We all know that Mancini's post-match comments were rather odd, particularly because he was the winning manager, and Hughton was graceful in defeat. But I've been reading a lot of comments on the BBC website from Man City fans and neutrals who for the most part agree that Nasri should have been sent off and the comments regarding Garrido's back pass were odd. Some people also suspect that Bassong was booked for being involved in the head-to-head and not the tackle.
bassong's tackle was outstanding. anyone who thinks that was a foul needs their head examining. he should not have been booked for the tackle. he did deserve to be booked for going head-to-head with nasri, and nasri deserved to be sent off for the intent involved - he was the one who initially feigned injury, before a miraculous recovery saw him butt towards bassong, only to miss (sort of sums him up really). the ref got the outcome correct except man city should have had a throw in, not a free kick. the back pass isn't up for debate - ref got it wrong and everyone knew it. man city's second goal shouldn't have stood. kompany won the ball but you cannot go in with two feet off the ground these days - whether it was worthy of a red card is up for debate. personally i thought yellow would have been appropriate but 9 times out of 10 that is red, so to not get a free kick and for them to then score form it really was a disgrace. our first goal was a joke of a free kick too - really good tackle from the city skipper. basically, the ref had a poor game but mancini's ranting and raving was all a bit pathetic considering they'd won the game. overall, the ref made as many poor calls for us as they did for them.
I certainly thought Bassong's tackle was outstanding as well! That was my first thought. Just there always appears to be confusion about if a player gets the ball as well as the player. It looks malicious despite the player intending to only get the ball. The back pass thing confuses me. It's clear that if a player picks up a back pass it is not allowed unless the ball comes off the head or chest. But from what I've seen a 'keeper palming away a clearance that is heading for goal is allowed, unless of course they control it.
Surely Garrido was attempting to clear the ball over the bar therefore it was not a back pass hence ref was right!
I don't understand why people have so much difficulty over "getting the ball". No matter how many times it is pointed out that "he got the ball" is irrelevant to whether the tackle is a foul tackle or not, pundits, commentators, managers and fans keep on giving it as an excuse for foul tackles and criticism of referees. Tackles can be penalised for being "foul" and/or "dangerous". Since the ref on Saturday awarded a free kick and booked Bassong, he maybe deemed the tackle dangerous (as he should have Kompany's tackle on Johnson). Also, intent "only to get the ball" is irrelevant to whether a tackle is dangerous or not -- as also in the case of "foot up" (where people often argue it was the fault of the victim for having his head low; wherever the player's head is, it is against the rules to endanger the player by raising your foot in a way that could cause injury to his head).
Yes, that's how I interpreted it. The ref could not be sure that Garrido was actually trying to make a back pass, as opposed to a clearance for a corner.
Kompanys awful studs up challenge on Bradley Johnson was completely unacceptable and he should have walked for that.
sorry guys but it was a back pass - he tried to just dink it back but overhit it. there's no way he'd have played it like that if he was trying to smack the ball out of play. it wasn't as though he was in the six yard box and under pressure - he was 20 yards from goal! there was a handball in the build up to that incident by a man city player so it shouldn't have got to that stage anyway but two wrongs don't make a right
The only question is what the ref thought it was. Since he didn't award a free kick in the 6-yard box, he cannot have seen it as a back pass. Seems to me there are only two other possibilities: (1) he thought it was an attempted forward/sideways clearance which went wrong; (2) he thought Garrido meant to clear it for a corner. I don't know of any other possibility (as suggested by wonky).
the ref just got it wrong, that's all. i was right near it and he tried to pass it back but overhit it - it really was as simple as that. bunn had little choice but to palm it over and face the consequences, but the ref missed it. the ref cocked up but i think in context of his other gaffes during the game, this was one of the lesser ones!
Saw this seconds ago. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-city-still-weighing-nasri-appeal-115910593.html
From Wikipedia: "The back-pass rule refers to two clauses within Law 12 of the Laws of the Game of association football.[1] These clauses prohibit the goalkeeper from handling the ball when a team-mate has intentionally "kicked" the ball to him, or handling the ball directly from a team-mate's throw-in.[2] The goalkeeper is still permitted to use his feet and other body parts to redirect the ball. The actual offence committed is the handling of the ball by the goalkeeper, not the ball being passed back. An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the offence occurred, i.e., where the goalkeeper handled the ball. In practice this offence is very rarely committed. The offence rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: - The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, - This action is deemed to be deliberate and intentional, rather than a deflection or an miss-kick which is not intended for goalkeepers direction, by the referee - The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else). Handling the ball involves retrieving the ball or making a save with one or both hands. There are some very important exceptions to the back-pass rule. If a player passes the ball back to his goalkeeper using his head, chest or knee, the goalie can pick up the ball. The goalie can also pick up the ball if a teammate passes it to him by accident. For example, a defender might slice or scuff his clearance, accidentally kicking the ball towards the goalkeeper. In this case, the goalie can pick up the ball." The rule itself is straightforward, and I find it hard to believe that the ref on Saturday "got it wrong" in the sense of judging it a back pass but failing to penalise it (though we had the earlier example of the ref who gave the two yellow cards but failed to show the red). It seems more likely that the ref wasn't sure that it was an intended back pass i.e. he thought it might have been inadvertent. Or did he think the ball came off Garrido's shin rather than his foot? If someone has the match recorded maybe they can tell us whether it was foot or shin.
Mancini was clearly annoyed about the card without having seen it properly, most likely based on what nasri said about it. In the clear light of day, it might be soft but would never get overturned
sorry robbie - i haven't explained myself very well at all! what i meant by my post was to clear up whether or not garrido meant to pass the ball back, not whether the ref thought he had. we have to assume the ref felt he didn't or he'd have given it - as you say, maybe he thought he'd miscued a clearance or something rather than not knowing the rule, but what i was saying was that he definitely did mean it - it was supposed to be a controlled pass - he made good contact and even looked up to bunn, he just overhit it! as for citeh not appealing - how could they? it was a definite red card offence. it annoyed me on motd when hansen basically said he 'showed intent' and he 'can't do that these days' and then said 'he's been unlucky'! how exactly has he been unlucky??? what, cos the linesman saw it? tag that stupid statement to the diving scenarios which pundits keep effectively brushing under the carpet and you've got a problem.
