ITV - Roy Keane good / Southgate crap

[Easy 10]

When I saw the sending off later, I thought, well, you CAN see why he was sent off. Its not a cert red, and most probably a yellow generally, but the ref is there to make a call, and from some angles it looks like a kung fu kick.... so, its not an UNREASONABLE red.

As i said its never a red.

Of COURSE Nani is going for the ball. Of COURSE he had no intention of making contact with Arbeloa, but he did, and it was dangerous.

Of course, my view is completely in the minority, but that's the joy of footy opinions. Just a different side to the argument. I can completely see where the anger is and I understand why people don't think it is red. All I'm saying is, on a technicality, it could be a red.

Pretty much what I thought. I don't think it's a definite red but I don't see how people can seriously complain that going into a challenge with your studs facing a player at least 4ft off the floor isn't a red card

Looked a marginal red to me in real time, especially as Nani appears to follow through with his leg a bit rather than his leg naturally retracting.

All perfectly reasoned arguments and opinions on that red.

And an absolutely CLASSIC example as to why introducing TV replays for decisions such as this would be completely and utterly unworkable, and would resolve nothing.

 

[Randsta]

It was Harsh and it ruined the game as a contest!

 

[keaton]

It was Harsh and it ruined the game as a contest!

Really?
I'm sure Chelsea got a player sent off last year against Barcelona. Did ruin that game as a contest?

Even if it had what's that got to do with anything? IF it's the correct decision why should anyone care?

 

[CHAPPERS]

All perfectly reasoned arguments and opinions on that red.

And an absolutely CLASSIC example as to why introducing TV replays for decisions such as this would be completely and utterly unworkable, and would resolve nothing.

Exactly what I thought when listening to the bullshit argument that took place on Radio 5 Live this morning on my way to work. So many different opinions and it all goes down to how the referee reads the rules and the situation. It was definitely dangerous play but probably without intent (he should know that he's going into a challenge with someone, as Keane pointed out).

On the radio they started banging on about Terry's sending off by the same ref last year which is completely different as he just kicked someone. One guy used that to back up his point, the dick.

 

[Easy 10]

Exactly what I thought when listening to the bullshit argument that took place on Radio 5 Live this morning on my way to work. So many different opinions and it all goes down to how the referee reads the rules and the situation. It was definitely dangerous play but probably without intent (he should know that he's going into a challenge with someone, as Keane pointed out).

On the radio they started banging on about Terry's sending off by the same ref last year which is completely different as he just kicked someone. One guy used that to back up his point, the dick.

Agreed.
So often you get an incident like this where its simply never going to be a black and white case as to whether the ref made the right call or not. It boils down to opinion and interpretation. The ref could've spent 2-3 minutes looking at a replay of that incident last night before deciding what to do, and there would STILL be people vehemently disagreeing with whatever decision he eventually arrived at.

You've got to accept that the ref gets ONE look at it, and has to make an honest call off the back of that. He has linesmen to consult if he wants another opinion on it, but ultimately he's got to go with his interpretation. I'm simply not having this "bring technology in for the big decisions" argument, it would just make things many times worse.

 

[DJ Leon]

I disagree with Keane, but I can't fault his argument. Anyone want to give a good argument as to why the ref was wrong (ie. not it never normally happens or he didn't intend to do it)?

 

[Randsta]

Really?
I'm sure Chelsea got a player sent off last year against Barcelona. Did ruin that game as a contest?

Even if it had what's that got to do with anything? IF it's the correct decision why should anyone care?

I said it was hash as in it could have been easily a yellow - and with regards to Chelsea they ruined the contest with their negative park the bus approach!

 

[marshy68]

It was Harsh and it ruined the game as a contest!

but a ref cant not send someone off in case it ruins the game as a contest. I was not the least bit suprized Nani got sent of at full speed from the refs angle I thought it looked terrible.

 

[marshy68]

but a ref cant not send someone off in case it ruins the game as a contest. I was not the least bit suprized Nani got sent of at full speed from the refs angle I thought it looked terrible.

sorry terrible double negative there - straight red for me from the grammar police.

 

[Easy 10]

I said it was hash as in it could have been easily a yellow - and with regards to Chelsea they ruined the contest with their negative park the bus approach!

If we're talking about Chelsea in the 2nd leg in the Nou Camp last year, personally I thought it was one of the most enthralling european games I'd ever seen. It was utterly astonishing.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

it ruined the game as a contest!

But it shouldn't have.

If I was Fergie I would have been FAR more livid with the fact that my team looked as though they'd ACCEPTED that they 'should' lose with 10 men.

You're WINNING. You're AT HOME. Keep playing.

They lost a WINGER. If you lose a CB or CM then yes, that's bad. You're SPINE has been torn a hole. But if you lose a striker or winger then you still have the spine. Just leave one man up top and plug the gap.

However, the fact Madrid scored their 2 goals in about 4 mins showed that Utd almost accepted defeat. They started playing again the MOMENT Madrid went 2-1 up. It was odd.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Shockingly shit coverage from ITV.

Sky managed to do 2hrs of thoughtful and entertaing build up to the first leg.

ITV did half an hour of shite, trying to make a controversy of Rooney being left on the bench. Clueless pundits and a presenter out of his depth.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Shockingly shit coverage from ITV.

Sky managed to do 2hrs of thoughtful and entertaing build up to the first leg.

ITV did half an hour of shite, trying to make a controversy of Rooney being left on the bench. Clueless pundits and a presenter out of his depth.

You can't really compare sky SPORTS (SPORTS) to a commercial tv channel.

I was watching sky sports news this morning an they were talking about it a lot more than daybreak....

 

[brightn'ove]

But it shouldn't have.

If I was Fergie I would have been FAR more livid with the fact that my team looked as though they'd ACCEPTED that they 'should' lose with 10 men.

You're WINNING. You're AT HOME. Keep playing.

They lost a WINGER. If you lose a CB or CM then yes, that's bad. You're SPINE has been torn a hole. But if you lose a striker or winger then you still have the spine. Just leave one man up top and plug the gap.

However, the fact Madrid scored their 2 goals in about 4 mins showed that Utd almost accepted defeat. They started playing again the MOMENT Madrid went 2-1 up. It was odd.

Agreed, Nani was absolute dog shit up until the sending off, they were practically playing without him anyway.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

But it shouldn't have.

If I was Fergie I would have been FAR more livid with the fact that my team looked as though they'd ACCEPTED that they 'should' lose with 10 men.

You're WINNING. You're AT HOME. Keep playing.

They lost a WINGER. If you lose a CB or CM then yes, that's bad. You're SPINE has been torn a hole. But if you lose a striker or winger then you still have the spine. Just leave one man up top and plug the gap.

However, the fact Madrid scored their 2 goals in about 4 mins showed that Utd almost accepted defeat. They started playing again the MOMENT Madrid went 2-1 up. It was odd.

Yep, completely agree. When Real Madrid had gone 2-1 up, Man Utd then looked as if they fancied having a go. But they naturally thought, "shit, DEFEND!!!" when Nani was sent off. Their reaction was bordering on unprofessional, they spent their time remonstrating with the referee rather than having a word with themselves and saying "forget him, we'll win this game anyway".

Agreed, Nani was absolute dog shit up until the sending off, they were practically playing without him anyway.

Interesting you should say that. There's a feature on Sky's website at the moment about Rooney being dropped, in which they praised the performance of Nani and Welbeck in particular. Personally, I thought Welbeck was hilariously shit and Nani only contributed once, which was the cross for the own goal. Welbeck continues to be treated with kid gloves because he's tall, black and English. And from Manchester. Therefore, he is a special talent. Rather than a hapless donkey.

 

[User removed 4]

Just a reminder, for when Sir Alex Ferguson emerges from his cave of despair, that here's what he said in March last year, after Fulham were denied a more or less clear penalty in their game at Old Trafford:

"From the referee's position, I can see why he didn't give a penalty when Danny Murphy was brought down.

"The ball moved to the angle as Michael Carrick challenged him. From that position, it wasn't clear.

"It was a good claim but City could have had a penalty against them at Stoke for a foul by Gareth Barry. Every club gets breaks here and there, you get good ones and bad ones. It evens itself out over the season, that will never change

 

[Rich Suvner]

The overhead kick example is different in my opinion. That is a the flat face of the boot(the top). Even if that hits you, it's nowhere near as bad at the studs making contact.

Getting kicked in the face by someone executing an overhead kick would feel like being assaulted and potentially knock you out

Getting studs in your body where a player is taking the ball out of the air with limited forward thrust - totally lesser of the two for potential damage to opposition player.

Some challenges with studs showing are very different from others

 

[Rich Suvner]

Also:

Where in this challenge is Eboue's foot about to control the ball though?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Getting kicked in the face by someone executing an overhead kick would feel like being assaulted and potentially knock you out

Getting studs in your body where a player is taking the ball out of the air with limited forward thrust - totally lesser of the two for potential damage to opposition player.

Some challenges with studs showing are very different from others

True, but then I would throw in that a clash of heads is arguably the most painful, yet that would never warrant a yellow.

"Studs up" is basically THE red alert for refs now, whether that is right or wrong.

I suppose the only way I can get my head round it is to think of use of the studs as 'morally' incorrect. You know that, if it makes contact, studs are ALWAYS going to hurt, So no matter WHAT action you are performing, the decision to have the studs showing is a bad one on the players part.

Getting kicked in the head in an overhead kick motion never involved the player executing the kick to have made the decision to show studs, thus gaurenteeing any contact would be dangerous contact.

I've completely rambled there, haven't I?

 

[Perfidious Albion]

To kick a player in the high chest when he is standing up, is surely violent conduct. The ref can issue a red card - that is the rule. If it was the other way, people would be saying different.

Keane was right and had the guts to say so

I agree that Ferdinand and other United players are lucky not to have been booked for their conduct after the final whistle.