Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Making Plans

Sir AF - blinded by the light

Recommended Posts

Don''t get ''Stressy'' Wazzock - it was a red the ref is always right !

If it were the other way round and a Madrid player were sent off we would not be having this discussion.

Unless of course you are a ''closet utd; fan ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"]if the Ref was watching he would have seen there was no intent [/quote]That''s right up there with "He got the ball first" in my book but tellingly neither is mentioned in the laws of the game save for the handball rule, there does not have to be intent for a foul to be committed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is its UTD, I know five of their ''fans'' personally and they have been to Old Trafford collectively once in their lifetime but take great delight in taking the piss out of me and Norwich when we get battered ! The way bacon face behaved last night but had the front to say that the ball that hit RVP in the face ''could have killed him'' a few weeks ago just reinforces other fans hatred of them. I am still laughing my socks off and don''t really care if it were a penalty or not ! Ha Ha Ha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="First Wazzock"]if the Ref was watching he would have seen there was no intent [/quote]

That''s right up there with "He got the ball first" in my book but tellingly neither is mentioned in the laws of the game save for the handball rule, there does not have to be intent for a foul to be committed
[/quote]

 Couldn''t agree more, but if you are going to send someone off for serious foul play, the bad challenge usually carries some form of intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was intent Wazzock - intent on ruining my night and having to face those wanker''s at work today going on about ''Turning over Madrid'' . Suffice to say not much said apart from me childishly lifting my foot when a utd fan walked past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="bloodwagon"]         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[/quote]^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="First Wazzock"][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 MISCONDUCT

Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • serious foul play

  • violent conduct

  • spitting at an opponent or any other person

  • denying 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 kick

  • using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

  • receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

[/quote]

 

Wazzock, it is there. Serious foul play or violent conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the debate has been going on for the last 24hrs including an argument over the actual wording of the rules. Surely then there is enough doubt for the ref to have given the benefit of the doubt and shown a yellow?

I don''t like Man Utd and wasn''t particularly bothered about them going through (though would be nice to have a British team in there somewhere!) but do we really want games to be ruined like this?

Regardless of the laws as so and so sees them or intent blah blah, we see enough variations of refereeing to say that a different ref would have made a different decision. So what I''m saying is this was the wrong decision and the law needs to be defined to stop arguments debates occurring over such an incident again.

Nani was looking at the ball and at no point was what he was doing dangerous. As said, this type of control happens all over the pitch and is part of the game and what I want to see from a footballer, take that away because this could happen and and we''re reducing the game.

A lot has been said of when Nani saw the player but what about the player seeing Nani and his leg that was in the air ready to control the ball? Surely he saw it early enough to then make the decision to continue to challenge for the ball?

Both players went for the ball and neither acted in a dangerous way. Sending off a player for an accident (preventable by the Madrid player - though of course rightly went for the ball) ruins an otherwise very entertaining game that was firmly in the balance at that time.

The ref clearly thought he was right - but the subsequent debate and doubts over the wording of the laws shows all he did was not use commen sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Persnickety"]So the debate has been going on for the last 24hrs including an argument over the actual wording of the rules. Surely then there is enough doubt for the ref to have given the benefit of the doubt and shown a yellow? I don''t like Man Utd and wasn''t particularly bothered about them going through (though would be nice to have a British team in there somewhere!) but do we really want games to be ruined like this? Regardless of the laws as so and so sees them or intent blah blah, we see enough variations of refereeing to say that a different ref would have made a different decision. So what I''m saying is this was the wrong decision and the law needs to be defined to stop arguments debates occurring over such an incident again. Nani was looking at the ball and at no point was what he was doing dangerous. As said, this type of control happens all over the pitch and is part of the game and what I want to see from a footballer, take that away because this could happen and and we''re reducing the game. A lot has been said of when Nani saw the player but what about the player seeing Nani and his leg that was in the air ready to control the ball? Surely he saw it early enough to then make the decision to continue to challenge for the ball? Both players went for the ball and neither acted in a dangerous way. Sending off a player for an accident (preventable by the Madrid player - though of course rightly went for the ball) ruins an otherwise very entertaining game that was firmly in the balance at that time. The ref clearly thought he was right - but the subsequent debate and doubts over the wording of the laws shows all he did was not use commen sense[/quote]

 

This is nonsense. He caught the player in the chest with the studs of a raised boot. Of course that is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Persnickety"]So the debate has been going on for the last 24hrs including an argument over the actual wording of the rules. Surely then there is enough doubt for the ref to have given the benefit of the doubt and shown a yellow? I don''t like Man Utd and wasn''t particularly bothered about them going through (though would be nice to have a British team in there somewhere!) but do we really want games to be ruined like this? Regardless of the laws as so and so sees them or intent blah blah, we see enough variations of refereeing to say that a different ref would have made a different decision. So what I''m saying is this was the wrong decision and the law needs to be defined to stop arguments debates occurring over such an incident again. Nani was looking at the ball and at no point was what he was doing dangerous. As said, this type of control happens all over the pitch and is part of the game and what I want to see from a footballer, take that away because this could happen and and we''re reducing the game. A lot has been said of when Nani saw the player but what about the player seeing Nani and his leg that was in the air ready to control the ball? Surely he saw it early enough to then make the decision to continue to challenge for the ball? Both players went for the ball and neither acted in a dangerous way. Sending off a player for an accident (preventable by the Madrid player - though of course rightly went for the ball) ruins an otherwise very entertaining game that was firmly in the balance at that time. The ref clearly thought he was right - but the subsequent debate and doubts over the wording of the laws shows all he did was not use commen sense[/quote]

 

This is nonsense. He caught the player in the chest with the studs of a raised boot. Of course that is dangerous.

[/quote]

Ok dangerous or not, you want players to stop attempting to control the ball from the air in fear of a red card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So..... if he goes to control the ball in the air and catches his head and kills him that''s OK regardless whether he meant to ? Sorry, I don''t care and would normally agree with you but.... it''s utd and if it were us they were playing and nani did it there is not a cat in hells chance we would get the decision !

bacon is a bully and gets away with it all the time, Even wio has got away with clapping in front of the refs face scum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Persnickety"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Persnickety"]So the debate has been going on for the last 24hrs including an argument over the actual wording of the rules. Surely then there is enough doubt for the ref to have given the benefit of the doubt and shown a yellow? I don''t like Man Utd and wasn''t particularly bothered about them going through (though would be nice to have a British team in there somewhere!) but do we really want games to be ruined like this? Regardless of the laws as so and so sees them or intent blah blah, we see enough variations of refereeing to say that a different ref would have made a different decision. So what I''m saying is this was the wrong decision and the law needs to be defined to stop arguments debates occurring over such an incident again. Nani was looking at the ball and at no point was what he was doing dangerous. As said, this type of control happens all over the pitch and is part of the game and what I want to see from a footballer, take that away because this could happen and and we''re reducing the game. A lot has been said of when Nani saw the player but what about the player seeing Nani and his leg that was in the air ready to control the ball? Surely he saw it early enough to then make the decision to continue to challenge for the ball? Both players went for the ball and neither acted in a dangerous way. Sending off a player for an accident (preventable by the Madrid player - though of course rightly went for the ball) ruins an otherwise very entertaining game that was firmly in the balance at that time. The ref clearly thought he was right - but the subsequent debate and doubts over the wording of the laws shows all he did was not use commen sense[/quote]

 

This is nonsense. He caught the player in the chest with the studs of a raised boot. Of course that is dangerous.

[/quote] Ok dangerous or not, you want players to stop attempting to control the ball from the air in fear of a red card?[/quote]

 

It''s not what I want. It is the way the law is now. You cannot go in with your studs up, whether the ball is in the air or on the ground. That has been outlawed because of the danger to the other player. If Nani is such an idiot that he doesn''t know the rules of the game he is paid a vast amount of money to play then that is his fault, or the fault of his club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="First Wazzock"][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 MISCONDUCT

Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • serious foul play

  • violent conduct

  • spitting at an opponent or any other person

  • denying 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 kick

  • using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

  • receiving a second caution in the same match

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

[/quote]

 

Wazzock, it is there. Serious foul play or violent conduct.

[/quote]

Which one do you think it is then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ll not quote the above as it''s a bit long now but look at it from another perspective. Can those who think it wasn''t a red card offence please highlight which of the cautionable offences might have been invoked to spare Nani the red?

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

  • delaying the restart of play

  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

  • entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permission

  • deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • delaying the restart of play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Zak Burger"]I''ll not quote the above as it''s a bit long now but look at it from another perspective. Can those who think it wasn''t a red card offence please highlight which of the cautionable offences might have been invoked to spare Nani the red?

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

  • delaying the restart of play

  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

  • entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permission

  • deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • delaying the restart of play


[/quote]

I said earlier on why I felt it shouldn''t have had a card of any colour. So why do you think it was a red?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="Zak Burger"]I''ll not quote the above as it''s a bit long now but look at it from another perspective. Can those who think it wasn''t a red card offence please highlight which of the cautionable offences might have been invoked to spare Nani the red?

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

  • delaying the restart of play

  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

  • entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permission

  • deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • delaying the restart of play

[/quote]

I said earlier on why I felt it shouldn''t have had a card of any colour. So why do you think it was a red?

[/quote]Source http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Page 64Serious Foul PlayAny player who lunges at an opponent in challengingfor the ball from the front, from the side or from behindusing one or both legs, with excessive force andendangering the safety of an opponent is guilty ofserious foul play.The two illustrations on pp 63-63 show tackle at shin height, one must assume that such a studs first tackle which is deemed serious foul play at shin height continues to be sfp when executed at chest height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="Zak Burger"]I''ll not quote the above as it''s a bit long now but look at it from another perspective. Can those who think it wasn''t a red card offence please highlight which of the cautionable offences might have been invoked to spare Nani the red?

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

  • delaying the restart of play

  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

  • entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permission

  • deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • delaying the restart of play


[/quote]

I said earlier on why I felt it shouldn''t have had a card of any colour. So why do you think it was a red?

[/quote]

Source http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf


Page 64
Serious Foul Play
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging
for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind
using one or both legs, with excessive force and
endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of
serious foul play.

The two illustrations on pp 63-63 show tackle at shin height, one must assume that such a studs first tackle which is deemed serious foul play at shin height continues to be sfp when executed at chest height.




[/quote]

Now I''ll tell you why I feel none of that is applicable.

Nani was NOT challenging the opponent for the ball nor Tackling him. The ball was in the air, neither player had the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"]

Which one do you think it is then?

[/quote]

 

Based on the definition provided by Zak:

Page 64
Serious Foul Play
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging
for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind
using one or both legs, with excessive force and
endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of
serious foul play.

 ...it is obviously serious foul play, and that, from your own list, is a straight red card offence. Nani studded the Real Marid player in the chest. If that is not endangering the safety of a player nothing is!

I should add that you are about the only person I have seen talking about this anywhere, including rabid Man Utd fans, who don''t think it was at least a yellow. You seem to be alone in thinking no card was warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="Zak Burger"]I''ll not quote the above as it''s a bit long now but look at it from another perspective. Can those who think it wasn''t a red card offence please highlight which of the cautionable offences might have been invoked to spare Nani the red?

Cautionable offences

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game

  • delaying the restart of play

  • failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in

  • entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee''s permission

  • deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee''s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:

  • unsporting behaviour

  • dissent by word or action

  • delaying the restart of play

[/quote]

I said earlier on why I felt it shouldn''t have had a card of any colour. So why do you think it was a red?

[/quote]Source http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Page 64Serious Foul PlayAny player who lunges at an opponent in challengingfor the ball from the front, from the side or from behindusing one or both legs, with excessive force andendangering the safety of an opponent is guilty ofserious foul play.The two illustrations on pp 63-63 show tackle at shin height, one must assume that such a studs first tackle which is deemed serious foul play at shin height continues to be sfp when executed at chest height.

[/quote]

Now I''ll tell you why I feel none of that is applicable.

Nani was NOT challenging the opponent for the ball nor Tackling him. The ball was in the air, neither player had the ball.

[/quote]Once again ill say, if someone comes in with studs showing it HAS to be a RED card, FACT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two players going for the same ball,  I see that as a challenge, agree it was not a tackle so what construes a challenge in football if it''s not two or more players trying to gain possession of the ball simultaneously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Zak Burger"]Two players going for the same ball,  I see that as a challenge, agree it was not a tackle so what construes a challenge in football if it''s not two or more players trying to gain possession of the ball simultaneously?
[/quote]

 

OK, as Zak pointed out, let''s take a hypothetical situation where these 2 players simultaneously go for the ball inside the penalty area and Nani has his arms flapping and Arbeloa heads the ball onto Nani''s arms - is it a penalty? The intent wasn''t there on his part, but he knows, that if his arms are flapping for whatever reason and the ball hits his hand / arm then it''s a penalty. Same applies to the sending off incident - if Arbeloa hadn''t jumped, then Nani''s studded foot would have been in his face. Nobody would have complained if he had been sent off for that - the only difference here is that the Arbeloa jumped. Furthermore, Nani should be aware that he is allowed to use his head to control the ball.

 

One other observation - I''ve looked at it time and time again - it looks to me that after Nani connects with Arbeloa that he seems to have a "follow through" with his foot - I may be mistaken, but if you follow his foot throughout the offence (inflammatory word I know) there appears to be a sort of "jerk" after the initial contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlton Cole on Baines in December was a very similar scenario and was (as some on here must agree) sent off for the offence. Darren Gibson was also later sent off for a similar challenge.

If those saying the ref on tues was right and was following the laws of the game are correct then why did the FA rescind both cards?

The FA applied common sense and UEFA et al need to follow suit (though it was of little consolation to West Ham by then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Persnickety"]

If those saying the ref on tues was right and was following the laws of the game are correct then why did the FA rescind both cards?

The FA applied common sense and UEFA et al need to follow suit (though it was of little consolation to West Ham by then).[/quote]You''ve answered your own question there, the FA used "common sense" which is open to ambiguity and interpretation, UEFA under the guidance of PierLuigi Collini use the rule book. Tellingly there has been no talk of Nani appealing this blatantly wrong decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Persnickety"]Carlton Cole on Baines in December was a very similar scenario and was (as some on here must agree) sent off for the offence. Darren Gibson was also later sent off for a similar challenge.

If those saying the ref on tues was right and was following the laws of the game are correct then why did the FA rescind both cards?

The FA applied common sense and UEFA et al need to follow suit (though it was of little consolation to West Ham by then).[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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]
Disagree with your interpretation of reckless and violent, Purple. The difference is one of intent rather than outcome, surely? You can have violent conduct that misses (swinging a punch at someone), and a reckless challenge that breaks someone''s leg. The difference is that violence intends to hurt the opponent whilst recklessness has the possibility that you will/could hurt the opponent because of your actions but you weren''t intending to actually hurt them. So going in for a 50 50 challenge innocently to get the ball, but with your studs showing and your foot off the ground would be reckless even if you touched the player. The same challenge would be violent even if he actually misses the opponent but did intend to break his leg.
Nani is clearly not being violent. He doesn''t intend to stud the opponent. It is arguably a reckless challenge, as going in for anything with your foot that high and studs showing always has the possibility of injuring an opponent. But Nani certainly wasn''t violent. 
The real issue that this revolves around is whether it was serious foul play/dangerous. There is no requirement, as far as I am aware, for serious foul play to be intentional or violent. It will though, by it''s nature, be either intentional or reckless. Nani clearly wasn''t being violent; he didn''t intend to stud Arbeloa. It seems to have been a genuine attempt to control the ball. 
Going to control a ball at chest height, with your studs up in the air and showing at that angle, is likely to always be reckless. If you know that there is nobody around you, then it may not be reckless, but you would have to be fairly sure that there were no opponents around. Nani, if you rewind, has a quick glance over his shoulder some time before, so he knows Arbeloa is nearby, even if he doesn''t know that Arbeloa will be challenging for the ball. 
So if he knows that Arbeloa is nearby, and still goes up for a ball with his studs showing at chest height, then that is reckless and dangerous. Red is fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Aggy"][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]


Disagree with your interpretation of reckless and violent, Purple. The difference is one of intent rather than outcome, surely? You can have violent conduct that misses (swinging a punch at someone), and a reckless challenge that breaks someone''s leg. The difference is that violence intends to hurt the opponent whilst recklessness has the possibility that you will/could hurt the opponent because of your actions but you weren''t intending to actually hurt them. So going in for a 50 50 challenge innocently to get the ball, but with your studs showing and your foot off the ground would be reckless even if you touched the player. The same challenge would be violent even if he actually misses the opponent but did intend to break his leg.


Nani is clearly not being violent. He doesn''t intend to stud the opponent. It is arguably a reckless challenge, as going in for anything with your foot that high and studs showing always has the possibility of injuring an opponent. But Nani certainly wasn''t violent. 


The real issue that this revolves around is whether it was serious foul play/dangerous. There is no requirement, as far as I am aware, for serious foul play to be intentional or violent. It will though, by it''s nature, be either intentional or reckless. Nani clearly wasn''t being violent; he didn''t intend to stud Arbeloa. It seems to have been a genuine attempt to control the ball. 


Going to control a ball at chest height, with your studs up in the air and showing at that angle, is likely to always be reckless. If you know that there is nobody around you, then it may not be reckless, but you would have to be fairly sure that there were no opponents around. Nani, if you rewind, has a quick glance over his shoulder some time before, so he knows Arbeloa is nearby, even if he doesn''t know that Arbeloa will be challenging for the ball. 


So if he knows that Arbeloa is nearby, and still goes up for a ball with his studs showing at chest height, then that is reckless and dangerous. Red is fair. 

[/quote]

 

But as I understand it, Aggy, "intent" has been written out of the rule book now, apart from for handballs in the penalty area, because it caused too many complications. For that reason I certainly do not agree that Nani was not being violent. He studs a player in the chest! How much more violent do you want a "challenge" to be before it gets categorised as violent?! His intention may not have been violent, but that doesn''t matter nowadays. A total irrelevance. This is the current law/interpretation, helpfully provided by Zak:


Page 64
Serious Foul Play
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging
for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind
using one or both legs, with excessive force and
endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of
serious foul play.

The two illustrations on pp 63-63 show tackle at shin height, one must assume that such a studs first tackle which is deemed serious foul play at shin height continues to be sfp when executed at chest height.

Not a word about intent. And that definition of serious foul play, for which a straight red card is the punishment, perfectly fits the Nani foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...