Nonsense. A high foot is not inherently dangerous, it's only dangerous if there is someone in close proximity who it could connect with. I used to play field hockey - when hitting the ball you are only allowed to raise your stick above you shoulder if there is room to do so, without endangering those around you. It's a very clear rule which is rarely abused.
The argument is that raising a foot high with studs showing is dangerous per se, but that argument is flawed as soon as you accept that you can't outlaw overhead kicks, scissor kicks and other feats of athleticism. Nor would you want to as they are essential parts of the game. There is a distinction to be drawn between actions intended to injure (or are grossly negligent where injury to another player is inevitable) and those where there is no intent (or nor likelihood of injury). Nani raised his foot in an attempt to control the ball in circumstances where he could fairly challenge for it without any likelihood of injuring another player. Arbeloa did not shirk from robustly challenging for a ball Nani was favourite to win. Arbeloa took the risk of being kicked by Nani as a consequence of challenging Nani for the ball- as many defenders would do. Arbeloa, rather than Nani, was reckless.
Disagree LDL. Nani should have known that Arbeloa was there, he had time to look, and it was reckless not to. Liken it to driving a car, you can't just get away with crashing into someone because you didn't know they were there, you should have known they were there and adjusted your behaviour accordingly.
Nani is favourite to win this ball and is preparing to bring it under control. Arbeloa from further away towards Nani. I'm not sure why Nani should be criticised for challenging for it in the first place.
agreed mate! I'm calling it a day on this discussion, but you've taken that last quote of mine out of an overall paragraph which explained the sentence that you chose. Therefore what you're saying here is true, but my original paragraph responds to your point. There was someone in close proximity in the Rooney incident. anyway, I'm done. Dood debating lads!
I've always found the overhead kick in the box to be a contradiction - it's exactly the same movement that if done outside the box might well be carded. Plenty of them have been done in close proximity to defenders and no doubt some defenders have been clattered, but for some reason it's always been acceptable. We could also mention the shirt pulling and general fouling that goes on in the box that if it happened anywhere else on the field would be penalised.
Sorry, but I can't buy I to that analogy at all. There was nothing dangerous or even reckless about what Nani did. In what way is he supposed to know that Arbeloa is there? You can just as easily say that Arbeloa had plenty of time to see Nani's raised leg, but decided to go through with the challenge anyway. At least Arbeloa had the advantage of having Nani clearly in his line of sight. He was as responsible for the clash as Nani was
He has never been gracious, and i imagine it is one of the reasons why people don't like him. At 71 he is old enough and experienced enough to have seen it all. There should be nothing that can happen that should cause sulking in a dressing room. The man is pathetic
As I've pointed out Notso, you could just as easily argue that Arbeloa was more at fault. Afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on his one mate.
We really aren't used to seeing such decisions go against ManU are we? There are plenty of examples of players "accidentally" connecting with other players that have been deemed dangerous, *intent or not* and a red card has followed, yet none of them got this sort of analysis. Other teams have just had to accept it, and their manager has graciously appeared after the match to comment. Yet because ManU are involved there appears to be some sort of special injustice, and their manager can do whatever he wants - except of course change his formation to adapt to the situation, *which he didn't do*. Going down to 10 does not condemn you to losing the game, particularly if you're 1-up at the time. There are plenty of times when 10 men are harder to play against - though such situations are perhaps outside Fergie's experience! Are we debating to the same extent a perhaps legitimate Madrid goal that was disallowed?
We will have to disagree mate , the view in Lukes vid post where you can see Adidas on the backboard, you can see Nani continue to push out with his foot, by then he is more than aware Arbeloa is there and made no attempt to withdraw his leg. I thought it had an element of Eric Cantona's Kung Fu kick about it! From Arbeloas view there is no guarantee Nani is getting that, so for him to attempt to chest it past Nani seems fair, whats he supposed to do stand there and bottle it.
Again, You could say the same for Nani. If he hadn't challenged for the ball, Arbeloa had won it unchallenged, and gone on to create a dangerous situation - or even a goal, he would have got the bollocking of a lifetime from Fergie
If Arbeloa hadn't been jumping Nani would have kicked him in the head! Having your foot that high when another player is close by has always been a foul and is a certain yellow card if you actually make contact. Whether it's a red is down to the referee's interpretation but I don't think this can be seen to be a serious error. In the same class as the disallowed Real Madrid goal and the handball on the line by Rafael - all just matters of judgement
The ball was there to be won, Nani and Arbeloa both had their agendas as the ball dropped, and I maintain at that point in time Nani had no intention to foul, I agree 100% with everyone else, but its that little kick out under Arbeloas armpit that changes it all for me, a petulant little '**** off' from Nani, and we've seen it more than once from him over the years, sly retaliation. Everyones right that Nani didn't see Arbeloa, so he didn't see Arbeloas intended challenge to collect the ball on his chest was fair. I think Nani thought he was getting clattered himself in that instant and had a little kick out, which fits any relevant Rule. His actions afterwards looked like he was hiding something he'd done...why behave like that, if its a genuine nasty clash you see if the other player is ok.
I just don't see it that way. I agree his behaviour after the incident was bizarre - he may have been slightly hurt in the collision. I really don't know why he did that. Mind you, I see it all the time here in domestic football. I suppose the most telling thing for me is that we are only here discussing this because a red card was produced. Had it been yellow, I don't seriously believe that there would be a barrage of postings on here demanding to know why it wasn't a red. It would have not even gotten a mention.
