Not really. Dangerous play is punishable by a three match ban. If Nani was correctly dismissed for dangerous play, he would get a three match ban. Nani did not get a three match ban. Therefore Nani was not correctly dismissed for dangerous play. If you can point out the logical fallacy there I'll be happy to accept it's an opinion
Are you really that self important that you are sure you know exactly what happened. I'm a little disappointed, you've become lazy of late, or have I became less lazy, not sure Without actual facts it is just your opinion. Not that I wanna bang on about it, you could be right but it is still your opinion and I just pointed it out... tongue in cheek I personally think it is possible that Nani was never in anger of hurting Arbeloa and the fact the ball came over his head is an extenuating circumstance allowing for a 1 game ban, imo.. I work in IT, I don't do logical assumptions, I investigate things based on them
so...... admitting the truth and thus helping improve the game by improving the standard of referees by telling them they are in the wrong and should learn from it.... doesnt sound like UEFA does it so is of no surprise they are being ****s about it.
It is based in facts and logical conclusions drawn from these facts. Let me spell it out for you in a clearer manner: Dangerous play is punishable by a three match ban. Fact. This is in the Laws of the Game If Nani was correctly dismissed for dangerous play, he would get a three match ban. Deductive Reasoning. Dangerous play earns a three match ban under the rules, therefore if the rules were applied correctly a player dismissed for dangerous play must receive a three match ban Nani did not get a three match ban. Fact. As reported. Therefore Nani was not correctly dismissed for dangerous play. Deductive Reasoning. If dangerous play is punished by a three match ban, a player who did not receive a three match ban was not guilty of dangerous play No assumptions, just simple facts and deduction. I'm sure you can write a logic program which will tell you the same thing My argument exactly. If Nani was never in danger of hurting Arbeloa, he was not playing in a dangerous manner. Playing in a dangerous manner must involve danger to the opponent - it's in the definition of the term.
Again, there doesn't seem to be much transparency. It seems football's all about opinions and assumptions. Think we might need a black n white football constitution, though it is quite impossible. At least for now, the least we can do is have the referees do a post match news conference. They seem to be the main protagonists these days anyway, not the Fergies of this world, who got undone by a momentary lapse of logic by that bloody referee.
