[Archived] Match Fixing

[Eddie]

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.

Media lizards? You're the only one allowing bias or influence to affect your view of the incident. Had that been a Rovers player no one on here would have agreed that it was a sending off. Nani is trying to win the ball and happens to catch a player. It's a foul, it's a booking, nothing more to it.

Here are a few good ways to look at it:

Q: Had the referee not sent Nani off would it have been a talking point today?

A: No.

Q: Had the referee not even booked Nani would it have been a talking point today?

A: No.

This letter of the law stuff is balls. If you go by the strict letter of the law the game would look farcical. The game is played in a certain way, it involves physical contact, it involves the ability to attempt to win the ball in creative ways and in that process people will commit fouls, just because a player could have been hurt doesn't mean that someone should be sent off.

If that law is as strictly enforces across the premier league this weekend there will be at least 15 red cards and that might be a conservative estimate.

[Audax]

Remember how De Jong was NOT sent off in the World Cup final http://soccerprose.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Nigel-de-Jong-World-Cup.jpg , that decision was ludicrous of course, but early in the game it could have ruined it. Sure, we can say Dejong had intent but in the end, we can't really read minds. It seems with what Nani did someone could have gotten hurt but didn't. What if the other player had been seriously hurt?? And there's a foggy image of Nani's play on this page: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2288940/Cuneyt-Cakir-pictured-Referee-sent-Manchester-Uniteds-Nani-Real-Madrid.html

[Blue n White Rover]

Media lizards? You're the only one allowing bias or influence to affect your view of the incident. Had that been a Rovers player no one on here would have agreed that it was a sending off. Nani is trying to win the ball and happens to catch a player. It's a foul, it's a booking, nothing more to it.

Here are a few good ways to look at it:

Q: Had the referee not sent Nani off would it have been a talking point today?

A: No.

Q: Had the referee not even booked Nani would it have been a talking point today?

A: No.

This letter of the law stuff is balls. If you go by the strict letter of the law the game would look farcical. The game is played in a certain way, it involves physical contact, it involves the ability to attempt to win the ball in creative ways and in that process people will commit fouls, just because a player could have been hurt doesn't mean that someone should be sent off.

If that law is as strictly enforces across the premier league this weekend there will be at least 15 red cards and that might be a conservative estimate.

Yakubu's incident against Murphy last year was very much identical. I agreed that was a sending off because it was dangerous and could have caused serious harm to Murphy. The more I look at it, the more convinced I am that it was a clear sending off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_QqOreWNBc

[Audax]

Yakubu's incident against Murphy last year was very much identical. I agreed that was a sending off because it was dangerous and could have caused serious harm to Murphy. The more I look at it, the more convinced I am that it was a clear sending off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_QqOreWNBc

Wow. Youtube just took it off but I did watch it before they did... about a minutes worth.

It's too bad some people villify the ref. Doesn't seem that bad, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fofmlQf4crE&feature=player_embedded#!

[DE.]

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.

See my post above yours Toppers, pretty much all I have left to say on the subject... we may have to agree to disagree on this one

[Baz]

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 its a red card every time you make a tackle that endangers yourself? Every time a defender throws themselves in front of a shot on goal its a red. plainly ridiculous.

If you use the letter of the law, this means ANY tackle is a red card, as any tackle could result in some kind of injury. Thats why the practised law applied by 99.9% of referees would be to look at the intention of the event, in this case there was no intention to harm., so no red card. Possibly a yellow for dangerous play, but not a red.

Oh and it was still a penalty and possible red for Rafael for handball on the line. That was far clearer. It may not have happened if the first red hadnt have happened, but it did occur, and wasnt seen.

[thenodrog]

Really dangerous tackle though and one that will often get a red as pathetic as it may look

Yakubu got sent off for similar last season

It wasn't a tackle though Tom. It was a valid attempt to control a ball that had been passed to him. If anyone was making a tackle it was the Madrid player. If we are to have sendings off and ruined matches for such then the game will be the loser.

I'm fed up with top matches being ruined as a spectacle and a contest by stupid refereeing decisions.

There was only one winner of the game once United were down to 10 men.

And Roy Keane is an thick idiot too. Little wonder he never made it as a manager.

Exactly. All iron fist and no velvet glove / all stick and no carrot if you prefer. I believe I pointed that out to you a day or two back and you denied it.

[thenodrog]

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.

Have you ever even kicked a ball? If you have then enlighten us all how one can bring a ball under control with their head.

[thenodrog]

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.

Nutty as a fruit cake.

[Blue n White Rover]

Have you ever even kicked a ball? If you have then enlighten us all how one can bring a ball under control with their head.

He didn't have to bring the ball under control. He went for the ball, whether it was his intention to control it or not. He missed and went in with his boot chest high and caught Arbeloa. Shocking tackle and thoroughly deserved a red card.

[Audax]

Happened to find this page: http://www.calciomercatonews.com/ultime-notizie/2013/03/05/video-manchester-united-real-madrid-lassurda-espulsione-di-nani-fallo-inesistente/ saying in Italian "l’assurda espulsione di Nani: fallo INESISTENTE" I don't speak Italian per se but looks like that says "absurd expulsion of Nani, Nonexistent Foul" but clearly, some of the comments say they think it was one.

Loop repeated over and over, seems to work. http://i.minus.com/ib2BsbUFyoZpqQ.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21679253?module=comments&controller=index&action=getcomments&siteId=sportcommentsmodule&forumId=__CPS_21679253&title=Manchester+United+v+Real+Madrid%3A+Should+Nani+have+been+sent+off%3F&sortOrder=Descending&sortBy=Created&limit=20&comments_page=1&filter=none&preset=opinion&parentUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fsport%2F0%2Ffootball%2F21679253&loc=en-GB&timezone=Europe%2FLondon&viaAjax=true&cachebuster=1362631151319#dna-comments

The whole BBC blog discussion.

When De Jong went after Alonso in the World Cup, that looked like a direct attack, this with Nani and Arbeloa is more like two players meeting up on the pitch unintentionally though I admit, that may not have an effect on the outcome.

It's controversy that always stirs up a lot of interest.

In real time, it happened so fast, I think that is where a lot of people think it looks mild but not so much in watching the replay.

[darrenrover]

Just looking at the Nani incident in isolation:

He was running into space, looking to receive and control a high, looping ball over his shoulder and his eyes were looking over his shoulder at the pass made to him from a team mate. In order to try to control the ball, whilst still looking over his shoulder at the ball, he realised that to do so he had to raise his foot. The fact that an opponent happened to run into his raised foot was probably never in Nani's mind, his sole focus was controlling the ball, nothing more.

As such, IMO, it didn't even warrant a free kick or booking never mind a red card.

I detest UTD with a passion but in this case I am totally sympathetic.

It's no wonder so many are becoming disillusioned with the game in general.

Non contact sport? Not for me.

[den]

Just looking at the Nani incident in isolation:

He was running into space, looking to receive and control a high, looping ball over his shoulder and his eyes were looking over his shoulder at the pass made to him from a team mate. In order to try to control the ball, whilst still looking over his shoulder at the ball, he realised that to do so he had to raise his foot. The fact that an opponent happened to run into his raised foot was probably never in Nani's mind, his sole focus was controlling the ball, nothing more.

As such, IMO, it didn't even warrant a free kick or booking never mind a red card.

Intent or otherwise doesn't come into it.

[DE.]

Hopefully referees will be consistent in future then and book/send off a player every time they raise their foot in such a way on the pitch. Just because a player doesn't run into their foot doesn't mean it isn't dangerous play.

[The Dart]

I think it was a red too.

[Stuart]

I've just be reading a QI book.

Apparently "Manchester United is the most hated brand in the UK and the 7th most hated in the world."

A lot of these post now suddenly make sense.

[Mike E]

There is the consideration outlined earlier by (can't remember who, sorry), that Arbeloa was booked after the incident, presumably for rolling around like a girl. Perhaps the ref was intending to give Nani a yellow and then, with NANI rolling around (having committed the foul), decided to go with a straight red instead of 2 yellows (given that the punishment of a 1-match ban is the same either way).

It's convoluted, but refs can be idle at times. We've seen such from our very own Graham Poll's incompetence.

[Audax]

Just looking at the Nani incident in isolation:

He was running into space, looking to receive and control a high, looping ball over his shoulder and his eyes were looking over his shoulder at the pass made to him from a team mate. In order to try to control the ball, whilst still looking over his shoulder at the ball, he realised that to do so he had to raise his foot. The fact that an opponent happened to run into his raised foot was probably never in Nani's mind, his sole focus was controlling the ball, nothing more.

I watched this match on TV when it happened, Italy vs. France, 2007, France was most people would agree were playing only for the draw and trying to kill time, by passing and I remarked at the time with their players like Thuram and Malouda, they were basically "catching" the ball with their feet it seemed like, I thought that was talented play in that regard... in a sense, this is sort of like what you are saying though Manchester United were doing however much more on the attack but I hear this ever so often, catching the ball with one's foot. I hear that. So that's a pro in the pros and cons.

Also, if Arbeloa had not been jumping at the same time, he could have taken the foot in the head, that's a bit of a con.

[darrenrover]

Hopefully referees will be consistent in future then and book/send off a player every time they raise their foot in such a way on the pitch. Just because a player doesn't run into their foot doesn't mean it isn't dangerous play.

So what you are suggesting DE is no more overhead kicks, spectacular volleys etc.?

My point is he raised his foot in order to control the ball, not make a challenge.

If he went into a challenge foot raised in a dangerous manner I would agree.

It's unfortunately on it's way to becoming a totally non contact sport as a consequence of foreign influence. That's not for me I'm afraid, perhaps just my opinion admittedly.

[Mike E]

If I had it my way, it wouldn't even have been a foul. But the ref applied the rules as they are.

I think it's more a case of naff rules than naff reffing.

[DE.]

So what you are suggesting DE is no more overhead kicks, spectacular volleys etc.?

My point is he raised his foot in order to control the ball, not make a challenge.

If he went into a challenge foot raised in a dangerous manner I would agree.

It's unfortunately on it's way to becoming a totally non contact sport as a consequence of foreign influence. That's not for me I'm afraid, perhaps just my opinion admittedly.

I was being sarcastic, read my earlier posts.

[darrenrover]

I was being sarcastic, read my earlier posts.

Sorry pal, I didn't bother. I gave up that practice a few weeks ago bored by Bradsticks.

I hope no offence taken.

[darrenrover]

Just out of interest, for those that can remember, what would be made these days of Glen Keeley's challenge on Len Fuccilo (Luton Town) at Ewood?

I recall Jimmy Hill foaming at the mouth even then!

[DE.]

Sorry pal, I didn't bother. I gave up that practice a few weeks ago bored by Bradsticks.

I hope no offence taken.

It's alright, just remember if you see the nWo logo then there's bound to be some solid logic behind whatever has been posted

[darrenrover]

It's alright, just remember if you see the nWo logo then there's bound to be some solid logic behind whatever has been posted

LOL,

Clutching at straws probably but surely there must be a logical explanation!