cause injury. It should have been a yellow at best as it was in no way Intentional or aggressive.

If you drive at 20mph in a 20mph zone, no problem.

If you drive at 30mph in a 20mph zone, you’ll get points on your licence and a fine.

If you drive at 30mph in a 20mph zone and run a kid over… you may be going to prison.

In none of those scenarios are you intending to hurt anyone. Serious foul play isn’t about trying to hurt someone, that’s violent conduct. Serious foul play is unintentional pretty much by definition.

 

[Zehner]

It's one thing if people want to argue the rules should be different. But it's another when people say a red card was the wrong decision because *insert random rules they've just invented*

So no, it isn't more of a red card because Endo wasn't in possession of the ball. Because being in possession of the ball doesn't give you license to do something more dangerous to your opponent than if you didn't have possession of the ball. The actual thing you do is what you're judged on.

All that matters is whether what Rashford did was more dangerous, as per how referees are told to assess the degree of danger.

Would be fun though. Watch the player who has the ball hunt opponents all over the pitch to kick the shit out 'em because he's allowed to foul them while they aren't allowed to touch him

 

[sullydnl]

Would be fun though. Watch the player who has the ball hunt opponents all over the pitch to kick the shit out 'em because he's allowed to foul them while they aren't allowed to touch him

Corners would be particularly fun. Goalkeeper catches the ball, then has most of the opposition team around him to try and maim.

 

[Oranges038]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Like Rashford a yellow card would do.

 

[Zehner]

Corners would be particularly fun. Goalkeeper catches the ball, then has most of the opposition team around him to try and maim.

Oh man, Oliver Kahn would have absolutely LOVED that

Pepe would probably switch positions deliberately as well

 

[sullydnl]

Both, I suppose.

I don't think, as things are written, what Rashford did can be reasonably considered a red-card offense. You could probably reasonably argue for it to have been a foul or a caution, but that's not what is being discussed.

However, it has exposed that the law clearly needs further detail to avoid these circumstances as we've just seen a near identical challenge in another game get waved off as a yellow, with the only difference being half an inch in height and the angle of contact not making the ankle buckle.

The fact that it's essentially down to luck of where your foot lands or how the opponent tries to tackle you is ridiculous.

It's worth bearing in mind that referees don't base their decisions directly on what the laws of the game say. They base their decisions off a battery of guidance and training they receive that tells them how the laws should currently be interpreted, which go into much greater detail than the laws themselves and change much more regularly too. When the ESPN article posted a few pages back talks about the importance of something like the ankle visibly buckling, that's coming from that guidance.

So the problem isn't that the laws themselves don't have sufficient detail, but rather that there isn't really public access to the guidance provided to referees that forms the de facto rules of the game. We only know the parts of it that we hear about from referees, their organisations or journalists who are bothered enough to get access.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Of course his foot is off the ground. He's stepping sideways.

This is the farcical nature of the argument for it being a red. The logical conclusion is that simply running with the ball, if you're unfortunate enough to have an opponent slide in and get their leg under your foot, is now a red card worthy offense.

Football is a contact sport and sometimes that results in weird injuries from otherwise innocuous things. This was one of them.

Rashford fairly shielded the ball from a player trying to tackle him, but the outcome (which ultimately wasn't even that bad) has led to hysteria about endangering opponents with run of the mill football techniques.

The action is what should be punishable. Not the freak outcome.

There's a difference between stepping sideways and stepping over a ball though, anyone who has played a football, which I assume includes you, knows this. The force of stepping over a ball includes your body weight moving across onto that side as the whole point is to then shield the ball when your foot plants onto the turf. If that foot reaches the opponent before the turf they get a lot of that energy coming across. Rashford isn't a dirty player, none of it was meant, but that is factually what happened.

In my mind your scenario is easy to put to bed. Player A in possession runs down the wing, opponent player B attempts to tackle him, misses the ball and player A stands on his leg whilst running leaving player B shouting in agony and demanding a red card for player A. In this scenario, player B has made a fair attempt to play the ball but is not successful, player A has done nothing but continue their run. In the same way Rashford makes a fair attempt to shield the ball but the action is not successful. If he'd got his foot to the ground (action complete) and then the player had run into him and gone down, he's getting jack shit.

I'm not sure there's a huge amount of hysteria, just the thought that studs into the ankle is fecking painful and can cause injury.

Bolded part doesn't really make sense. It's basically one of two outcomes.

 

[pogbasformerbarber]

What drives me nuts is that intent should have a lot to do with a Red Card. At least thats always been my feeling in the past. Either you are dangerously reckless and completely lack common sense or your intent was to hurt or foul badly to stop a scoring chance. What Rashford did here was try to make a football move and landed awkwardly on a limb.

The refs need to take extreme care in a Red Card decision because it greatly impacts a game. I feel like it something you basically "know it when you see it"...these VAR Red Card decisions should only be applicable if it is something, with intent, thats off ball and not caught in the general play.

I honestly don't know what Rashford was supposed to do. Just like I don't know what Harry was supposed to do on that stupid handball penalty. Penalties in general, but especially RC or penalties int he box, should not be just because of chance...the random bounce of the ball, or the odd misstep of a player trying to retain ball control...They should be intended or overly reckless actions to influence the game outside of rules. Where we are now is madness, and truly something that should not be a part of football or sports in general...

 

[Gio]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It’s clearly lower onto the foot. Yellow was the right decision.

 

[Jeppers7]

Absolutely ridiculous that an identical situation happens only a day later and the right outcome is reached ie player isn’t sent off. Some whoppers on here saying that Rashfords was a red card offence. Still trying to justify it.

 

[Jeppers7]

What drives me nuts is that intent should have a lot to do with a Red Card. At least thats always been my feeling in the past. Either you are dangerously reckless and completely lack common sense or your intent was to hurt or foul badly to stop a coring chance. What Rashford did here was try to make a football move and landed awkwardly on a limb.

The refs need to take extremely care in a Red Card decision because it greatly impacts a game. I feel like it something you basically "know it when you see it"...these VAR Red Card decisions should only be applicable it if something, with intent, thats off ball and not caught in the general play.

I honestly don't know what Rashford was supposed to do. Just like I don't know what Harry was supposed to do on that stupid handball penalty. Penalties in general, but especially RC or penalties int he box, should not be just because of chance...the random bounce of the ball, or the odd misstep of a player trying to retain ball control...They should be intended or overly reckless actions to influence the game outside of rules. Where we are now is madness, and truly something that should not be a part of football or sports in general...

Good post. Whoppers read.

 

[Moriarty]

That's what var is for...

However did we manage before it came along?

 

[Hammondo]

However did we manage before it came along?

A lot of bad decisions, that's why var was used. Has your head been in the sand the whole time?