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

Will I Amnt

niallo27 wrote: »

He wasn't flagged offside. It was a normal challenge you see in the air from every cross. Would it really kill you to admit that maybe utd got lucky there. The world won't end don't worry.

It was a foul by the letter of the law that you seemed so concerned about when discussing the Nani incident.

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

He wasn't flagged offside. It was a normal challenge you see in the air from every cross. Would it really kill you to admit that maybe utd got lucky there. The world won't end don't worry.

I disagree. Genuinely.

Why are you focused on that decision and not the blatant red card? You're jumping the shark here Niallo.

DazMarz

My main gripe with what happened tonight is that United are going to go out looking for blood in their next game. The next team that comes near them is going to be hanged, drawn, quartered, hanged a bit again, pissed on, set on fire, the ashes burned and then pissed on again for good measure. The next team that comes to Old Trafford are going to get their balls ripped off and fed to them.

That team? A misfiring and underperforming Chelsea side who stand in the way of United's quest for a Double. Seeing as United have the League sewn up and are no longer in Europe, expect their strongest starting 11, with a mind towards all out attack.

Sunday is gonna be ugly for Chelsea fans, and something akin to a Pagan blood festival for United and their fans, where they will bathe in the blood of the vanquished.

Maybe a bit over the top there, was I?

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

It's irrelevant where the goalscorer was because it was RVP who headed the ball into his path.

Tell me about your views on the Nani decision. That was the really unfair thing that happened tonight.

Your motives on arguing this tell me about the team that you support.

kryogen

fullstop wrote: »

You replied to Argossy2006' video with "Idiot". And then deleted the post.

Go back and have a look at your posts about the ref, which is also against the charter. No point in talking to you anymore, go and have a nice sleep and maybe you'll have calmed down in the morning, there's a good lad

Ah the old reliable eh, one more of these before I toddle off to bed if you would sir

:rolleyes:

By the by, I stand by calling the decision shocking, and saying the game was ruined by the ref, did I call him a **** also? I hope I did!

I am pretty sure I am calm as I type, but maybe I should take your advice and get some sleep. You seem like the type of chap who would know about this stuff

Winston Payne

DazMarz wrote: »

My main gripe with what happened tonight is that United are going to go out looking for blood in their next game. The next team that comes near them is going to be hanged, drawn, quartered, hanged a bit again, pissed on, set on fire, the ashes burned and then pissed on again for good measure. The next team that comes to Old Trafford are going to get their balls ripped off and fed to them.

That team? A misfiring and underperforming Chelsea side who stand in the way of United's quest for a Double. Seeing as United have the League sewn up and are no longer in Europe, expect their strongest starting 11, with a mind towards all out attack.

Sunday is gonna be ugly for Chelsea fans, and something akin to a Pagan blood festival for United and their fans, where they will bathe in the blood of the vanquished.

Maybe a bit over the top there, was I?

Cue Chelsea winning 0-1.


Off a scrambled set-piece.


Having recorded no shots on target.

fullstop

kryogen wrote: »

Ah the old reliable eh, one more of these before I toddle off to bed if you would sir

:rolleyes:

By the by, I stand by calling the decision shocking, and saying the game was ruined by the ref, did I call him a **** also? I hope I did!

I am pretty sure I am calm as I type, but maybe I should take your advice and get some sleep. You seem like the type of chap who would know about this stuff

What old reliable... :rolleyes:...you'll notice I didn't use one

I seem like the type of chap who'd know about what type of stuff? You don't seem very calm

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I disagree. Genuinely.

Why are you focused on that decision and not the blatant red card? You're jumping the shark here Niallo.

I have talked about the red card plenty on here. I thought it was very harsh but I can understand why he gave it. If it was liverpool I'd be raging but that doesn't mean the ref is wrong.

niallo27

cambo2008 wrote: »

It was a foul by the letter of the law that you seemed so concerned about when discussing the Nani incident.

Well if that's the way you wanna look at it. He either got both desicions right or both wrong in your opinion.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Tell me about your views on the Nani decision. That was the really unfair thing that happened tonight.

Your motives on arguing this tell me about the team that you support.

If the Real goal stood, it was a different game so to say it was irrelevant is a lie. No comment on the supposed offside? On the Nani incident, I felt it was a bit harsh, but I did say at the time it could be red and I can see why it was given, but a yellow may have been sufficient. So, from that, who do I support?

kryogen

fullstop wrote: »

What old reliable... :rolleyes:...you'll notice I didn't use one

I seem like the type of chap who'd know about what type of stuff? You don't seem very calm

I genuinely am, how could you wind me up?

Does this help?

kryogen

fullstop wrote: »

If the Real goal stood, it was a different game so to say it was irrelevant is a lie. No comment on the supposed offside? On the Nani incident, I felt it was a bit harsh, but I did say at the time it could be red and I can see why it was given, but a yellow may have been sufficient. So, from that, who do I support?

From that?

Aston Villa

fullstop

kryogen wrote: »

I genuinely am, how could you wind me up?

Does this help?

That's better. So, would you like to enlighten me as to the kind of stuff I seem like I'd know about?

fullstop

kryogen wrote: »

From that?

Aston Villa

My God, how did you know?! Was it the balanced view?

jive

I like that everyone ignores the fact that RVP was offside in the build up to the United goal and focus only on the dubious refereeing decision; a decision that has been seen many times before (refer to West Ham vs. Everton earlier in the season where Cole and Gibson were sent off for even less - both incorrect decisions by the referee but a prime example of where elevating and showing your studs can get you sent off).

I also think Madrid were the better team over the two legs and the stats reflect this Madrid had
24 corners vs. 17
30 on target vs. 21
19 off target vs. 10
56% of possession at home and 61% at Old Trafford.
Having said that, stats aren't everything. United, whilst having less attempts, probably had better chances than Madrid. I think Fergie did well tactically and funnily enough kept Ronaldo quiet for the most part even though he scored a goal in both games, such is the quality of Ronaldo. That was particularly evident tonight where when Ronaldo got so much as a sniff of posession he had 3 red shirts surrounding him every time without fail until the red card where United appeared to capitulate.

Sending Nani off was the wrong decision, in my opinion, but I'm sure even the most biased of fans could see _why_ the referee may have sent him off. Even with slow motion replays people are arguing as to whether or not it was a sending off (albeit many of these people are just trolling). The red card changed the game completely and United really fell apart. For a team that doesn't know when they are beaten they certainly made it easy for Madrid after that red. Modric's goal was pure class and there wasn't much they could do but Madrid could have put United to the sword if they wanted to; 2 goals in 13 minutes after the red card and Madrid we're relatively happy to just hold the ball after that.

The referee's decision was bad but I think the linesman's failure to flag RVP in the build up to the opener was just as poor, in real time it wasn't even borderline. Two wrongs don't make a right but one man shouldn't be singled out for his controversial decision when aside from that he had a good game. As I said, I disagree with the decision but I can see why he made it and as such I don't think the decision is as bad as people are making out. Obviously the Nani sending off will be the focus as it was the game changer, but many dubious decisions are made over the course of 90 minutes. The game was a very good one I thought, United were set up nice tactically and it was interesting to watch even though it was not as open as I would have liked. Glad to see Ronaldo continuing to score in the big games, mighty player.

Will I Amnt

niallo27 wrote: »

Well if that's the way you wanna look at it. He either got both desicions right or both wrong in your opinion.

Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguing...
2 different situations.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

If the Real goal stood, it was a different game so to say it was irrelevant is a lie. No comment on the supposed offside? On the Nani incident, I felt it was a bit harsh, but I did say at the time it could be red and I can see why it was given, but a yellow may have been sufficient. So, from that, who do I support?

The Real goal was a foul. The players all gave up. Nobody contested it. After the foul, everything is irrelevant. The Nani foul was not a red. You are wrong. Anyone who claims it was a red is wrong.

You support Liverpool or Madrid.

niallo27

cambo2008 wrote: »

Just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguing...
2 different situations.

Not really. I don't think the disallowed goal was a free kick in any way. It was very soft and you know this yourself. I brought it up just to balance the fact that people saying utd were hard done with the red card that Madrid were also hard done by with the disallowed goal.

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The Real goal was a foul. The players all gave up. Nobody contested it. After the foul, everything is irrelevant. The Nani foul was not a red. You are wrong. Anyone who claims it was a red is wrong.

You support Liverpool or Madrid.

You wrong there in fairness. The ball was in the net before the whistle was blown. There was no time to give up. You have gone from saying it was offside to the players giving up.

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

Not really. I don't think the disallowed goal was a free kick in any way. It was very soft and you know this yourself. I brought it up just to balance the fact that people saying utd were hard done with the red card that Madrid were also hard done by with the disallowed goal.

It was not soft. It was a correct decision. What did you think of the Nani decision? Why is that not the area of injustice you are focused on. Absolutely bizarre that you and others are focusing on a decision that the Madrid players didn't even contest. Oh wait.....

darced

This post has been deleted.

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

You wrong there in fairness. The ball was in the net before the whistle was blown. There was no time to give up. You have gone from saying it was offside to the players giving up.

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. It. Was. A. Foul.

And again, why is this the decision you are focused on? And not the Nani decision. You are jumping the shark Niallo. Fonzy in a Liverpool jersey.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The Real goal was a foul. The players all gave up. Nobody contested it. After the foul, everything is irrelevant. The Nani foul was not a red. You are wrong. Anyone who claims it was a red is wrong.

You support Liverpool or Madrid.

LOL, so the offside was originally relevant, but now that it has been pointed out that it wasn't offside, everything is irrelevant? As for the players giving up, unless one of them turned into Usain Bolt, they weren't getting near Higuain.

And I am wrong about the Nani red because....you say so? Roy Keane said it was a red, Gareth Southgate said he could see why the red was given as have many others. So they're all wrong?

No I don't support either of those teams. You are wrong.

Renn

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Reality: United were the best team over two legs. They were the best team in each 90 minute leg. Nani should not have been sent off. A mental refereeing decision ruined a fantastic game. Hopefully a league and couple double will follow.

Reality: Madrid were the best team tonight (here's a hint, they scored two whilst United scored one). Red card is understandable. United failed to react to the situation and just fell apart completely. It was as if they had it in their mind that the ref was to blame and just tactically were all over the place.

Still a good game and certainly wasn't ruined by the ref.

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. It. Was. A. Foul.

And again, why is this the decision you are focused on? And not the Nani decision. You are jumping the shark Niallo. Fonzy in a Liverpool jersey.

Are you not reading my posts. How many times have I to comment on it.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. It. Was. A. Foul.

And again, why is this the decision you are focused on? And not the Nani decision. You are jumping the shark Niallo. Fonzy in a Liverpool jersey.

If the goal stood, Madrid would have been 1-0 up on the night. As things happened, United went 1-0 up, so why shouldn't that decision be focused upon

As for Nani... It.Was.Dangerous.Play.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

LOL, so the offside was originally relevant, but now that it has been pointed out that it wasn't offside, everything is irrelevant? As for the players giving up, unless one of them turned into Usain Bolt, they weren't getting near Higuain.

It was a foul. How many times do I need to say this?

And I am wrong about the Nani red because....you say so? Roy Keane said it was a red, Gareth Southgate said he could see why the red was given as have many others. So they're all wrong?

Appeal to Authority argument. Lovely.

Kevin Kilbane said it was the wrong decision. As did Shay Given. As did Brian Kerr. Mourinho also believed the best team lost and believed the decision was incorrect.

Oh wait, we all know the decision was incorrect. We all have eyes and opinions. We don't need a contrarian like Roy Keane to validate our opinions.

No I don't support either of those teams. You are wrong.

Apologies.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

If the goal stood, Madrid would have been 1-0 up on the night. As things happened, United went 1-0 up, so why shouldn't that decision be focused upon

As for Nani... It.Was.Dangerous.Play.

It was a foul.

Nani deserved a yellow.

PhlegmyMoses

Renn wrote: »

Reality: Madrid were the best team tonight (here's a hint, they scored two whilst United scored one). Red card is understandable. United failed to react to the situation and just fell apart completely. It was as if they had it in their mind that the ref was to blame and just tactically were all over the place.

Still a good game and certainly wasn't ruined by the ref.

Not unfair points but as I said earlier, all alternate reality stuff after the red card.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It was a foul. How many times do I need to say this?



Appeal to Authority argument. Lovely.

Kevin Kilbane said it was the wrong decision. As did Shay Given. As did Brian Kerr. Mourinho also believed the best team lost and believed the decision was incorrect.

Oh wait, we all know the decision was incorrect. We all have eyes and opinions. We don't need a contrarian like Roy Keane to validate our opinions.


Apologies.

In your opinion it was a foul. In my opinion it was not. He got up ahead of RVP and if anything RVP jumped towards him.
Go away with your "appeal to authority argument" ****e, you think you can tell me I was wrong without explaining why and then come out with that? Go and read the rulebook and you'll find you are wrong.

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It was a foul.

Nani deserved a yellow.

****en hell your stubborn. Your worse than my Missus. We'll have to agree to disagree I don't think it was a foul. Yellow was probably right for Nani.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

In your opinion it was a foul. In my opinion it was not. He got up ahead of RVP and if anything RVP jumped towards him.
Go away with your "appeal to authority argument" ****e, you think you can tell me I was wrong without explaining why and then come out with that? Go and read the rulebook and you'll find you are wrong.

Your opinion is wrong.

You literally made an appeal to authority argument. But, but, but, Keane agrees with me. Pathetic tbh.

I've read the laws of the game - it's what the "rules" are callled btw. Yellow for Nani.

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

****en hell your stubborn. Your worse than my Missus. We'll have to agree to disagree I don't think it was a foul. Yellow was probably right for Nani.

Your missus is stubborn tbf, but I am not. I am just right and you are wrong.

764dak

jive wrote: »

I like that everyone ignores the fact that RVP was offside in the build up to the United goal

The referee's decision was bad but I think the linesman's failure to flag RVP in the build up to the opener was just as poor, in real time it wasn't even borderline.

I thought I was the only person that thought van Persie was offside. I thought the linesman would have put up his flag when van Persie got the ball.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong.

You literally made an appeal to authority argument. But, but, but, Keane agrees with me. Pathetic tbh.

I've read the laws of the game - it's what the "rules" are callled btw. Yellow for Nani.

Hahaha, calling me pathetic? That's rich coming from you when the only counter arguments you can muster are "you are wrong" and "your opinion is wrong".

And as for pointing out the rules are in fact called "the laws", well that just says it all.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

Hahaha, calling me pathetic? That's rich coming from you when the only counter arguments you can muster are "you are wrong" and "your opinion is wrong".

And as for pointing out the rules are in fact called "the laws", well that just says it all.

Cool story bro.

RandolphEsq

Renn wrote: »

Reality: Madrid were the best team tonight (here's a hint, they scored two whilst United scored one). Red card is understandable. United failed to react to the situation and just fell apart completely. It was as if they had it in their mind that the ref was to blame and just tactically were all over the place.

Still a good game and certainly wasn't ruined by the ref.

Still a good game despite it being ruined by the ref.

Nani's foot was high so warranted a yellow at worst. The ref is a Madrid fan? That explains it. That single incident ruined the game and destroyed Utd. This is an awful injustice in the world of football. That one incident changed the game and meant the undeserving team went through.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Cool story bro.

Brilliant. That is beyond pathetic. I think the fact you'd be infracted for that response in AH says it all. You know you're beaten when that's what you have to resort to.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

Brilliant. That is beyond pathetic. I think the fact you'd be infracted for that response in AH says it all. You know you're beaten when that's what you have to resort to.

But your story was cool and I called you bro.

RandolphEsq

For more clarity on why the Nani/Arbeloa incident (not the one where Arbeloa luckily avoided a red, but the one where bizzarely nani got a red) was a joke; consult FIFA rules:

"Careless" means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he acted without precaution - no further disciplinary action is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

"Reckless" means that the player has acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent - a player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent - a player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

Also, "playing in a dangerous manner" is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone - 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 obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player. If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player

PhlegmyMoses

RandolphEsq wrote: »

For more clarity on why the Nani/Arbeloa incident (not the one where Arbeloa luckily avoided a red, but the one where bizzarely nani got a red) was a joke; consult FIFA rules:

"Careless" means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he acted without precaution - no further disciplinary action is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

"Reckless" means that the player has acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent - a player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent - a player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

Also, "playing in a dangerous manner" is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone - 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 obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player. If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player

Of course the ref was wrong here. It's bizarre that it is up for discussion. Almost guaranteed that if United had the chance to appeal this it would be rescinded.

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

But your story was cool and I called you bro.

Oh, I get it, you know you're wrong so you've stopped telling everyone else they're wrong and that was all you could come up with. Nice one champ

fullstop

RandolphEsq wrote: »

For more clarity on why the Nani/Arbeloa incident (not the one where Arbeloa luckily avoided a red, but the one where bizzarely nani got a red) was a joke; consult FIFA rules:

"Careless" means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge or that he acted without precaution - no further disciplinary action is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

"Reckless" means that the player has acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent - a player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent - a player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

Also, "playing in a dangerous manner" is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone - 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 obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player. If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player

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

Nani was obviously sent off under the serious foul play rule (oops, law, silly me). "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" "Any player guilty of serious foul play should be sent off".

I've already said I think it was harsh, and a yellow probably would have sufficed, but it's not as cut and dried as some are trying to make out.

PhlegmyMoses

fullstop wrote: »

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

Nani was obviously sent off under the serious foul play rule (oops, law, silly me). "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" "Any player guilty of serious foul play should be sent off".

I've already said I think it was harsh, and a yellow probably would have sufficed, but it's not as cut and dried as some are trying to make out.

Just look at the incident. Really look at it. Do you think it was a red?

fullstop

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Just look at the incident. Really look at it. Do you think it was a red?

Are you blind, or just a bit slow? Did I or did I not say, twice, that I think it was harsh and a yellow would have sufficed. It's in the post you quoted. But I can see why he gave a red.

FatherTed

What do you guys think of this red card? Very similar to Nani's right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vy5mLiM76E

kryogen

fullstop wrote: »

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

Nani was obviously sent off under the serious foul play rule (oops, law, silly me). "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play" "Any player guilty of serious foul play should be sent off".

I've already said I think it was harsh, and a yellow probably would have sufficed, but it's not as cut and dried as some are trying to make out.

Theres the major problem with that one, it was not a tackle, so obviously if he was sent off for breaking that law, the ref got it wrong.

I dont for one second believe the ref was that incompetent that he thought it was a tackle of course.

Dunno why anybody would think it was a tackle

fullstop

kryogen wrote: »

Theres the major problem with that one, it was not a tackle.

Well the referee obviously interpreted it thus. What's FIFA's definition of a tackle?

Xavi6

fullstop wrote: »

Well the referee obviously interpreted it thus. What's FIFA's definition of a tackle?

And if he did then he was wrong, it was an attempt to control the ball.

kryogen

fullstop wrote: »

Well the referee obviously interpreted it thus. What's FIFA's definition of a tackle?

If he interpreted it as such then he was wrong! Which still proves the point that the sending off was incorrect.

FIFA's definition? No idea, google it, I would imagine a tackle would normally involve one player being in possession of the ball and another player tackling him in an attempt to gain possession of the ball himself or at a minimum to dispossess the player who has the ball.

Since Nani was trying to control the ball, he was, em, trying to control the ball, not tackle anybody.