Jump to content

4th Round Draw - Millwall or Dagenham Away


Thorpe-le-Saint

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...