I love how the ref blew and made him take it back to the corner when he tried to throw it on to the grass.
just watched the reply and yup straight red, possibly more games. Nani was the second player to the ball studds up high and simply should have seen the other guy or made an atempt to lower his leg. That's an easy red. The fouled player won the ball with first touch.
I have no care about either team. My side is Seattle. Looking at that with eyes that reffed more than a decade and played three... that's a straight red. Late late late. No attempt to pull away from the contact even after recognizing the other player had won the touch.
I used to destroy other players and make it look accidental.99.9% of the time I could get away with it. Nani figured he'd get the benefit of the doubt. watch it again, after contact.. does the leg pull back or does it continue towards the other player....
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play.
Roy Keane– the ex Man U captain– said it best: “Regardless of Nani seeing Arbeloa, studs up, at the chest level, is a red card every-time. There are 22 players on the field, so you must always assume someone is near you.”
http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2013/03/06/video-nani-red-card-vs-real-madrid-nani-sending-off-man-utd-champions-league-march-2013-cakir/
But by that logic, bicycle kicks are never acceptable. Because if you assume someone must be near you, a bicycle is always a dangerous play.
no not really
going in to a challenge with studs up and a straight leg into someones chest is different then a bicycle kick
Of course it's different. I never said it wasn't. But a bicycle if someone is right next to you is dangerous. You are putting your foot into the vicinity of their head. That is dangerous. Therefore, if you're always to assume someone is right next to you, a bicycle should always be assumed to be dangerous.
not my words but well said
"You can accidentally kick some one, bash heads, etc, etc, but if you are using appropriate technique for actually shooting, tackling, heading that's fine. That includes overhead kicks. Studs up and a straight leg is not appropriate technique for any of those and is dangerous."
Well given that he was trying to settle a ball, we wouldn't expect him to use proper shooting, tackling or heading technique, would we? So whether it was appropriate for any of those things is irrelevant.
"simply because freak accidents can happen"
Yes, absolutely, no disagreement. That said a freak accident done poorly is still a red card. A bad challenge is a red card even if no harm was intended. Clumbsy play still creates a red card.
While you don't like the wording, it's copied straight from FIFA. Laws of the game. Sorry for having to get all "lawsy" on you, but it's sort of the slap in the face to bring people back down from what they think should be called.
cheers man.
I think the Nani Red Card debate is getting a little silly.
Everyone has formed an opinion based on what they perceived to happen. The rule clearly states that the difference between "reckless" and "excessive" force is up to interpretation by the referee, based on what he or she witnessed at the time of the incident.
The referee was well within his right to give no foul, a yellow, or a red.
I just don't agree with his interpretation of what happened.
I hope noboddy feels like I have slapped them in the face, or whatever was previously mentioned.
I think were going to have to agree to disagree
the proper way to settle a ball isn't lunging with a straight leg, studs up at chest height
I just hope the Chelsea vs Man U game this weekend isn't ruined like the last one
Did anybody watch the CONCACAF Champions League match of LA vs Herediano last night? Dude, that ref was awful. Not only did he not call a dangerous play when a Herediano player did a bicycle kick, whiffed the shot, and hit AJ DeLaGarza, but he also called back a perfectly good Mike Magee goal. Then add about 20 fouls from Herediano that went unnoticed. It's amazing LA got out of there 0-0.
Return leg is next week in Southern California.
no not really
going in to a challenge with studs up and a straight leg into someones chest is different then a bicycle kick
Sorry Fifa disagrees with you and those pro coaches. You don't determine the card based on the medical report. You can't say "well no ribs were broken, so it should be a yellow".
Again a player just has to make a poor play. The don't have to show intent. A clumbsy challendge is still a red card offense, even made by the nicest player. He's gone for a clumbsy challenge where he was late to the ball. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just a poorly played action on his part.
You think Nani knew that Arbeloa was there? That's a pretty big leap of faith there.
lunging at the ball with a straight leg & studs up at chest level trying to controll the ball with no idea who is around you could be considered dangerous & reckless.
no leap of faith needed
So should a bicycle kick? What about when the goalie punches a cross?
Without intent it's not as bad of a crime.
Even at that, Reckless play according to FIFA rules is a yellow.
Nani was trying to control the ball, if wasn't like he was kicking Arbeloa or aiming for his chest. I saw probably 3 or 4 other times that game someone brought a ball down in the the air with a high kick. It should be treated basically the same way as a high sticking used to be in hockey, it's cool if your don't hit someone, if you do, then it's a minor (or in soccer terms a yellow or caution), it's not a game misconduct, but if you use your stick as a weapon and smack someone in the head on purpose, that's a different monster.
We could play the back and forth quote game all night
Jose Mourhino - “it was a poor decision”.
Former Ref Dermot Gallagher - "I don't think I would have given a red card for that offense"
And if context doesn't matter and a dangerous play is a dangerous play, then why wasn't Diego Lopez sent off?
hopstupid said:"Retired referee Graham Poll on BBC Radio 5 live: "Only one offence has to be intentional - handball. It's not what you mean to do but what you actually do. He intended to jump that high with his foot raised - that's intentional. It's unfortunate, he's not that kind of player but the referee was doing his job and it is wholly wrong for us to castigate him for doing his job."
Just requoting yourself quoting someone else adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
sure that looks like it could of been a red
I also like the edit on the pic Live doesn't look that bad
So a player hitting a guy in the chest with his foot while both are playing the ball = red
A player punching someone in the face = could be a red
Do you start seeing the hypocrisy yet?
Enter your email address to join: