• ASeatedLion@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    Not a man u fan - was this on field or reviewed? Because its clear he wasn’t even looking at the player so it’s not intentional. He has possession of the ball too. Yes it’s bad but it seems harsh a straight red.

  • Zandercy42@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    This is fair enough, clearly an accident but also dangerous, but honestly at this point any time there’s a VAR check I’m sure the worst possible outcome for us will be the one that’s chosen

  • stafaen@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    The ref only saw videos in slow motion ffs. This happens 3 times a games almost

  • djneill@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    I honestly don’t agree with that, it’s nasty but there have to be some mitigations for the fact he’s coming from behind. There has to be some allowances for legitimate football actions that result in things like that.

  • fjordboii@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    There’s our weekly horrendous decision… his ankle is already planted, it’s not high. How?

  • FBall4NormalPeople@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    I’m nor sure about this one, too much reffing consequences and not actions. Rashy is protecting the ball, doesn’t have any sight of the man moving into where he makes contact.

    Ultimately that’s a nasty piece of contact, but the degree of contact shouldn’t really be so much of a decider.

  • TheSmithStreetBand@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    Clear red! He literally looks and then almost breaks the kids leg.

    You gotta be redder than the devils dick not to see that

  • OriginallyTom@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    That looks awful, but feel like the Copenhagen player has put his leg under Rashfords, he hasnt even tried to tackle. Just protecting the ball - but also lucky he’s not broke his leg. Pretty conflicting

    • googoojuju@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      lucky he’s not broke his leg

      I feel like, just as with the Curtis Jones tackle, this idea he was lucky not to be seriously injured is just an imagined outcome. He wasn’t injured because there was no force in the tackle, which is why it shouldn’t be a red.

      The judgement is “this endangered an opponent”, except we know for a fact it didn’t endanger him because he was fine, just like Bissouma was. If you are judging outcomes, you need to judge actual outcomes. And if you are judging imagined outcomes, then you need to go back to considering force, intent, reasonable expectations, etc. By which measures both this and the Jones one are never red cards.