[Archived] Match Fixing

[Blue n White Rover]

The Rafael debate doesn't matter, it happened after the Nani dismissal.

Oh right, so we should just ignore the law and accept it as a right decision? Rafael should also have gone and United should have been down to 10 men.

Yakubu made a very similar challenge last season VS Murphy (caught him on the knee) and he was rightly dismissed as replays showed, it could have done serious damage. We all know the Yak doesn't have a bad bone in him. However, his foot was raised and he was sent off. In the same way, Nani's boot was raised very high and caught Arbeloa in the chest.

By what people are saying on here (not just you Eddie) but kicking someone in the chest is only a yellow card offence.

[DE.]

You can't go round with your foot that high in the air, regardless of your intention. He caught Arbeloa in the ribs and that for me is dangerous play. Also, a lot of people failing to realise the other blatant red card that should have been given to Rafael. Clear handball and denying a clear goal scoring opportunity from Ramos' header.

Ferguson the greatest ever manager. 2 European Cups in 25 years of management. Give me Paisley all day long.

You're saying you want overhead kicks banned, then?

[arbitro]

So let's get this straight. Nani was sent off for 'Serious Foul Play'. Nani was 'Careless' as per the rules of the game (foul, but no extra sanction) and 'Reckless' (acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent) which is a yellow card. Acceptable, right?

Here's the awkward bit:

“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.

And THAT, is why I think the ref needn't explain his actions. As I've said, I thought it was yellow. But there's enough ambiguity to warrant a red card. Foot high, studs up and (having seen the replay a few more times) into the Madrid players hip/waist.

Excessive force? Judgement call. In danger of injuring opponent? Judgement call. At the speed in real-time? Deffo a yellow. Argument for a red.

He may not be right, but he wasn't wrong either.

Equally as important is the wording 'in the opinion of the referee'. I believe that most foreign referees would have sent Nani off. Conversely most EPL referees would only have cautioned or maybe not even done that. Quite recently a referee sent off two players in the same game (West Ham v Everton) for similar offences. Both of these were overturned on appeal.

Intent is a word that no longer features in any Law. The word was removed several years ago so the argument of Nani not knowing where the Madrid player was (coming in on his blind side) doesn't stand up.

[Blue n White Rover]

You're saying you want overhead kicks banned, then?

Not at all. Crouch's overhead kick was instinctive. He went for it and was unfortunate to catch a player who got in the way of it.

Nani should have gone in with his head, however knew he wouldn't have won it so went flying in with his studs. A red card all day long.

[DE.]

Not at all. Crouch's overhead kick was instinctive. He went for it and was unfortunate to catch a player who got in the way of it.

Nani should have gone in with his head, however knew he wouldn't have won it so went flying in with his studs. A red card all day long.

Nani isn't a giraffe, he wasn't going to be able to control that ball with his head ffs. Your original quote was "You can't go round with your foot that high in the air, regardless of your intention". That would apply to all situations. Maybe you worded it wrong and if so, fine.

Fact is most people want it to be a red card because it was United, and aren't looking at it objectively. Pretty much all player/ex-player/ex-referee opinions I've seen so far uninaimously agree it wasn't a red. I swear some people actually want the game to become a non-contact sport where you aren't allowed to challenge at all. So much for football being a man's game.

[DE.]

In saying all that, I just read on twitter that Souness of all people thought it was a red can only assume he's saying that with his ex-Liverpool cap on. I can only imagine his reaction if a player he'd been managing had been sent off in those circumstances. Very much doubt he'd come out afterwards and say "yes, it was the right call".

[Eddie]

Nani isn't a giraffe, he wasn't going to be able to control that ball with his head ffs. Your original quote was "You can't go round with your foot that high in the air, regardless of your intention". That would apply to all situations. Maybe you worded it wrong and if so, fine.

Fact is most people want it to be a red card because it was United, and aren't looking at it objectively. Pretty much all player/ex-player/ex-referee opinions I've seen so far uninaimously agree it wasn't a red. I swear some people actually want the game to become a non-contact sport where you aren't allowed to challenge at all. So much for football being a man's game.

Quite right.

Oh right, so we should just ignore the law and accept it as a right decision? Rafael should also have gone and United should have been down to 10 men.

Yakubu made a very similar challenge last season VS Murphy (caught him on the knee) and he was rightly dismissed as replays showed, it could have done serious damage. We all know the Yak doesn't have a bad bone in him. However, his foot was raised and he was sent off. In the same way, Nani's boot was raised very high and caught Arbeloa in the chest.

By what people are saying on here (not just you Eddie) but kicking someone in the chest is only a yellow card offence.

When you're analysing the game you should go incident by incident. The Rafael incident would not have happened had Nani not been dismissed and the decision to send Nani off was also the worse decision.

Nani was trying to control the ball, not tackle a man.

You aren't just disagreeing with me and some members of this board, you are disagreeing with Ferguson, Mourinho, Moyes, Neville, Salgado and every current and ex pro that I have heard comment on the incident. You're wrong, just wrong, and people who know far more about the game all agree on that.

[Mike E]

Equally as important is the wording 'in the opinion of the referee'. I believe that most foreign referees would have sent Nani off. Conversely most EPL referees would only have cautioned or maybe not even done that. Quite recently a referee sent off two players in the same game (West Ham v Everton) for similar offences. Both of these were overturned on appeal.

Intent is a word that no longer features in any Law. The word was removed several years ago so the argument of Nani not knowing where the Madrid player was (coming in on his blind side) doesn't stand up.

Can I just ask where 'in opinion of the referee' is? I was looking for that bit myself. I know it's there but not where.

Quite right.

When you're analysing the game you should go incident by incident. The Rafael incident would not have happened had Nani not been dismissed and the decision to send Nani off was also the worse decision.

Nani was trying to control the ball, not tackle a man.

You aren't just disagreeing with me and some members of this board, you are disagreeing with Ferguson, Mourinho, Moyes, Neville, Salgado and every current and ex pro that I have heard comment on the incident. You're wrong, just wrong, and people who know far more about the game all agree on that.

The bit in bold implies intent, when intent has nothing to do with the rule. If you plant your studs into an opponent, you run the risk of getting a red. Imo, a yellow would have sufficed but the ref (fairly) decided it was worthy of a red.

Just because a decision isn't popular, doesn't mean it's wrong. Imo it's just 'one of those things'. If I were a Utd fan, I'd be fuming. If Nani had done it to a Rover, I'd have been yelling for a red.

In fact, wasn't Eboue sent off vs Utd for a near identical incident?

[Speedie Dived]

Quite right.

When you're analysing the game you should go incident by incident. The Rafael incident would not have happened had Nani not been dismissed and the decision to send Nani off was also the worse decision.

Nani was trying to control the ball, not tackle a man.

You aren't just disagreeing with me and some members of this board, you are disagreeing with Ferguson, Mourinho, Moyes, Neville, Salgado and every current and ex pro that I have heard comment on the incident. You're wrong, just wrong, and people who know far more about the game all agree on that.

The Nani incident would not have happened had the Madrid "goal" not been incorrectly ruled out.

Numerous ex pros are commenting that they can understand the red card. As many have pointed out, the same happened to the Yak and at West Ham the other day. Was it a red card? No. Was it that shocking a decision? No

[Stuart]

Not at all. Crouch's overhead kick was instinctive. He went for it and was unfortunate to catch a player who got in the way of it.

Sorry but that's completely hypocritical.

By the letter of the law, which is what everyone is pointing to, Crouch should have been sent off. Even more so than Nani.

Referees who referee in the way the guy last night did should not be given the top matches.

[Amo]

From Fifa's own rulebook:

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself).

Ref was entirely justified in his decision.

It also says re: overhead kicks:

A scissors kick is permissible provided, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

[Blue n White Rover]

Crouch had no idea the opposition player was going to stick his head in the way of his attempt on goal. Nani knew where Arbeloa was, even though he had eyes on the ball. I don't care whether he intended it or not, the face of the matter is Nani was aware where Arbeloa was and still went in with his boot that high. It was a Cantona-esq kick that.

Fully deserved a red card. Just because it's United the media are hyping that. Didn't see this much coverage for the Yak's challenge last season.

[Stuart]

From Fifa's own rulebook:

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself).

Ref was entirely justified in his decision.

It also says re: overhead kicks:

A scissors kick is permissible provided, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.

So a scissor kick which connects with another player regardless of the ball is a sending off offence.

People really need to take off the anti-United blinkers off on this one.

EDIT: People also need to see beyond this "letter of the law" business too, given that - by the letter of the law - a player who injures himself through poor technique whilst playing the ball could be sent off whilst on the stretcher.

Referees who look to interpret the rules, contrary the views of EVERY other person in the stadium, and to the detriment of the game itself, should not be given these top gigs.

[arbitro]

Can I just ask where 'in opinion of the referee' is? I was looking for that bit myself. I know it's there but not where.

The bit in bold implies intent, when intent has nothing to do with the rule. If you plant your studs into an opponent, you run the risk of getting a red. Imo, a yellow would have sufficed but the ref (fairly) decided it was worthy of a red.

Just because a decision isn't popular, doesn't mean it's wrong. Imo it's just 'one of those things'. If I were a Utd fan, I'd be fuming. If Nani had done it to a Rover, I'd have been yelling for a red.

In fact, wasn't Eboue sent off vs Utd for a near identical incident?

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290868.html

Law 12 says in a manner considered by the referee. There are also lots of references to in the opinion of the referee in other Laws.

[Stuart]

Crouch had no idea the opposition player was going to stick his head in the way of his attempt on goal. Nani knew where Arbeloa was, even though he had eyes on the ball. I don't care whether he intended it or not, the face of the matter is Nani was aware where Arbeloa was and still went in with his boot that high. It was a Cantona-esq kick that.

Fully deserved a red card. Just because it's United the media are hyping that. Didn't see this much coverage for the Yak's challenge last season.

Crouch's feet were at head height, FFS!

[Amo]

So a scissor kick which connects with another player regardless of the ball is a sending off offence.

People really need to take off the anti-United blinkers off on this one.

No, but then comparing an overhead kick (when a player is in control of the ball) to Nani's studs up challenge for the ball is a false analogy.

Crouch's feet were at head height, FFS!

Height has nothing to do with it.

If you go in with studs up and a straight leg then you will potentially injure the opposing player = Red card.

[DE.]

Let's also point out that Arbeloa also knew exactly where Nani was and that he was jumping for that ball. It's not like he had no choice but to run into Nani's path, he could quite easily have stopped.

If we say Nani's foul is a sending off, then I'm afraid you're also saying if somebody attempts an overhead or scissor-kick and accidentally catches a player whilst attempting it he should also be sent off. It's madness.

The only concession I will make is that the rulebook does allow for the ref to send Nani off, depending on how it is interpreted. All that suggests, though, is that the rulebook is wrong and in need of amendment. We're in danger of common sense being completed removed from the game in favour of strict rules which must apply to every situation regardless of context.

No, but then comparing an overhead kick (when a player is in control of the ball) to Nani's studs up challenge for the ball is a false analogy.

It wasn't a challenge, he was trying to control the ball. A challenge indicates Nani knew Arbeloa was in competiton with him for the ball, which clearly wasn't the case.

[arbitro]

Let's also point out that Arbeloa also knew exactly where Nani was and that he was jumping for that ball. It's not like he had no choice but to run into Nani's path, he could quite easily have stopped.

If we say Nani's foul is a sending off, then I'm afraid you're also saying if somebody attempts an overhead or scissor-kick and accidentally catches a player whilst attempting it he should also be sent off. It's madness.

The only concession I will make is that the rulebook does allow for the ref to send Nani off, depending on how it is interpreted. All that suggests, though, is that the rulebook is wrong and in need of amendment. We're in danger of common sense being completed removed from the game in favour of strict rules which must apply to every situation regardless of context.

It wasn't a challenge, he was trying to control the ball. A challenge indicates Nani knew Arbeloa was in competiton with him for the ball, which clearly wasn't the case.

To achieve consistency (utopian notion I agree) then there is no room for common sense. To allow referees discretion would lead to gross inconsistencies from game to game. The only way to achieve collective consistency is to rigidly apply the laws.

[Amo]

It wasn't a challenge, he was trying to control the ball. A challenge indicates Nani knew Arbeloa was in competiton with him for the ball, which clearly wasn't the case.

Balls to intent. If I didn't *mean* to be a dangerous driver, would it make me above the law? He didn't have control of the ball and made a studs-up attempt for it - i.e. a challenge. You always run the risk of catching someone when you do it - and lo and behold that happened.

[DE.]

To achieve consistency (utopian notion I agree) then there is no room for common sense. To allow referees discretion would lead to gross inconsistencies from game to game. The only way to achieve collective consistency is to rigidly apply the laws.

We already have all sorts of gross inconsistancies, not sure the rules have helped at all in that regard!

I'm obviously not saying every decision should be based upon common sense. Offsides, for example, should be the same across the board. Red cards are trickier because the rules can be interpreted multiple ways - most of which lack common sense.

Balls to intent. If I didn't *mean* to be a dangerous driver, would it make me above the law? He didn't have control of the ball and made a studs-up attempt for it - i.e. a challenge. You always run the risk of catching someone when you do it - and lo and behold that happened.

Bit of a stretch to go from a football match to piling into somebody with your car.

As I said, if you're saying this is your interpretation of the game then you're also saying if somebody mistimes a scissor-kick or overhead kick and accidentally catches another player he should also be sent off. You can have that opinion, but I wholly disagree.

[Guest Norbert]

It was a wild move, we can all agree on that. I can see why he was given a red, but perhaps a yellow, and a very strong warning of how close he was to going off was another option. Nani wasn't out to kick the Madrid player, but he got him because it was reckless.

[DE.]

It was a wild move, we can all agree on that. I can see why he was given a red, but perhaps a yellow, and a very strong warning of how close he was to going off was another option. Nani wasn't out to kick the Madrid player, but he got him because it was reckless.

Was it reckless, though? Dozens of times in games a player will jump up to catch the ball with their foot in order to control it. If we're saying this is reckless, then surely every time a player does that they have to be warned they're putting other players in danger? You'd basically have to ban players from doing it entirely. What about goalkeepers coming out to punch a ball? Quite often they miss entirely and pile into one or more players, sometimes connecting with knees/feet to the chest or a forearm to the upper-body/head. That's pretty dangerous, are we going to have to send them off for that, too?

[Amo]

As I said, if you're saying this is your interpretation of the game then you're also saying if somebody mistimes a scissor-kick or overhead kick and accidentally catches another player he should also be sent off. You can have that opinion, but I wholly disagree.

What Nani did was one of the most dangerous things you can do on the pitch, going studs-up with your full weight behind you. That's not comparable to a standing overhead kick. Mistimed overhead kicks *are* penalized but very rarely does one commit serious foul conduct.

Also, Chelsea played (and beat) Barcelona for over 85mins with ten men, so everyone whining about the ref ruining the game can stfu.

[Blue n White Rover]

Thank you Topman. Someone finally seeing a bit of sense.

The media lizards are out in full force and unfortunately 90% of this population have been poisoned.

[bypass06]