Bad losers v Real Madrid

[StefanWolves]

Originally Posted by JW

It wouild be a sending off if the player caught him on the knee studs up? Never understood why it isn't when players catch them even higher up the body!

Correct decision , its just the majority of refs especially british consistently make the incorrect decision.

Real madrid would have won anyway don't kid yourself fergie

I thought at first the media reaction was the usual English bs, but having gone on Twitter and seen tweets from many well respected journalists from Spain, Germany and Italy, they were all gobsmacked it was a red card. So I don't think it's anything to do with the English media being bias this time around.

[Black Coffee]

Seriously I can't believe the media's bias on this although there was no intent from Nani It was a high dangerous (studs first) challenge In Europe you will get sent off for challenges like that.

I feel Fergie's reaction has been childish and pathetic and diverted away the fact Fergie's choice to start Wellbeck ahead of Rooney was a huge blunder.

[wolf1877]

In the game between west ham and everton in december, both carlton cole and darron gibson got sent off for very very similar challanges to nani's (high foot, dangerous play). Both clubs appealed and were successful. So the FA thinks its not a red card either.

As for ferguson and united, if it had been Wolves in their position i would be distraught this morning and have expected our manager whoever it might have been to also loose it at the time.

[Paul76]

Oh look, another thread about Man United.

[Poztin]

Can people stop calling it a challenge!

It was an attempt to bring the ball down in the air, something that is seen and done all the time. He just so happened to catch an opposing player.

What next? No legs allowed above waist height?

[Jonzy54]

Originally Posted by Ashley

He didn't know an opponent was there, he would have never seem that he was coming in until contact was made. If he knew the collision was coming and did it then yes, red card.

The consequence was he made contact thus endangering an opponent which is a Red under Law 12.

[MobNet Wolf]

I agree with Poztin. He was hanging in the air to bring the ball down.

It's so innocuous. Give a free kick and get on with the game.

'Dangerous play' is not a scientific term and it's a cop-out to be hiding behind it. Danger is a scale. At its lowest, playing football itself is inherently dangerous. It's years of interpretation that allows us to know where a red card falls on that scale.

The people saying Utd would have been screaming for a red are just plain wrong. I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid if roles had been reversed. It's not as if Real were screaming for a red is it?

[MobNet Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jonzy54

The consequence was he made contact thus endangering an opponent which is a Red under Law 12.

Any form of tackle endangers an opponent.

A shot on goal endangers defenders standing in front of you.

Stop blindly quoting subjective laws. Refereeing is interpretation. The interpretation in this case was completely wrong.

[Jonzy54]

As I have said in removing the word Intent referees will act on Consequence.The consequence he made contact studs first into the chest of an opponent.As such under Law 12 it was a Red Card.

[Jonzy54]

Originally Posted by MobNet Wolf

Any form of tackle endangers an opponent.

A shot on goal endangers defenders standing in front of you.

Stop blindly quoting subjective laws. Refereeing is interpretation. The interpretation in this case was completely wrong.

What are you basing your opinion other than that-mere opinion.?Laws are there for a reason so it was not Wrong but you obviously know better.

[FLEET WOLF]

Originally Posted by Jonzy54

What are you basing your opinion other than that-mere opinion.?Laws are there for a reason so it was not Wrong but you obviously know better.

How does that law apply to overhead kicks then, could job SEB wasn't sent off last night, after the goal was struck off then!? As usual, it is the $$$$e laws that are wrong and they do rather put the refs in a difficult position (although I thought that one was crap throughout the game).

[Space Wolf]

Originally Posted by FLEET WOLF

How does that law apply to overhead kicks then, could job SEB wasn't sent off last night, after the goal was struck off then!? As usual, it is the $$$$e laws that are wrong and they do rather put the refs in a difficult position (although I thought that one was crap throughout the game).

Straight from Law 12.

"A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent."

IMO I think a yellow would have been enough. One thing you can't accuse the referee of though is rushing to get the red card out. He took his time and considered what he'd seen.

[Jonzy54]

Originally Posted by FLEET WOLF

How does that law apply to overhead kicks then, could job SEB wasn't sent off last night, after the goal was struck off then!? As usual, it is the $$$$e laws that are wrong and they do rather put the refs in a difficult position (although I thought that one was crap throughout the game).

Fleet,I can't offer an all singing response to every eventuality but I agree the Laws can have a wide spectrum of interpretation.The Law allows for the ultimate sanction for such a challenge and as such the referee upheld that Law.I agree other refs might not have acted in the same manner but last night he deemed it necessary.

[Berlin Wolf]

Originally Posted by MobNet Wolf

I agree with Poztin. He was hanging in the air to bring the ball down.

It's so innocuous. Give a free kick and get on with the game.

'Dangerous play' is not a scientific term and it's a cop-out to be hiding behind it. Danger is a scale. At its lowest, playing football itself is inherently dangerous. It's years of interpretation that allows us to know where a red card falls on that scale.

The people saying Utd would have been screaming for a red are just plain wrong. I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid if roles had been reversed. It's not as if Real were screaming for a red is it?

A good post for the ref to read, well done Mobnet.

You could also say the Real player ran into Nani's foot and made a meal of it. Well almost.

[Woburn Wolf]

Forget the sending off it was a joy to watch Kaka, Modric and Alonso stroking it around with such consummate ease. They made Manyoo look pretty ordinary.

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

I'm still wondering why Real's opener was ruled out...

[MobNet Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jonzy54

What are you basing your opinion other than that-mere opinion.?Laws are there for a reason so it was not Wrong but you obviously know better.

I'm basing it in the fact that the laws of the game contain words which are wholly subjective. You cannot say for certainty what 'danger' is. It is the interpretation of the laws in line with practice that forms the true arbiter of whether a decision is correct.

It works exactly the same way when subjective terms are used in real law. The courts have to decide how to interpret that law.

To continue the analogy, last night was an instance of a court applying a law in a way wholly different to courts before it.

Whether the unprecedented interpretation can fall under a strict reading of the law is neither here no there. The law has had it's interpretation set.

[Berlin Wolf]

Originally Posted by Woburn Wolf

Forget the sending off it was a joy to watch Kaka, Modric and Alonso stroking it around with such consummate ease. They made Manyoo look pretty ordinary.

They certainly did, Woburn.

Would love to see Wolves produce football of that quality...

Maybe next season, ay.

[Jonzy54]

Originally Posted by MobNet Wolf

I'm basing it in the fact that the laws of the game contain words which are wholly subjective. You cannot say for certainty what 'danger' is. It is the interpretation of the laws in line with practice that forms the true arbiter of whether a decision is correct.

It works exactly the same way when subjective terms are used in real law. The courts have to decide how to interpret that law.

To continue the analogy, last night was an instance of a court applying a law in a way wholly different to courts before it.

Whether the unprecedented interpretation can fall under a strict reading of the law is neither here no there. The law has had it's interpretation set.

The Laws do state 'In the opinion of the Referee'.Does Law 12 state Endangering an opponent?So under Law 12,in his opinion,what did he do wrong?You cannot referee a game thinking whether another referee would or wouldn't act the same.He acted as per the letter of the Law,however harsh some people may deem it to be.

[MonkeySpanner]

Originally Posted by Wednesbury Wolf

I was expecting to see Ferguson dead on the pitch after he came running down the steps to scream at the linesman.

The sending off was 50/50 some refs would some wouldn't but what beat Man U. was 2 goals not the sending off.

The usual crowding of the ref lead by the horrible Ferdinand was to be expected, they just don't like it up 'em.

United were robbed! They were by far the better team, even Marino knew that.

I would be investigating the bank account of the ref to see how much yen has been deposited if I were Sir Alex.

That ref should not be in charge of another international match.

[Jonzy54]

Originally Posted by MonkeySpanner

United were robbed! They were by far the better team, even Marino knew that.

I would be investigating the bank account of the ref to see how much yen has been deposited if I were Sir Alex.

That ref should not be in charge of another international match.

United had 37% possession.

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Originally Posted by MonkeySpanner

United were robbed! They were by far the better team, even Marino knew that.

I would be investigating the bank account of the ref to see how much yen has been deposited if I were Sir Alex.

That ref should not be in charge of another international match.

Dan Marino?

[FLEET WOLF]

Originally Posted by Space Wolf

Straight from Law 12.

"A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent."

IMO I think a yellow would have been enough. One thing you can't accuse the referee of though is rushing to get the red card out. He took his time and considered what he'd seen.

A scissors kick for goal is usually going to be in the 6 yard box or at least the penalty area-in those circumstances, there are bound to be defenders around the kicker. Furthermore, the kicker will do that, even though he knows there are players around him-Nani didn't particularly know how close the defender was, so therefore every single scissor kick goal should be disallowed and the player sent off (but not when its one of our players against Millwall). The law is an ass!

[Poztin]

Originally Posted by Jonzy54

You cannot referee a game thinking whether another referee would or wouldn't act the same.

No but you can referee a game based on years of experience, calling on experience of how your peers and predecessors have handled routine situations in the past and present, and then apply an ounce of common sense which to any good referee would just come naturally anyway.

What happened last night was a referee deciding to go against the grain and impose his own very extreme interpretation of a very subjective law. All that ends up doing is frustrating players, managers, fans and I suspect other good referees who are tarnished with the same incompetency brush.

The only thing to come out of it is further alienation of referees within the game. I really don't think that's something you want to defend.

[Poztin]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf

Playing in a dangerous manner:

Disciplinary Sanctions:

- If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a "normal" challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action.

- If the action is made with an obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player.

- If a player denies a goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player.

So there it is, it's less subjective than I realised. No red. Case closed.

[sc91]

United were poor, didn't react to the sending off and got made to pay.

Karma.

[reanswolf]

Up to then I would say Manure were marginally better and looking solid. But who knows............

[WestChiltingtonwolf]

Originally Posted by Poztin

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf

Playing in a dangerous manner:



So there it is, it's less subjective than I realised. No red. Case closed.

You missed the first line out.

"Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between players."

[Poztin]

Fair point, missed that slide.

But falling back on the criteria of carelessness, recklessness and use of excessive force, only the latter results in a red card.

Again a very subjective criteria, and one which the referee has interpreted completely against all popular consensus in this instance.

[gordonchas]

United were, of course, equally outraged when Eboue was sent off for this challenge on Evra. So outraged, in fact, that Alan Wiley gave Eboue a red card. Only this time they (Rooney) applauded the decision, and not in a sarcastic manner.

Goes around, comes around?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=jH5t58FCs3k