Man Utd v Real Madrid Champions League 2nd Leg

[Papillon]

 

 

 

for me the ref excuse is a cop-out. Last season Chelsea were 2down vs 10 for nearly an hour at Camp Nou and not only held on but brought game to 2-2

This is Madrid we're talking about though, with the best player in World football.

 

 

As oppose to Barca with the other worlds best player

 

> 

It is not really dangerous play from Nani, he doesn't know the guy is there.

It's dangerous play precisely because he doesn't know the guy is there.

I don't get how people don't understand this. Watching the ball doesn't mean you can start kung fu kicking across the pitch. You're responsible for where your feet end up, and not watching where you're launching a high boot into is by definition reckless play, and therefore a red card is entirely appropriate for it.

 

 

Exactly

 

No, not correct. Every single game would be filled with red cards if that was the case.

 

Imagine a bicycle-kick inside the penalty area. How many times have you seen a player trying to score a goal (which is basically the same as Nani in terms of NOT trying to hit the other player, but scoring or bringing the ball down in this case) - then hit another player in the shoulder instead and get red-carded for the offence? I have seen thousands of matches and I cannot remember many red cards for such an action, even though there are many players around him when he does it. Is there a difference between what Nani did tonight and a striker trying to score a goal from a bycicle-kick? Not really, just because the foot hits the chest or whatever does not mean much when the offensive player is obviously not trying to harm the other one.

 

Common sense guys, this was not a red card.

 

 

 

I have seen lots of free kicks given for Bicycle kick attemtps. Think Crouch gave one away the other day? But yeah, as Zatman says - Not 6 studs planted into the body of an opponent. 

 

 

Yes of course free-kicks are given, but not red cards. Because the player is clumsy, not actively trying to hurt the other one, even though he hit him in the face or shoulder with his boots, studs or whatever.

 

My point is that people are making no exception for when a player tackles viciously or when he is just unlucky. There is common sense in the middle, and that's why the great refs manage to see the important differences and that's why the best ones get to ref the final. This one is obviously not going to be given that match for this obvious mistake.

[YLN]

I really like when players take the ball from a height on their toe. Momentum wise it really doesn't compare to flying into a tackle with a high foot. The player is always decelerating to try to cushion the ball. As far as I'm concerned it is not a dangerous tackle, unless the blades on your boots are especially sharp. For instance I would rather get a kick like that into the gut than be involved in a head on tackle where the opposing player wins the ball, but we collide as a result. If a kick into the gut from a player moving slowly like that is a red card offence due to the risk of injury involved then any tackle where legs collide should result in an even harsher penalty. Not to mention the goalkeeper's punch. Sure it's a permitted part of the game, but danger wise, would you rather a punch from a goalkeeper (see David James' 3rd eye ball punch in the hard man thread) in the back of the head, or studs into the chest from a player trying to cushion the ball.

 

Regardless of all that, I think the referee was a complete word removed to controversially send off a player at a crucial time in the match. Let it go, or give a yellow and we'll see a match between two excellent teams with so much history, each running away with two of the best leagues in Europe, contested over 90 minutes with no reason anyone can argue with the result, but he sees his name in the papers and ruins the integrity of the game.

 

Brainless arsehole

[Woodytom]

 

 

for me the ref excuse is a cop-out. Last season Chelsea were 2down vs 10 for nearly an hour at Camp Nou and not only held on but brought game to 2-2

This is Madrid we're talking about though, with the best player in World football.

 

 

As oppose to Barca with the other worlds best player

*2nd best player.

 

 

Well thats highly debatable and many would probably just disagree with you straight.

 

Anyway, lets say your right. 

 

10 man Man Utd 1-0 up @ home to Real Madrid or 10 man Chelsea 2-0 down in the Nou camp. Hmmm, wonder which one should be more capable of getting a result. Yep its defiantely the one who are currently blaming the ref for their loss. I suppose he was the one who stood off Modric and allowed Ronaldo to be unmarked at the back stick.

[Woodytom]

 

 

 

 

for me the ref excuse is a cop-out. Last season Chelsea were 2down vs 10 for nearly an hour at Camp Nou and not only held on but brought game to 2-2

This is Madrid we're talking about though, with the best player in World football.

 

 

As oppose to Barca with the other worlds best player

 

> 

It is not really dangerous play from Nani, he doesn't know the guy is there.

It's dangerous play precisely because he doesn't know the guy is there.

I don't get how people don't understand this. Watching the ball doesn't mean you can start kung fu kicking across the pitch. You're responsible for where your feet end up, and not watching where you're launching a high boot into is by definition reckless play, and therefore a red card is entirely appropriate for it.

 

 

Exactly

 

No, not correct. Every single game would be filled with red cards if that was the case.

 

Imagine a bicycle-kick inside the penalty area. How many times have you seen a player trying to score a goal (which is basically the same as Nani in terms of NOT trying to hit the other player, but scoring or bringing the ball down in this case) - then hit another player in the shoulder instead and get red-carded for the offence? I have seen thousands of matches and I cannot remember many red cards for such an action, even though there are many players around him when he does it. Is there a difference between what Nani did tonight and a striker trying to score a goal from a bycicle-kick? Not really, just because the foot hits the chest or whatever does not mean much when the offensive player is obviously not trying to harm the other one.

 

Common sense guys, this was not a red card.

 

 

I have seen lots of free kicks given for Bicycle kick attemtps. Think Crouch gave one away the other day? But yeah, as Zatman says - Not 6 studs planted into the body of an opponent. 

 

 

Yes of course free-kicks are given, but not red cards. Because the player is clumsy, not actively trying to hurt the other one, even though he hit him in the face or shoulder with his boots, studs or whatever.

 

My point is that people are making no exception for when a player tackles viciously or when he is just unlucky. There is common sense in the middle, and that's why the great refs manage to see the important differences and that's why the best ones get to ref the final. This one is obviously not going to be given that match for this obvious mistake.

 

 

 

But common sense isnt in the rule book. It was common sense that kept Nemanja Vidic on the field in the League cup final.

[MrDuck]

I knew Keane would call a red though. The guy loves the controversial opinion, I do agree with him here though. A red all day long.  

 

Interwebz going mad with Man U fans slating Keane. I thought he must have made some outrageous claims, but frankly looking at this he seems to have made a well-reasoned case.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/roy-keane-argues-with-gareth-southgate-over-nani-red-card/

[roonst83]

for me the ref excuse is a cop-out. Last season Chelsea were 2down vs 10 for nearly an hour at Camp Nou and not only held on but brought game to 2-2

This is Madrid we're talking about though, with the best player in World football.

As oppose to Barca with the other worlds best player

>

>

It is not really dangerous play from Nani, he doesn't know the guy is there.

It's dangerous play precisely because he doesn't know the guy is there.

I don't get how people don't understand this. Watching the ball doesn't mean you can start kung fu kicking across the pitch. You're responsible for where your feet end up, and not watching where you're launching a high boot into is by definition reckless play, and therefore a red card is entirely appropriate for it.>

Exactly

No, not correct. Every single game would be filled with red cards if that was the case.

Imagine a bicycle-kick inside the penalty area. How many times have you seen a player trying to score a goal (which is basically the same as Nani in terms of NOT trying to hit the other player, but scoring or bringing the ball down in this case) - then hit another player in the shoulder instead and get red-carded for the offence? I have seen thousands of matches and I cannot remember many red cards for such an action, even though there are many players around him when he does it. Is there a difference between what Nani did tonight and a striker trying to score a goal from a bycicle-kick? Not really, just because the foot hits the chest or whatever does not mean much when the offensive player is obviously not trying to harm the other one.

Common sense guys, this was not a red card.

I have seen lots of free kicks given for Bicycle kick attemtps. Think Crouch gave one away the other day? But yeah, as Zatman says - Not 6 studs planted into the body of an opponent.

Yes of course free-kicks are given, but not red cards. Because the player is clumsy, not actively trying to hurt the other one, even though he hit him in the face or shoulder with his boots, studs or whatever.

My point is that people are making no exception for when a player tackles viciously or when he is just unlucky. There is common sense in the middle, and that's why the great refs manage to see the important differences and that's why the best ones get to ref the final. This one is obviously not going to be given that match for this obvious mistake.

But common sense isnt in the rule book. It was common sense that kept Nemanja Vidic on the field in the League cup final.

Actually it was fear that the ref would offend Fergie

[Genie]

Keane really is a cock isn't he. Not surprising no clubs will go near him as manager any more.

[rjw63]

Fergiescum too distraught to face the media?

 

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[The_Rev]

http://youtu.be/NZW7WzztRqs

 

Mourinho kills it here, doesn't he?  One of the all time great post game interviews.   He manages to avoid the question completely by giving them something else interesting to talk about, scores a ton of brownie points with Manchester United fans in the process (which may come in handy one day) and he can pull some crap about how it got lost in translation if he ever gets asked about it in Madrid, which he probably wont be. 

[Stevo985]

I can see why the Red was given, letter of the law and everything, but I think anyone denying it's harsh is off their rocker.

 

Although there is something beautiful about United fans moaning about a ref.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Stevo985

[AVFCforever1991]

It was one of those that another ref might have given a yellow. It all depends on how the ref saw it.

[Stevo985]

It was one of those that another ref might have given a yellow. It all depends on how the ref saw it.

I think some refs wouldn't have even given a yellow to be honest.

[TheDon]

with no reason anyone can argue with the result

Except you know, Madrid would have a pretty strong case to argue that Man U should have had a player sent off but the ref bottled it.

[Stevo985]

with no reason anyone can argue with the result

Except you know, Madrid would have a pretty strong case to argue that Man U should have had a player sent off but the ref bottled it.

I honestly don't think anyone would be arguing that.

[Richard]

Dislike manure and fergie with an absolute passion, but that was not a red card offence

[Richard]

Dislike manure and fergie with an absolute passion, but that was not a red card offence

[ml1dch]

I really like when players take the ball from a height on their toe. Momentum wise it really doesn't compare to flying into a tackle with a high foot. The player is always decelerating to try to cushion the ball. As far as I'm concerned it is not a dangerous tackle, unless the blades on your boots are especially sharp. For instance I would rather get a kick like that into the gut than be involved in a head on tackle where the opposing player wins the ball, but we collide as a result. If a kick into the gut from a player moving slowly like that is a red card offence due to the risk of injury involved then any tackle where legs collide should result in an even harsher penalty. Not to mention the goalkeeper's punch. Sure it's a permitted part of the game, but danger wise, would you rather a punch from a goalkeeper (see David James' 3rd eye ball punch in the hard man thread) in the back of the head, or studs into the chest from a player trying to cushion the ball.

 

Regardless of all that, I think the referee was a complete word removed to controversially send off a player at a crucial time in the match. Let it go, or give a yellow and we'll see a match between two excellent teams with so much history, each running away with two of the best leagues in Europe, contested over 90 minutes with no reason anyone can argue with the result, but he sees his name in the papers and ruins the integrity of the game.

 

Brainless arsehole

 

Firstly, the time in the match, the teams involved, their history, their league position and how good they are should have no bearing on the decision he makes. If he thinks it's a sending-off offence (and I'm not 100% certain that it was) then the above points are irrelevant as to whether he sends the player off.

 

Secondly, considering Real Madrid are third in La Liga - thirteen points behind Barcelona you have a funny idea of 'running away with the league'.

[Stevo985]

I really like when players take the ball from a height on their toe. Momentum wise it really doesn't compare to flying into a tackle with a high foot. The player is always decelerating to try to cushion the ball. As far as I'm concerned it is not a dangerous tackle, unless the blades on your boots are especially sharp. For instance I would rather get a kick like that into the gut than be involved in a head on tackle where the opposing player wins the ball, but we collide as a result. If a kick into the gut from a player moving slowly like that is a red card offence due to the risk of injury involved then any tackle where legs collide should result in an even harsher penalty. Not to mention the goalkeeper's punch. Sure it's a permitted part of the game, but danger wise, would you rather a punch from a goalkeeper (see David James' 3rd eye ball punch in the hard man thread) in the back of the head, or studs into the chest from a player trying to cushion the ball.

 

Regardless of all that, I think the referee was a complete word removed to controversially send off a player at a crucial time in the match. Let it go, or give a yellow and we'll see a match between two excellent teams with so much history, each running away with two of the best leagues in Europe, contested over 90 minutes with no reason anyone can argue with the result, but he sees his name in the papers and ruins the integrity of the game.

 

Brainless arsehole

 

Firstly, the time in the match, the teams involved, their history, their league position and how good they are should have no bearing on the decision he makes. If he thinks it's a sending-off offence (and I'm not 100% certain that it was) then the above points are irrelevant as to whether he sends the player off.

I don't agree with the Red, but I absolutely agree with this.

[CI]

In the words of Taylor Swift, RED

[Shillzz]

Going off on a bit of a tangent, what kind of reception did Ronaldo get before the game?

 

I thought it was a bit poor of the United fans to boo him throughout the game (and yes I do realise we booed Barry on his return, and I didn't agree with that either).