Football can be a cruel game. One minute you’re defending a corner with your life, and the next, you’re watching from the touchline as the ball hits the back of the net, helpless to do anything about it. That’s exactly what happened to Matthijs de Ligt during Manchester United’s clash against Brentford at Old Trafford on October 19, 2024.
The image of De Ligt, face mask-less and blood streaming down his head, is one that won’t be forgotten by United fans anytime soon. But was it a "referee error," or was it just a rigid application of a rule that felt incredibly unfair in the moment?
Honest truth? It’s a bit of both.
The Incident: Why De Ligt Was Forced Off
It all started early in the match when De Ligt’s head collided with the knee of Brentford’s Kevin Schade. It was a nasty impact. The Dutch defender was left with a significant gash that required immediate medical attention.
Here’s where it gets messy. Under Premier League and IFAB Law 5, a player who is bleeding must leave the field of play. They can’t come back on until the referee is satisfied the bleeding has stopped.
De Ligt was patched up. Then he started bleeding again. He was sent off to be patched up a second time. Then, right as Brentford were about to take a crucial corner in first-half stoppage time, referee Samuel Barrott noticed blood again. He ordered De Ligt off the pitch for a third time.
📖 Related: Charissa Thompson and Jay Williams: What Really Happened
The Cost of the Decision
United were down to 10 men. Their best aerial defender was standing on the sidelines, literally fuming, as Ethan Pinnock rose highest to head home the opening goal.
The reaction was instant. Erik ten Hag and assistant Ruud van Nistelrooy went ballistic. Both were shown yellow cards for their protests. Even Darren Fletcher, a man usually known for his calm demeanor, was later caught on camera in a heated exchange with officials in the tunnel. He eventually copped a three-match touchline ban and a £7,500 fine for his "abusive" language.
Was it Actually a Referee Error?
If you ask a United fan, they’ll say Samuel Barrott "bottled it." They’ll argue that the referee should have shown some common sense. Why force a defender off right before a set-piece for "dry blood"?
But if you look at the rulebook, Barrott was technically doing his job. The PGMOL guidelines are strict: if there is active blood, the player stays off.
"Any player bleeding from a wound must leave the field of play. They may not return until the Referee is satisfied that the bleeding has stopped." — FA Medical Education Guidance
The real "error" felt by the United camp wasn't necessarily the rule itself, but the timing and the consistency. Ten Hag argued after the match that the blood was dry. De Ligt himself was seen booting a ball in frustration, clearly feeling he was fit to defend.
A Different Kind of Error: The 2025 Controversy
Interestingly, when people search for "Man Utd Brentford referee error," they’re often mixing up the De Ligt incident with a later blunder. Fast forward to September 2025, and PGMOL chief Howard Webb actually did admit to a "major error" in a different Man Utd vs Brentford fixture.
In that match, referee Craig Pawson failed to send off Brentford’s Nathan Collins after he pulled back Bryan Mbeumo (who was then playing for United in this 2026-context reality or a specific league scenario) in the box. Webb reportedly reached out to United bosses to admit the mistake.
It seems Manchester United and Brentford matches are just magnets for officiating drama.
The Human Element: Passion vs. Protocol
What made the De Ligt situation so frustrating was the lack of "game feel."
Football isn't played in a laboratory. It’s played in a pressure cooker. To remove a team’s primary center-back for a corner because of a speck of blood feels like the sport is losing its soul to bureaucracy.
- The Player's Perspective: De Ligt felt betrayed by the medical protocol. He had 95% pass accuracy and won nearly all his duels that day. He was "in the zone."
- The Manager's Perspective: Ten Hag saw his tactical setup ruined by a man in a neon shirt.
- The Referee's Perspective: If he lets De Ligt stay on and blood gets on another player, he’s the one facing a disciplinary hearing.
Key Takeaways for Fans
If you're still debating this at the pub, here are the facts to keep in your back pocket:
- The Rule is Binary: You are either bleeding or you aren't. There is no "a little bit of blood is fine for corners" clause.
- The Medical Team's Role: Part of the blame lies with the United medical staff. They had three chances to seal that wound. If the bandage had held, the referee would have had no reason to send him off.
- The Result Matters: United actually came back to win that 2024 game 2-1 thanks to goals from Alejandro Garnacho and Rasmus Højlund. The injustice arguably fueled their second-half fire.
Moving Forward: What Can Be Changed?
This incident reignited the conversation about temporary substitutions for blood injuries, similar to the "blood bin" in rugby.
If a player is forced off by the official for a medical reason that isn't their fault, should the team be allowed a temporary replacement? Currently, the IFAB is resistant to this, fearing it will be used for tactical "fake" injuries.
Until the rules change, the best thing a team can do is invest in better medical glue and much stronger bandages.
To stay ahead of these controversial calls, make sure you're tracking the weekly PGMOL "Mic'd Up" segments where Howard Webb breaks down these decisions. Understanding the intent behind the whistle doesn't make the goals against you hurt any less, but it does help you realize that most "errors" are actually just strict adherence to a very flawed set of rules.
Next time you see a player with a head wound, watch the fourth official. They are now under stricter instructions than ever to ensure "zero blood" on the pitch, meaning we are likely to see more "De Ligt moments" before the season is out.