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

[Bastian]

Personally I think it's extremely harsh.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Absurd decision.

Literally anybody that has every played football has done that.

 

[Ayoba]

Never a red

 

[Acquire Me]

Bullshit decision. It’s a complete joke. Never a red.

 

[ItDoesntEvenMata]

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

 

[Pat_Mustard]

The impact looked absolutely awful, but it didn't look remotely intentional, or particularly reckless.

 

[Jev]

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.

 

[Norris Cole]

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

 

[Abraxas]

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.

 

[Lentwood]

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.

 

[77]

Yellow card all day long, nothing else

 

[Lentwood]

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.

100% nailed it here

 

[Bastian]

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.

I'd approve of that 100%

 

[Thom Merrilin]

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

 

[Snow]

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.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

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?

 

[pascell]

100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.

 

[AndySmith1990]

Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid

 

[GledTheRed]

VAR make an example of Manchester United

 

[Dannn411]

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.

 

[arthurka]

A joke

 

[Lentwood]

Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid

This man has never played football

 

[Bastian]

100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.

Is that the barometer? A player can get badly injured without there even being a foul.

 

[groovyalbert]

It was a red

 

[RuudtheRed]

It's a horrible game changing call. Even worse than the Nani red against Real Madrid in 2013.

 

[Pexbo]

100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.

He shouldn’t play football then if he’s worried about being injured by a freak accident.

 

[altodevil]

It's a red card

 

[PSV]

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.

 

[evil_geko]

Joke of a red, joke of a penalty.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.

So every head to head clash should result in a red card? Since head injuries are much more serious than a lower leg injury.

 

[Lewnited]

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.

 

[paulscholes18]

its a clear red, same with Pogba vs Arsenal and the other one we had the other season for doing the same thing.

 

[Jev]

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?

I agree. And that's down to VAR.

 

[evil_geko]

I would go all out on refs after the game, suspension or not, who cares. Feck the lot of them.

 

[Ibrahimorich]

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.

 

[Abraxas]

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

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.

 

[Shane88]

Our new tactic should be to run around sticking our feet under the boots of opposition players.

 

[Aint gota Kalou]

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

 

[Josep Dowling]

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?

This is very true. Surely the who point is intent. A player should not be punished for accidentally hurting an opponent.

 

[Based Adnan]

It's a red all day long