For the record, I believe Carragher should have seen red for that

keane is very right here Nani should have known he won't be in 40 yards of space and should automatically know somebody will challenge him, Arbeloa was lucky he jumped or the kick could have been even higher up god forbid probably his neck

intent or not it was a dangerous kick that warrants a straight red reff didn't succumb to any pressure and played by the rule book, straight red any day of the week even Nani knew it so he went down pretending to have hurt himself hoping the reff would show leniance but he didn't

I don't even know why there is a discussion of this its a straight red end off

united up until then would have gone through the way they plaayed you really only have nani to thank for our remontada not the referee he is only the easy way out for you guys. I wouldn't have complained if it had been reversed and arbeloa caught nani, it should be a red and it was

Zealous wrote:Man I hope Barca go through and we draw them in the round of 8. I want us to rest players for the semi finals.

Are ppl seriously still saying that wasn't a red or its a 50/50 call :

1) once Evra cleared the ball, Nani had a good look at Arbeloa's position and is aware of his presence (see the replay)

2) He jumped recklessly with his feet up.

3) Once he had contact with Arbelo he extended his knees (kicked intentionally).

4) Once he fell he realized what he did and played hurt, and that gives a hint to the ref that this guy intentionally kicked and is trying to hide behind this act he is pulling now, the way the contact happened would never hurt Nani the way he acted, and in those situations you never give the ref that much time to think of the incident and replay it several times in his head before taking the decision, had Nani stood up immediately and apologized to Arbeloa, he would have never seen that red, since refs won't pull the red card for a home player in such a game in a second unless it is a screaming red.

A very hard call for the ref, but kudos to him he got it right, and ppl should stop blaming the ref and blame Nani instead. I think he should be handed a 3-4 game ban as well for that kick.

after that red united folded like cards, it was quite shocking how quickly they gave up and took the two goals. They got back in the game when Mourinho made a mistake subbing out Ozil for Pepe with more than 20 min left. Utd managed to push forward a lot more.

It is unbelievable how shallow SAF seemed to be? Up by one and the result is in your favor, Mou made a brilliant and instant reaction to the red, by subbing Arbeloa for Modric, while SAF looked clueless and had to wait to concede two goal before changing things? If he reacted immediately to the red, United might be celebrating qualifying to round of 8...

What more could SAF have done? The only thing he could have done is probably tell RVP to start defending.

Could've introduced Roonay earlier. Heck, he could have started Roonay

Maybe take both RvP and Welbeck out and introduce Ronney and some other LM/LW, I don't follow Man U so I don't know their players, but one thing is for sure he reacted late...

Madrid looked absolutely clueless before the red and there was not a chance in hell that they would have won if they played the same way.

LOL LOL at those saying it was a red.First,It DIDNT EVEN hit Arbeloa's chest.Second,It was clear as hell that Nani was controlling the ball.He didnt have any intention to hit Arbeloa.Why the hell would he?For those saying Nani clearly meant it as he was faking watch it again and you'll notice that Nani landed awkwardly.

The Aljazeera refereeing expert said if he was the referee he would be hesitant as he wouldnt know whether to give a yellow card or not and I absolutely agree.

Also props to Messiah to giving one of the funniest posts in GL History,really.

All these United rent-a-fans

Lex wrote:All these United rent-a-fans

I wonder why this concerns you so much ?

Giving an argument in the favor of United=United fan.Seems legit.

So it's the referee's fault again. A Turkish referee, Cuneyt Cakir, had the gall to red-card Manchester United’s Nani --- at Old Trafford, no less -- and Real Madrid won the game. And a torrent of abuse has gathered about Cakir's head.

To be expected -- at least from the ManU fans, and to a lesser extent from those fans who believe British clubs should win everything. But this particular wave of disgust with the referee seems to have overwhelmed our resident experts at Fox Soccer.

Warren Barton, broadcasting live, and doing a pretty good job, was the first to succumb. Having just praised Cakir for “handling the game very well,” he gasped at the red card, declared himself speechless, but managed to add “I’ve been in the game for 25 years, I’ve never seen a red card for that.”

The particular “that” referred to by Barton was the sight of Nani’s cleats ramming into the rib cage of Real Madrid defender Alvaro Arbeloa. Barton admitted “Yes, it’s a high foot” but insisted that the offense merited only “A yellow card -- max -- for me.”

Watching the replay, Barton indignantly asked “Is there any intent there whatever?”

Back in the Fox studio, the assembled panel -- with Rob Stone in the chair, and Eric Wynalda, Brian McBride and Richard Gough the opinion guys -- had their say.

McBride: Not a red card -- there’s no intent.

Gough: In a big game like this the referee has to be 100 percent correct, there can’t be any doubt in his mind,” then, watching the replay again, “Definitely not intent involved.”

Rob Stone asked, tellingly, how do you judge intent? Wynalda admitted that he didn’t know. Stone commented “Impossible to judge intent.”

Back to Barton, now telling us “You have to be 100 percent certain there was intent”.

Wynalda leveled the age-old criticism at referees: “... you wonder, how much do they really know? How much have they played the game?”

And you might also wonder how much the panel of experts knows -- how often have they read the rules? Because here you have a bunch of four top ex-players, and none of them knows what the rule says -- the very rule they’re discussing. I would have thought that when you’re employed -- by which I mean paid -- to be an expert on soccer, one thing you’d do for sure -- maybe the first thing -- would be to bone up on the rules.

Appallingly, none of these guys has. Allow me to make that worse -- they are working from a rulebook that was re-written in 1997. None of them, not Barton, not McBride, not Wynalda, not Gough, has bothered to keep up to date, to actually read the rules.

What happened in 1997 (among other changes) was that “intent” was virtually written out of the rules. It remained only for cases of handball. For all other fouls, it ceased to be relevant. The fouls -- kicking, tripping, charging, striking, pushing etc -- are all still there, but the referee from then on has had to judge whether they are committed in a careless, or a reckless way, or if “excessive force” has been used.

In 1996 I attended a referees’ seminar on these changes, where it was announced, with relief I thought, that “referees will no longer be required to be mind readers.”

I’ll emphasize that I’m making no judgment on that rule change. But a change, a huge change, it was. Forget intent. Yet here we have the Fox experts condemning Cuneyt Cakir for failing to apply a rule that was abolished 17 seasons ago.

Nothing in what I’m saying precludes the possibility that Cakir got the call wrong. But if he did, it had nothing to do with the presence or absence of intent.

One might agree with Barton that this foul warranted only a yellow card, but that would be questioning Cakir’s judgment on the severity (and not the intent) of the foul. Cakir evidently judged the foul to involve the use of “excessive force” (defined in the rule book as “far exceeding the necessary use of force” and “in danger of injuring his opponent”) and therefore a red card. Barton would claim that it was only a “reckless” foul (“complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent”), and therefore a yellow card.

That is an arguable issue. I’m not trying to sit on the fence here. Cakir’s decision is, to me, the correct one, within the rules, because that was how he saw the foul. Four Fox experts may well see it differently. But they need to do their homework before mouthing off.


Amazingly, the most sensible comment on Cakir’s decision came from former ManU hard man and hit man, Roy Keane. It’s worth listening to -- Wynalda, who thinks only the players know what’s what -- should pay attention. Here is Roy Keane: “In my career I would think ‘did I give the referee a chance to send me off?’ If I did, then it is out of my hands. I think that is the right decision. It is irrelevant if Nani meant to do it. He should be aware of the players around him. Does he think that he will have 20 yards to himself?”

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/50634/nani-red-card-reveals-fox-tv-experts-are-17-years.html

Good article and a good read for people arguing about intent.

a high kick above knee wiith studs up=straight red no matter what angle you look at it. also lol at "it didn't even hit chest" does it have to to do physical damage huh?

halamadrid2 wrote:a high kick above knee wiith studs up=straight red no matter what angle you look at it. also lol at "it didn't even hit chest" does it have to to do physical damage huh?

must have waited to kill him first, before showing the red...

vivabarca38 wrote:Madrid looked absolutely clueless before the red and there was not a chance in hell that they would have won if they played the same way.

LOL LOL at those saying it was a red.First,It DIDNT EVEN hit Arbeloa's chest.Second,It was clear as hell that Nani was controlling the ball.He didnt have any intention to hit Arbeloa.Why the hell would he?For those saying Nani clearly meant it as he was faking watch it again and you'll notice that Nani landed awkwardly.

The Aljazeera refereeing expert said if he was the referee he would be hesitant as he wouldnt know whether to give a yellow card or not and I absolutely agree.

Also props to Messiah to giving one of the funniest posts in GL History,really.

For the hundredth time, INTENT IS IRRELEVANT

Surag wrote:

Lex wrote:All these United rent-a-fans

I wonder why this concerns you so much ?

Giving an argument in the favor of United=United fan.Seems legit.

What, every Barcelona fan on here is suddenly in favour of United? Bore off with that noise

Still waiting for some of these Barca fans to respond to my post. Basically all of your arguments a invalid if you mention intent.

People still think intent matters? Dear lord. Thats only for handballs

Edit:Ninja'd by a long article

Jonathan28 wrote:People still think intent matters? Dear lord. Thats only for handballs

Edit:Ninja'd by a long article

Ty for acknowledging that clearly some people don't update themselves on the rules

Its very funny how Barca fans are the ones most complaining.

juveman17 wrote:
Really good Long post(Sorry)

Best, most knowledgeable post of Goallegacy

I have written a Refereeing test. The rule for red card is endangering the safety of a player through illegal means.

I also think Nani was only going to get a yellow, the referee thought a long long time about the decision, I think he was going for the yellow but Nani didnt look like he was injured and he took way too long to get to his feet, so in his mind its 1 yellow for reckless foul, 1 for time wasting. I could be wrong though.

"Intent" is irrelevant. I think i've been saying it about 6 pages back lol. The actually judgement call between yellow and red is "excessive force" that could potentially lead to a serious injury... that's where the ref judges on these things. That where having both feet off the ground and the foot being so high make it 50/50 for the red or yellow.

Listen... i'm not saying it's the right judgement call. The ref should have considered that Arbeloa was unhurt and probably given yellow. But i do object to the fact that people say it's unjustifiable or a mistake. It's neither. The ref is well within his rights to give a red here. It's harsh, but by no means scandalous or wrong.

And btw, RVP was offsides on the first goal where the ball goes free towards the side, etc.



This is a clear mistake.

RVP was offside.
Rafael should have been sent off and Madrid should have gotten a penalty.
Higuain's goal should not have been disallowed.
United's away goal was from a false corner.

Referees tried to f*ck us over big time.

sportsczy wrote:And btw, RVP was offsides on the first goal where the ball goes free towards the side, etc.



This is a clear mistake.

I've said this yesterday, couldn't find the proof. Rafael should have been taken off in the first half too, and penalty. So 1-0, then we had a disallowed goal, don't know why. I don't see why are Utd's fans complaining.