[Archived] Match Fixing

[DaveyB]

Do you agree that if Nani deserved a red, then in future any attempt to jump up and control the ball with a raised foot should be banned and punishable by a booking or sending off?

Dangerous play is dangerous play, regardless of whether you actually connect with the player. If somebody dives in two footed and avoids the player but gets the ball, they should and generally are still sent off. As this is dangerous play then jumping in the air to control the ball with one's foot assumedly falls into the same category? If not, why not?

If you go for the ball, either on the ground or in the air, miss if and catch your opponent then it's a foul - whether or not you intend to catch the other player.

The more severerly you catch your opponent then the more severe the punishment.

The red card for Nani was harsh, but understandable. And had it been a 'bad boy' like Joey Barton or Balotelli that was sent off for the same thing there wouldn't be half the outrage that there has been this week.

Oh, and finally, the game wasn't ruined by the ref, but rather by Ferguson's delay in reacting to the situation. He spent 10 minutes getting angry and ranting and raving at just about everyone before finally making changes and adjusting his team shape and tactics. However, in that 10 minutes the game was gone

[Amo]

Oh, and finally, the game wasn't ruined by the ref, but rather by Ferguson's delay in reacting to the situation. He spent 10 minutes getting angry and ranting and raving at just about everyone before finally making changes and adjusting his team shape and tactics. However, in that 10 minutes the game was gone

Exactly. While Mourinho was reshuffling things to exploit the gap in Utd's midfield, Fergie was throwing a wobbly at the third official and playing cheerleader to the crowd. Probably explains why he's only beaten the Special One twice in 15 head-to-heads.

[DE.]

If you go for the ball, either on the ground or in the air, miss if and catch your opponent then it's a foul - whether or not you intend to catch the other player.

The more severerly you catch your opponent then the more severe the punishment.

The red card for Nani was harsh, but understandable. And had it been a 'bad boy' like Joey Barton or Balotelli that was sent off for the same thing there wouldn't be half the outrage that there has been this week.

Oh, and finally, the game wasn't ruined by the ref, but rather by Ferguson's delay in reacting to the situation. He spent 10 minutes getting angry and ranting and raving at just about everyone before finally making changes and adjusting his team shape and tactics. However, in that 10 minutes the game was gone

No, if you are classing it as dangerous play then you'd have to give punishment whether or not the player connected. If somebody threw themselves into a tackle two-footed and missed the player, the ref's position would not be "well, since you didn't break any legs then it's fine". The player would be punished, likely dismissed. If we're classing what Nani did as dangerous play and a sending off then the exact same thing would have to occur when a player jumps up to catch the ball with their foot to control it. To disagree would bring intent or common sense into it, which we've apparently already established can't be done.

I do agree re: Fergie though. His team were 1-0 up at the time and he should have adapted accordingly, rather than rage about the decision and play to the crowd.

[LDRover]

Not read back through all the posts following Nani's sending off but has anyone mentioned Eboue's identical sending off versus United a few years ago?

A sending off that Ferguson deemed 100% the right decision?

[Audax]

Not read back through all the posts following Nani's sending off but has anyone mentioned Eboue's identical sending off versus United a few years ago?

A sending off that Ferguson deemed 100% the right decision?

Yes, I believe that and some other similar incidences have been mentioned, including one with Samba.

---------------

Yes, United were up 1-0 when this incident happened and tactically probably erred at that point in time of making such a big deal about it.

[DaveyB]

No, if you are classing it as dangerous play then you'd have to give punishment whether or not the player connected. If somebody threw themselves into a tackle two-footed and missed the player, the ref's position would not be "well, since you didn't break any legs then it's fine". The player would be punished, likely dismissed. If we're classing what Nani did as dangerous play and a sending off then the exact same thing would have to occur when a player jumps up to catch the ball with their foot to control it. To disagree would bring intent or common sense into it, which we've apparently already established can't be done.

I do agree re: Fergie though. His team were 1-0 up at the time and he should have adapted accordingly, rather than rage about the decision and play to the crowd.

If I slide in to win to the ball, then that's my intention. However, if I miss the ball and catch an opponent, it's a foul. So intent doesn't come in to it.

Now, how hard and where etc I catch my opponent determines my punishment. E.g if I clip my opponents heel it'll probably be just a free-kick, but if I clatter into him at knee height then I'm looking at a yellow or red card.

Similarly, if Nani had got something on the ball, or had missed Arbeloa then he'd have been fine. But he didn't, instead he planted his studs into him above waist height. Whether he meant to do it or not is irrelevant. He caught his opponent and, as such, gave the ref a decision to make.

Like I said, imo, the red card was harsh, but understandable.

[DE.]

If Nani's foul is considered dangerous play then that action is punishable regardless of contact. As I said, if somebody jumps in two footed the decision is not based on whether contact is made - dangerous play is dangerous play regardless of the outcome.

[Audax]

If you go for the ball, either on the ground or in the air, miss if and catch your opponent then it's a foul - whether or not you intend to catch the other player.

The more severerly you catch your opponent then the more severe the punishment.

The red card for Nani was harsh, but understandable. And had it been a 'bad boy' like Joey Barton or Balotelli that was sent off for the same thing there wouldn't be half the outrage that there has been this week.

Oh, and finally, the game wasn't ruined by the ref, but rather by Ferguson's delay in reacting to the situation. He spent 10 minutes getting angry and ranting and raving at just about everyone before finally making changes and adjusting his team shape and tactics. However, in that 10 minutes the game was gone

I think this is a good post, good points, if it had been John Terry or others as you say, there likely would not have been a stir over it.

I can defend it being a red card, but I voted that it should have been a yellow.

----------

Speaking of very physical (dangerous) play, goalkeepers get kicked, kneed in the head ever so often, they punch the ball away and I haven't seen them punch the opposition frequently but they say Vidic got punched the other day.

And it seems to happen all the time, frequently, that players are trying to head the ball and often knock each others' heads.

[riverside returns]

Oh for Fs, I thought this thread was about match fixing or draw fixing.

[Exiled in Toronto]

If Nani's foul is considered dangerous play then that action is punishable regardless of contact. As I said, if somebody jumps in two footed the decision is not based on whether contact is made - dangerous play is dangerous play regardless of the outcome.

Cobblers. If you walk down an empty street swinging your fist, you are a bit odd, if your fist connects with a chin, you are commiting assault. Dangerous is a relative term vis-a-vis the situation

[Guest Norbert]

Effing hell. The same conversation going round in circles on two threads. What has this all got to do with match fixing? Really, who gives a flying crap about Nani? It happened, it was controversial. Next song.

[DE.]

Cobblers. If you walk down an empty street swinging your fist, you are a bit odd, if your fist connects with a chin, you are commiting assault. Dangerous is a relative term vis-a-vis the situation

I don't think the same rules apply when you walk down a street to when you're playing a game of football.

[Tom]

I don't think the same rules apply when you walk down a street to when you're playing a game of football.

What about the example I gave earlier as odd as it was

If you stand on the goal line with your arms outstretched the referee will say nothing, if the ball strikes the arm however and prevents a goal it will be a red card and a penalty without the player doing anything different

Ok I think I've got to the point where I've forgot what my original point was and may be arguing against myself

[Stuart]

What about the example I gave earlier as odd as it was

If you stand on the goal line with your arms outstretched the referee will say nothing, if the ball strikes the arm however and prevents a goal it will be a red card and a penalty without the player doing anything different

Ok I think I've got to the point where I've forgot what my original point was and may be arguing against myself

We are talking about dangerous play and the fact that intent is irrelevant. Handball is not dangerous and intent is regularly taken into consideration.

This referee's decision means that, if a player raises his foot and injures another player that he does not know is there he can still be sent off.

This, in turn, means that a player can NEVER raise his foot because it is the technique that is the problem, not the intent. Unless he first looks all around his immediate vicinity to ensure no players are nearby whom he could injure then he could injure someone - at which point the ball has gone sailing past him. The lack of intent as a consideration means it's therefore irrelevant if another player is there or not - if the player has not checked.

Norbert, if you aren't interested stop clicking on the thread. The fact that other referees would not have interpreted the rule in the way this referee did, and the fact that it would certainly change the game, leaves such a referee, in the current climate, open to suggestion of match fixing, IMHO.

[DE.]

Stuart has pretty much nailed it there. Your example isn't dangerous play Tom so it doesn't really make any sense to compare it with a high foot or two footed lunge. EiT;s point made even less sense, though. If you forget the ridiculousness of comparing a walk down a street to a game of football, the loose comparison would be somebody walking around doing two footed tackles all over the pitch into thin air for no reason. Obviously (well, I say obvious, clearly it is't) we're talking about the ball being in close proximity to a player along with other footballers. I don't even know what comparison you could possibly make between this and walking down a street. If we're going down that route I may as well just reply "KJEFIEJF" as it makes about as much sense.

[Tom]

KJEFIEJF

[DE.]

That's a dangerous route to go down my friend, this thread could soon become utter bedlam if we disregard logic.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Stuart has pretty much nailed it there. Your example isn't dangerous play Tom so it doesn't really make any sense to compare it with a high foot or two footed lunge. EiT;s point made even less sense, though. If you forget the ridiculousness of comparing a walk down a street to a game of football, the loose comparison would be somebody walking around doing two footed tackles all over the pitch into thin air for no reason. Obviously (well, I say obvious, clearly it is't) we're talking about the ball being in close proximity to a player along with other footballers. I don't even know what comparison you could possibly make between this and walking down a street. If we're going down that route I may as well just reply "KJEFIEJF" as it makes about as much sense.

I'll try one you can follow then: the ball is running out of play, no opposing player near it. You, the fullback lunge at it to try and keep it in and miss. Throw in. Same scenario with winger running onto it, you miss it and stud him in the shins, straight red.

The second one is dangerous play, the first one isn't. Saying it would have been dangerous if the winger had been there is a ludicrous interpretation. Danger is relative to the total situation, not just one players actions. The Real defender WAS there, Nani may or may not have been aware of that but that makes no difference. The referee couldn't possibly be asked to judge awareness, they judge outcomes.

[Stuart]

I'll try one you can follow then: the ball is running out of play, no opposing player near it. You, the fullback lunge at it to try and keep it in and miss. Throw in. Same scenario with winger running onto it, you miss it and stud him in the shins, straight red.

The second one is dangerous play, the first one isn't. Saying it would have been dangerous if the winger had been there is a ludicrous interpretation. Danger is relative to the total situation, not just one players actions. The Real defender WAS there, Nani may or may not have been aware of that but that makes no difference. The referee couldn't possibly be asked to judge awareness, they judge outcomes.

You're ignoring the point, EiT. If your fullback lunges and tries to keep the ball in play, and - importantly - catches an opponent he didn't realise was there, then under this referees rules, must be given a red card. The red card is for the lunge. This means that the lunge itself is the problem, and not the proximity of the other player.

Remember, the key point in this debate is that the player making the challenge does not know whether or not there is an opponent near him.

This is a completely pointless debate, by the way, but interesting none-the-less! (It's borderline - if a tree falls over and no-one is there...).

[Exiled in Toronto]

You're ignoring the point, EiT. If your fullback lunges and tries to keep the ball in play, and - importantly - catches an opponent he didn't realise was there, then under this referees rules, must be given a red card. The red card is for the lunge. This means that the lunge itself is the problem, and not the proximity of the other player.

Remember, the key point in this debate is that the player making the challenge does not know whether or not there is an opponent near him.

This is a completely pointless debate, by the way, but interesting none-the-less! (It's borderline - if a tree falls over and no-one is there...).

Not at all. If you are going to lunge with studs up at any height, I think the onus is on the lunger to make sure it's safe to do so, because if he doesn't and catches someone, he's off. And quite right too.

[Audax]

Fifa law 12, fouls and misconduct, states:

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force

or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it

is in play." ... "Excessive force means that the player has

far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his

opponent."

Maybe the proximity of the other player is part of the problem.

So it would not be just for a high kick.

[Stuart]

Not at all. If you are going to lunge with studs up at any height, I think the onus is on the lunger to make sure it's safe to do so, because if he doesn't and catches someone, he's off. And quite right too.

Exactly!

[majorstyre]

There was a clip on here once of a matchv Portsmouth where Keeley was sent off and the tackles all through that match were nighmareish. The Rovers appeared to be targetting a portsmouth player for serious punishment. Can't rem why but it must have been a real grudge fixture.

Remember the game pretty well - was a proper hammer and nails game with both sides knocking seven bells out of each other....

was featured as one of the games on MOTD that evening, and jimmy "the chin" hill gave Keeley a right slating on that

jim branagan also came in for some harsh criticism after that game for a couple of over the top challenges...

if i am right, keeley and the Pompey CF (whose name currently slips me) had a running battle all game, keeley eventually felled him with a way over the top challenge, before wading in with fists to the up-in-arms pompey players who rushed to the scene..

..

ah those were the days

lol

[Guest Norbert]

I think this thread is a candidate for locking to be honest.

[Stuart]

There's only you keeps bumping it. Why are you so obsessed with halting the discussion?