Football 2012-2013

[Jaybles]

So now Utd players aren't allowed to be approached by other players, because that's those other players causing dangerous play by putting themselves within reach of a Utd player?

I've got carpet burns on my elbows now, from falling on the floor.

[eFestivals]

Laughable.

I'd quoted all of that before. You chose to fabricate that I'd made them up. Purely presumably because they didn't suit your argument? After all, you admitted you didn't know the law.

So now you've been educated would you like to tell us which law Chiles quoted last night. For it very definitely wasn't the playing in a dangerous manner law on it's own if they were using it to justify a red card.

I picked you up on and questioned you on was you saying this...

Once contact has been made, which clearly there was, dangerous play rule goes out of the window.

And now you've changed things to say that it doesn't work like that, with your admission of it being *FURTHER* offences that are committed after contact, rather than an offence of dangerous play being wiped.

So it';s you thast fucked up here. YOU.

YOU have changed what you said. And think that makes you clever and right. It makes you a disingenuous prick.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

He was perfectly well within his rights to challenge Nani. He did. He won the ball.

good, we're getting somewhere.

Now, when he makes that challenge for the ball, if he's fouled in making that challenge, who's fault is it that he's fouled? His, or the fault of the player who has fouled him?

We'll get there eventually I hope, even if it's going to need these baby steps.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

I picked you up on and questioned you on was you saying this...And now you've changed things to say that it doesn't work like that, with your admission of it being *FURTHER* offences that are committed after contact, rather than an offence of dangerous play being wiped.

So it';s you thast fucked up here. YOU.

YOU have changed what you said. And think that makes you clever and right. It makes you a disingenuous prick.

[abdoujaparov]

Yeah, reckless is only when you do somerthing when you know there's bad consequences.

Except the dictionary, UK law, and nothing else goes with that version of what is reckless. Not even football.

Reckless is when the consequences are not considered or ignored; NOT only when they're ignored.

But if you'd like to give me an exemption to give to the old bill, I'll be off out for a drive in my car with my eyes shut later.

[Jaybles]

good, we're getting somewhere.

Now, when he makes that challenge for the ball, if he's fouled in making that challenge, who's fault is it that he's fouled? His, or the fault of the player who has fouled him?

We'll get there eventually I hope, even if it's going to need these baby steps.

[eFestivals]

Enough with the condescending tone.

Nani fouled him.....yes. I never said anything different. But a red card is extremely harsh considering the circumstances. Nani had no idea he was going to catch Arbeloa and was attempting to bring the ball under control..not tackle an opponent.

Which proves he was reckless, cos he didn't consider the consequences.

Done.

[Jaybles]

Which proves he was reckless, cos he didn't consider the consequences.

Done.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Jaybles

[eFestivals]

as I correctly pointed out

not all of what you pointed out was correct. You know it and I know it. It's why you've since corrected yourself.

You claimed Chiles read out the dangerous play law which supported the red card.

he read out what he said were the dangerous play rules and which did (from what he said) support a red card.

I'm not sure what he was reading, but it sounds different to what I've read today.

All the same, the three ex-pros in the studio didn't pull him up on it, so there's likely to be something to what he read out.

Perhaps it's in the refs guidance, that goes beyond the basic rules, I don't know. But what he read out supported a red in the rules for dangerous play.

I was surprised and stated as much, because it cannot be so. As even you now admit. This was why I questioned which law Chiles read out, or your understanding of which law he read out. As either Chiles or you were wrong.

Clearly it was you. As per fucking usual.

yeah, cos you're never wrong, even tho you have been here but are disengeniously trying to claim otherwise. Dangerous play is NOT "out of the window" if there's contact. That and only that was what I called you wrong on.

I've said what Chiles said and what three top ex-pros went along with. Excuse me for deferring to someone in a better position to know how it really is than you from a simple reading of the rules which you've very often got wrong in the past.

[eFestivals]

No. In law, reckless behaviour requires you to pursue a course of action while consciously disregarding the fact that the action would give rise to a substantial risk.

but whether someone is "consciously disregarding" the fact is not decided by the person on trial, but by others.

So ultimately it works how I said and not how you said. Others decide that he should have known better.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

It would be interesting to find out what rule the referee sent him off for...

If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a normal challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action.

If the action is made with obvious risk of injury the referee should caution the player.

If a player denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player.

It's quite clear to me, if the referee has sent him off for dangerous play the decision is an incorrect one.

If he's been sent off for violent conduct or serious foul play that opens up a new can of worms...

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[lharris92]

potentially harsh, but if you think about it properly, yes nani went for the ball and actually in this video it shows him glancing forward to see whether there's anyone around (maybe didn't see arbeloa cause of the speed/angle he came in at but oh well).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLITtiHeUyM

besides when i saw the replays there could have potentially been some serious damage done which is possibly why the ref made the decision he did.

either way it can be argued so don't drag me into it, just my two cents.

anyway classy goal from modric

[eFestivals]

Had he seen the player approaching him and still decided to go for the ball with his foot up high then that would be reckless behavior as he would not have taken the consequences into consideration.

but after he knew the player was there, he kicked at him - that's indisputable, from the tv pics (from one of the angles).

Whether that 'kick' was deliberate only Nani will know for sure. I recognise it could be either, but the ref has to make a decision one way or the other - and there defo looks enough about it for the ref to make the decision how he did.

The fact that you're wearing blinkers over this is proven by the fact that you've said the RM players didn't surround the ref - they didn't as much as they might have done, but only because there was a ring of Utd players to get thru to get to ref, and this was even before the ref had puleled a card out.

So not only did the RM players surround the ref, the Utd players knew Nani was gonna walk. It's hardly the "no one thought he should be sent off" thing that you initially said, it's very definitely the case that the players on the pitch all thought he might get sent off.

[5co77ie]

Perhaps it's in the refs guidance, that goes beyond the basic rules, I don't know.

Edited March 6, 2013 by 5co77ie

[abdoujaparov]

but whether someone is "consciously disregarding" the fact is not decided by the person on trial, but by others.

So ultimately it works how I said and not how you said. Others decide that he should have known better.

[eFestivals]

Strange strange man.

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=sent+off+for+dangerous+play&oq=sent+off+for+dangerous+play&gs_l=hp.3..0i22i30j0i22i10i30j0i22i30l2.1214.5637.0.5931.27.25.0.2.2.0.120.2279.17j8.25.0.les;..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.HFoQZbDOs9c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k&fp=d76e512bfb3860c7&biw=1459&bih=917

yep, you certainly are, with your made up rules about how there's no offence of dangerous play iuf there's contact afterrwards.

I'm guilty of believing Chiles - along with Roy Keane, Lee Dixon, and your hero Gareth Southgate (the man with such big footie skills he's s shoe-in for head of elite development and technical director, despite not knowing the rules ), while you invented a rule out of nothing.

But it's just me that got it wrong.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[Jaybles]

but after he knew the player was there, he kicked at him - that's indisputable, from the tv pics (from one of the angles).

Whether that 'kick' was deliberate only Nani will know for sure. I recognise it could be either, but the ref has to make a decision one way or the other - and there defo looks enough about it for the ref to make the decision how he did.

The fact that you're wearing blinkers over this is proven by the fact that you've said the RM players didn't surround the ref - they didn't as much as they might have done, but only because there was a ring of Utd players to get thru to get to ref, and this was even before the ref had puleled a card out.

So not only did the RM players surround the ref, the Utd players knew Nani was gonna walk. It's hardly the "no one thought he should be sent off" thing that you initially said, it's very definitely the case that the players on the pitch all thought he might get sent off.

[eFestivals]

You're completely wrong.

Really? So all courts of law take a person's word on whether they consciously ignored the risks of what they were doing, do they?

Or does the person on trial say how it was, but get not believed and found guilty?

There is only one right answer, and that answer proves you wrong in all facts and all reality.

In either case, the person exercising the judgement would have to be sure that the accused knew that there would be dangerous consequences from his actions but continued nevertheless, reckless as to whether or not he caused harm.

it's impossible to be sure without telepathy. The best anyone can manage is a guess.

If he caused harm because noone could have reasonably foreseen the consequences, he was merely careless.

on a footie pitch with other players there and all of them wanting the ball, you cannot go for the ball and not reasonably forsee a potential for danger - unless you take the trouble to check no one is within range of your actions.

[TheGayTent]

So now you're disputing the actual laws of the game?!

You couldn't make it up!

[Jaybles]

unless you take the trouble to check no one is within range of your actions.

[abdoujaparov]

Really? So all courts of law take a person's word on whether they consciously ignored the risks of what they were doing, do they?

[eFestivals]

There is not indisputable proof that he kicked out, Iv watched it over and over. Nani has his foot up to collect the ball. He is not kicking at all,

straight leg, bent leg, straight leg.

In theory there's no need for that final straight leg unless he's kicking at the player.

I accept it might not be that, but it might be too.

None of the footage shows anyone asking for a card let alone a red card. RM players have a tactical exchange and get ready to take the free kick. RVP has a chat to the referee (probably about an instance just before the Nani red card where he thought he was fouled)

what vids are you watching?

There's at least 4 Utd players round the ref and at least 3 RM players - all before the card is shown.

Those Utd players are pleading for nani to not be sent off (after all, would you really suggest that they're trying to tell him it wasn't a foul? )

And presumably, you think those RM players are asking the time?

[zahidf]

Away from 'Was it a red card or not'( Already tedious) i actually found mourinio's reaction interesting. He was very humble/complimentary towards Man Utd throughout, and juding from the reaction, it seemed like he didn't think it was a red.

Was he keeping the Man Utd managers job offer open?

[TheGayTent]

Was he keeping the Man Utd managers job offer open?

[abdoujaparov]

straight leg, bent leg, straight leg.