Manchester United vs Real Madrid Match Thread. 5/3/2013 K.O 19.45

Cienciano

Can any of the 30 or 40 man-u fans explain why going studs into a player isn't a red? Bearing in mind that looking at the ball, or not knowing a player is there, "no intent" is irreverent?

efb

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

wtf???

edgecutter

CSF wrote: »

I don't know where you get the max from here. It a yellow minimum surely, whatever about where his eyes were looking or what he was trying to do, he went in high foot, studs up. Yellow card minimum, this time it was given as a red.

Yeah I agree, but does that mean every time someone tries to control the ball in the air with their foot it should be seen as dangerous play and a red?

homer simpson

G.K. wrote: »

Compeltely disagree. Asked to do a specific role today and he did it very well.

It's a bit like Torres at Chelsea. He puts in great shifts but fails to find the net and gets torrents of abuse for it.

dfx-

5starpool wrote: »

This threadspoiling is way out of hand, and not just here when opposition fans come on and spout crap which inspires more crap, etc. People doing the messing here will be complaining again when the shoe is on the other foot, and some of those complaining here have previously done similar or will in the future. I'm guessing there will be about 6/7 bans handed out for crap in this thread alone and it'll probably be locked before tomorrow morning I'd guess.

You're not far off on that total. However, they are largely ridiculous warnings and bans at that which people simply should not be picking up.

On that basis and now that the distraction of the game is over, can I advise everyone to take a read of the charter before they post. Keep this thread about this match please.

dmc17

Cienciano wrote: »

Can any of the 30 or 40 man-u fans explain why going studs into a player isn't a red? Bearing in mind that looking at the ball, or not knowing a player is there, "no intent" is irreverent?

The other player ran into his studs

Mr.Micro

Tinie wrote: »

No Fergie interview??

Its sulk time, as there will be no treble this year.

Frankie Lee

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

Bicycle kicks should be red cards too according to Keane's logic.

super_furry

Cienciano wrote: »

Can any of the 30 or 40 man-u fans explain why going studs into a player isn't a red? Bearing in mind that looking at the ball, or not knowing a player is there, "no intent" is irreverent?

Is smacking another player with your head with "no intent" a red? You don't see red cards for a clash of heads. A clash of heads is unintentional but dangerous.

inmyday

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Hand on heart I honestly can see why Ref gave it.

It was not sending off, but Nani left himself open to a red.

Harsh, but Refs dont have the luxury of replay.

But we can say that in every game.
Any tackle that a player connects with a another, could be a red???

Reds for everyone.

handsomecake

Tinie wrote: »

No Fergie interview??

Of course not. They didnt win

Jelle1880

Credit to Real for taking their (few) chances.

But I'm convinced United would have gone through if that ridiculous red card never happened, they were far superior up until that point.

Not only was it never a red card, if you're gonna send him off then you need to do the same to the Real player in the first half (was it Ramos ?) for the exact same foul.

FlawedGenius

Cienciano wrote: »

Can any of the 30 or 40 man-u fans explain why going studs into a player isn't a red? Bearing in mind that looking at the ball, or not knowing a player is there, "no intent" is irreverent?

tick ya

irish bloke

What tripe is Jose going on abt. Saying the best team lost. Evenly matched they were till the ref f@#ked it up and then Madrid pushed on.

Jose would want to stop licking ass with the english media as its very noticeable lately

Andersonisgod

Buttonftw wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

But has he connected with anyone? No. Also I've clearly said in my 2 posts that the De Jong/Alonso incident really brought this challenge to the forefront and that it is more commonly punished with a red card on the continent.

Johnny Utah

RidleyRider wrote: »

Made a complaint to TV3 about the horrendous commentary from Mark Lawrenson. Probably won't be looked at but its there anyway.

LOL, very bitter. I thought Lawro was good tonight.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

If there is a player under the ball and he raises his feet that high then yes it's a red. Would berkamp have tried to control that ball if there was a player under it.

smurfs5

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Chiles talking sense?

Didn't think I'd ever say that but Chiles is right in what he says. Nani didn't see Arbeloa coming and he couldn't just leave the ball and lose possesion. Keane is being controversial for the sake of it.

cameramonkey

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Chiles talking sense?

that would be a first, you can see he wants to tell Keane to shut it but is too much of a pussy,

Da Shins Kelly

irish bloke wrote: »

What tripe is Jose going on abt. Saying the best team lost. Evenly matched they were till the ref f@#ked it up and then Madrid pushed on.

Jose would want to stop licking ass with the english media as its very noticeable lately

He's desperate for the United job.

CSF

edgecutter wrote: »

Yeah I agree, but does that mean every time someone tries to control the ball in the air with their foot it should be seen as dangerous play and a red?

You can't compare making contact with another player, with not making contact with another player. The Nani one, and the Bergkamp one quoted above are miles apart and shouldn't be compared even in jest.

kippy

The red card was understandable tbh. Only United fans and some English pundits will feel hard done by.
A result befitting of a knockout champions league tie.

Frankie Lee

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Bicycle kicks should be red cards too according to Keane's logic.

Exactly. Was it the Carling Cup final a few years ago, Arsenal v Chelsea when Terry got knocked the **** out by a kick by I think Diaby? No card given, no hard feelings.

super_furry

I wonder if Nani feigning injury played any part in the referee's thinking.

aidan24326

It was a yellow card simple as. Foot high, a little bit reckless, but no intent, no malice. It's a yellow card at worst and that's that. There's no use defending the ref by saying he didn't have the benefit of action replay or any of that because it was never a red card no matter what way you look at it. And it spoiled the game.

Anyone

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Credit to Real for taking their (few) chances.

30 Attempts, 12 on target. What game did you watch?

Rega

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

If he kicked someone in the head or chest then he should have been sent off.

But he didn't.

So he wasn't.

Sorted.

Milkers

Deleted User wrote: »

Should there have been a red card given in the image below? He has his eye on the ball, he's tracked it from behind him, didn't know when he left the ground if there's a player there. There's no intent to injure anyone but if there happens to be someone there he may have.

Tom1991

murpho999 wrote: »

You sound more bitter and spiteful than Keane there, just because he doesn't follow British media/Utd Supporters biased opinion.

I stated my opinion on him as a person,pundit and as a manager i cant stand listening to a bloke that has built himself up as the king of controversy. How does that make me bitter? If i came out and said that Hitler was an arsehole would that make me bitter?

SeantheMan

aidan24326 wrote: »

It was a yellow card simple as. Foot high, a little bit reckless, but no intent, no malice.

Apparently "intent" is irrelevant. They were checking the rules on ITV. If it was dangerous etc is all that matters.

A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
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.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless
there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send
off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.
A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is
restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred
inside the offender’s penalty area).

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf

decies

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

Cienciano

super_furry wrote: »

Is smacking another player with your head with "no intent" a red? You don't see red cards for a clash of heads. A clash of heads is unintentional but dangerous.

This wasn't a clash of head. It was one player going studs into another.

Andersonisgod

Andersonisgod wrote: »

But has he connected with anyone? No. Also I've clearly said in my 2 posts that the De Jong/Alonso incident really brought this challenge to the forefront and that it is more commonly punished with a red card on the continent.

De Jong's karate kick has as much in common with this as someone throwing someone in a woodchipper.

niallo27 wrote: »

If there is a player under the ball and he raises his feet that high then yes it's a red. Would berkamp have tried to control that ball if there was a player under it.

If he had his eye on the ball the whole way he wouldn't (most likely didn't) know. Basically the way some posters are putting this is that a player shouldn't attempt to control the ball if it's come from behind them and over their head, it's impossible to do without raising a leg a good bit.

sea_monkey

decies wrote: »

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

yeah won it twice, totally clueless.

he should have factored in nani being sent off for trying to take a touch.

fergie out

Quazzie

smurfs5 wrote: »

Didn't think I'd ever say that but Chiles is right in what he says. Nani didn't see Arbeloa coming and he couldn't just leave the ball and lose possesion. Keane is being controversial for the sake of it.

If Nani didn't see Arbeloa who was he worried about losing possession to? You're talking bull as was the Chiles. Players can't jump into space without knowing what they might connect with and if they do they should accept the consequences.

R019912

decies wrote: »

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

How you've drawn that conclusion from a match in which we were marginally the better side until a harsh sending off against one of the best teams in Europe I've no idea.

kippy

decies wrote: »

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

Clueless managers don't win two champions leagues as well as whatever else he has won.
Yeah, tonight it didnt click for them. Thats sport.

klose

decies wrote: »

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

Shtap

Cardinal Richelieu

D'Agger wrote: »

Lads Lawros belittling of the Real keeper is properly bothering me now

Bad call by the ref there too but makes it interesting for me as a neutral!

I thought it was just me, I was switching between TV3 and ITV and they were total poler opposites in opinion on the Real Keeper. Even when Welch said something positive about the Real Keeper, Lawro had to leap in and make a joke of it. Lawro sounds like a bitter old man these days with stock lines complaining about dodgy foreign keepers and diving/cheating foreigners in the English game.

Deank

Just switched over from UTV to TV3 is this a Gift Grub sketch I'm watching, WTF is the goon with the eyebrows presenting, certainly looks like a Mario Rosenstock p!ss take.

Francie Barrett

SeantheMan wrote: »

Apparently "intent" is irrelevant. They were checking the rules on ITV. If it was dangerous etc is all that matters.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf

Sticky the fcuk out of this post!

Mr.Micro

decies wrote: »

Best team won no doubt about that,ferguson clueless in Europe .

He set the team up for a draw and then there was no plan B, when Madrid scored IMO.

ebbsy

Hopefully Rio and Co. will serve substantial bans for attacking the ref at the end, who made the correct decision with the dangerous high kung fu kick.

Ordinary man

Mr.Micro wrote: »

He set the team up for a draw and then there was no plan B, when Madrid scored IMO.

lol, just lol

aramush

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Yup. Cos Manchester United have never had a bad refereeing decision go against them.
Ever!
Nosiree.

They have had, but nothing as beautiful as this.

smurfs5

Quazzie wrote: »

If Nani didn't see Arbeloa who was he worried about losing possession to? You're talking bull as was the Chiles. Players can't jump into space without knowing what they might connect with and if they do they should accept the consequences.

The referee should have understood that Nani was perfectly entitled to raise his foot and control the ball. No malice at all.
The ball could easily have been won by any of the other players near Nani and Arbeloa. There are 9 other Real players on the pitch FFS. You think none of them would have won the ball had Nani left it?

Milkers

I presume all the people who are asserting so definitively how bad the red card decision was are either all UEFA qualified referees or at the very least have read an up to date copy of the official rules of the game recently? Personally I thought it was arguably harsh, arguably being the operative word.

Corvo

aramush wrote: »

They have had, but nothing as beautiful as this.

Get a life little boy

Quazzie

smurfs5 wrote: »

The referee should have understood that Nani was perfectly entitled to raise his foot and control the ball. No malice at all.
The ball could easily have been won by any of the other players near Nani and Arbeloa. There are 9 other Real players on the pitch FFS. You think none of them would have won the ball had Nani left it?

But he didn't "raise his foot and control the ball" as you so nicely put it did he?

SEPT 23 1989

ebbsy wrote: »

Hopefully Rio and Co. will serve substantial bans for attacking the ref at the end, who made the correct decision with the dangerous high kung fu kick.

was "Rio" the grown man clapping in the face of the ref like a demented 2 year old?