1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

So...?

Discussion in 'Manchester United' started by El Pirata, Mar 5, 2013.

  1. Constcrepe

    Constcrepe Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    5,397
    Likes Received:
    19
    please log in to view this image


    Apparently not.
     
    #81
  2. danilo.

    danilo. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,826
    Likes Received:
    306
    Well that should have been a red too.
     
    #82
  3. theevilreddevil

    theevilreddevil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,964
    Likes Received:
    762
    please log in to view this image
    its not the same as what happened last night is it chav ****s torres knew exactly where Cleverley was. Thats the reason you lot are posting a picture and not the footage
     
    #83
  4. Mick O'Toon

    Mick O'Toon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    34,169
    Likes Received:
    27,884
    I dont know what more proof you need, this explains it thoroughly, there can be no more arguing saying it wasn't a red with this explanation.

    IMG_5506.JPG
     
    #84
  5. Dave A

    Dave A Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    5
    Your analogy doesn't fit,Nani lifting his foot high wasn't against the rules, you driving at 150mph (I'm assuming on a public road) is illegal. There fore you rightly would not have much of a case for defence. If you are traveling at the speed limit which is allowed, as was Nani's high foot, and a child runs out right infront of your car then intent does come into it along with if you could have done anything more to avoid hitting the child. Let's go withthe scenario that the child ran out from behind a corner right infront of your car, you see him run out and hit the brakes but the collision is unavoidable.

    That I think you will find is a more fitting analogy. In both cases, the impact with the other person wasn't allowed but in both cases it was accidental and unavoidable, unless you go to the extreme of saying it would have been avoided if you walked instead of drove that day much like Nani wouldn't have collided with Arbeloa if he hadn't gone for the ball at all.

    The principal is that the Nani's high boot was not illegal, nor was his attempt to get the ball. What was illegal was that he collided with the other player. This happens all thetime in football, overhead kicks, attempts to jump over a player who slides in at you etc. What makes one of these collisions a red card offense is if it's intentional which it has to be to be considered challenging another player. The issue here is that Nani wasn't challenging Arbeloa, he was simply trying to bring the ball under control when he and Arbeloa ran into each other. Therefor it was not a challenge nor was it excessive force. Reckless perhaps, but not a red.

    That said, I can see why the ref gave it, he has one chance to look at what happened and has to make decision, it's just one of those things that can go against you in football. It just doesn't make it any less bitter a pill to swallow that's all.
     
    #85
  6. Hugh Briss

    Hugh Briss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,011
    Likes Received:
    834
    This.
     
    #86

  7. powermac

    powermac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    2
    Uefa has begun disciplinary proceedings against Manchester United following their Champions League defeat by Real Madrid on Tuesday
     
    #87

Share This Page