Why haven’t we requested the audio from the Maguire incident yet? He was blatantly dragged to the ground and it wasn’t even looked at twice. Unless we start kicking up a fuss I can’t see anything changing in the regard of VAR. Every single decision is going against us.
Rashford's red card - correct decision or badly done by VAR again?
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
Because we are painfully passive to our own detriment.
That needs to change, look at Pep, Klopp and Arteta. They lose their minds when a decision goes against them, they publicly call it out and go to lengths to make a fuss out of it and as a result’s decisions start to go for them. We need to do the same.
Because his studs were down and the guys foot/ankle happened to be under them?
I don’t even think it’s just about getting external pressure. There’s two other things to think about - one is that draining feeling that the squad must feel every time it happens, and if we just continue to let it happen they must begin to question how serious we are about winning because we should be publicly furious about it. The second thing is creating a siege mentality - Fergie used to know exactly how to turn adversity into motivation.
It was NOT intentional and didn't deserve a Red card.
If you step on a guy half way up his ankle by accident, you were reckless. End of...
Craig Dawson stood on Son's little Son yesterday. Was that reckless and a red card?
I refer you to post 901
As suspected didn't hear back from that poster, I doubt I will hear back from you either.
An image in which you see Rashford's studs pointed towards the ground?
Try harder.
Flat out lying when everyone can see the image isn't a good look
Red card offences don't need to be intentional.
I didn’t reply at it’s a pointless argument, a still proves nothing.
I don’t think it was a red card and you do, no point in continuing the discussion.
You can't even see his studs, just the side of his boot, and the angle of his leg would mean his foot being at a ridiculous angle to get his studs up.
I can't tell if you are just unable to admit you're wrong here or don't know what a stud is?
You might have a point if it was a tackle, but it wasn't. I dont think he can angle his boot in any direction leading up to that that wouldn't have some studs showing or that makes any kind of sense for someone trying to put their foot down. Like the real problem is he has his back turned to the player he's 'tackling'
It would be a dangerous and reckless technique for a tackle but is pretty natural for someone trying to turn around.
I'm not debating he is unlucky or that it's not deliberate but the fact - which some on here seem very against despite it being literally in front of their eyes - is it ended up being studs into a players leg/ankle. Tackle or not doesn't matter (think Nani red card) that is a red in Europe and has been for yonks.
Do you understand what "up" means in this context?
Because all you can see in that (pixelated) image is the side of Rashford's boot. The reason the studs made contact was because the Copenhagen player got his ankle under, at an angle, as Rashford's foot came down.
Yeah the outcome is a problem. Which i think I and many others are fine with punishing in principle. But you want it to be consistently punished. Which i guess they do in europe to be fair to them.
This is exactly right and really the end of the conversation. Well put. When your back is turned and you're putting your foot down on a patch of empty grass and guy slides in from behind and you land on him...it should actually be a foul on the OTHER player IMO. they have this rule in the NBA now...you need to leave landing space for a players feet. A foul, yet alone a yellow, let alone a RED...is pure madness.
I feel like that he was given a red card because there were no other options. Had he been given a yellow for that tackle, I doubt they upgrade the card to a red. VAR probably asserted that he needed a booking for it and all they can give is a red card so that is what he got. If VAR could have given him a yellow for that foul, I feel like they would have.
I was lost when I read the claim that Rashford can’t have committed a foul because he had possession of the ball.
Now we’re saying that Rashford was the victim of a foul because he had possession of the grass?
What y’all smoking?
And the studs that are attached to it...yes....that is the entire point.
You're slowly changing what happened in your mind to Flat Stanley sliding under Rashford's boot
I've not changed what happened at all.
The thing I've said the entire time is that Rashford happened to be unfortunate enough to have someone put their leg under his foot. His studs weren't up, the other guy just ended up under them.
"Studs up" requires the studs to not be down, which they were, even in your blurry photo of the side of Rashford's boot.
Intent does not come into play.
So you're now accepting you can see studs in the photo?
The issue is Europe, at least the CL, has done but then Endo got away with a quite similar incident the day after in the EL. They make is hard for themselves.
Genuine question, do your eyes work?
I've stated twice now that all you can see is the side of Rashford's boot.
I was hoping you'd keep up this weird charade, HD pic below. I will wait for the explanation.
If that counts as studs up then the games deadI was hoping you'd keep up this weird charade, HD pic below. I will wait for the explanation.
I think it's a shit rule, as I thought the Nani red was criminal, as I think a lot of European refs are very whistle happy but that is how it has been a long time. But facts for everyone, aside from one poster who thinks they're fighting the good fight for stud discrimination or something, are that the foot came outwards to step over the ball, studs made contact with the ankle/leg and VAR licked its chops and gave a red.
What they need to do is say this kind of contact is a definite yellow, the ref then should give a yellow, and then VAR can upgrade if someone's gone in really high or with excessive force.
His studs show momentarily as he moves his leg/foot, which studs will do for any player taking any sort of step in any direction, but particularly during a lateral movement, which you generally need to do to shield the ball.I was hoping you'd keep up this weird charade, HD pic below. I will wait for the explanation.
Even in your image, you can still see more of the side of Rashford's boot than the bottom (the bottom isn't white, as a clue). The studs are essentially only visible there because his boot is off the ground and the studs protrude from the bottom.
If you watch the actual replay, and don't focus on a (slightly less blurry than before) still, you see it's actually the side of his boot that initially makes contact (because his studs are by and large, angled down), and it's the angle of the challenge from the Copenhagen player that causes the studs to make contact with is leg/ankle.
It wasn't studs up. As I said, Rashford's foot would have had to be at an obscene angle for the studs to actually be up when contact was made.
Here's a video:
You literally see the contact of his studs hitting the player and his foot taking the impact in the video. What are you doing?!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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
If one pause at 44 sec, the FCC players studs are as much up as Rashfords
Kudos you're still fighting this whilst posting images that disprove what you're saying I guess? You literally posted a vid of the incident where you can watch in HD Rashford step across and accidentally make contact above the ankle with his studs then the boot slides down to the ankle.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.
This the most "up" Rashford's studs are. The Copenhagen is still no where near, and the boot rotates down after this point. Note that the bottom of Rashford's boot is orange/black and not white.
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.
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.
Point 1. incorrect, if that was the case Rashford's foot would have just gone to the ground where it is, you have cherry picked a still that is misleading (hardly surprising with your post history) and doesn;t explain why the angle would tghen change to sideways.
Point 2. incorrect, point of impact as can be seen in the vid you posted is not there. His foot is more to the left. Again, am I surprised you have chosen the wrong still? No.
Point 3. Full house. Incorrect again. The video shows contact and you can literally count studs.
I'm not sure what you gain from this but you make it very easy for me to reply and make yourself look very untrustworthy as a poster. Studs made contact with opponent's leg with a foot off the ground, also just google Rashford's boot type as well you seem unable to see where the sole of a shoe begins.
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...
Rashford steps across. Correct.
Rashford accidentally makes contract above the ankle. Correct.
With his studs. Incorrect
Point 1: What are you even on about here? Genuinely confused at what you're addressing because it doesn't appear to be the first image that simply shows the most "up" Rashford's studs are and highlights that the sole of his boot is not white. "gone to the ground where it is". What does this mean? If you're on about his direction of movement, I'm not sure how many times it needs stating that, of course, he moved sideways a bit while shielding the ball.
Point 2: There is literally like a frame between where I paused and Rashford's boot turning. If you've got the image to counter that one, post it.
Point 3: If the impact was the studs, his foot would not have turned sideways in the way it did. What you see is the white side of Rashford's boot. The bottom of his boot, the bit where the studs are, is not white.
As for Rashford's boots, you mean these boots with a clearly defined, not-white line marking the sole?
Or maybe he was wearing these ones, that also have a lovely bright orange line marking the sole/stud line?
Again, I'm not saying the studs didn't make contact. The studs absolutely did make contact. However, they only made contact after his boot slid down the leg and had nowhere else to go but on the planted foot.
I'm not sure what you gain from this but you make it very easy for me to reply and make yourself look very untrustworthy as a poster.
Bruv, you literally went and found pics showing that all four of Rashford’s back studs are white.Rashford steps across. Correct.
Rashford accidentally makes contract above the ankle. Correct.
With his studs. Incorrect
Point 1: What are you even on about here? Genuinely confused at what you're addressing because it doesn't appear to be the first image that simply shows the most "up" Rashford's studs are and highlights that the sole of his boot is not white. "gone to the ground where it is". What does this mean? If you're on about his direction of movement, I'm not sure how many times it needs stating that, of course, he moved sideways a bit while shielding the ball.
Point 2: There is literally like a frame between where I paused and Rashford's boot turning. If you've got the image to counter that one, post it.
Point 3: If the impact was the studs, his foot would not have turned sideways in the way it did. What you see is the white side of Rashford's boot. The bottom of his boot, the bit where the studs are, is not white.
As for Rashford's boots, you mean these boots with a clearly defined, not-white line marking the sole?
Or maybe he was wearing these ones, that also have a lovely bright orange line marking the sole/stud line?
Again, I'm not saying the studs didn't make contact. The studs absolutely did make contact. However, they only made contact after his boot slid down the leg and had nowhere else to go but on the planted foot.
I'm not sure what you gain from this but you make it very easy for me to reply and make yourself look very untrustworthy as a poster.
Again I ask myself what do you gain form just lying?Rashford steps across. Correct.
Rashford accidentally makes contract above the ankle. Correct.
With his studs. Incorrect
Point 1: What are you even on about here? Genuinely confused at what you're addressing because it doesn't appear to be the first image that simply shows the most "up" Rashford's studs are and highlights that the sole of his boot is not white. "gone to the ground where it is". What does this mean? If you're on about his direction of movement, I'm not sure how many times it needs stating that, of course, he moved sideways a bit while shielding the ball.
Point 2: There is literally like a frame between where I paused and Rashford's boot turning. If you've got the image to counter that one, post it.
Point 3: If the impact was the studs, his foot would not have turned sideways in the way it did. What you see is the white side of Rashford's boot. The bottom of his boot, the bit where the studs are, is not white.
As for Rashford's boots, you mean these boots with a clearly defined, not-white line marking the sole?
Or maybe he was wearing these ones, that also have a lovely bright orange line marking the sole/stud line?
Again, I'm not saying the studs didn't make contact. The studs absolutely did make contact. However, they only made contact after his boot slid down the leg and had nowhere else to go but on the planted foot.
I'm not sure what you gain from this but you make it very easy for me to reply and make yourself look very untrustworthy as a poster.
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.