[partick_twinny]

Clear red. Don't see how that is any different to Shawcross' tackle on Ramsay a couple of years back.

Any studs up off the ground challenge is dangerous, never mind two-footed.

[Dariusz]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 13:39, said:

I'm inclined to agree with this. When watching the game it didnt occur to me that it was a foul, never mind the red card. Its all very well quoting the rules but surely a bit of common sense can be applied here. Nani is a notorious feigner of injury and he didnt even go to ground. That says a lot. I thought it was an excellent tackle and would even say that it was less dangerous than Milijas's as Kompany didn't make any contact whatsoever with the opposing player.

Consistency is a problem, however nowhere in the rule many of us have quoted, does it say anything about making contact with the player. Another made up argument by many pundits.

[gonzohiggy]

partick_twinny, on 09 January 2012 - 13:56, said:

Clear red. Don't see how that is any different to Shawcross' tackle on Ramsay a couple of years back.

Any studs up off the ground challenge is dangerous, never mind two-footed.

One obvious difference would be that Ramsay badly broke his leg

[gonzohiggy]

Dariusz, on 09 January 2012 - 13:59, said:

Consistency is a problem, however nowhere in the rule many of us have quoted, does it say anything about making contact with the player. Another made up argument by many pundits.

I didn't hear it from pundits I made it up myself!

I can understand in certain circumstances why reds would be issued for two footed tackles when the opposing player is not touched. In this case though Kompany gets the ball completely, got none of Nani and because of that I just can't see how he deserves a straight red and subsequent four game ban (2nd red this season)

[Cowden til i die]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 14:38, said:

One obvious difference would be that Ramsay badly broke his leg

A leg breaking challenge isn't necessarily a red card though. It is actually f**k all like Shawcross' tackle.

I voted yes as it did merit a red card but if it wasn't given I don't think there would have been an out cry.

[H_B]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 14:42, said:

In this case though Kompany gets the ball completely, got none of Nani and because of that I just can't see how he deserves a straight red and subsequent four game ban (2nd red this season)

Then you just blatantly don't understand the rule.

It's not difficult to be honest.

[Diamonds are Forever]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 13:39, said:

I'm inclined to agree with this. When watching the game it didnt occur to me that it was a foul, never mind the red card. Its all very well quoting the rules but surely a bit of common sense can be applied here. Nani is a notorious feigner of injury and he didnt even go to ground. That says a lot. I thought it was an excellent tackle and would even say that it was less dangerous than Milijas's as Kompany didn't make any contact whatsoever with the opposing player.

What a stupid thing to say, those are the rules, referees can't just pick and choose when to apply them, the game would be a complete shambles if they did. Nani's reaction is completely irrelevant. Perhaps linesmen should apply this same logic and not give a blatant offside if the defenders don't appeal for it.

Whether it should or shouldnt have been a red Kompany was still stupid to fly in like that, if you jump in with both feet off the ground you're asking for trouble and you're giving the referee a decision to make.

[gonzohiggy]

H_B, on 09 January 2012 - 14:56, said:

Then you just blatantly don't understand the rule.

It's not difficult to be honest.

These rules are not black and white and it is up to the referee to decide if the player has used excessive force or has endangered his opponent. The tackle was definetly not excessive in force.

Whether he endangered his opponent is open to debate but in my opinion he didnt and therefore it isn't a red card. I can't believe how many people on here think that merits a red card! Give it a couple of years at this rate and football will be non contact. No one wants to see players suffer bad injuries but it is getting to the point where players are doing well to actually tackle someone without falling foul of one rule or another.

[Supras]

Regarding the post above, do you think that the referee would have been marked down by his assessor had he not given that red card?

HEY_SIDNEY, on 09 January 2012 - 05:39, said:

People who love the rules will say its a red card.

People who have actually played the game will tell you to get on with it. Its not a non contact sport.

So ex footballer refs would have waved that away? Not if they like their job.

Dariusz, on 09 January 2012 - 13:59, said:

Consistency is a problem, however nowhere in the rule many of us have quoted, does it say anything about making contact with the player. Another made up argument by many pundits.

That's true, i had a wild ridiculous lunge that mad zero contact that was a red. He just missed him but if it made contact it would have been the worst tackle I had ever seen, on TV or anything else.

Diamonds are Forever, on 09 January 2012 - 15:08, said:

What a stupid thing to say, those are the rules, referees can't just pick and choose when to apply them, the game would be a complete shambles if they did. Nani's reaction is completely irrelevant. Perhaps linesmen should apply this same logic and not give a blatant offside if the defenders don't appeal for it.

Whether it should or shouldnt have been a red Kompany was still stupid to fly in like that, if you jump in with both feet off the ground you're asking for trouble and you're giving the referee a decision to make.

Your first paragraph is spot on, Foy would have been recorded as making a serious error had he not given a red card. People can argue if it should be a red card but they cannot argue that the referee shouldn't have given it.

Sometimes you appreciate this forum - where I have looked elsewhere anyone thinking it was a red card is accused on blatant Man Utd bias. I'm proud of you P&B

This post has been edited by Supras: 09 January 2012 - 15:22

[Diamonds are Forever]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 15:18, said:

Give it a couple of years at this rate and football will be non contact. No one wants to see players suffer bad injuries but it is getting to the point where players are doing well to actually tackle someone without falling foul of one rule or another.

That may be true, but that's a separate issue. I think a lot of people don't agree with a red card because they don't think that challenges like that should be regarded as a red card offence in the laws of the game (I'm inclined to agree with them), But what the laws should be and what they are two different things, and as it stands going by the laws as they are, I think the referee was right to send him off.

[ayrmad]

Supras, on 09 January 2012 - 15:21, said:

Regarding the post above, do you think that the referee would have been marked down by his assessor had he not given that red card?


So ex footballer refs would have waved that away? Not if they like their job.



That's true, i had a wild ridiculous lunge that mad zero contact that was a red. He just missed him but if it made contact it would have been the worst tackle I had ever seen, on TV or anything else.



Your first paragraph is spot on, Foy would have been recorded as making a serious error had he not given a red card. People can argue if it should be a red card but they cannot argue that the referee shouldn't have given it.

Sometimes you appreciate this forum - where I have looked elsewhere anyone thinking it was a red card is accused on blatant Man Utd bias. I'm proud of you P&B

Come on!

[Dariusz]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 14:42, said:

I didn't hear it from pundits I made it up myself!

I liked that.

Many fans use it as well the pundits. They quote "rules" that just dont exist.

One of the most common ones is "the ball was away" when a player is fouled. And? As long as the ball is in play its a foul, doesnt matter if he's getting the ball or not.

And im pretty sure there is no law that says anything about "last man" either.

Anyway, Im digressing slightly.

[ayrmad]

Dariusz, on 09 January 2012 - 15:26, said:

I liked that.

Many fans use it as well the pundits. They quote "rules" that just dont exist.

One of the most common ones is "the ball was away" when a player is fouled. And? As long as the ball is in play its a foul, doesnt matter if he's getting the ball or not.

And im pretty sure there is no law that says anything about "last man" either.

Anyway, Im digressing slightly.

Think that one's true.

[Dariusz]

Diamonds are Forever, on 09 January 2012 - 15:24, said:

That may be true, but that's a separate issue. I think a lot of people don't agree with a red card because they don't think that challenges like that should be regarded as a red card offence in the laws of the game (I'm inclined to agree with them), But what the laws should be and what they are two different things, and as it stands going by the laws as they are, I think the referee was right to send him off.

Good post. I dont agree with many rules but the refs job is to apply the rules, not think, "i dont agree with that one" and let stuff go. Having a problem with the rules is indeed a separate issue.

[H_B]

gonzohiggy, on 09 January 2012 - 15:18, said:

These rules are not black and white and it is up to the referee to decide if the player has used excessive force or has endangered his opponent. The tackle was definetly not excessive in force.

Whether he endangered his opponent is open to debate but in my opinion he didnt and therefore it isn't a red card. I can't believe how many people on here think that merits a red card! Give it a couple of years at this rate and football will be non contact. No one wants to see players suffer bad injuries but it is getting to the point where players are doing well to actually tackle someone without falling foul of one rule or another.

Uh huh.

Yet your two "golden bullets" you used to make your decision were and are totally irrelevant.

Namely :-

In this case though Kompany gets the ball completely, - irrelevant

got none of Nani - irrelevant

[Supras]

ayrmad, on 09 January 2012 - 15:25, said:

Come on!

It was a two footed karate scissor from behind, the player just turned in time but I was already wincing and so was everybody else. I barely got any complaints to be honest.

He'd done someone earlier off the ball and I had heard it but you really can't give anything in these circumstances when you're on your own.

And interpretation is an important part of the referees job but they don't have carte blanche - and certainly not at Foys level. That challenge was a red no matter what game it was in and what player made it. And we were discussing this fairly recently that a player can't give a foul if he gets the ball and that clip of Terry getting the ball and whacking James Milner was posted.

The "it wasn't a foul" brigade are just ignorant I'm afraid.

This post has been edited by Supras: 09 January 2012 - 15:34

[deadasdillinger]

Clearly a red.

Nowhere in the rule book does it say that you should get away with it simply because you didn't break the player's leg. Winning the ball isn't more important than the type of challenge. Two footed lunge, both feet off the ground, you can have no control behind that sort of challenge. Nani is very lucky that he jumped out of the road and for me, that's the only thing that is causing the confusion - if he'd been stood on the spot, he could have been scythed in two.

[airdrie utd 2002]

Definitely a red card the fact he won the ball is irrelevant. It was a dangerous tackle that endangered the players safety and used excessive force he could easily have won the ball without diving in so i think the ref got it right

[H_B]

I've still got no idea why he actually went for the ball like that as well.

What a total fanny.

I would like to think that, although he is playing the game and bemoaning it in public, that Mancini has words with him in private about it. Rank stupidity, that cost them the game.

[ayrmad]

Supras, on 09 January 2012 - 15:31, said:

It was a two footed karate scissor from behind, the player just turned in time but I was already wincing and so was everybody else. I barely got any complaints to be honest.

He'd done someone earlier off the ball and I had heard it but you really can't give anything in these circumstances when you're on your own.

And interpretation is an important part of the referees job but they don't have carte blanche - and certainly not at Foys level. That challenge was a red no matter what game it was in and what player made it. And we were discussing this fairly recently that a player can't give a foul if he gets the ball and that clip of Terry getting the ball and whacking James Milner was posted.

The "it wasn't a foul" brigade are just ignorant I'm afraid.

I had my cruciate and calf torn by the same type of tackle, I just know there are a lot of fouls I've witnessed that are a lot worse even if contact had been made.

[ayrmad]

H_B, on 09 January 2012 - 15:56, said:

I've still got no idea why he actually went for the ball like that as well.

What a total fanny.

I would like to think that, although he is playing the game and bemoaning it in public, that Mancini has words with him in private about it. Rank stupidity, that cost them the game.

Other than charging about in a rage, tackles done like that are usually because the defender is a wee bit of a coward IMO.

This post has been edited by ayrmad: 09 January 2012 - 16:20

[McKee]

Speaking of that disgusting Shawcross tackle, I remember some total weirdos on this forum suggesting that Ramsey's leg broke before the thug made contact with it.

Does anyone else remember this?

[a_n_d_o]

Its one of those that could go either way, some refs won't even give it as a foul others may see it as a card. He keeps his leg low and gets a toe to the ball and only brings his other leg around to stop injury to himself. I also think he has control of his other leg as otherwise Nani would have been scythed down regardless. If thats the benchmark for a red card then there should be a red card in every game, how often do you see a winger jump out of the way when a defender slides in with studs up to knock the ball out for a throw, defender may always be getting there first but if you go by whats written in the rules it should be a free kick every time.

[ayrmad]

Some tasty tackles, not for the squeamish.

[Supras]

a_n_d_o, on 09 January 2012 - 16:49, said:

Its one of those that could go either way, some refs won't even give it as a foul others may see it as a card. He keeps his leg low and gets a toe to the ball and only brings his other leg around to stop injury to himself. I also think he has control of his other leg as otherwise Nani would have been scythed down regardless. If thats the benchmark for a red card then there should be a red card in every game, how often do you see a winger jump out of the way when a defender slides in with studs up to knock the ball out for a throw, defender may always be getting there first but if you go by whats written in the rules it should be a free kick every time.

No ref worth his salt would think that wasn't a foul.