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

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
20,322
Supports
Mejbri
Personally I think it's extremely harsh.
 
Absurd decision.

Literally anybody that has every played football has done that.
 
For me, it's another one of those decisions where I can see how and why it was a red in theory, whilst also understanding that it's only against us that it would be given
 
It's harsh, I think. The intent is clearly to shield the ball and then the slowmotion and still pictures makes it look like it was intentional. Another argument for banishing slowmotion in the VAR room, it distorts these kinds of challenges, we've seen it often.
 
Having had a few mins to settle I think it probably IS a red, albeit a harsh one.

The laws of the game are quite clear about 'dangerous' play being a red, and it was a dangerous way to try and shield the ball

Definitely no intent however and the slow-mo replays need to stop
 
Ridiculous decision.

It's just one of those actions in football with no actual intention behind it that turns out extremely bad. So essentially you've got a player sent off for a convergence of fairly unlucky circumstances that are punished just because of the outcome.

Not remotely the same as going in recklessly and not necessarily meaning to do someone, but that being the end result. This was literally just an attempt to get into position to shield the ball, nothing more than that, you can tell that from Rashfords eyes that he didn't know where the guys legs were, and his leg was just a bit off the floor which is fairly usual on a football pitch unless they have to drag their heels to move now.
 
That is an absolutely atrocious decision. One of the worst I have seen.

A person who has played the game understands that Rashford was simply planting his foot to defend the ball

You see the Udogie one in the week. Wild tackle, two footed and out of control. Not given because Sterling moves. That's a dangerous tackle, those are the tackles we're trying to rid the game of.

Only a fat nerd in a TV studio who nobody let join in the kickabouts at school and who has never played the game thinks that the Rashford 'tackle' is a red.
 
Yellow card all day long, nothing else
 
Abraxas said:
Ridiculous decision.

It's just one of those actions in football with no actual intention behind it that turns out extremely bad. So essentially you've got a player sent off for a convergence of fairly unlucky circumstances that are punished just because of the outcome.

Not remotely the same as going in recklessly and not necessarily meaning to do someone, but that being the end result. This was literally just an attempt to get into position to shield the ball, nothing more than that, you can tell that from Rashfords eyes.
Click to expand...

100% nailed it here
 
Jev said:
It's harsh, I think. The intent is clearly to shield the ball and then the slowmotion and still pictures makes it look like it was intentional. Another argument for banishing slowmotion in the VAR room, it distorts these kinds of challenges, we've seen it often.
Click to expand...

I'd approve of that 100%
 
I must not know the laws anymore because I've been told that's a clear red card. I've read the law quickly and I think it falls under this:

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 just don't see it tbh.

Now a penalty ffs
 
How to perform an on-pitch VAR review:

1. Start by showing a freeze frame at the absolute worst moment.

2. Show only one angle

3. Only slow motion.
 
The thing for me is, this is a perfect example of how the game has completely lost sight of what the purpose of a red card is.

The idea of a red card is you've done something so bad/dangerous/against the game that you no longer deserve to be on the pitch.

Can anyone really say that a player trying to shield a ball and accidentally standing on a guys ankle (who by the way has moved his foot into a position to be stood on) deserves to not be on the pitch?
 
Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid
 
Not intentional but its a red card. If the opposition player's leg snapped, what would you have said? It is to prevent situations like that that red cards get given for studs up contact.
 
It's a horrible game changing call. Even worse than the Nani red against Real Madrid in 2013.
 
pascell said:
100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.
Click to expand...
He shouldn’t play football then if he’s worried about being injured by a freak accident.
 
Is it okay to shoot someone if you aren't looking at them? Is it a mitigating circumstance?

It turns into an ugly challenge, and he is deservedly sent off.

Rashford's an idiot.
 
Of course it's a red, it's never not been a red. If you go to shield the ball half a mile away from it and end up stamping down above a players ankles, it's a red. It was a braindead move by Rashford unfortunately.
 
its a clear red, same with Pogba vs Arsenal and the other one we had the other season for doing the same thing.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
The thing for me is, this is a perfect example of how the game has completely lost sight of what the purpose of a red card is.

The idea of a red card is you've done something so bad/dangerous/against the game that you no longer deserve to be on the pitch.

Can anyone really say that a player trying to shield a ball and accidentally standing on a guys ankle (who by the way has moved his foot into a position to be stood on) deserves to not be on the pitch?
Click to expand...
I agree. And that's down to VAR.
 
I would go all out on refs after the game, suspension or not, who cares. Feck the lot of them.
 
There must be a world wide refereeing conspiracy against us this season. We've had about 8 goals disallowed and a bunch of dubious red cards and penalties given against us and penalties not given for us. It's a farce at this point.
 
Norris Cole said:
Having had a few mins to settle I think it probably IS a red, albeit a harsh one.

The laws of the game are quite clear about 'dangerous' play being a red, and it was a dangerous way to try and shield the ball

Definitely no intent however and the slow-mo replays need to stop
Click to expand...
What's dangerous about moving to get your body into a position except that you've got two bodies colliding and things can happen because that's sport.That's not a dangerous action at all, it's something that happens umpteen times a game but because of an outcome you're now saying it's dangerous whereas if you didn't get that you'd never be raising an eyebrow.

I think the spirit of that rule is supposed to be to punish challenges that are actually challenges that go in too aggressively or hard. This wasn't even a challenge really, just an attempted movement to shield a ball nevermind any aggression or intent.
 
I think it's a red as it's dangerous. You lift your foot up and studs you better not slide down someone's ankle. That wasn't a handball though. Handball rule is a joke
 
Annihilate Now! said:
The thing for me is, this is a perfect example of how the game has completely lost sight of what the purpose of a red card is.

The idea of a red card is you've done something so bad/dangerous/against the game that you no longer deserve to be on the pitch.

Can anyone really say that a player trying to shield a ball and accidentally standing on a guys ankle (who by the way has moved his foot into a position to be stood on) deserves to not be on the pitch?
Click to expand...

This is very true. Surely the who point is intent. A player should not be punished for accidentally hurting an opponent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.