I can see the case being made for a red card. You simply can't jump, cleets up and hit a player in the chest. The intent might not have been there but it was still reckless.
See rules above.
Good job arguing against yourself.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
I was actually hoping Manchester had won this game, all the media and fans alike are placing all their focus on the red card, which as anyone who watches many football games know that there are reds given for lesser challenges. To all those ManU fans...well, anyone who was hoping that the Spanish team had lost I pose this question....had the play been reversed, and Arbeloa jumped cleats up and clipped Nani and gotten sent off the game as a result, would you still feel the same way about the call? Would you still be feeling so hard done by the ref had the red card been given to the Real Madrid player?
What I am surprised no one has brought up is that there were two possible penalty shots that went unseen by the refs that would have been in favor of ManU when the ball made contact with Real Madrid defenders near the end of the game.
Nani's challenge was reckless, plain and simple. Regardless of the fact that the Real Madrid player was injured or not. The laws of the game will always be called the same regardless of the level of competition, whether it's an exhibition game or a cup final, a reckless challenge will always be called as such.
Had the play been reversed I would have been equally shocked at the call (and that was my initial reaction). Obviously I wouldn't have felt hard done by. Why would I? Strange question.
Quote:
Nani's challenge was reckless, plain and simple. Regardless of the fact that the Real Madrid player was injured or not. The laws of the game will always be called the same regardless of the level of competition, whether it's an exhibition game or a cup final, a reckless challenge will always be called as such.
So, you've changed your mind? Or are you arguing against yourself as well?
Let me repeat the rules to you (bolded for emphasis).
“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
Had the play been reversed I would have been equally shocked at the call (and that was my initial reaction). Obviously I wouldn't have felt hard done by. Why would I? Strange question.
So, you've changed your mind? Or are you arguing against yourself as well?
Let me repeat the rules to you (bolded for emphasis).
“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
He said earlier that he thought it was a bad call. The point was that while it should have been a yellow, Nani's recklessness gave the chance for the ref to make a decision.
It wasn't a reckless play at all. Nani was trying to deaden the ball so he could control it. He watched the ball the entire time and had no idea that an opponent was rushing in.
I was shocked when I saw the replays because I would have loved like nothing else to be able to laugh at him and the Mancs and Slur Alex in general. However, it was a pitiful, match changing, decision that even I cannot take *that* much pleasure in.
Poor way to decide/change a match of such importance.
__________________
"It's red all over!!!!"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jagger For This Useful Post:
As bad as that decision was though the reaction of some United fans around the net is despicable. Wishing cancer on the ref, his plane to crash (Really? That coming from a United fan), talk of slitting his throat, raping his wife and kids. Awful stuff. Every team had their imperciles but, come on, this online reaction was completely out of order.
Such a shame to see a match between two quality sides like that impacted so strongly by a bad call. That was a great case for a yellow card, and a terrible case for a red. A bad, bold decision from the ref on that one.
Even so, great finish from Real on their two goals, and just not quite enough of the same for United at the end - they had their chances.
Maybe the result would have been the same in the end anyway, but it's a shame that call tainted the game and the result.
Ah well, on to Barca and Milan. Hopefully Barca can look a bit less crap next match. They looked a far cry from the best club team in the world during the last one. My money's on Milan.
Travesty and against the run of play that Juve got 3 at Celtic Park, otherwise would've been a great match. More then a minor miracle required, but hopefully the visitors in their 125th year, will give the Italians all they can handle.
Let's go Bhoys!
From almost a decade ago to the day, my two sentimental favorite clubs,. in the UEFA Cup...given all the historic links between the clubs, was something special;
The Following User Says Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
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.
this x1000
there was no malicious intent and he hadn't been warned before
it's the reason why certain referees usually get bigger games, they know how to handle it
In England you won't see a 'green' ref given an NLD, Merseyside derby, Man U/Liverpool game etc. because when the stakes are obviously higher you need someone who knows the flow of the game and to not overreact
not only had Nani not had any bad fouls in the game before that, no one had, it wasn't a chippy game, it's the absolute worst time to throw out a red
Howard Webb has gotten some criticism over the WC final, but I have no problem with the intent of what he was doing, he wanted to let the players decide it, and UEFA/FIFA clearly agreed because he's gotten big appointments since then and will continue to do so going forward.
I felt bad for Web, who the hell expected Holland, of all teams, to come out and play like Leeds Utd circa 1972. An impossible game to ref within the context of a world cup
It was reckless with contact! more than enough reason for a red!
Get a grip. For someone that was lambasting refs earlier you sure are good at making up your own interpretation of the rules. Maybe that's why you think they are rubbish in Calgary. YOU don't know the rules.
It wasn't a reckless play at all. Nani was trying to deaden the ball so he could control it. He watched the ball the entire time and had no idea that an opponent was rushing in.
This.
Sadora has it similar to a two footed lunge head on or from behind in full view of where his opponent is. By his standards games would finish 4 v 4.
e.g. Lopez came out to fist a ball from a corner but was beaten to it by Vidic and subsequently punched him in the head. A reckless play by Sadora's standard and a straight red card by "his" interpretation of the rules.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
I felt bad for Web, who the hell expected Holland, of all teams, to come out and play like Leeds Utd circa 1972. An impossible game to ref within the context of a world cup
Webb gets ManU-Chelsea FA CUP this weekend so all will be right with the world again
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following User Says Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Cakir appears to have judged that Busquets, Cahill and now Nani used "excessive force," which the laws of football say must lead to a red card. The guidelines to "Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct" defines excessive as when "the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."
Had Cakir, from his angle, seen Nani act in a "reckless manner" -- "with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent" -- then a yellow card would be enough punishment.
Michael Owen doesn't think it's a red in the EPL...but thinks it is one on the continent.
Quote:
"Not in a million years would we see a Red Card for that in The Premier League but on the continent it's a definite Red," Michael Owen, the former Man United and Madrid forward, wrote on Twitter. "Can't really blame the Ref for it as he is obliged to play to the rules but it's a hard one to take bearing in mind there was no intent."
He said it was a red for two reasons.
