Crazy Diamond Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 To clarify 'late' in the second half - the 89th minute.
Window Cleaner Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 doesn't look like we'll be drawing pompey then.........
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Poopey getting all excited because they held Chelsea off for 45 minutes. odd bunch.
VectisSaint Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 It did, learn the laws of football. I know the laws of football pretty well thank you very much, it happens when you qualify to be a referee. So stop jumping to conclusions and perhaps try understanding the rules yourself. If it was careless, which is the most any rational person could consider it then it should have resulted in a free-kick, but no caution. If it was reckless (which it wasn't) then it should have been a yellow. A red card is only applicable if the player used excessive force - quite clearly there was no excessive force, therefore it should never have been red. The reality is that it was a well-controlled tackle by Kompany who was very precise with his tackle and took the consequences into account, thus it was not even careless. Nani did not appeal, only the cheating thug and he managed to con the referee. It was actually a very well-timed tackle with both feet on the ground when contact was made with the ball. Sad really, would be a reasonable appeal by Man City, but as the FA do not accept appeals in >99% of cases it would be a waste of time.
Nexstar Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Patronising rubbish. Not withstanding that he did win the ball cleanly, it was neither reckless nor dangerous nor employed excessive force. The ref wasn't even going to give a foul until Rooney started screaming and waving at him. Look at the reaction of Nani (the "fouled" player) and Giggs - nothing. So the laws of the game are now classed as "Patronising rubbish", excellent. And please, oh please don't jump on the ridiculous bandwagon that the ref gave a red because a top player said to do so, or that United have referee's wrapped around their little finger. It's frankly embarrassing.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 So the laws of the game are now classed as "Patronising rubbish", excellent. And please, oh please don't jump on the ridiculous bandwagon that the ref gave a red because a top player said to do so, or that United have referee's wrapped around their little finger. It's frankly embarrassing. Let's be honest - United to get the majority of decisions. As for Rooney, as an international player he should know to behave better. But Citeh can hardly have any complaints given Mancini did the same thing vs Liverpool the other day. Can't help but think that the refs do get influenced by the top clubs though Man U especially.
VectisSaint Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 I bet, if it was Saints player on the recieving end of the challenge, you would ALL be saying it was a red. He jumped in to the tackle with both feet off the ground, both sets of studs showing.When a 14 stone player leaves the ground with both feet, it results in excessive force. If he caught the player, still winning the ball, you would change you mind. I'd put my savings on it. Sorry but this is wrong in so many ways.
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 I know the laws of football pretty well thank you very much, it happens when you qualify to be a referee. So stop jumping to conclusions and perhaps try understanding the rules yourself. If it was careless, which is the most any rational person could consider it then it should have resulted in a free-kick, but no caution. If it was reckless (which it wasn't) then it should have been a yellow. A red card is only applicable if the player used excessive force - quite clearly there was no excessive force, therefore it should never have been red.The reality is that it was a well-controlled tackle by Kompany who was very precise with his tackle and took the consequences into account, thus it was not even careless. Nani did not appeal, only the cheating thug and he managed to con the referee. It was actually a very well-timed tackle with both feet on the ground when contact was made with the ball. Sad really, would be a reasonable appeal by Man City, but as the FA do not accept appeals in >99% of cases it would be a waste of time. ffs, when a player leaves the ground with both feet and both sets of studs showing who weighs around 14 stone, of course there would be excessive force. He also jumps. Yes he wins the ball but it is a dangrous tackle. common sense really. I would go mad if one of my lads recieved a challenge like that.
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Agreed. Sorry but this is wrong in so many ways. Im right. Watch the video.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Im right. Watch the video. You aren't and I have, a few times.
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 You aren't and I have, a few times. I am, end of. The ref gave the red. Please explain to me then, how it is not a red card?
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 I am, end of. The ref gave the red. Please explain to me then, how it is not a red card? Just because the ref gave a red card doesn't mean we can't debate whether it was the correct decision or not. The tackle was not reckless, it was not using excessive force (in my opinion of course) - he gets the ball and the usually whinging Nani doesn't even react. Not a red card - when I first saw it I was surprised a foul had been given.
Nexstar Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 I know the laws of football pretty well thank you very much, it happens when you qualify to be a referee. So stop jumping to conclusions and perhaps try understanding the rules yourself. If it was careless, which is the most any rational person could consider it then it should have resulted in a free-kick, but no caution. If it was reckless (which it wasn't) then it should have been a yellow. A red card is only applicable if the player used excessive force - quite clearly there was no excessive force, therefore it should never have been red. The reality is that it was a well-controlled tackle by Kompany who was very precise with his tackle and took the consequences into account, thus it was not even careless. Nani did not appeal, only the cheating thug and he managed to con the referee. It was actually a very well-timed tackle with both feet on the ground when contact was made with the ball. Sad really, would be a reasonable appeal by Man City, but as the FA do not accept appeals in >99% of cases it would be a waste of time. I understand the rules thanks, I am a qualified referee. The fact that Nani had to take evasive action to avoid being taken out by Kompany's legs/studs suggest to be that it was reckless. To the point at which he used excessive force is certainly debatable and one which I do not agree with. When he first makes contact with the ball the studs are diving in towards in and are certainly not "on the ground". I personally believe it to be a foul and yellow card. Quite a few guys I know who ref believed it to be a red. I still cannot see how you think it didn't warrant atleast a free-kick.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 I understand the rules thanks, I am a qualified referee. The fact that Nani had to take evasive action to avoid being taken out by Kompany's legs/studs suggest to be that it was reckless. To the point at which he used excessive force is certainly debatable and one which I do not agree with. When he first makes contact with the ball the studs are diving in towards in and are certainly not "on the ground". I personally believe it to be a foul and yellow card. Quite a few guys I know who ref believed it to be a red. I still cannot see how you think it didn't warrant atleast a free-kick. Surely the taking of evasive action doesn't conclusively indicate a reckless tackle? There are plenty of times when players hurdle perfectly legitimate tackles. The fact Nani jumps the tackle is completely irrelevant.
aintforever Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 ffs, when a player leaves the ground with both feet and both sets of studs showing who weighs around 14 stone, of course there would be excessive force. He also jumps. Yes he wins the ball but it is a dangrous tackle. common sense really. I would go mad if one of my lads recieved a challenge like that. That's ******, it was never a red. He got the ball cleanly with his right foot and his left was on the floor when he made contact.
dubai_phil Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Repeat of last year's 4th round and finish the job this time
Nexstar Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Surely the taking of evasive action doesn't conclusively indicate a reckless tackle? There are plenty of times when players hurdle perfectly legitimate tackles. The fact Nani jumps the tackle is completely irrelevant. No, you're right, but he had to avoid Kompany's studs rather than just his body.
Crazy Diamond Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Sheffield Wednesday through, they're in the fourth round draw.
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 That's ******, it was never a red. He got the ball cleanly with his right foot and his left was on the floor when he made contact. deluded. it was a red. pretty simple as that.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 No, you're right, but he had to avoid Kompany's studs rather than just his body. Ah ok, fair enough.
Saint_Jonny Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Would take Sheff Weds away, good away day that and local for me!
Huffton Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Due to the fact we are playing them both in the next two games I guarantee we will get Forest/Leicester.
Gingeletiss Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Seems to be an awful large amount of 'refs' who are quoting the rules, when in fact they are laws.... "A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Seems to be an awful large amount of 'refs' who are quoting the rules, when in fact they are laws.... "A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed. So Foy must have thought there was excessive malice considering there was no real contact with Nani?
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Seems to be an awful large amount of 'refs' who are quoting the rules, when in fact they are laws.... "A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed. ahh thank you. so, yes it was a red.
Monk Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 So Foy must have thought there was excessive malice considering there was no real contact with Nani? Because Nani avoids the follow through. ffs, some of you lot worry me.
aintforever Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Seems to be an awful large amount of 'refs' who are quoting the rules, when in fact they are laws.... "A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed. There was no contact with Nani and the ref got it wrong if he thought there was excessive malice.
James Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 There was no contact with Nani and the ref got it wrong if he thought there was excessive malice. Exactly, the rule doesn't say - "contact - oh and also when the player hurdles the tackle" does it? Means that Foy makes a judgement on there being excessive malice - which in my opinion he calls incorrectly.
DT Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Erm. Isn't this thread about the draw? And Saints? When's it on anyway?
aintforever Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Exactly, the rule doesn't say - "contact - oh and also when the player hurdles the tackle" does it? Means that Foy makes a judgement on there being excessive malice - which in my opinion he calls incorrectly. THis is how the BBC called it... Manchester City red card: It goes from bad to much, much worse for City. Vincent Kompany slides on Nani. It is two-footed, he is slightly off the ground, but a red card? I don't think so. It's a wet surface and it wasn't really dangerous. A tad over-zealous yes but a very harsh decision. Nani hurdles countless tackes every game.
Saint_Jonny Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Boring again! Hopefully play D&R and get through though.
LGTL Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 London away game, could be worse. Should hopefully win it too.
shirleysfc Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 Liverpool vs Man utd - United will have to win the cup the hard way!
ludgershallsaint Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 It's opening up a bit. Two from Man U, Man C & Liverpool out before the 4th round.
Matthew Le God Posted 8 January, 2012 Posted 8 January, 2012 People call it "boring" but it is an excellent chance to get to the 5th round. Cardiff and Millwall have in recent years made the final as Championship clubs. Saints could do the same perhaps and we'd all be going to Wembley twice. Is that boring?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now