|
|
Post by loJic on Mar 6, 2013 8:54:15 GMT -6
Was Nani deserving of a red card?  |
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 6, 2013 9:18:52 GMT -6
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Mar 6, 2013 9:44:28 GMT -6
Absolutely YES! He is reckless in this play, his studs are up, and his leg is extended high. I really dont see what all the fuss is about--this is a clear cut red to me. Some are arguing that he had no intent. Intent doesnt always have to be a qualifier for a foul or the severity of one.
I ask a simple qualifier question to anyone: If this tackle was done to you as a player, or to one of your players as a coach, what would you expect as the outcome? Now tell me you wouldnt be screaming for a sendoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 6, 2013 10:08:41 GMT -6
Absolutely YES! He is reckless in this play, his studs are up, and his leg is extended high. I really dont see what all the fuss is about--this is a clear cut red to me. Some are arguing that he had no intent. Intent doesnt always have to be a qualifier for a foul or the severity of one. I ask a simple qualifier question to anyone: If this tackle was done to you as a player, or to one of your players as a coach, what would you expect as the outcome? Now tell me you wouldnt be screaming for a sendoff. As you stated, Ray, it was "reckless," which is unsporting behavior and a yellow. In my opinion, Nani's challenge on the ball wasn't "serious foul play" (SFP) or "violent conduct" (VC), thus no red. FIFA's defines SFP as "use of excessive force or brutality against opponent when challenging for ball." "Excessive force" means the player "has far exceeded the necessary use of force..." I don't think it amounted to this. Instead it was "reckless" in that his attempt to control the ball put his foot in a position that showed "complete disregard for danger to, or consequences for, his opponent." Here, from my view, he's trying to bring the ball down and all of sudden is met with an opponent (not tackling for the ball). It looks like Nani is watching the ball the entire time and only sees the opponent as the ball reaches his foot and opposing player. Maybe I need to see some more angles of the play in question. Maybe there's an extra shove with his boot after the initial contact? and that's the red for VC? If referees are managing/measuring amount of force in determining whether a challenge is excessive, this seems like a low threshold, especially at the professional level (assuming there isn't an extra "kick" in there). |
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Mar 6, 2013 15:04:38 GMT -6
IMO it's a borderline yellow/red, but probably slightly closer to yellow. I don't think the red was as bad a call as some people think.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Mar 6, 2013 16:15:22 GMT -6
Absolutely YES! He is reckless in this play, his studs are up, and his leg is extended high. I really dont see what all the fuss is about--this is a clear cut red to me. Some are arguing that he had no intent. Intent doesnt always have to be a qualifier for a foul or the severity of one. I ask a simple qualifier question to anyone: If this tackle was done to you as a player, or to one of your players as a coach, what would you expect as the outcome? Now tell me you wouldnt be screaming for a sendoff. As you stated, Ray, it was "reckless," which is unsporting behavior and a yellow. In my opinion, Nani's challenge on the ball wasn't "serious foul play" (SFP) or "violent conduct" (VC), thus no red. FIFA's defines SFP as "use of excessive force or brutality against opponent when challenging for ball." "Excessive force" means the player "has far exceeded the necessary use of force..." I don't think it amounted to this. Instead it was "reckless" in that his attempt to control the ball put his foot in a position that showed "complete disregard for danger to, or consequences for, his opponent." Here, from my view, he's trying to bring the ball down and all of sudden is met with an opponent (not tackling for the ball). It looks like Nani is watching the ball the entire time and only sees the opponent as the ball reaches his foot and opposing player. Maybe I need to see some more angles of the play in question. Maybe there's an extra shove with his boot after the initial contact? and that's the red for VC? If referees are managing/measuring amount of force in determining whether a challenge is excessive, this seems like a low threshold, especially at the professional level (assuming there isn't an extra "kick" in there). You are correct jeremy, but the recklessness of the play is compounded by the studs up "tackle" that Nani makes. Studs up tackling is considered serious foul play and is an ejectionable offense. Too much is being made of Nani's "intent" here. His intent is immaterial to determining the severity of the foul--1) his play was reckless, 2) his studs are up and exposed, 3) his leg is high and he is jumping in on the defender. The most serious part of this tackle (and it IS a tackle as both players were battling for a 50/50 ball) is the position of Nani's foot and the showing of the studs. Now, if he comes into that play with his toe pointed down and studs not exposed, I would NOT send him off. This would certainly give more credence to the arguements being made in Nanis defense that he was just trying to bring the ball down. This is certainly a poor demonstration of technique at best and certainly supports my position the Nani tries too much to be a flashy player rather than a consistent one. This is why he has become a second choice player at Man U, and is subject to transfer rumors for the summer. It was a poor decision on his part. An even poorer decision was SAF being "so distraught" that he couldnt attend the post match press conference. I'm getting pretty tired of Sir Alex's act when his team doesnt win. Its always the refs fault, and never the fault of him or his players. Mourinho was dead wrong when he was quoted after the match as saying "the best team lost". Horsehockey--he's just playing to the Man U fans, as he is the OBVIOUS choice to become SAF's succesor. RM controlled possession 63-37% in the first half, had more shots, more corners, more shot on goal. The TOP actually went MORE IN MANUS FAVOR in the 2nd half as the final stat was 61-39%--meaning United had more than Real in the second half when the send off occurred. Man U scored on an own goal, and both RM goals were results of good team play that could have been nullified with better defending--not because of a #'s down problem. SAF needs to look at the stats before he complains. Im sure not starting Rooney made great sense too Alex! After all, you were resting him after his match on Saturday vs a pisspoor Norwich team when you are 7 pts up in the Premiership.....yeah, that made sense, and had no bearing on the Real game. Right |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 6, 2013 20:15:59 GMT -6
Correct call...he clearly looks at the opponent and has an opportunity to lower the studs...chose not to. Bye-bye Nani...now, hopefully UEFA reviews the tape and tacks a ban on for Ferdinand as well for his clapping in the officials face. Best team in England? How embarrassing..
|
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 7, 2013 8:08:24 GMT -6
At least I still know I'm occasionally a player/coach at heart, and not a referee.
Does anyone know what the card was written up as?
After seeing other angles, I still stand by that initial "challenge" for ball was reckless at best and cautionable. However, I believe there was an extra "kick" after initial contact which was VC, and deserving of a red. In other words, Nani attempted to control ball and after initial contact with RM player (after Nani's leg is pushed back towards his own body) it looks like Nani tried to stomp (or shove/kick) player with his foot. Without this bit, I think only yellow would have been warranted.
I think Ray and happyjack (where are you cardsinhand, futbolislife?) would have sent Nani off even without this second bit of contact. I think that would have been a mistake. Yes, his cleats are "exposed," but as futbolislife would remind us, the laws aren't so black and white in this regard. This is not a "cleats up" tackle in the traditional sense (until the VC). Even in super-slow-mo instant replay, Nani is wholly focused on ball until after he's jumped and ball gets over his head ... so his ability to change his momentum (mid-air) and re-contort his body, in less than a second (probably less than a 1/2 sec), is not realistic (IMO). Beyond that, I swear he touches the ball first (so, he's also "playing the ball"). So, until the bit until after his leg has been pushed back into his body due to contact and he attempts to re-extend, I think yellow card at worst.
Players' cleats are exposed pretty often in a match. To me, it's really the action of pushing into and through your opponent that defines "cleats up." This doesn't happen in this scenario until after ball is away from players (at least IMHO).
From playing this game much more than I've officiated or coached, I do not believe this is poor technique in trying to control a ball. It's not an easy thing to control a ball coming overhead at that height (most would have the ball carom off their knee or shin before it ever gets to the boot). If RM player not there, it would have been a sublime touch on a very difficult ball to control.
|
|
|
|
Post by futbolislife on Mar 7, 2013 10:56:19 GMT -6
ONly one piece of information to pass along here. At this level, nothing is accidental. He knew absolutely what he was doing and what the consequences of his actions were going to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 7, 2013 11:32:34 GMT -6
yeah, but that's a referee mantra formulated over years of experience to be able to deflect questions and avoid actual commentary on a fellow referee's decision (and his/her interpretation of players' actions). ethics  blah blah blah I need a shirt that says "I was waiting  for yoda's wisdom and all i got was a  "  |
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Mar 7, 2013 12:30:29 GMT -6
Pretty lively discussion on this the past few days.
ITOO(this)R, I send him off under SFP. Lately, there have been a number of karate kick-style challenges that were going unnoticed or were not being correctly sanctioned. This play happened quick. The speed of the RM defender and the angle of the referee makes the challenge look a lot worse than it truly was. But in all honesty, had I seen the same situation in the same game, and had one look at it in real-time, I also send Nani off.
Very good arguments and valid points either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Mar 7, 2013 14:15:10 GMT -6
Nope... Should have been yellow. Period. The part about after is in super slow motion and is not a premeditated issue or done with any intent. Find it funny how the Haters are on this thread calling it a good call. Even Jose said the better team lost.
Now, I blame SAF and his stupid squad selection for the loss. Nani, nor Giggsy had any business being in there. Carrick either but I know that was cause of Phil Jones injury. Had Rooney and Kagawa, the two most in form attackers over the past month, been in... That tie was over with before half.
|
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Mar 7, 2013 14:17:20 GMT -6
Also...is there any doubt that both Ronaldo and Jose Mourinho will both be back at Old Trafford in the next couple of seasons? Jose is surely the man that will replace SAF. His actions and words and his total respect for United and SAF were definite indicators along with Pep taking the Bayern job next season. Jose has already been selected as the gaffer in waiting in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 7, 2013 20:18:35 GMT -6
The chosen one said what he did to appease the MU fans knowing he is on he short list to replace SAF. No player has any business going in on a challenge with cleats exposed and leg over waist high when going toward an opponent. And the lame "he got the ball" is a horrible argument. Touching the ball first does not excuse any foul that occurred after...as I've heard a wise referee ask a player "so, you're telling me he got the ball first so he can't be guilty of a foul?" Player replies "yes sir". Referee replies "so next time he is dribbling down field with the ball he can punch you in the mouth as hard as he wants, and since he has the ball we both agree it can't be a foul?" Crickets...
|
|
|
|
Post by pOkLE on Mar 8, 2013 8:53:12 GMT -6
The chosen one said what he did to appease the MU fans knowing he is on he short list to replace SAF. No player has any business going in on a challenge with cleats exposed and leg over waist high when going toward an opponent. And the lame "he got the ball" is a horrible argument. Touching the ball first does not excuse any foul that occurred after...as I've heard a wise referee ask a player "so, you're telling me he got the ball first so he can't be guilty of a foul?" Player replies "yes sir". Referee replies "so next time he is dribbling down field with the ball he can punch you in the mouth as hard as he wants, and since he has the ball we both agree it can't be a foul?" Crickets... It seems simplistic to me to argue that a player has no business exposing his cleats (akin to arguing, when the ball has hit a player's hand/arm, that a player has no business handling the ball). Though it may lead to consistency in refereeing if every time a cleat is exposed a red-card infraction is called (similar to calling handling every time it touches a player's arm/hand), I think referees should be in the habit of differentiating by circumstance. Yes, as a professional, Nani is presumed to know that every ball may be met with a perfectly legal challenge from the opposing team and thus he should not put himself in a position ... blah blah blah. At the end of the day, he's an athlete dead-set on an overhead ball when, as he's tracking the ball, an opposing player approaches from an originally unseen angle (unseen until Nani's in the air). The business of touching the ball first, in this scenario, matters to me because the ball is coming from the other direction -- he's not using his cleats to go through the ball and through an opponent (I would say, a "traditional" cleats up tackle) he's attempting to use the top of his foot to control a ball as a player jumps into his attempt to control the ball (not straight up). Again, to me there is a difference, and one that is appreciable in the context of a game, especially a professional game (ie, yellow vs red). With all that said, as I've said before I think Nani attempts to or kicks RM player after trying to take a touch (after initial contact) and was probably deserving of the red (for the kick, not the challenge). So, I'm definitely not arguing that since Nani touched the ball, he could kick the RM player ... that's as stupid as that player in your example.  |
|
|
|
Post by smee on Mar 8, 2013 13:24:59 GMT -6
Many years ago British players would get hammered in European games for going in to tackles "hard". Europeans were seen as "soft" and European referees "too protective". I have a couple of perspectives on this: A family friend was a FIFA list ref in the 80s/90s. He had to call games in 2 different ways: Saturday, cleats up was fine and part of a "big boys' game". On Wednesday he would be doing UEFA games and they would be a straight red.
I also have a son who has recently finished with high school soccer who is also a ref. As a defender, he did not think it was a red. As a midfielder, he agrees he would want a red for someone who went into a tackle like that on him ("I would punch the crap out him").
The short answer, is: I would expect a red card for a tackle like this. Cleats up and into chest of opponent has to be SFP.
|
|
|
|
Post by loJic on Mar 8, 2013 13:42:38 GMT -6
Players perspective from both sides: You ninja kick me i'm expecting a red. But if i'm playing the ball without knowing your flying into my ninja kick then you're the idiot and would expect a yellow for you trying to draw a foul from me. Coaches perspective from both sides: You ninja kick my player then i'm expecting a red. But if my player is playing the ball without knowing your player is flying into my players ninja kick then my players the idiot for attempting a ninja kick on a ball that had enough float for a player other than him to react and expect the ref to see that my player is just a moron and should be giving a harsh yellow warning. Fans perspective from both sides: You ninja kick my favorite team i'm expecting a red. But if one of my favorite team's players decides to ninja kick your teams players then shut up, your team sucks. The refs an idiot either way. I hope this brief educational moment from loJic's creative and all knowing mind was worth the 15 seconds to read  |
|
|
|
Post by coachray40 on Mar 8, 2013 16:01:15 GMT -6
Players perspective from both sides: You ninja kick me i'm expecting a red. But if i'm playing the ball without knowing your flying into my ninja kick then you're the idiot and would expect a yellow for you trying to draw a foul from me. Coaches perspective from both sides: You ninja kick my player then i'm expecting a red. But if my player is playing the ball without knowing your player is flying into my players ninja kick then my players the idiot for attempting a ninja kick on a ball that had enough float for a player other than him to react and expect the ref to see that my player is just a moron and should be giving a harsh yellow warning. Fans perspective from both sides: You ninja kick my favorite team i'm expecting a red. But if one of my favorite team's players decides to ninja kick your teams players then shut up, your team sucks. The refs an idiot either way. I hope this brief educational moment from loJic's creative and all knowing mind was worth the 15 seconds to read An LAPrepsoccer All Time Top 10 Post!!! |
|
|
|
Post by soccermomalways on Mar 11, 2013 20:45:56 GMT -6
It's really a 30 second read. You have to read it twice because it is just that entertaining!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 8:39:29 GMT -6
I really can't stand Nani as a player.
I remember seeing this in real time. It was dangerous play. However, after seeing the instant replay from several angles, it appears Nani didn't even see the other player until it was too late.
The ball was coming from behind him...I never saw him look up.
As bad as it looks, I say it was a yellow.
I remember even the announcers saying it was at best a yellow.
To be fair, maybe given the center's angle it appeared to be blatant. The ar though should've had the perfect angle.
|
|
