Football 2012-2013

[eFestivals]

Falls under the title of 'reckless' much more than Nani.

I don't disagree with that one jot.

But the way you've written those words (and my point in replying) is to point out the subjectiveness of it - it's how a ref sees an incident at the time, which isn't necessarily how we think it is after lots of replays.

There's no hard line of what is reckless and what is not - and while you might not think nani was reckless enough to deserve much punishment, he was still being far more reckless than someone would be (extreme opposite ) just running up the pitch.

For the ref making his judgement on it, he's only really going to have to decide if it's crossed the line of the idea of what is reckless (or any other offence he's considering using) that will pre-exist in his mind.

Last night looks like a harsh red in many ways. But I reckon that Roy Keane got it about right when he said "did I give the ref reason enough to send me off?" - and I think Nani did. There can't be too many sensible complaints about what the ref chose to do. If you do that on a pitch, there's always a chance the ref will send you off.

For me, last night at the moment it happened I didn't think it was a red, but when I saw the camera angle where it looks like he kicks out at him, I thought there was a high probably that Nani would be gone.

[TheGayTent]

If Nani is guilty of being reckless, which even you state there is some doubt, that's still only a yellow card offence...

[Jaybles]

I don't disagree with that one jot.

But the way you've written those words (and my point in replying) is to point out the subjectiveness of it - it's how a ref sees an incident at the time, which isn't necessarily how we think it is after lots of replays.

There's no hard line of what is reckless and what is not - and while you might not think nani was reckless enough to deserve much punishment, he was still being far more reckless than someone would be (extreme opposite ) just running up the pitch.

For the ref making his judgement on it, he's only really going to have to decide if it's crossed the line of the idea of what is reckless (or any other offence he's considering using) that will pre-exist in his mind.

Last night looks like a harsh red in many ways. But I reckon that Roy Keane got it about right when he said "did I give the ref reason enough to send me off?" - and I think Nani did. There can't be too many sensible complaints about what the ref chose to do. If you do that on a pitch, there's always a chance the ref will send you off.

For me, last night at the moment it happened I didn't think it was a red, but when I saw the camera angle where it looks like he kicks out at him, I thought there was a high probably that Nani would be gone.

[eFestivals]

If there is contact, a different offence has been committed.

to put it more correctly, a *second* offence has been committed.

The dangerous play still happened before the contact was made, and that offence still exists. The ref then has a choice over which offence he chooses to use against the player.

For last night, the ref had (dependent on how his thinking went) all of careless, reckless, using excessive force, dangerous play, and serious foul play to choose from.

I don't much care for the labels around the offence. What actually happened was something that you'll often see a ref give a red card for - even in (just) the english game. When things pan out into Europe, you know the refs will be even less forgiving.

So again, what I have said previously with regard to the laws of the game were 100% correct.

no it wasn't. You said the dangerous play offence ceases to exist. It doesn't.

[eFestivals]

If Nani is guilty of being reckless, which even you state there is some doubt, that's still only a yellow card offence...

For last night, the ref had (dependent on how his thinking went) all of careless, reckless, using excessive force, dangerous play, and serious foul play to choose from.

There's two red card offences in that.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Sigh, you still clearly do not understand the laws of the game.

You can only be sent off for serious foul play if the player has used excessive force.

Nani couldn't be sent off by the laws of the game for dangerous play (because there is contact and he isn't preventing a goal scoring opportunity). Nor violent conduct (because he's challenging for the ball). Just serious foul play.

If the referee deems the challenge a foul, it's a free kick to Real. If he thinks in committing the foul, Nani has acted carelessly, it's just a foul. If he thinks Nani had acted recklessly, it's a yellow card too. If he thinks Nani has used excessive force, and only then, can he give a red card.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

I believe the ref got the decision wrong within the rules of the game and the context of the match.

perhaps he did.

But for something like that it's still no surprise to see the player walk. It happens on a regular basis.

I have read far more comments saying the ref got it wrong.

in English newspapers and media. Which is hardly surprising.

Chiles was wanting to work up the outrage last night. He was a bit stumped when all three ex-pros sat with him said they felt the red could be justified.

What you've read today says more about the quality of British media than it does about the quality of the reffing last night.

[eFestivals]

Sigh, you still clearly do not understand the laws of the game.

so which of those five offences cannot apply?

Oh look, each one of those five can.

Just because your own subjective view of things has decided that anything harsher than a yellow was too harsh doesn't make those rules not fit, and nor does it make the ref indisputably wrong to give a red.

Last night's ref gave a red, and another ref might not have. That doesn't get to mean that one of those refs would be wrong against the rules, it gets to mean that there is no fixed line to cross for subjective opinions on how reckless/dangerous/etc or not any incident is.

But hey, I have to wonder why you're not a top level ref, seeing as you constantly know better than every experienced ref.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

You just keep on demonstrating you don't know or don't understand the laws.

[eFestivals]

You just keep on demonstrating you don't know or don't understand the laws.

So please do demonstrate how clever you are whilst informing me of your expert opinion, and put me right by telling me which of those 5 rules could not apply to last night, and why it could not apply to last night.

But do bear in mind that if I speed in my car to go and rob a bank, the offence of speeding is not voided by the offence of bank robbery, won't you?

[TheGayTent]

I already have explained why a red card could only be applicable in one of those circumstances. Not two as you incorrectly state.

Edited March 6, 2013 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

I already have explained why a red card could only be applicable in one of those circumstances. Not two as you incorrectly state.

Oh dear.

Now that you've proven that you don't know the rules any better than me overall, are you going to let it go?

Alternatively, the only other proper response will be to answer my question, and tell me which of those five rules of which two are red-card offences could not apply to last night, and why not.

But hey, it's you, and you do all you condemn others for, so i reckon I'm hoping too much here.

[TheGayTent]

Oh dear.

Now that you've proven that you don't know the rules any better than me overall, are you going to let it go?

Alternatively, the only other proper response will be to answer my question, and tell me which of those five rules of which two are red-card offences could not apply to last night, and why not.

But hey, it's you, and you do all you condemn others for, so i reckon I'm hoping too much here.

[TheGayTent]

Sigh, you still clearly do not understand the laws of the game.

You can only be sent off for serious foul play if the player has used excessive force.

Nani couldn't be sent off by the laws of the game for dangerous play (because there is contact and he isn't preventing a goal scoring opportunity). Nor violent conduct (because he's challenging for the ball). Just serious foul play.

If the referee deems the challenge a foul, it's a free kick to Real. If he thinks in committing the foul, Nani has acted carelessly, it's just a foul. If he thinks Nani had acted recklessly, it's a yellow card too. If he thinks Nani has used excessive force, and only then, can he give a red card.

[Muppetmark]

what I find funny is that my beloved arsenal are now England's only representative left in the champions league

[TheGayTent]

what I find funny is that my beloved arsenal are now England's only representative left in the champions league

[kaosmark2]

So, from highlights, Dortmund played a blinder last night. I can see them knocking out a big team next round although I don't think they'll be able to go all the way.

PSG and Juve both got a huge advantage to take back home tonight. Can't see any shift happening in tonight's results, draw at best for the away teams which wouldn't be near enough. I fancy Juve to dole out another thrashing.

[eFestivals]

What part didn't you follow?

I've followed everything. The issue here is your comprehension &/or reading skills, nowt else.

That post of yours mentions just three offences.

There's at least 5 that could have been used. I've named those five. Two of those five are red card offences.

Read back, and stop thinking yourself so high and mighty and infallible that you don't have to actually bother to read anything, you mindless prick.

[eFestivals]

I say i've named those five, but actually I've misnamed one.

All the same, TGT has made the same error, making himself as wrong as me. Again.

Not 'excessive force'; that applies in many different rules. 'Violent conduct'.

Edited March 6, 2013 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

I've followed everything. The issue here is your comprehension &/or reading skills, nowt else.

That post of yours mentions just three offences.

There's at least 5 that could have been used. I've named those five. Two of those five are red card offences.

Read back, and stop thinking yourself so high and mighty and infallible that you don't have to actually bother to read anything, you mindless prick.

[TheGayTent]

Sigh, you still clearly do not understand the laws of the game.

You can only be sent off for serious foul play if the player has used excessive force.

Nani couldn't be sent off by the laws of the game for dangerous play (because there is contact and he isn't preventing a goal scoring opportunity). Nor violent conduct (because he's challenging for the ball). Just serious foul play.

If the referee deems the challenge a foul, it's a free kick to Real. If he thinks in committing the foul, Nani has acted carelessly, it's just a foul. If he thinks Nani had acted recklessly, it's a yellow card too. If he thinks Nani has used excessive force, and only then, can he give a red card.

[eFestivals]

> Nor violent conduct (because he's challenging for the ball)

He's not when he makes that kick. The ball is long gone, and it's a separate action to anything to do with the ball.

If the ref sees that kick as deliberate - and it's certainly possible to think that it might be deliberate (some angles suggest it more than others) - then he can see that as violent conduct.

[TheGayTent]

> Nor violent conduct (because he's challenging for the ball)

He's not when he makes that kick. The ball is long gone, and it's a separate action to anything to do with the ball.

If the ref sees that kick as deliberate - and it's certainly possible to think that it might be deliberate (some angles suggest it more than others) - then he can see that as violent conduct.

[TheGayTent]

That's not cricket. Poor from Rio.

[The Nal]

That's not cricket. Poor from Rio.