Tonight's football thread

[IainR]

Me too Lilac, me too.




I notice the rags on here haven't mentioned the wrongly disallowed goal in the 1st half.

They haven't really mentioned the Rafael handball which should have been a penalty and a red card.

They forget their goal in the 1st leg was from a corner, where the ball went out for a goal kick but a corner was given in error.


Thats 3 huge slices of luck they had in the tie, 4 if you look at Madrids own goal in the game but they insist on blaming the ref, who made the right call.

Rubbish...

1. It all comes out in the wash.. you win some you lose some.. we get a call refs are biased.. we get one against us and its tough.. it works both ways.. this time we were on the wrong side of a bad call.. like with scholes v porto.. but we've had other ones in our favour.. that's life..
2. call was wrong.
3. keane just says the opposite because..

[TheReverand]

That's just such a non-sensical argument..


Reverend I think it does, and so does refs like Gallagher. He said it was a yellow, Nani's eyes were on the ball.

so if nani's head was facing a different way ( toward the advancing player ), in your argument this would change the refs decision! So the same high footed, dangerous play, would have a different outcome.
You can't have rules open to interpretation in this way, hence in the rule book, intent is nothing, as how does the ref know what the players intent was ?!

[IainR]

so if nani's head was facing a different way ( toward the advancing player ), in your argument this would change the refs decision! So the same high footed, dangerous play, would have a different outcome. You can't have rules open to interpretation in this way, hence in the rule book, intent is nothing, as how does the ref know what the players intent was ?!

Intent is involved.. if a keeper punches a player with the ball in the vicinity.. its OK..if the ball is not there he will get a red...

refs do take intent into consideration..

[Hank]

Intent is involved.. if a keeper punches a player with the ball in the vicinity.. its OK..if the ball is not there he will get a red...

refs do take intent into consideration..

The rulebook states the only foul play where intent should be considered is handball, nothing else.

The ref gave a red card, suggesting he deemed Nani's foot to be dangerously high. It's Nani's responsibility to be aware of what's going on around him when raising his foot that high. It doesn't mean he "intended" to hit the other player (it's plain to see he didn't), but he's still responsible for what the ref considered dangerous play. It's a shame he was sent off and it almost certainly spoiled the tie and resulted in Man U going out, but that's footy and, in the eyes of the game's laws, it's hard to argue the ref made the wrong call.

[IainR]

The rulebook states the only foul play where intent should be considered is handball, nothing else.

The ref gave a red card, suggesting he deemed Nani's foot to be dangerously high. It's Nani's responsibility to be aware of what's going on around him when raising his foot that high. It doesn't mean he "intended" to hit the other player (it's plain to see he didn't), but he's still responsible for what the ref considered dangerous play. It's a shame he was sent off and it almost certainly spoiled the tie and resulted in Man U going out, but that's footy and, in the eyes of the game's laws, it's hard to argue the ref made the wrong call.

Really? I thought even then there was no mentoon..

clearly used or not intent is a factor..

Very clearly the wrong call and 95% of pundits and ex-refs think the same...

[Hank]

Really? I thought even then there was no mentoon..

clearly used or not intent is a factor..

Very clearly the wrong call and 95% of pundits and ex-refs think the same...

The term 'deliberate' is definitely used in hand-ball.

As for Nani's sending off, I'm not sure where your stats come from, but it's not that clear. I've read/heard plenty of debate about it. I think it comes down to whether or not you consider Nani's actions dangerous. On balance I'd probably say no and it shouldn't have been a red, but if the ref thought it was dangerous his decision is legitimate. So, yeah, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can see why the ref gave it... it's not a ludicrous decision, he's not seen something that didn't happen or fallen for a blatant dive, he just used his judgement. Nani's foot was high and potentially dangerous; it's hardly the hand of God.

[noel]

They were debating on the wireless whether such an important event should be allowed to be influenced so heavily by the decision of just one person.

I had to question if we should instead be asking: Should an event that can be influenced so heavily by just one person's decision be so important?

It is just a game after all.

This amused me: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/...-2013030862170

[DazTheSlug]

quote from Mancini:

"I have watched Barnsley and it is clear they are not Real Madrid"

I love that man

[Stolly]

[Danbert Nocurry]

quote from Mancini:

"I have watched Barnsley and it is clear they are not Real Madrid"

I love that man

So do I Daz but this is City we're talking about. Despite the money and the squad i still find it extrememly difficult to shake off the odd niggling doubt and the typical City mentality. Let's be honest against lower league opposition we have a rich and inglorious history!


Clearly we shouldn't have a problem and Barnsley shouldn't be able to cope with our attack and our back four shouldn't have the slightest difficulty. But this is City and over the years we have seen Halifax, Chesterfield, Oldham, Brighton, Brentford Nottingham Forest, Frickley Colliery, Barrow, Gateshead, The Hare and Hounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .!:w00t: