2013 UEFA Champions League

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Yeah because the United fans in this thread are the source for unbiased information.

United is out and that is all that matters right now, no whining about the ref will change that.

Instead of blaming the ref they should look at how they collapsed after the red card giving up two goals in short succession.

Many teams have held on to leads after being put a man short and United couldn't even last 10 minutes.

Only Italians

[polak]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

I'm not sure it was a red, but it certainly wasn't the worst call ever.

Also, am I the only person who thinks a red card in a friendly between TFC and Vancouver should be the same as a red in a World Cup final? There are rules, if you don't want to be sent off don't violate the rules. More of a general comment than related to what happened here.

Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.
Agreed. Agreed.

I don't get why refs should "alter" their perspective depending on the game.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Maybe it was a yellow for the kick and a yellow for the dive?

Maybe the ref thought Nani was hurt and needed to give him more time to recover, so he sent him off?

Maybe from the ref's vantage point it looked worse than it does with multiple replays. I don't mind the red, i'm not sure it was worth a red but I don't mind it.

Nani should be the one vilified for being an idiot in the first place.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There are a couple of things, it depends on the the refs angle.. I wish he would have perhaps consulted the linesman. And Nani hadn't even comitted a foul in the game I don't think so he wasn't walknig a tightrope at all so maybe a yellow would have been enough. But Nani can't raise his foot like that, that's a ball he cannot go for, he has to track back.

I think this was the mistake that ref made, not taking the time slow things down and process what occurred. It may not have been a red but if had some of the key ingredients and Nani should be shouldering some of the blame as it was a silly, silly tackle. I do like the fact that the ref had the balls to call what he thought was a red in a high profile match, a dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle and if he thought it was such a tackle, fair play.

[united]

Mike Phelan: "Even the fourth official was shocked and told us he had no idea what happened." #MUFC

Mourinho: "Arbeloa told me he thought Nani didn't even see him." #MUFC


Oh well have to move on. Glad to see everyone who knows the game admits it was a shocking decision and that any official who couldn't see that live shouldn't have been officiating the game. It was so obvious the second it happened, and replays just confirmed what everyone but the official saw.

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I am unbiased (actually don't mind either team) and I prefer EPL to La Liga but I can see the reasons that may be a red.

You ref the "game" if it is a bad dirty game and then give cards where they are not deserved to get the game back on track and send a message. If the game is clean and a dangerous play happens you don't just turn away because the game was clean up until that point, in that case you judge the act.

There are three issues with Nani's challenge that usually can lead to at least a yellow if done individually, let alone all three combined.

• Jumping Tackle- Usually leads to a yellow/red
• Cleats Up- Usually leads to a yellow/red
• High Kick- Can potentially lead to a yellow

This tackle featured all three of those things. Sure there was no malicious intent but that doesn't change the fact that it was stupid and dangerous.

Due to the lack of intent I would have called it a yellow but the grounds are there for that to be a red card.

The problem with your argument that I bolded is that a jumping tackle is only a red if contact is made, which there was little to none here. Also, studs up is only a red if contact is made, otherwise it's given a caution (yellow)...again, no contact made here. Same applies to your third point...they can only be reds if there is significant contact made. Clearly there wasn't in this case. There is no arguing the fact that this was a poor poor call in such an important game. IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, GO WITH A YELLOW. Too many referees handing out reds like candy these days (and yellows for that matter)

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

The problem with your argument that I bolded is that a jumping tackle is only a red if contact is made, which there was little to none here. Also, studs up is only a red if contact is made, otherwise it's given a caution (yellow)...again, no contact made here. Same applies to your third point...they can only be reds if there is significant contact made. Clearly there wasn't in this case. There is no arguing the fact that this was a poor poor call in such an important game. IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, GO WITH A YELLOW. Too many referees handing out reds like candy these days (and yellows for that matter)

Contact was made to the side of his body...not sure how you can argue there was no contact.

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Contact was made to the side of his body...not sure how you can argue there was no contact.

A tiny bit of contact doesn't mean a straight red.

[polak]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

A tiny bit of contact doesn't mean a straight red.

What are you talking about.

The ref doesn't get to analyze every frame of a replay. There is clear and obvious contact.



You see that once in full speed and 100% of the time any ref will say there was contact.

At first I didn't care who won that match. Now watching all the Man U fans whine makes me happy Real won.

[MillerTime GFG]

What the ref thinks he sees vs. what actually happens are two completely different things. The fact that we have the ability to see it slowed down now proves that the ref made the wrong call...the defender sold the contact, the ref bought it...plain and simple.

If Nani was going into that tackle with malicious intent (he knew there was a defender coming), then it's a different story.

And for the record, I'm not a Man U fan. Just a soccer fan that gets annoyed with referees taking over games all the time.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by sadora

That made me laugh and throw up in my mouth a little bit. Ref''s here don't even know about football let alone how to officiate any sort of rec league. As much as I dislike the fact that Madrid now have an extra man, that is red for two reasons. One, because of the danger that a high kick carries, even if there is no injury at all as a result. and 2nd, Nani's dive pretending to be the injured party.

A game of this importance requires a definitive, without debate foul, to substantiate a sending off. While Nani was indeed careless, that call is the focus of most post-game reports from all the major footballing media.

He decided the fate of the two best clubs in the world right now, instead of letting the players & two best managers. One team that dummied the 15 pt liga leader twice in a week span, the other on a helluva unbeaten streak.

So to conclude, it was a controversial red. He should've shown yellow.

At best it's still a 50/50 likelihood United wins.

Originally Posted by sadora

played in every level up to CUSA...the level of refereeing here is laughable.

With who?

I played Prem Wednesday night, and would take that ref over the Turk we saw today.

Originally Posted by polak

This was a controversial call on a play that could have very well earned a red form any ref without the benefit of a replay.

Stop crying.

This is a debate forum over a controversial highlight. Bring something to the table or jog on.

[polak]

No ones arguing that it wasn't a bad call. We're arguing that it's far from outrageous call that everyone who is butthurt is claiming it is.

[MillerTime GFG]

You don't give a red on a borderline call like that...especially in a game of this magnitude...no need to dictate the outcome of the game completely on a call so clearly in the grey area. Play it safe, give a yellow. That's why you have them.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by polak

No ones arguing that it wasn't a bad call. We're arguing that it's far from outrageous call that everyone who is butthurt is claiming it is.

Does outrageous = controversial?

Your childish vindictiveness gives more ammo for agreeing with giving the wrong call? LOL.

[afc wimbledon]

To be frank this would have been a bad call even if it was obviously a red card foul, which is why refs will routinely ignore fouls in the box, and if you don't know this you are blind to the nuance that is soccer.

Soccer has always been about flow and competition and refs are supposed to stay out of the game, the only reason a ref should give a red on this would be if it stopped a clear breakaway or chance on goal, if the player was badly hurt, preferably having to withdraw from a game, or if Nani had made several reckless tackles and had been warned or better yet carded already (particularly in a chippy game where a ref is trying to regain control).

None of this applies and so the minutia of what the ref saw is irrelevant, he should have checked to see if the player was badly hurt then given a yellow, the rule of thumb is always to keep a player on.

[cam_wmh]

In addition to AFC_Wimbledon's post above, I also think the fellas from ESPNFC give a fair analysis of the call

Have a peek
http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/13...league?cc=5901

It still had a dramatic finish, but my opinion (biased of course) is it left a lot of great football on the table.

[Jagger]

I'm about as Anti-ManU as anyone could possibly be (I've had 40 plus years to build this up) but that was a beyond brutal decision. It was simply an unfortunate collision as Nani was simply trying to control the ball.

Bad bad decision

[SuperMatt18]

All I was arguing is that it was not some travesty of a call that should get the ref fired.

It is a tough call to make at full speed without replay.

A similar play occurred in the 2010 World Cup when De Jong karate kicked Alonso. Similar type of play (albeit much more contact was made and it was more aggressive) but when that was called a yellow the media was shocked it wasn't a red.

Fact is these are tough calls to make live from on the pitch. In Full speed from the refs location it likely looked identical to the DeJong play so he called it a red.

In the end a bit harsh but at the same time understandable.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

All I was arguing is that it was not some travesty of a call that should get the ref fired.

It is a tough call to make at full speed without replay.

A similar play occurred in the 2010 World Cup when De Jong karate kicked Alonso. Similar type of play (albeit much more contact was made and it was more aggressive) but when that was called a yellow the media was shocked it wasn't a red.

Fact is these are tough calls to make live from on the pitch. In Full speed from the refs location it likely looked identical to the DeJong play so he called it a red.

In the end a bit harsh but at the same time understandable.

No offence but no it isn't a tough call at all because what happened is irrelevant compared to its effect, the reason that De Jong probably should have got a red was nothing to do with the foul. it was because Holland had hacked and chopped at Spain all game and had, as a side, earnt a red. That it no way applies here.

This was as easy a call to make as you are likely to see, offending player not on a yellow, generally well played gentlemanly game, no breakaway, Madrids guy is fine, its an automatic yellow.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by sadora

That made me laugh and throw up in my mouth a little bit. Ref''s here don't even know about football let alone how to officiate any sort of rec league. As much as I dislike the fact that Madrid now have an extra man, that is red for two reasons. One, because of the danger that a high kick carries, even if there is no injury at all as a result. and 2nd, Nani's dive pretending to be the injured party.

You're getting off far too lightly with that lump of garbage. You talk about refs knowing nothing then dare proceed with that analysis.

Here ....

Careless, reckless, using excessive force
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

Careless and reckless .... Yes. Using excessive force. Not a hope in hell.

Dermot Gallaher's take.....

"I can't reiterate enough that he [Nani] is watching the ball over his shoulder, there was no malice in him. At worst it was a yellow for dangerous play, but if I was refereeing that game I cannot see by what stretch of the imagination I would have sent him off for that."

Anyways ... thems the breaks. I'm not as annoyed as much by the loss but more so that the teams were denied the chance to settle it amongst themselves. It was a fascinating game up to that point.

United's goal was offside .... twice.