• Hi and welcome to Betnod. Please register for even more tips, analysis and chat.

Champions League Betting 05-13th March

Back in the days when it was a mans game players used to complain all the time about inconsistent referees and how each ref would interpret rules differently. To combat that guidelines have been introduced to help refs and one is that if a players goes in for a tackle with both feet off the ground he runs the risk of being red carded. This has been the case for about the last ten years now.
Nani clearly has both feet off the ground.
 
Arbeloa has also jumped. Had he stayed on the ground how high would Nanis' foot have been?
 
Colbro said:
Back in the days when it was a mans game players used to complain all the time about inconsistent referees and how each ref would interpret rules differently. To combat that guidelines have been introduced to help refs and one is that if a players goes in for a tackle with both feet off the ground he runs the risk of being red carded. This has been the case for about the last ten years now.
Nani clearly has both feet off the ground.
Click to expand...

It hasn't helped refs one iota - in fact it's muddled things further if anything. How was Nani's challenge a red card offence yet Coloccini's not even a foul?
 
He's got both feet off the ground, but I wouldn't class that as "going in for a tackle", I'd say it's contesting a 50-50 ball (well, maybe 60-40 in Arbeloa's favour). He's got his feet off the floor because the ball is off the floor. Arbeloa also has both feet off the floor.

In my opinion, that incident was no worse than a player going for an overhead kick just as an opposing player tries to get a head on the ball, and I've yet to see anyone get sent off for something like that. Player going for the ball, both feet off the ground, opponent gets there just ahead of them. I don't see it as worth anything more than a yellow (and I'm only just about convinced it was even worth that).
 
Colbro said:
Arbeloa has also jumped. Had he stayed on the ground how high would Nanis' foot have been?
Click to expand...

Nani's foot was about 4 feet or so off the ground, regardless of whether Arbeloa's standing normally and getting hit in the chest, jumping and getting hit in the midriff, or ducking down and taking a boot square in the face.
 
Are goalkeepers exempt from this rule, then? I've lost count of the number of times they catch an outfield player with a raised knee or foot.
 
Colbro said:
players used to complain all the time about inconsistent referees and how each ref would interpret rules differently.
Click to expand...

Colbro said:
To combat that guidelines have been introduced to help refs........he runs the risk of being red carded.
Click to expand...

So if a player runs the risk of being red-carded, it's still down to the ref's interpretation then. So it hasn't helped in the slightest.

RC makes a good point. If that was an overhead kick, we all know that he wouldn't have sent him off (assuming he's not a bent ref Swoops - all United fans - bah! :)). Yet the intent to foul in Nani's case and the intent to foul in an overhead kick is exactly the same. There isn't any. Therefore both cases should be dealt with the same and a yellow given at worst.
 
Yep. When you apply the logic to the overhead kick example, it shows how poor the decision was.
 
Was never a sending off not one time did he look at the madrid player had his eye on the ball the whole time, robbed.
 
Ok wayne, all United fans around here......but theres a few tbf :lol

People arguing against the decision, & if it was my player i would be as well so I think me & RC are on the same page here, are surely arguing against the rules & not the ref. Your argument here is against pricks like Blatter, not that ref last night, who by the directions given him obviously didnt feel as though he had a choice. As harsh as it might be & I'll cop it here, Uniteds reaction in the 10 minutes following the red cost them the match, although they gave it a right good go after that
 
Another point regarding it being the rulemakers fault is that if they deemed the decision to be poor, they wouldnt be trying to do further both Nani & the club, which they are. Blatters laughing his bollocks off at this
 
Wayne said:
So if a player runs the risk of being red-carded, it's still down to the ref's interpretation then. So it hasn't helped in the slightest.

RC makes a good point. If that was an overhead kick, we all know that he wouldn't have sent him off (assuming he's not a bent ref Swoops - all United fans - bah! :)). Yet the intent to foul in Nani's case and the intent to foul in an overhead kick is exactly the same. There isn't any. Therefore both cases should be dealt with the same and a yellow given at worst.
Click to expand...

Did Ryan Shawcross "intend" to break Aaron Ramseys' leg? Or the Blues player who also broke an Arsenal players leg? (Can't remember their names). Should they also not have been given red cards because there was no intent. The only question should be was the tackle dangerous or not.
 
Colbro said:
Did Ryan Shawcross "intend" to break Aaron Ramseys' leg? Or the Blues player who also broke an Arsenal players leg? (Can't remember their names). Should they also not have been given red cards because there was no intent. The only question should be was the tackle dangerous or not.
Click to expand...

So you agree that an overhead kick which accidentally connects with an opposition player warrants a straight red?
 
Colbro said:
Did Ryan Shawcross "intend" to break Aaron Ramseys' leg? Or the Blues player who also broke an Arsenal players leg? (Can't remember their names). Should they also not have been given red cards because there was no intent. The only question should be was the tackle dangerous or not.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't a tackle by Nani - he was attempting to control the ball.

It was an accident. Football is a contact sport, sometimes accidents happen. It's a man's game, sometimes you get hurt but it's part of the game. Obviously if someone intends to hurt another player they should be sent off, but no way if it's unintentional.

The game is being ruined.
 
Deffo Red card, Nani could have killed him.
 
swooperman said:
Another point regarding it being the rulemakers fault is that if they deemed the decision to be poor, they wouldnt be trying to do further both Nani & the club, which they are. Blatters laughing his bollocks off at this
Click to expand...

I think all red cards in the Champs League are looked at Swoops. Will be interesting to see if they do increase the ban though.

But the club are being investigated for Fergie not attending the press conference which no-one can argue with. It's against the rules. But I'd rather take whatever punishment that's going to be than the 10 game touchline ban Fergie would have got if they'd let him loose with the Press last night. :lol
 
slick said:
Deffo Red card, Nani could have killed him.
Click to expand...

:lol

Wish he had so we could get rid of the useless girly part.
Ever since I realised his head is too small for his body, I've not liked him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top