Bastian
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2015
- Messages
- 20,322
- Supports
- Mejbri
Personally I think it's extremely harsh.
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.
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.
Guarantee if the tables were turned and an opposition player wasn't sent off for the same thing, everyone would be livid
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.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.100% a red, the opposition player could've been badly injured.
I agree. And that's down to VAR.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?
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.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
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?