The Football.....

[Cletus Van Damme]

It was nice to see Man u get the sh1tty end of the stick for once, the bias shown in their favour by refs is obvious, some refs should have a manure squad number.

Alladyce was fined for pointing this out.

Great post, couldn't have summed it up better.

 

[MarkF]

It should be about intent nothing else.

It can never be just about intent, players must exercise caution in their play with regard to their opponents safety. Always.

No "intent" because Nani didn't see Areboa is no excuse, he should certainly should have seen him or at least have been aware of his impending arrival. Nani was reckless = yellow card. Did it involve "excessive force", probably not. But IMO he was past a yellow card but not warranting a red, into a grey area and personal interpretation! What did Nani do? Immediately jump up, show his hands in apology and check on his opponent's health? No. He tried to con the referee, did this provide the opportunity for the ref to send him off?

After profiting, for so many years, from a disproportionate amount of contentious decisions at OT, seeing Nani sent off and Fergie bounding down the steps in a fury made me laugh out loud, it was very funny.

In Gijon, there is a famous song sung with gusto by Sporting fans, "Asi asi gana el Madrid", it means (more or less) "Yep, that's how Madrid always win", via the ref really, just like Man U. So what's the big deal?

 

[User482]

It can never be just about intent, players must exercise caution in their play with regard to their opponents safety. Always.

I agree. It's impossible to know what's going through the player's mind when he goes for a challenge - and there's nothing in the Laws that requires there to be intent.

The problem was that the challenge wouldn't normally have received a red in the PL - but that doesn't make the decision wrong.

 

[brodiej]

I agree. It's impossible to know what's going through the player's mind when he goes for a challenge - and there's nothing in the Laws that requires there to be intent.

The problem was that the challenge wouldn't normally have received a red in the PL - but that doesn't make the decision wrong.

I agree. It's not as if Nani and Man U in general aren't used to how European games are referreed by now.

 

[swee'pea99]

I agree. It's impossible to know what's going through the player's mind when he goes for a challenge - and there's nothing in the Laws that requires there to be intent.

The problem was that the challenge wouldn't normally have received a red in the PL - but that doesn't make the decision wrong.

Add me to the 'crap decision' camp. To me, the difference between a yelow and a red has always been - in spirit, never mind the letter of the law - akin to the difference between manslaughter and murder. The victim's equaly dead either way, but the law recognises there's a fundamental difference between a death caused 'with malice aforethought' and one that comes about through unpremeditated 'shoot happens'.

To say that all 'potentially dangerous' play should result in a red, well, overhead kicks are out....any header where the player's concentrating pretty much entirely on the ball...virtually every 50/50 ball in open play....

No, the red card's there for deliberate dangerous play, stuff that's not 'in the spirit of the game'. Last night doesn't qualify, and it was a poor decision.

Still, as others have said, it couldn't have happened to a ref-luckier' team...

 

[green1]

No, the red card's there for deliberate dangerous play, stuff that's not 'in the spirit of the game'. Last night doesn't qualify, and it was a poor decision.

We aren't talking cricket. Spirit of the game is meaningless with regards to football. It wouldn't have got a red in the PL due to our game being generally more physical than the european game as a whole, but guess what it wasn't a PL game. It was a legitimate (albeit a harsh one) red card, the fact it was the crybaby just makes it funnier.

 

[User482]

No, the red card's there for deliberate dangerous play...

No it isn't - as I've already said, there is nothing in the Laws about intent, which is why your analogy falls flat.

If the ref deems it to be reckless, it's a red, and Nani went in high with his studs showing.

The referee applied the Laws of the game correctly.

 

[swee'pea99]

No it isn't - as I've already said, there is nothing in the Laws about intent, which is why your analogy falls flat.

If the ref deems it to be reckless, it's a red, and Nani went in high with his studs showing.

The referee applied the Laws of the game correctly.

But he didn't 'go in' at all. He tried to intercept the ball in mid-air, that's all. If his opponent had been directly in front of him, it would have been a different matter, but he wasn't. Nani clearly wasn't even aware he was there. There's a good reason a red is specified for occasions when a player 'goes in high with studs showing'. We've all seen, and winced at, such acts. But this wasn't one of them.

 

[User482]

But he didn't 'go in' at all. He tried to intercept the ball in mid-air, that's all. If his opponent had been directly in front of him, it would have been a different matter, but he wasn't. Nani clearly wasn't even aware he was there. There's a good reason a red is specified for occasions when a player 'goes in high with studs showing'. We've all seen, and winced at, such acts. But this wasn't one of them.

It doesn't matter whether he was aware or not - he made contact with the player, high, and with his studs up. Do that, and you risk a red.

Your problem is with the laws of the game, not the referee.

 

[swee'pea99]

My last word: one of the things a referee is there to do is apply his discretion. To interpret the letter of the law so as to enforce the spirit of the law. What Nani did last night was in no way contrary to the spirit of football, and there's no way he should have been made to leave.

 

[User482]

My last word: one of the things a referee is there to do is apply his discretion. To interpret the letter of the law so as to enforce the spirit of the law. What Nani did last night was in no way contrary to the spirit of football, and there's no way he should have been made to leave.

As has already been said, "spirit of football" is meaningless. Making challenges like that always carry a high risk of injuring your opponent, regardless of your intent, and they have no place in football. The referee was absolutely right.

 

[MarkF]

What Nani did last night was in no way contrary to the spirit of football, and there's no way he should have been made to leave.

Nani showed reckless disregard for an opponent's safety, kicked him dangerously, then proceeded to roll around cheating. Yet none of this was in no way contrary to the "spirit of football"? Beats me!

 

[Doseone]

How many of you who are saying it was red card can honestly hand on heart say that when you saw the incident you immediately thought "that's a red"?

Listening to Talksport this morning and reading various opinions on the web etc all the ex and current players, referees and pundits who have been asked for an opinion all think it was a wrong decision. The only exception is Roy Keane (good player, cr@p manager, cr@p pundit).

I'm no lover of Man U, but I can only assume that there is a lot of anti Man U bias rearing its head.

The sad thing is that this incident is overshadowing an absolutely cracking goal from Modric.

 

[dan_bo]

It was hardly

Was it?

I'm erring on the side of a very VERY harsh red. Eight times out of ten in the PL it would have got a yellow at the most.

 

[User482]

How many of you who are saying it was red card can honestly hand on heart say that when you saw the incident you immediately thought "that's a red"?

Not me, because it probably wouldn't have been a red in a PL game. The problem is with the way the PL is refereed.