i was still a bit shocked by the difference the red card made... Real really seemed to sense the "kill"..it was a bit of wonder strike from Modric to get it going.. You could see Real def posed a threat in the first half but up until that red card I could only see one winner in that game, United.
Goal.com ratings Robin van persie really must do better. he only scores 2.5's in the last couple of games. In the beginning of the season he scored 4.0 or 3.5 constantly.
I thought that was disgusting clapping in his face like that, how old is he, it's still just a game.. United not used to the ref not being on their side it seems Was a red card all day.. flying through the air foot at 90 degrees obviously gonna be a Madrid player going for the ball as well, shouldn't be so reckless. how many times do players clash for headers in the mid field, he decides to flying kick his way into it without even looking.. off
Are you being serious right now? How many times have we seen this in the past, how many times does this happen in the EPL? A yellow card at best, the tackle wasn't late, Nani had no intention of hitting the guy, and his eyes were on the ball at ALL time? Either that, or the commentators, both managers, the thousands of Utd and neutral fans are crazy. So if we're talking about things like that: How come Diego Lopez wasn't booked when he clearly PUNCHED Vidic in the head? He didn't do this, which although may look the same, are completely different.
Dangerous play does not require "intent" only that there is a risk of injury coming from reckless or clumsy play. Should it have been a red card.. probably not, but the decision, no matter what everyone seems to think, is perfectly valid.
That's not for the fans to decide if it's right or not though, That's what the match officials are for, sometimes they do get it wrong, but this time Nani was foolish enough to raise his studs high and actually make contact. Not maliciously but that's irrelevant, his play was dangerous and the call, whilst harsh, was within the boundaries of the ruling.
erm... how about Real madrid goalkeeper going through RVP face with 2 clenched fists? how's that then? should have been a penalty and a red for the keeper? of course not. stop talking nonsense. Refs have to apply common sense. if someone goes into a challenge with 2 studs showing, if they see the opposing player, if they make the smallest contact, it's a red, no doubt, even if the other player isn't hurt. they endangered the other player, they saw them and still went for a dangerous tackle. What nani did was nothing more than trying to control the ball. yellow at max, a big no no from ref. that's it.
Talking nonsense? Far from it I'm afraid. A keeper is expected to use his hands and go for the ball within his box, contact is also expected (even if it's undesirable). This is the same as heads colliding when attempting to head the ball. Could a call have been made, maybe but that's not for you or I to decide. Nani on the other-hand paid the price for being ignorant of his surroundings and foolish enough to assume he was the only person on the ball and consequently made contact with those raised studs. It wasn't the ref not using common sense (he even took time to receive information from other official before making the decision, we don't know if they contributed but delay indicates they did), it was Nani. As stated, Dangerous play does not require intent only risk through careless/reckless actions ... like raising your boot/studs carelessly and a red card is one of the possible punishments for doing so, if you have issue with that, take it up with UEFA. As the saying goes, Ignorance is not a valid defence (unless you're a paedophile of certain religion, in a British court, but that's another debate for another day).
Really? How is that in any way the same thing? THAT is nonsense. You are talking about a perfect world where every foul is booked regardless of intention and regardless of consequence. In which case, football as we know it would be a s&it game to watch. I don't know whether you know the rules of football... but last i checked the rule book you can actually raise your foot from the ground when attempting to control the ball , and that is exactly what Nani did. At no point did his eyes leave the ball, clearly stating his intentions. A red would only be permissible if the player made a late effort to the ball, hence kicking the player. Which in that case, would be a clear red. But again, it's about making calls properly, which is why Howard Webb didn't give De-Jong a red in the opening minutes of the WC final, and this one was clearly a red. A red should only be given if the ref is 100% sure that it is directly against the rule. This one is not directly against the rule. And of course, add a touch of common sense and logic to that... and it shows why it is a yellow at best. With all that said: There is a reason why over 90% of the footballing world think it was un-just. I bet every article you can possibly find on the net at this time will say "United robbed of a win" or anything along those lines. There is a reason.
lol guys, while I'm not a fan of Man U and love sticking it to my friends who are rabid fans (constantly claiming they're number 1 etc etc), I would've preferred to see them go down properly, not like this.
I am familiar with UEFA's rules. Again. Intention is irrelevant. If you raise your boots/studs and put another player at risk regardless of your awareness of their presence, this is dangerous play. A bookable offence. As I've already said, the Red was harsh, but not unwarranted. Had Nani checked his surroundings before committing and acted accordingly (such as waiting for the ball to drop, heading or even letting it get knocked out of play) then he would have avoided booking. He didn't. He forcefully committed and he made contact with another player with high studs. This, comes firmly under the remit of "Dangerous Play".
So you're saying a book was in order? I would agree with that, but not a red card. What you are saying is wrong because there is a clear distinction between a red and a yellow card. You can't say "He should've gotten a yellow card, but he got a red... mehh". It doesn't work like that. Each needs to be applied under specific circumstances. You can't juggle between the two.
so even if somethings accidental it should be a red card? it was so clearly unintentional from Nani. Common sense should have told the ref there was no prior anxiety between the two players, Nani hadnt comitted a previous offense and moreover man utd had just scored. plus the angle of the ball meant his vision was blocked. if he had obviously seen the real madrid player and then proceeded to make the challenge, yes red card. maybe the ref saw something we didnt or smoked something...dunno. why would an experienced player in a champions league game, his team one nil to the good aim to hurt another player? anyone with half a brain could see it was an accident. a yellow card and a warning, fair enough. but a red? no way Jose (j/k).
listen here mr familiar with UEFA rules. it was not a sending off!!! Get your stuff right. you show me where Nani used excessive force? all he did was trying to control the ball.
Whilst those are FIFA's guidelines and UEFA referee instructions do not conform identically (and are usually more harsh), You would not consider catching another player, in the chest, with the studded base of your boot whilst committed to a jumping approach you did not need to make to be excessive?
there's a different between excessive and using excessive force. also, a player controlling the ball with his foot, no, I don't think that's excessive. I see more excessive things in every game go without punishment. like a player trying an overhead kick, missing the ball and graze the other team's player around the head area. would that be a sending off? no. you can also read the tweets from other players above. players who know more about football than you'll ever know. players who saw it on tv, in slow motion replay.
He didn't control the ball with his foot though did he. He leapt and instead caught Arbeloa (who was also in the air) in the ribs.
