Making Plans 936 Posted March 5, 2013 So Snodgrass should have got a red for showing his studs on Evra but Nani should not have got a red for his studs going into the ribs of Arbeloa. Lets be honest, neither were red cards, but you cannot realistically want a red on Saturday & then cry "injustice" when exactly what you wanted becomes reality on Tuesday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mungo Bumpkin 0 Posted March 5, 2013 He was looking awfully red and blotchy! Been on the sauce I''d imagine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
percy varco 198 Posted March 5, 2013 What goes around comes around. If FIFA have any balls then Ferdinand and Fergie should be banned for future CL games for their conduct at the end of the game. Respect campaign? Whats it worth? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 274 Posted March 5, 2013 Delicious irony at fergie experiencing first hand bizarre game changing refereeing decisions at old Trafford for once, karma plus some :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canaryfan68 0 Posted March 6, 2013 Also shows what might happen if you shoot at their goal too?? :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]Delicious irony at fergie experiencing first hand bizarre game changing refereeing decisions at old Trafford for once, karma plus some :-)[/quote] Well said that man - couldn''t have put it better! I haven''t seen him that worked up in ages (good cardio-vacular work out for him) - goes to show how used he has become to getting all the decisions in his favour! BTW in the spirit of European unity, could we request more Turkish officials to referee matches at the "big" clubs - just to make it more of an even playing field for the rest of the PL? [I] What odds on Ferdinand getting a retrospective punishment [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joanna Grey 0 Posted March 6, 2013 "Also shows what might happen if you shoot at their goal too?? :) "FGS, if we could afford the likes of Ronaldo then perhaps it might ''happen'' for us a bit more? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted March 6, 2013 They don''t like it up em Mr Manwearing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TCCANARY 263 Posted March 6, 2013 You have to feel for Man Utd and its fans, a bigger club somes to your ground, gets the refereeing decisions go thier way and thier manager patronises you by saying you were the better team even though you lost. Will they ever get over it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CambridgeCanary 0 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="TCCANARY"]You have to feel for Man Utd and its fans, a bigger club somes to your ground, gets the refereeing decisions go thier way and thier manager patronises you by saying you were the better team even though you lost. Will they ever get over it? [/quote] Absolutely! It would be horrible if things like that became common in the Premiership. Heaven forfend. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,409 Posted March 6, 2013 Has Fergie lost it? There was a time when a "cosy chat" with the ref before the match ensured all the decisions go his way. The first sign of loss of power is when some jumped up little cleric starts going against your "instructions". Last night the signs of an Arab spring at OT? Also he will have a very difficult Board meeting with the Glaziers as to why he gave lil'' ole Norwich too much respect a couple of days before the most important match of the season so far - surely better to sacrifice a couple of points on Saturday to ensure players like RVP / Evra / Carrick were up to pace on the following Tuesday instead of looking totally ineffectual? Unless of course Lerner / Fernandes asked the Glaziers for a favour and Fergie obliged. Whatever, no wonder he was distressed after the match. Poor Fergie. No sympathy for him or the club at all. Ha, ha! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="shefcanary"]Also he will have a very difficult Board meeting with the Glaziers as to why he gave lil'' ole Norwich too much respect a couple of days before the most important match of the season so far - surely better to sacrifice a couple of points on Saturday to ensure players like RVP / Evra / Carrick were up to pace on the following Tuesday instead of looking totally ineffectual? Unless of course Lerner / Fernandes asked the Glaziers for a favour and Fergie obliged.[/quote]Very much doubt he will have to explain himself or that the Glazer''s will make it difficult for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,409 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="GJP"][quote user="shefcanary"] Also he will have a very difficult Board meeting with the Glaziers as to why he gave lil'' ole Norwich too much respect a couple of days before the most important match of the season so far - surely better to sacrifice a couple of points on Saturday to ensure players like RVP / Evra / Carrick were up to pace on the following Tuesday instead of looking totally ineffectual? Unless of course Lerner / Fernandes asked the Glaziers for a favour and Fergie obliged.[/quote]Very much doubt he will have to explain himself or that the Glazer''s will make it difficult for him.[/quote]GJP - you did see Mourinho''s application last night didn''t you. Shoe in now![;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,161 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="shefcanary"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="shefcanary"] Also he will have a very difficult Board meeting with the Glaziers as to why he gave lil'' ole Norwich too much respect a couple of days before the most important match of the season so far - surely better to sacrifice a couple of points on Saturday to ensure players like RVP / Evra / Carrick were up to pace on the following Tuesday instead of looking totally ineffectual? Unless of course Lerner / Fernandes asked the Glaziers for a favour and Fergie obliged.[/quote]Very much doubt he will have to explain himself or that the Glazer''s will make it difficult for him.[/quote]GJP - you did see Mourinho''s application last night didn''t you. Shoe in now![;)][/quote]It was a bit reminiscent of Paul Lambert''s comments after Colchester thrashed us ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wizard 0 Posted March 6, 2013 One or two United players are known divers, Nani being one that springs to mind, so they shouldn''t gripe when a Real player does it to them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellowfuture 71 Posted March 6, 2013 Can''t help having a smile, especially when it happens at Old Trafford Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,161 Posted March 6, 2013 Also I have to say I was impressed with my missus last night. When Nani was lying on the ground (presumably from the strain of raising his leg so high) and the ref was patiently waiting, she said "the refs got a red card in his hand. He''s going to send him off !". I hadn''t noticed until she pointed it out, and none of the commentators or TV pundits spotted it at all. Andy Townsend thought the ref spoke to his linesman rather than making the decision which is simply wrong, he had the card in his hand all along and was just waiting for Nani to get up before sending him off. No chance of her going to see City though. I took her once to Birmingham away in the Championship about 10 years back, we lost on a rainy autumn day and that was that as far as her attending City games ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zak Van Burger 0 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="Wiz"]One or two United players are known divers, Nani being one that springs to mind, so they shouldn''t gripe when a Real player does it to them.[/quote]I don''t think anybody anywhere had accused Arbeloar of diving Wiz, pretty sure the World is in agreement that Nani caught him in the chest with his boot. The only person you might accuse of simulation is Nani himself, watch the clip again you''ll see he was clearly feigning injury as he had time to get his legs down and land comfortably on his hands and feet, one might suspect Nani faked injury because he knew he was in trouble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellowfuture 71 Posted March 6, 2013 "Retired referee Dermot Gallagher on BBC Radio 5 live: "[The decision was] harsh to say the least, but in fairness the Real player did Nani no favours whatsoever. At worst Nani catches the underside of his arm, certainly not the ribs as the guy has gone down and shown."Maybe not diving Zak but not far off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CDMullins 436 Posted March 6, 2013 Is there a video any where of the Snodgrass tackle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted March 6, 2013 As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. Any referees here will put me right but as I understand the law that was a straight-forward and perfectly correct decision. If a challenge is merely reckless, it is a yellow. Ie, if the challenge is wild but luckily misses its target or there is minimal contact. The yellow acts as a punishment and warning for the damage that could have been caused. But if the challenge is violent, ie it hits the targets, then that is a straight red. And it is impossible to argue that studding someone around the ribs at pace is anything but violent.Yes, Nani''s challenge was reckless but if it is also violent then that red-card violence trumps the yellow-card mere recklessness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firedawg 3 Posted March 6, 2013 What surprises me is that pretty much all the pundits with the exception of mental keane are saying its not a sending off ! Wonder why ? Maybe if they say it was they won''t get a good reception next time at old trafford.I love it though and not surprisingly everyone I know apart from utd fans love it too. I like the analogy of a ''Bigger team'' getting the decision .Ha Ha Ha. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
......and Smith must score. 1,343 Posted March 6, 2013 Probably a harsh decision to send Nani off - a booking seemed likely at first sight - but who cares ?As long as the Mancs lost isn''t everyone happy ? [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shefcanary 2,409 Posted March 6, 2013 Ha, ha, latest development is brilliant. UEFA want to throw the book at ManUre for the red card and not fulfilling their obligations - from BBC web-siteUefa opens disciplinary proceedings against Manchester United over Nani''s red card and the non-fulfilment of post-match media obligations at last night''s Champions League match with Real Madrid, the European governing body confirms. This is going to be fun!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wazzock 902 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="PurpleCanary"]As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. Any referees here will put me right but as I understand the law that was a straight-forward and perfectly correct decision.If a challenge is merely reckless, it is a yellow. Ie, if the challenge is wild but luckily misses its target or there is minimal contact. The yellow acts as a punishment and warning for the damage that could have been caused.But if the challenge is violent, ie it hits the targets, then that is a straight red. And it is impossible to argue that studding someone around the ribs at pace is anything but violent.Yes, Nani''s challenge was reckless but if it is also violent then that red-card violence trumps the yellow-card mere recklessness.[/quote]Can''t agree with any of this Purple.I know I reffed when Dinosaurs were still around, but we all had this thing called ''common sense''. If the Ref had been in a decent position to watch the whole incident - i.e. the players involved, there is no way on earth he could reach the decision of a red card. Nani watched the flight of the ball and made an attempt to control it. At this point, had there been no intervention from an opponent we would have said ''what great control''. The fact that while an opponent got the front of Nani who was still watching the flight of the ball is irrelevant. There was contatct with a high foot - dangerous play for the high foot, re-start with an indirect free kick. There was NO INTENT from Nani to clatter the opponent, so in my view no card whatsoever. No doubt the Refs now are told to card everyone for everything, and common sense has gone right out of the window. I think it was a poor decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="PurpleCanary"] As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. Any referees here will put me right but as I understand the law that was a straight-forward and perfectly correct decision.If a challenge is merely reckless, it is a yellow. Ie, if the challenge is wild but luckily misses its target or there is minimal contact. The yellow acts as a punishment and warning for the damage that could have been caused.But if the challenge is violent, ie it hits the targets, then that is a straight red. And it is impossible to argue that studding someone around the ribs at pace is anything but violent.Yes, Nani''s challenge was reckless but if it is also violent then that red-card violence trumps the yellow-card mere recklessness.[/quote]Can''t agree with any of this Purple.I know I reffed when Dinosaurs were still around, but we all had this thing called ''common sense''. If the Ref had been in a decent position to watch the whole incident - i.e. the players involved, there is no way on earth he could reach the decision of a red card. Nani watched the flight of the ball and made an attempt to control it. At this point, had there been no intervention from an opponent we would have said ''what great control''. The fact that while an opponent got the front of Nani who was still watching the flight of the ball is irrelevant. There was contatct with a high foot - dangerous play for the high foot, re-start with an indirect free kick. There was NO INTENT from Nani to clatter the opponent, so in my view no card whatsoever. No doubt the Refs now are told to card everyone for everything, and common sense has gone right out of the window. I think it was a poor decision.[/quote] But what you''re describing is not the law now. You are describing the law as you think it still should be, but it isn''t that any more. By the way the law IS that was a red card offence. It was a violent challenge, and that is a straight red card. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloodwagon 0 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. Any referees here will put me right but as I understand the law that was a straight-forward and perfectly correct decision.If a challenge is merely reckless, it is a yellow. Ie, if the challenge is wild but luckily misses its target or there is minimal contact. The yellow acts as a punishment and warning for the damage that could have been caused.But if the challenge is violent, ie it hits the targets, then that is a straight red. And it is impossible to argue that studding someone around the ribs at pace is anything but violent.Yes, Nani''s challenge was reckless but if it is also violent then that red-card violence trumps the yellow-card mere recklessness.[/quote]Can''t agree with any of this Purple.I know I reffed when Dinosaurs were still around, but we all had this thing called ''common sense''. If the Ref had been in a decent position to watch the whole incident - i.e. the players involved, there is no way on earth he could reach the decision of a red card. Nani watched the flight of the ball and made an attempt to control it. At this point, had there been no intervention from an opponent we would have said ''what great control''. The fact that while an opponent got the front of Nani who was still watching the flight of the ball is irrelevant. There was contatct with a high foot - dangerous play for the high foot, re-start with an indirect free kick. There was NO INTENT from Nani to clatter the opponent, so in my view no card whatsoever. No doubt the Refs now are told to card everyone for everything, and common sense has gone right out of the window. I think it was a poor decision.[/quote] I think it was the right decision, as if he had connected a bit more the poor player would have had at least 3 broken ribs, now you can say what you like but when a player hits someone with there studs showing, i expect a red card every time. Besides that it was nice to see a ref who was not scared (of A.F. ) in giving the red at Man U, wish our refs would do the same when teams play at Old Trafford.. ie., give cards and not be scared of him (A.F. ) One thing you can be sure of, if that happened to a Man U player, he would be complaining that the player should have been sent off Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wazzock 902 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="PurpleCanary"] As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. Any referees here will put me right but as I understand the law that was a straight-forward and perfectly correct decision.If a challenge is merely reckless, it is a yellow. Ie, if the challenge is wild but luckily misses its target or there is minimal contact. The yellow acts as a punishment and warning for the damage that could have been caused.But if the challenge is violent, ie it hits the targets, then that is a straight red. And it is impossible to argue that studding someone around the ribs at pace is anything but violent.Yes, Nani''s challenge was reckless but if it is also violent then that red-card violence trumps the yellow-card mere recklessness.[/quote]Can''t agree with any of this Purple.I know I reffed when Dinosaurs were still around, but we all had this thing called ''common sense''. If the Ref had been in a decent position to watch the whole incident - i.e. the players involved, there is no way on earth he could reach the decision of a red card. Nani watched the flight of the ball and made an attempt to control it. At this point, had there been no intervention from an opponent we would have said ''what great control''. The fact that while an opponent got the front of Nani who was still watching the flight of the ball is irrelevant. There was contatct with a high foot - dangerous play for the high foot, re-start with an indirect free kick. There was NO INTENT from Nani to clatter the opponent, so in my view no card whatsoever. No doubt the Refs now are told to card everyone for everything, and common sense has gone right out of the window. I think it was a poor decision.[/quote] But what you''re describing is not the law now. You are describing the law as you think it still should be, but it isn''t that any more. By the way the law IS that was a red card offence. It was a violent challenge, and that is a straight red card.[/quote]So here we have a player watching the ball in the air with a high foot, who makes contact (with no intent, but actually trying to play the ball) with an opponent. I''m just interested to see what you think he was guilty of?LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCTDirect free kickA direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:kicks or attempts to kick an opponenttrips or attempts to trip an opponentjumps at an opponentcharges an opponentstrikes or attempts to strike an opponentpushes an opponenttackles an opponentA direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:holds an opponentspits at an opponenthandles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).Penalty kickA penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.Indirect free kickAn indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences:controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possessiontouches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another playertouches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-matetouches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mateAn indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:plays in a dangerous mannerimpedes the progress of an opponentprevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his handscommits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a playerThe indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).Disciplinary sanctionsThe yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.The red card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been sent off.Only a player, substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card.The referee has the authority to take disciplinary sanctions from the moment he enters the field of play until he leaves the field of play after the final whistle.A player who commits a cautionable or sending-off offence, either on or off the field of play, whether directed towards an opponent, a team-mate, the referee, an assistant referee or any other person, is disciplined according to the nature of the offence committed.Cautionable offencesA player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:unsporting behaviourdissent by word or actionpersistent infringement of the Laws of the Gamedelaying the restart of playfailure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-inentering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permissiondeliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permissionA substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:unsporting behaviourdissent by word or actiondelaying the restart of playSending-off offencesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:serious foul playviolent conductspitting at an opponent or any other persondenying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player''s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kickusing offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gesturesreceiving a second caution in the same matchA player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings of a Sparrow 1,415 Posted March 6, 2013 According to SSN the referee will use the defence that he was guilty of serious foul play.You then have to find the definition of this within the rules.(It all made sense this morning anyway.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wazzock 902 Posted March 6, 2013 [quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]According to SSN the referee will use the defence that he was guilty of serious foul play. You then have to find the definition of this within the rules. (It all made sense this morning anyway.)[/quote]That is the only thing I could think of. But as I said earlier, if the Ref was watching he would have seen there was no intent, Nani was just trying to control a ball that was in the air. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites