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

[Alex99]

Bruv, you literally went and found pics showing that all four of Rashford’s back studs are white.

Bruv, I literally posted a video and multiple images that show it being the front half of the boot that makes contact.

Again I ask myself what do you gain form just lying?

Go to the video you posted.
Watch Rashford’s foot make contact.
Use your brain.

Re the boot comment - I assume, given this is what you did previously when you were clearly wrong, you’ve added a bit of a text wall because many don’t bother to read things or just assume you must be right to have given some examples. I was asking you to look at where the studs are and where the support starts because you are looking at pics of his studs making contact and saying his studs aren’t showing. I thought you were trolling, then thought actually maybe you genuinely couldn’t somehow see the studs, now I’m back to thinking you’re trolling.

You can call me a liar and incorrectly describe both the incident and Rashford's boots all you want, but it doesn't make what you are saying true.

I've just proven (at your request) that Rashford's studs (at least at the front half of his boot where contact was made) are very much not white and every image of the contact, including your shitty blurred image, shows the contact to be with a white part of the boot (i.e. the side of it).

What are you on about "where the support starts"? The boots are essentially colour coded to separate the sole/studs from the rest of the boot. You can literally see from the pictures of Rashford's boots and the video/images from the incident that the sole/studs are not white, then literally see the white part of his boot (i.e. the side of it) make contact with the Copenhagen player's leg, turn to show even more of the side of it up against his leg, slide down, and then plant studs on his ankle.

Again, do your eyes work?

Go the video I posted.
Watch Rashford's foot make contact.
Use your brain.

 

[Alex99]

You can literally see the Nike logo on the side of the boot in the third image for fecks sake.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Bruv, I literally posted a video and multiple images that show it being the front half of the boot that makes contact.



You can call me a liar and incorrectly describe both the incident and Rashford's boots all you want, but it doesn't make what you are saying true.

I've just proven (at your request) that Rashford's studs (at least at the front half of his boot where contact was made) are very much not white and every image of the contact, including your shitty blurred image, shows the contact to be with a white part of the boot (i.e. the side of it).

What are you on about "where the support starts"? The boots are essentially colour coded to separate the sole/studs from the rest of the boot. You can literally see from the pictures of Rashford's boots and the video/images from the incident that the sole/studs are not white, then literally see the white part of his boot (i.e. the side of it) make contact with the Copenhagen player's leg, turn to show even more of the side of it up against his leg, slide down, and then plant studs on his ankle.

Again, do your eyes work?

Go the video I posted.
Watch Rashford's foot make contact.
Use your brain.

Multiple people are now pointing out your error and still you persist. Bravo.

 

[Alex99]

Multiple people are now pointing out your error and still you persist. Bravo.

"Multiple people" being you and a guy who's noticed that the back of the boot, which didn't make contact, is inconsequentially white.

Well done.

 

[tomaldinho1]

"Multiple people" being you and a guy who's noticed that the back of the boot, which didn't make contact, is inconsequentially white.

Well done.

The worrying thing is I think you actually can’t see the studs given how you’ve carried on, which makes zero sense to me but is the only explanation.

 

[Daydreamer]

Bruv, I literally posted a video and multiple images that show it being the front half of the boot that makes contact.

Precisely. The orange studs can’t be seen in the image because they’re hitting the opposition player a couple inches above his ankle.

His bottom studs are showing. You’ve claimed his foot must be turned sideways because the top of his boot is white. But you’ve also gone and found several pics showing that the back half of the sole of his boot is… white.

We can all see Rashford’s studs hit his leg and then slide down towards his ankle. Even people who don’t think it’s a red card offence aren’t trying to argue that point. It’s weird.

Unless you’re on the wind-up. In which case, hats off to you. You’ve reeled me in like a pretend flat-earther.

 

[Alex99]

The worrying thing is I think you actually can’t see the studs given how you’ve carried on, which makes zero sense to me but is the only explanation.

The worrying thing is how you can't see the side of the boot being the bit to make initial contact, especially how the consequence of said contact is the foot turning and side of the boot becoming so visible that the fecking Nike logo is in plain view.

The studs are momentarily visible as Rashford's foot continues to rotate down. The side of his foot then hits the leg.

Precisely. The orange studs can’t be seen in the image because they’re hitting the opposition player a couple inches above his ankle.

His bottom studs are showing. You’ve claimed his foot must be turned sideways because the top of his boot is white. But you’ve also gone and found several pics showing that the back half of the sole of his boot is… white.

We can all see Rashford’s studs hit his leg and then slide down towards his ankle. Even people who don’t think it’s a red card offence aren’t trying to argue that point. It’s weird.

Unless you’re on the wind-up. In which case, hats off to you. You’ve reeled me in like a pretend flat-earther.

You can literally see the back part of his foot not even touching the player for fecks sake.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The worrying thing is how you can't see the side of the boot being the bit to make initial contact, especially how the consequence of said contact is the foot turning and side of the boot becoming so visible that the fecking Nike logo is in plain view.

The studs are momentarily visible as Rashford's foot continues to rotate down. The side of his foot then hits the leg.



You can literally see the back part of his foot not even touching the player for fecks sake.

You. Posted. A. Video. Which. Proves. You. Wrong.

 

[Hammondo]

Go on then, what offence was committed? It's not a challenge as he's got the ball already so it can't be a reckless / dangerous challenge. Are you going with violent conduct? Never heard of unintentional violent conduct though...

Just to be clear, I don't think it's a red.

However yes a dangerous act that's accidental can be a red, remember when Nani did a jump to control the ball in the air, kicks a guy and red card.

 

[Alex99]

You. Posted. A. Video. Which. Proves. You. Wrong.

No I didn't. It proved me right.

Looks like we're at a stalemate.

Anyway, unless you've actually got something other than a blurry image and dodgy descriptions of what happened, I'm out.

It wasn't a challenge. His studs weren't up. It wasn't serious foul play. It was never a red card.

 

[Red in STL]

A red card is being debated and it appears the color of the studs may have some relevance to whether it was the correct decision or not - seems a bit desparate to me!

 

[TheRedHearted]

The whole point is that it is a stupid argument. Just as saying that you cannot commit serious foul play when you shield the ball is. It's grasping at straws. What do you think the Copenhagen player is doing? Hanging around to see out the match? Talking to Rashford about what Rashford can visit when he is in Copenhagen? Or maybe he is trying to challenge for the ball?

Unless you're arguing that he didn't risk causing injury to his opponent planting his studs on his ankle the way he did (which, to me, would be dishonest) it is serious foul play. Which is exactly why it was cautioned as such.

Either way, let's just agree to disagree here. You're never going to convince me that this wasn't serious foul play and I am obviously never going to convince you that it was. No need to keep doing this.

Again you are mentioning that he didn't set out to do what he did, that is irrelevant. I agree that he was very unlucky, he certainly didn't mean to make that contact. What's important by the rules is that he did, and he risked causing injury while doing so.

For the last sentence, yes, anyone that makes contact the way Rashford do endanger his opponent. Anyone standing on a football pitch does not endanger his opponent, even if he indeed does have boots with studs. Anyway, this will lead nowhere so no reason to continue this.

Shouldn’t it be a yellow then?

 

[gaffs]

No I didn't. It proved me right.

Looks like we're at a stalemate.

Anyway, unless you've actually got something other than a blurry image and dodgy descriptions of what happened, I'm out.

It wasn't a challenge. His studs weren't up. It wasn't serious foul play. It was never a red card.

Build a bridge and get over it man.

The Copenhagen player had his foot down and Rashford, in trying to plant his own foot, put it right on top of the players ankle.

Not intentional, but as we know, intention is not part of the rule.

Its a red. Is sucks, but by the letter of the law, it is a red.

It is explained by the ref here....

 

[tomaldinho1]

No I didn't. It proved me right.

Looks like we're at a stalemate.

Anyway, unless you've actually got something other than a blurry image and dodgy descriptions of what happened, I'm out.

It wasn't a challenge. His studs weren't up. It wasn't serious foul play. It was never a red card.

I posted an image, an HD image, you even posted a video that proves it. You can keep banging your drum if it makes you feel better but studs are visible, made contact and it’s just weird you won’t accept it unless you’re viewing these pics on a Nokia 3310 or something.

 

[tomaldinho1]

A red card is being debated and it appears the color of the studs may have some relevance to whether it was the correct decision or not - seems a bit desparate to me!

No it’s just being debated by one person that Rashford’s studs didn’t make contact with the opponent and so a couple of us have gone to great lengths to prove something that is very obviously true. I can’t see past them being a troll now.

 

[gaffs]

Yes, because the Copenhagen player's leg goes under his foot. Which part of that don't you understand?

I'm not denying that the studs made impact. I'm saying that the studs were not "up".

Again, do your eyes work? You literally see in that video that it's the side of Rashford's boot that made contact first, and it was the direction and angle of the challenge that saw it slide under the boot.

Spoiler: Image 1

This the most "up" Rashford's studs are. The Copenhagen player is still nowhere near, and the boot rotates down after this point. Note that the bottom of Rashford's boot is orange/black and not white.

Spoiler: Image 2

This is the point of impact. At this point, Rashford's boot is no more severely raised than the Copenhagen players. Importantly, it is the side of Rashford's boot that has made contact with the shin.

Spoiler: Image 3

This is just before Rashford's boot slides down onto the ankle. Note how Rashford's own foot has twisted around, and all you can see is the side. You know why that is? Because the contact at this point is just the side of the boot.

At this point, the Copenhagen player plants his foot, giving Rashford's nowhere to go but down onto his ankle. If the initial impact had been "studs up" then Rashford's foot would have planted on his leg, not turned, slid down it, then unfortunately landed on his ankle.

These pics make is look ever worse.

 

[Red in STL]

No it’s just being debated by one person that Rashford’s studs didn’t make contact with the opponent and so a couple of us have gone to great lengths to prove something that is very obviously true. I can’t see past them being a troll now.

FFS - you can see the blokes bent foot, I suppose we're being told it was the space between the front and back studs that did that or that it was the natural angle of the foot!!

 

[Daydreamer]

These pics make is look ever worse.

I know. He's like a defence lawyer who somehow managed to find better incriminating evidence than the prosecution.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Craig Dawson stood on Son's little Son yesterday. Was that reckless and a red card?

Huh??

 

[Red in STL]

Huh??

His John Son

 

[Tyrion]

If your studs hit the other guys legs, there's always a chance it could be a red. If the situation was reversed, we'd be demanding a red.

 

[TwoSheds]

Build a bridge and get over it man.

The Copenhagen player had his foot down and Rashford, in trying to plant his own foot, put it right on top of the players ankle.

Not intentional, but as we know, intention is not part of the rule.

Its a red. Is sucks, but by the letter of the law, it is a red.

It is explained by the ref here....

Find the law that says it, I'm not interested in some youtuber's opinion. If the rule genuinely says you can commit serious foul play with no intention then football is over. The words foul play imply intent, it's basic English.

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
charges
jumps at
kicks or attempts to kick
pushes
strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
tackles or challenges
trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

Done it for you. Could argue that Rashford "acts without precaution"? I suppose you could even argue that he acts with disregard to the danger to an opponent if you were that way inclined, so a yellow. You could not argue for a red.

 

[Oranges038]

Huh??

Craig Dawson blocked Son's run, then put his studs down on his ballbag.

If we're removing the context of the situation and intent isn't being condsidered and we're only looking at where the boot made contact. Based on this idea that studs half way up an ankle is a red, then surely studs half way up a body is a red card too.

 

[Daydreamer]

Find the law that says it, I'm not interested in some youtuber's opinion.

She very clearly cites the law in the video you’re dismissing. It’s not a YouTuber opinion, it’s a referee explaining a process she’s been through many times as it’s what she does for a living.

The funny thing is, Clint Dempsey conveys the same dismissive attitude in the video after she’s spoken, saying that you need ex-pros who have a ‘feel for the game’ as refs. She points out that referees only enforces the law and that the laws are written by IFAB which includes retired footballers.

This isn’t like Liverpool offside which was just an error of process. Or the Newcastle goal against Arsenal where the infield ref was never sent to the screen. VAR spotted an incident that they suspected of serious foul play. The on field ref then reviewed it and agreed that it is serious foul play. It has since been confirmed as serious foul play by pretty much any referee who is asked. This is a clear cut case as far as referees are concerned.

You can argue that the law should be changed. But it’s strange to argue that the law hasn’t been followed when it’s repeatedly been explained by referees that it has.

 

[Anustart89]

She very clearly cites the law in the video you’re dismissing. It’s not a YouTuber opinion, it’s a referee explaining a process she’s been through many times as it’s what she does for a living.

The funny thing is, Clint Dempsey conveys the same dismissive attitude in the video after she’s spoken, saying that you need ex-pros who have a ‘feel for the game’ as refs. She points out that referees only enforces the law and that the laws are written by IFAB which includes retired footballers.

This isn’t like Liverpool offside which was just an error of process. Or the Newcastle goal against Arsenal where the infield ref was never sent to the screen. VAR spotted an incident that they suspected of serious foul play. The on field ref then reviewed it and agreed that it is serious foul play. It has since been confirmed as serious foul play by pretty much any referee who is asked. This is a clear cut case as far as referees are concerned.

You can argue that the law should be changed. But it’s strange to argue that the law hasn’t been followed when it’s repeatedly been explained by referees that it has.

Can you enlighten me on how the same referees, in the same game, with the sides reversed, did their duty to enforce the law when they looked at a player deliberately elbowing another player in the head and found that it was not a red card? Not enough Newtons of force? Not a red unless elbow has studs? I mean, how much more letter of the law can it be? Yet it was let go by the referees who are only there to enforce the laws?

How were the laws enforced when Udogie got a yellow for leaving the ground with both feet coming towards Sterling? How were the laws enforced when Havertz came flying through the air in an attempt to tackle the Newcastle guy? How were the laws followed when Azpilicueta was concussed by a bicycle kick attempt? Was his safety not endangered?

All laws are enforced equally, but some teams have the laws enforced a bit more equally than others. And the referees have been very selective in applying the laws of the game lately.

 

[Daydreamer]

Can you enlighten me on how the same referees, in the same game, with the sides reversed, did their duty to enforce the law when they looked at a player deliberately elbowing another player in the head and found that it was not a red card? Not enough Newtons of force? Not a red unless elbow has studs? I mean, how much more letter of the law can it be? Yet it was let go by the referees who are only there to enforce the laws?

How were the laws enforced when Udogie got a yellow for leaving the ground with both feet coming towards Sterling? How were the laws enforced when Havertz came flying through the air in an attempt to tackle the Newcastle guy? How were the laws followed when Azpilicueta was concussed by a bicycle kick attempt? Was his safety not endangered?

All laws are enforced equally, but some teams have the laws enforced a bit more equally than others. And the referees have been very selective in applying the laws of the game lately.

I’m not really sure what any of that has to do with what I said.

I’m an Arsenal fan, you may have noticed that we’re well up for criticising referees in recent times. I don’t think the standard of refereeing is high enough in this country and decisions are not just inconsistent between games (which is frustrating yet understandable) but often vary wildly within the same game.

I agree with pretty much all of the points you’re making, but I don’t really see the relevance.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

Craig Dawson blocked Son's run, then put his studs down on his ballbag.

If we're removing the context of the situation and intent isn't being condsidered and we're only looking at where the boot made contact. Based on this idea that studs half way up an ankle is a red, then surely studs half way up a body is a red card too.

Didn't see it so I can't comment.

 

[TwoSheds]

She very clearly cites the law in the video you’re dismissing. It’s not a YouTuber opinion, it’s a referee explaining a process she’s been through many times as it’s what she does for a living.

The funny thing is, Clint Dempsey conveys the same dismissive attitude in the video after she’s spoken, saying that you need ex-pros who have a ‘feel for the game’ as refs. She points out that referees only enforces the law and that the laws are written by IFAB which includes retired footballers.

This isn’t like Liverpool offside which was just an error of process. Or the Newcastle goal against Arsenal where the infield ref was never sent to the screen. VAR spotted an incident that they suspected of serious foul play. The on field ref then reviewed it and agreed that it is serious foul play. It has since been confirmed as serious foul play by pretty much any referee who is asked. This is a clear cut case as far as referees are concerned.

You can argue that the law should be changed. But it’s strange to argue that the law hasn’t been followed when it’s repeatedly been explained by referees that it has.

I've literally just posted the laws from the FA's website. Tell me why this ref disagrees with them.

 

[Anustart89]

I’m not really sure what any of that has to do with what I said.

I’m an Arsenal fan, you may have noticed that we’re well up for criticising referees in recent times. I don’t think the standard of refereeing is high enough in this country and decisions are not just inconsistent between games (which is frustrating yet understandable) but often vary wildly within the same game.

I agree with pretty much all of the points you’re making, but I don’t really see the relevance.

The relevance is that refs are not acting as if they are there to apply the laws of the game. If they were, the decisions that I pointed out would have very different outcomes. The point is that referees regularly pick and choose when to send players off for things that aren’t necessarily red cards by the letter of the law, and regularly avoid sending players off for things that are, so the argument that you quoted that “refs are just there to apply the laws of the game” has no basis in reality and shouldn’t be used to base an argument around.

 

[Oranges038]

Didn't see it so I can't comment.

Maybe look it up.

 

[gaffs]

Find the law that says it, I'm not interested in some youtuber's opinion. If the rule genuinely says you can commit serious foul play with no intention then football is over. The words foul play imply intent, it's basic English.

Oh, the "football is over" opinion.

Youtuber? She is a pro ref, brought onto CBS to explain it to the panel of ex-pros.

The rule....

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.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Intent is not mentioned once.

 

[Alex99]

Oh, the "football is over" opinion.

The rule....

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.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Intent is not mentioned once.

Can you challenge for a ball you have possession of?

 

[gaffs]

Can you challenge for a ball you have possession of?

Not this again.

Yes, it is a challenge as he is competing with another player.

Definition....

"Challenge. An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball."

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/#:~:text=Challenge,an opponent for the ball

The act of blocking a player out is competing.

 

[Alex99]

Not this again.

Yes, it is a challenge as he is competing with another player.

Definition....

"Challenge. An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball."

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/#:~:text=Challenge,an opponent for the ball

The act of blocking a player out is competing.

Is it, or is it defending?

I think it's very much up for interpretation as the wording is so vague. A challenge, to me, implies a neutral ball.

I'd also argue that the premise of "Serious Foul Play" was never introduced to punish accidental, freak outcomes of otherwise normal on-pitch incidents. It was introduced to stop incidents where players were absolutely flying into tackles, studs up, two feet knee high, but getting away with it because they glanced the ball as they completely wipe out their opponent. As far as I can tell, it wasn't introduced as a concept until 1990.

The whole "guidance on interpretation" thing and this whole debate (among other VAR related issues) is just exposing how the laws are essentially not fit for purpose in their current state.

Referees shouldn't need to receive repeated, updated guidance on how to interpret the laws of the game. They should be clear enough as they're written, and if the current guidance classes what Rashford did as "excessive force or brutality" then something is amiss.

 

[CoopersDream]

Shouldn’t it be a yellow then?

No, it should and was a red.

 

[gaffs]

Is it, or is it defending?

I think it's very much up for interpretation as the wording is so vague. A challenge, to me, implies a neutral ball.

Competing for the ball incorporates defending. This is why defending is not mentioned in the rules or the ifab glossary.

Competing covers the majority of actions on a pitch, that involves two players coming together.

I'd also argue that the premise of "Serious Foul Play" was never introduced to punish accidental, freak outcomes of otherwise normal on-pitch incidents. It was introduced to stop incidents where players were absolutely flying into tackles, studs up, two feet knee high, but getting away with it because they glanced the ball as they completely wipe out their opponent. As far as I can tell, it wasn't introduced as a concept until 1990.

I would tend to agree, but what was originally intended can be expanded to cover player safety.

The whole "guidance on interpretation" thing and this whole debate (among other VAR related issues) is just exposing how the laws are essentially not fit for purpose in their current state.

Referees shouldn't need to receive repeated, updated guidance on how to interpret the laws of the game. They should be clear enough as they're written, and if the current guidance classes what Rashford did as "excessive force or brutality" then something is amiss.

Anything that can "endanger the safety of an opponent" falls under serious foul play, as per the laws of the game.

And no one is classing what Rashford did as having "excessive force or brutality" as you said. It doesnt need to have excessive force or brutality to constitute serious foul play.
Read the rule..
"endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality"
Key word there is OR.

Therefore, the VAR ref got it right.

 

[Alex99]

Competing for the ball incorporates defending. This is why defending is not mentioned in the rules or the ifab glossary.

Competing covers the majority of actions on a pitch, that involves two players coming together.




I would tend to agree, but what was originally intended can be expanded to cover player safety.




Anything that can "endanger the safety of an opponent" falls under serious foul play, as per the laws of the game.

And no one is classing what Rashford did as having "excessive force or brutality" as you said. It doesnt need to have excessive force or brutality to constitute serious foul play.
Read the rule..
"endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality"
Key word there is OR.

Therefore, the VAR ref got it right.

Even the "endangers the safety" bit is vague though.

It's a contact sport, often played at a fast pace, so, once again, we come back to the accidental, freak outcome being the deciding factor in this case, as there are many on pitch incidents that could "endanger the safety" of a player but aren't deemed serious foul play.

 

[gaffs]

Even the "endangers the safety" bit is vague though.

Did what Rashford do "endanger the safety" of the player?

Bottom of the boot on the players ankle, when defenders foot is planted, could easily break the ankle. Therefore, i would say his safety was endangered.

What Rashford did checks all the boxes for a red card, according to the laws. That is what VAR decided on, therefore got it right.

It's a contact sport, often played at a fast pace, so, once again, we come back to the accidental, freak outcome being the deciding factor in this case, as there are many on pitch incidents that could "endanger the safety" of a player but aren't deemed serious foul play.

We are not talking about other incidents.

 

[Alex99]

Did what Rashford do "endanger the safety" of the player?

Bottom of the boot on the players ankle, when defenders foot is planted, could easily break the ankle. Therefore, i would say his safety was endangered.

What Rashford did checks all the boxes for a red card, according to the laws. That is what VAR decided on, therefore got it right.



We are not talking about other incidents.

Again, that was the outcome, not the action. This is the issue I, and many others have with the decision. It's based entirely on a freak outcome to a normal action. If the Copenhagen player had come in at even a slightly different angle (and keep in mind that he was attempting the tackle from behind Rashford), then it wouldn't happen. Players can "endanger" themselves, which is what happened here.

I brought it up earlier in the thread, but a clash of heads quite clearly "endangers the safety" of the players involved, but they aren't punishable by red cards. A player failing to hurdle a slide tackle and landing on the player that tackled them "endangers the safety" of that player. Again, it is not a red card offence.

The law is not there to punish these actions, and I argue that shielding the ball in the way Rashford did is so normal that it is quite clearly not within the umbrella of "endangering safety" because with that logic, half of the contact and half the normal footballing techniques could, at any given moment, be deemed to be "endangering the safety" of an opponent if an unfortunate, unavoidable collision occurs during one of them.

The fact that the Liverpool/Toulouse game, the same week, saw a very similar incident involving Endo stepping over the ball to shield it, that wasn't a red card (a decision that basically everyone agreed with), just proves it is not the action being punished.

Edit: Because, I can't be arsed with this circular debate anymore. I understand your points. I can understand reaching the conclusion that it was a red card, because the wording is vague. I just disagree that the law as written, the definitions given within it, the spirit of the law etc. adequately include stepping across to shield the ball in that manner under the umbrella of serious foul play.

 

[TwoSheds]

Oh, the "football is over" opinion.

Youtuber? She is a pro ref, brought onto CBS to explain it to the panel of ex-pros.

The rule....

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.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Intent is not mentioned once.

Not a tackle or challenge and the force is clearly not excessive. So no. The law quite clearly states that excessive force is "when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

He didn't stamp, he put his foot down on what he thought was the ground. It was clearly a proportionate amount of force to that action. So even in some lunatic world the worst you could say is that it was "reckless" so should be a yellow. That being the case VAR should not intervene at all.