for all those die hard Manchester fans....
Was it a bad call as is being screamed by every Brit?
First off, while Nani's cleat hit Albeola chest high, his eyes were squarely on the ball. In fact, Albeola ran up on to play the ball from Nani's blindside, so he couldn't have seen him. At least from the intent standpoint, you cannot take there was any. He wasn't even looking to strike the ball, but instead to bring it down.
It could've certainly warranted a yellow card, which wouldn't have affected the outcome of the game. From that point on, it was a completely different match (understandably so being a man down).
There were so many handballs and fouls by Ramos, at least a couple inside the box, not once blown by the referee.
Kaka and Modric really did provide a spark. But Man U was the better side up until the booking.
and that got a yellow card.
If you look at the Nani replay in a vacuum you can make all sorts of arguments for and against the card, but in the context of the game and how it was being refereed for 55 minutes there's no way it's a red card.
Also, on this whole dangerous play angle; if dangerous play is a certain red card, why are overhead kicks allowed? Why are keepers allowed to rush off their line and punch anyone in a different coloured jersey in the head with impunity? Why are players allowed to jump up and contest headed balls? I mean they could clash heads and that's very dangerous.
The ref screwed up big time.
I haven't seen the game but...if a player's cleats hit another man in the chest, it's a dangerous play and probably a red.
Intent has nothing to do with it. Has there ever been a footballer in history that has intended to make contact in the box and commit a penalty? No. But if the contact happens and the player is brought down, a penalty is given.
I'm not sure where you're getting the whole intent angle from. I'll look at the replay tonight, and see if it was a bad call. But intent does't apply.
That was never a red. The criterion for a red card is clear: excessive force. FIFA defines excessive force as follows:
"Using 'excessive force' means that a player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."
Perhaps Nani was in danger of injuring Arbeloa, though not exceptionally so. It doesn't matter, though. He didn't meet the first criterion of excessive force, which is the use of far more force than is necessary. The word for what Nani did is reckless. Reckless means yellow. The referee messed up.
Nani did not side-foot the guy; he caught Albeola on the side with his studs. Perhaps not devastatingly so...but the bottom of the player's foot makes contact. It's incorrectly being billed as a studs to chest play.
I feel as though the ref would've needed instant replay to not rule this a red card. It happened really fast, with two players sent sprawling in full-effect. And even with the different TV angles and slo-mo replays, it still is a very tough call (at least to these eyes anyway).
At the very best, it was a stupid fucking reckless play that most importantly looks like a horrendous foul at normal speed.
Per the Laws, "'Using excessive force' means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent."
Not having seen the play, I still think that any cleat-to-chest contact is at least borderline on "in danger of injuring his opponent," but a lot obviously depends on whether he should have expected an opponent to be in or enter the space where he put his foot.
(I'm not a referee, even though I do try to educate myself on how they operate and how they use their terms of art.)
Looks like it's more of a side of the foot contact than a cleats contact. Reckless, but not excessive force.
The player's cleats make contact with the opponent's chest. Depending upon the speed & angle, a ref has a very easy call there. Especially if embellished by the struck player.
It is a stupid & reckless play by Nani. There is little to be gained by that raised foot there. It occurs towards midfield, not on the end line or sideline in an attempt to rescue a wayward ball. Did the player not think there was anyone else behind the play? I have no idea why the defender doesn't just get in proper position to defend the attacker & cede possession there. United looked pinned in; I don't suspect he's toe poking the start of a 60 yd break.
A very unusual choice by a defender there, and a stupid play with nothing to be gained...but as it turned out, everything to be lost.
If the studs made contact with the chest, it would be 100% red for me. Where it's the side of the foot, not so much. Reckless, sure. I just don't see excessive force in that play.
I suppose, depending on his angle, maybe the ref thought it was studs into the chest.
I'm seeing the studs making contact with the side (not chest) of the player. I incorrectly called it "studs to chest" earlier today as I was watching a horrendous replay via iPhone.
Pretty harsh red card, especially given the situation.
Disgusting how such an epic match gets thrown on one call.
players about it.
Modric levels in 66'. Man U in big trouble.
Three minutes later Ronaldo bangs another one in. Real up 3-2 on aggregate, but Man U needs to score twice because of away goals deficit, with only 10 men.
It's over for Man U.