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

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
13,352
True, this says "(but are limited to)", but this enumeration of the acts for which a sending off is required is below.

The one that comes closest is "violent conduct" could possibly have been guilty of. Yes, the term "violent conduct" is somewhat subjective but I really can't see in what Marcus was doing that constituted violent conduct, which at least in my mind strongly implies intent to harm or injure an opponent and even the worst ABUers out there would have to concede that there was no intent to harm or injure the opponent. It was nothing more than a yellow card offense.



SENDING OFF

Sending-off offences include (but are not limited to):

  • delaying the restart of play by the opposing team e.g. holding onto the ball, kicking the ball away, obstructing the movement of a player
  • deliberately leaving the technical area to:
    • show dissent towards, or remonstrate with, a match official
    • act in a provocative or inflammatory manner
  • enter the opposing technical area in an aggressive or confrontational manner
  • deliberately throwing/kicking an object onto the field of play
  • entering the field of play to:
    • confront a match official (including at half-time and full-time)
    • interfere with play, an opposing player or a match official
  • entering the video operation room (VOR)
  • physical or aggressive behaviour (including spitting or biting) towards an opposing player, substitute, team official, match official, spectator or any
    other person (e.g. ball boy/girl, security or competition official etc.)
  • receiving a second caution in the same match
  • using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
  • using unauthorised electronic or communication equipment and/or behaving in an inappropriate manner as a result of using electronic or communication equipment
  • violent conduct
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
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.
Can you not read?

The rule says ....

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent OR uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

Not AND, as you quoted.

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

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
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.
To the letter of the law, the sending off was correct. I don't find the language in the laws to be vague or open to interpretation.

The simple question is, did Rashford endanger the player? If the answer is yes, then he is off.

Bringing in other examples or saying IF the player came in from another angle is all irrelevant fluff. I have always found that if someone is losing the argument, they tend to throw in multiple whataboutisms to muddy the water.

Regardless of it being a "freak outcome to a normal action", VAR got this right.

Now, should the laws account for more factors, such as intent? That is another discussion. It would seem to me that they are trying to remove subjectivity from the laws of the game.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,607
Location
New York, NY
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.
So if a player goes for a low volley - and the follow through hits a players ankle, red card? If a player comes from behind another player, puts a foot underneath theirs it’s a red card?
No, it should and was a red.
I gave two situations above - are these also reds in your eyes?
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
15,044
To the letter of the law, the sending off was correct. I don't find the language in the laws to be vague or open to interpretation.

The simple question is, did Rashford endanger the player? If the answer is yes, then he is off.

Bringing in other examples or saying IF the player came in from another angle is all irrelevant fluff. I have always found that if someone is losing the argument, they tend to throw in multiple whataboutisms to muddy the water.

Regardless of it being a "freak outcome to a normal action", VAR got this right.

Now, should the laws account for more factors, such as intent? That is another discussion. It would seem to me that they are trying to remove subjectivity from the laws of the game.
Other examples and hypothetical situations obviously have relevance.
 

TheRedHearted

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
2,607
Location
New York, NY
To the letter of the law, the sending off was correct. I don't find the language in the laws to be vague or open to interpretation.

The simple question is, did Rashford endanger the player? If the answer is yes, then he is off.

Bringing in other examples or saying IF the player came in from another angle is all irrelevant fluff. I have always found that if someone is losing the argument, they tend to throw in multiple whataboutisms to muddy the water.

Regardless of it being a "freak outcome to a normal action", VAR got this right.

Now, should the laws account for more factors, such as intent? That is another discussion. It would seem to me that they are trying to remove subjectivity from the laws of the game.
He didn’t see him, that is very relevant.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,891
To the letter of the law, the sending off was correct. I don't find the language in the laws to be vague or open to interpretation.

The simple question is, did Rashford endanger the player? If the answer is yes, then he is off.

Bringing in other examples or saying IF the player came in from another angle is all irrelevant fluff. I have always found that if someone is losing the argument, they tend to throw in multiple whataboutisms to muddy the water.

Regardless of it being a "freak outcome to a normal action", VAR got this right.

Now, should the laws account for more factors, such as intent? That is another discussion. It would seem to me that they are trying to remove subjectivity from the laws of the game.
You’re making the equivalence of studs hitting body part = endangering a player’s safety. The fact that we regularly see incidents not punished by red cards (and usually because they occur closer to the ankle than the shin, if you’re going to get all concerned about ankle health as a riposte) despite studs making contact with legs shows that simply putting your studs on someone’s leg usually isn’t considered endangering an opponents safety.

It is a freak occurrence and they wanted to send him off. Just like the same reffing team weren’t so concerned with the literal law when they looked at a deliberate elbow to the head and decided that it was not a red card, despite it being probably the easiest decision of the night.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
You’re making the equivalence of studs hitting body part = endangering a player’s safety. The fact that we regularly see incidents not punished by red cards (and usually because they occur closer to the ankle than the shin, if you’re going to get all concerned about ankle health as a riposte) despite studs making contact with legs shows that simply putting your studs on someone’s leg usually isn’t considered endangering an opponents safety.

It is a freak occurrence and they wanted to send him off. Just like the same reffing team weren’t so concerned with the literal law when they looked at a deliberate elbow to the head and decided that it was not a red card, despite it being probably the easiest decision of the night.
Studs coming down hard ontop of a planted ankle. What endangers a player safety more?
 

Sied

I..erm..love U2, baby?
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
10,315
Studs coming down hard ontop of a planted ankle. What endangers a player safety more?
Out of curiosity, aside from the letter of the law argument, do you personally want to see that sort of incident being given as a red? If you were in charge of the officiating rules?
 

Alex99

Rehab's Pete Doherty
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
15,044
Err, he looks at him prior.

If he didn't see him, then why was he trying to shiled the ball?

And regardless, seeing him or not is not relevant in the law. Nor is intent, as said a million times in this thread.
All talk of the law and intent aside, there's a clear difference between seeing a player approaching to attempt a tackle and seeing exactly how he's attempting that tackle, or indeed, where and when he's going to plant his foot.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
Out of curiosity, aside from the letter of the law argument, do you personally want to see that sort of incident being given as a red? If you were in charge of the officiating rules?
Honestly, no. I think having something like this given as a red card is a bit dumb. I think some logic and common sense needs to apply. But it would seem that the ifab, which is a group that includes many ex-players, want to take logic, interpretation and common sense out of the game.

But that doesn't mean that is was not a correct red, as per the current letter of the law, at people like @Alex99 have been vehemently trying to refute.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
All talk of the law and intent aside, there's a clear difference between seeing a player approaching to attempt a tackle and seeing exactly how he's attempting that tackle, or indeed, where and when he's going to plant his foot.
Maybe, but that is not what the poster said. He said "He didn’t see him."
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,529

Daydreamer

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,164
Supports
Arsenal

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,529
Ah right, you’re quoting different things.

You’re quoting the definition of “excessive force”. @gaffs is quoting the definition of “serious foul play” which is what Rashford was sent off for. Serious foul play doesn’t necessarily involve excessive force. It just means you endangered the safety of your opponent.
I'm not exactly quoting the definition of excessive force, I'm quoting the circumstances under which a tackle or challenge should be penalised with a direct free kick and red card. I think they're probably supposed to say the same thing and yet they don't. How ridiculous.
 

Daydreamer

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,164
Supports
Arsenal
I'm not exactly quoting the definition of excessive force, I'm quoting the circumstances under which a tackle or challenge should be penalised with a direct free kick and red card. I think they're probably supposed to say the same thing and yet they don't. How ridiculous.
Either way, unlike @gaffs, youre not quoting the section for serious foul play, which is clearly the most relevant section as it’s what Rashford was sent off for.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,529
Either way, unlike @gaffs, youre not quoting the section for serious foul play, which is clearly the most relevant section as it’s what Rashford was sent off for.
If they were supposed to say the same thing it would be very relevant.
 

Daydreamer

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,164
Supports
Arsenal
If they were supposed to say the same thing it would be very relevant.
But they’re not supposed to be saying the same thing. Rashford for was sent off for serious foul play. Serious foul play can involve excessive force (obviously) but it doesn’t always and didn’t in this case.

If you quote sections that aren’t what he was sent off for, it’s not all that surprising that it doesn’t say the same thing seeing as… it's not the same thing.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,891
Studs coming down hard ontop of a planted ankle. What endangers a player safety more?
First of all, I disagree that it's harder than many tackles that we see on a regular basis. It's not necessarily with more force than a sliding tackle (because the pace of the player adds momentum, especially if the leg's extended), or a flying tackle (I'll come back to those).

So to answer your question, here's a list of things that I find more dangerous than studs on shin (because as we've established, if you stud someone on the ankle it's usually not a red card according to the PGMOL, for example van Dijk vs Everton and countless others).

1) Being kicked with full force in the head in an attempt to score a spectacular goal in a crowded area (Azpilicueta (concussed)/Shaw, yellow cards).
2) Being kicked with less force but in the head (Haaland/Jota, yellow cards).
3) Being struck in the head by a goalkeeper who comes out to clear the ball (Sanchez on Jesus, no foul. Verbruggen on Soucek (concussed), no foul).
4) Having a player's centre of gravity go through your ankle with the ankle having nowhere to go due to a scissor motion (Walker-Peters on Garnacho (out for two months), no foul).
5) Leaving the ground with both feet up and studs showing towards the player (Udogie, yellow card)
6) Running at full pelt and flying into the air towards an opponent in an attempt to tackle (Havertz, yellow card).

---

Just to add some more examples (this is from one single weekly VAR review) of tackles where studs meet legs where it doesn't necessarily mean that the player will die (and speaking of which, when was the last time a tackle like that actually took someone out of action for an extended period of time, as opposed to scissor tackles where Eriksen was out for three months and Garnacho two...)

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...llister-red-liverpool-romero-handball-penalty


Red, confirmed by VAR, overturned on appeal

Yellow


Yellow
 
Last edited:

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,529
But they’re not supposed to be saying the same thing. Rashford for was sent off for serious foul play. Serious foul play can involve excessive force (obviously) but it doesn’t always and didn’t in this case.

If you quote sections that aren’t what he was sent off for, it’s not all that surprising that it doesn’t say the same thing seeing as… it's not the same thing.
They're literally both addressing challenges or tackles that involve endangering the opponent and/or using excessive force. It's quite explicit about that. What would be the point of having a rule in the first bit that's exactly the same and has exactly the same punishment, but one only needs one of the 2 criteria to be met and the other needs both? It seems pretty clear they're trying to address the same thing and it's just badly written.

The second part of that serious foul play bit is also bizarre because it seems to address the same thing again in a different way and it's not clear if it's elaborating on the first paragraph or trying to define a second, also entirely pointless, scenario which would necessarily be encompassed by the first paragraph.

Maybe the FA need some English lessons or maybe they should just remove some of the rules if they're already encompassed by another rule and therefore totally pointless. My bet is they need English lessons.
 

statpadder

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 24, 2023
Messages
112
Why is this 26 pages long? Can anyone fill us noobs in on whatever the feck is being discussed for so many pages?

Btw. It wasn’t a red card to anyone who has played the game.
 

Daydreamer

Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,164
Supports
Arsenal
Why is this 26 pages long? Can anyone fill us noobs in on whatever the feck is being discussed for so many pages?

Btw. It wasn’t a red card to anyone who has played the game.
TLDR
49% - Think it’s a red card according the rules.
49% - Think it’s not a red (no intent etc)
1% - @TwoSheds thinks the rules are unclear
1% - @Alex99 thinks All Studs Matter
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
Ah right, you’re quoting different things.

You’re quoting the definition of “excessive force”. @gaffs is quoting the definition of “serious foul play” which is what Rashford was sent off for. Serious foul play doesn’t necessarily involve excessive force. It just means you endangered the safety of your opponent.
Exactly. @TwoSheds is looking in the wrong place.

As you say, Rashford sent off for Serious Foul Play.

Quoting what is the definition of "excessive force" is not relevant here.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
First of all, I disagree that it's harder than many tackles that we see on a regular basis. It's not necessarily with more force than a sliding tackle (because the pace of the player adds momentum, especially if the leg's extended), or a flying tackle (I'll come back to those).

So to answer your question, here's a list of things that I find more dangerous than studs on shin (because as we've established, if you stud someone on the ankle it's usually not a red card according to the PGMOL, for example van Dijk vs Everton and countless others).

1) Being kicked with full force in the head in an attempt to score a spectacular goal in a crowded area (Azpilicueta (concussed)/Shaw, yellow cards).
2) Being kicked with less force but in the head (Haaland/Jota, yellow cards).
3) Being struck in the head by a goalkeeper who comes out to clear the ball (Sanchez on Jesus, no foul. Verbruggen on Soucek (concussed), no foul).
4) Having a player's centre of gravity go through your ankle with the ankle having nowhere to go due to a scissor motion (Walker-Peters on Garnacho (out for two months), no foul).
5) Leaving the ground with both feet up and studs showing towards the player (Udogie, yellow card)
6) Running at full pelt and flying into the air towards an opponent in an attempt to tackle (Havertz, yellow card).

---

Just to add some more examples (this is from one single weekly VAR review) of tackles where studs meet legs where it doesn't necessarily mean that the player will die (and speaking of which, when was the last time a tackle like that actually took someone out of action for an extended period of time, as opposed to scissor tackles where Eriksen was out for three months and Garnacho two...)

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...llister-red-liverpool-romero-handball-penalty


Red, confirmed by VAR, overturned on appeal

Yellow


Yellow
At lot of work there to show that studs to the shins and ankles can be dangerous. Good work, but we all knew this already. That is the point of the rule.

I think it is fair to say Premier League refs are more lenient on tackles than in the CL. We all knew this.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,891
At lot of work there to show that studs to the shins and ankles can be dangerous. Good work, but we all knew this already. That is the point of the rule.

I think it is fair to say Premier League refs are more lenient on tackles than in the CL. We all knew this.
In what way? Did any of the players miss any football as a consequence of those tackles? And one of your points were that the ankle is the thing we're protecting, but weirdly enough studs on ankle is seen as mitigating in the eyes of the referees despite tackling the ankle straight on is a much higher risk of making the ankle buckle.

If studs to leg is as dangerous as you claim (you challenged me to find anything more dangerous on a football pitch and I gave you six examples which you didn't bother addressing), then surely we would've had injuries arising from these tackles on a weekly basis, considering I found those three images in a single week's VAR review. And those are from actual tackles, ie the player lunging towards his opponent as opposed to planting his foot to shield the ball.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,529
Exactly. @TwoSheds is looking in the wrong place.

As you say, Rashford sent off for Serious Foul Play.

Quoting what is the definition of "excessive force" is not relevant here.
It's not the definition of excessive force though. It's a definition of when they should give a direct free kick and send someone off for a challenge or tackle. And it's subtly different to the serious foul play definition. Which is stupid because it's clearly trying to address the same thing.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
It's not the definition of excessive force though. It's a definition of when they should give a direct free kick and send someone off for a challenge or tackle. And it's subtly different to the serious foul play definition. Which is stupid because it's clearly trying to address the same thing.

What you posted, rule 12.1 is about when a direct free kick should be given. Not relevant to this conversation.

And it doesn't mean because it says that a direct free kick should be given for "excessive force", then a red shouldn't be given.

12.3 is where you need to look, which covers Disciplinary action.
 

gaffs

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
12,735
Location
Moscow 08, Rome 09, London 11
In what way? Did any of the players miss any football as a consequence of those tackles? And one of your points were that the ankle is the thing we're protecting, but weirdly enough studs on ankle is seen as mitigating in the eyes of the referees despite tackling the ankle straight on is a much higher risk of making the ankle buckle.

If studs to leg is as dangerous as you claim (you challenged me to find anything more dangerous on a football pitch and I gave you six examples which you didn't bother addressing), then surely we would've had injuries arising from these tackles on a weekly basis, considering I found those three images in a single week's VAR review. And those are from actual tackles, ie the player lunging towards his opponent as opposed to planting his foot to shield the ball.
All these tackles are potentially dangerous. As i said before, in Europe they would all be straight red.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
11,470
These aren't even comparable. I don't even know who the foul would be on here?

Dawson pulls him down then puts studs down on his middle. If everyone is so adamant that studs above a certain height is red, so why not this?
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
11,470
You're really reaching.
Why? Studs went on the player above his ankle?

If were going by the rules that are being quoted in here for Rashford and logic of intent not mattering and only looking at the point of impact of the studs. He's clearly endangering his opponent by putting his studs down on his ballbag.

Clear red card according to that logic.
 

Velvet Revolver

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,328
Location
Inside Scholes's Brain
To the letter of the law, the sending off was correct. I don't find the language in the laws to be vague or open to interpretation.

The simple question is, did Rashford endanger the player? If the answer is yes, then he is off.

Bringing in other examples or saying IF the player came in from another angle is all irrelevant fluff. I have always found that if someone is losing the argument, they tend to throw in multiple whataboutisms to muddy the water.

Regardless of it being a "freak outcome to a normal action", VAR got this right.

Now, should the laws account for more factors, such as intent? That is another discussion. It would seem to me that they are trying to remove subjectivity from the laws of the game.
Be that as it may, the premise of using VAR is to overturn clear and obvious errors. If it was clear and obvious then it should not take 4 or 5 mins of constant reviewing. The issue with VAR is the complete and utter inconsistency about how one is a foul and offside and penalty while the other is not. If that is flexible then what is the point of enforcing rules? Scrap the whole thing.