Manchester United

[jellydog]

Yellow card for me. Definitely a harsh straight red, but I bet the ref gives the same decision anywhere anytime. Typical paint by numbers reffing.

On the other hand, this is comeuppance for SAF for not sending Nani somewhere over the moon long ago. He is a bonafide idiot.

[mrbojangles]

Hard luck United.

Take heart from the fact that if that would have been in the League stages, you would have taken 1 point off Real out of a possible 6 over the two games. The same as we did.

[rixalex]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

[StevieH]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

[rixalex]

Yellow card for me. Definitely a harsh straight red, but I bet the ref gives the same decision anywhere anytime. Typical paint by numbers reffing.

On the other hand, this is comeuppance for SAF for not sending Nani somewhere over the moon long ago. He is a bonafide idiot.

He is an idiot and i wasn't happy to see him starting, but to give him the tiniest bit of credit if i may Mr jellydog, i always used to hate him first and foremost for his cheating theatrics, secondly for his selfishness, and thirdly for his wild inconsistency. With regards the cheating theatrics, yes, he still does it, but i'd say no more frequently than any of the other players. The days of him rolling about in agony after every single tackle do seem to be behind him. Still don't like him and want him gone, but i'm happy to acknowledge he isn't quite the assh@le he once was, and getting sent off in that game last night was completely undeserving, even for him. You are quite right, a yellow at most.

[alfieconn]

To be fair , Nani could have taken his head off ! well if he was a dwarf he would have done

Gutted that the blabbling old man didn't do a press conference , how entertaining would that have been could have brightened things up with a tasty nurse sitting bye his side while constantly taking his blood preasure <deleted> old spoilsport !

[rixalex]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

That's what this is really about. Some people enjoying what they perceive as Fergie getting some comeuppance. That's fine, but don't try dressing the opinion up on the red card as being based on anything other than what it is.

[Macclad]

It was never a red card.....yes,it was a foul.....yes,his studs were high but there was no malice whatsoever.....a yellow card at the very worst.

Up to the sending off it had been an enthralling game but once United were down to ten men there was only going to be one winner.

Even Jose Mourinho is saying the best team lost which is a round about diplomatic way of saying that the Turkish kebab seller referee spoiled a cracking match for millions of viewers !

[mrbojangles]

If it had have been the other way around and it was a Real player with the high boot on a United player, Fergie would have been saying he could have killed the lad. However, I can understand those growing up as United fans and seeing Eric do his kung <deleted> kicks getting confused and thinking the high boot is ok.

Fergie has also shown his true colours in not coming out for the interview. He has made himself (and the english game) look like sore losers. He needs a slap for bringing the game into disrepute but I won't hold my breath. I thought Jose was extremely magnanimous and comlimentary to United.

[mjj]

Dunno what United's problems is, Chelsea seemed to do all right at the Nou Camp with ten men.............

Edited March 6, 2013 by mjj

[BangrakBob]

Edited March 6, 2013 by BangrakBob

[mrbojangles]

Even Jose Mourinho is saying the best team lost which is a round about diplomatic way of saying that the Turkish kebab seller referee spoiled a cracking match for millions of viewers !

Nope. It's a way of him not trying rile up his potential new club and supporters.

[StevieH]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

That's what this is really about. Some people enjoying what they perceive as Fergie getting some comeuppance. That's fine, but don't try dressing the opinion up on the red card as being based on anything other than what it is.

or rather what you perceive it to be, as per. "absurd decision" says rix. "cheated by the ref" says rix. "there has to be some consistency here" says rix.

this IS the consistency. the inconsistency is what united are used to getting and going their way domestically. of course i'm pleased to see united go out of europe. but i'm more pleased to see a referee correctly implementing the laws of the game in a match involving them, refereeing the incident and not the team's manager and the referee's future career opportunities.

[smedly]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

if both players had been running for the ball in full view of each other then this was a card offence, the difference I see here is that Nani had his eye on the ball looking away from the direction of the RM player closing in at speed - the RM player was able to better see and possibly avoid a coming together but he didn't - so were was the intent and who was in the best position to avoid contact - I know what I think and it's very clear to me who was at fault here and who should have taken evasive action

Is every overhead kick in the box penalised with a red card if a player behind gets clobbered trying to defend the attack ? - I think not

[mrbojangles]

Dunno what United's problems is,

Didn't you know. It's always someone elses fault when they lose.

[alfieconn]

Red must be having a lay-in today probaly be up about Sunday

How do you know when Utd have lost ? old red nose doesn't do a press conference and mr red doesn't get up

Edited March 6, 2013 by alfieconn

[StevieH]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

if both players had been running for the ball in full view of each other then this was a card offence, the difference I see here is that Nani had his eye on the ball looking away from the direction of the RM player closing in at speed - the RM player was able to better see and possibly avoid a coming together but he didn't - so were was the intent and who was in the best position to avoid contact - I know what I think and it's very clear to me who was at fault here and who should have taken evasive action

Is every overhead kick in the box penalised with a red card if a player behind gets clobbered trying to defend the attack ? - I think not

why would arbeloa 'avoid a coming together'? it's not his responsibility to get out of the way of an out of control, dangerously-playing opponent. nani knew full well he was there and as you can see from the reverse angle even had a little flick of the foot at arbeloa after he'd studded him in the chest.

this was not an overhead kick. it was nothing like one. if you stick your studs in an opponent's chest with your foot five feet off the ground what are you expecting to happen?

[Jimjim]

nani shouldn't have jumped with his studs into an opponent's chest then. making a european referee make a call like that is always a risk and european refs aren't as terrified of mister ferguson as premier league ones are.

just reading elsewhere that madrid were denied a nailed-on penalty and red card for a handball by rafael?

Yes, absolutely to that. I watched the whole match. He saved a sure goal with his arm in an unnatural position and got a congratulations from the goalkeeper. Should have been a red and a penalty if it was seen. I think they just completely missed it but it was blatantly obvious on the slow motion. But of course this was after the Nani red card so United fans can try to excuse it I suppose.

The red card really reminded me of the Charlie Adam yellow card (which was his 2nd of the match and so he got sent off) against Tottenham last season where his eyes were on the ball the whole time and he ended up with a high and dangerous tackle on Parker.

All the commentators I saw kept talking about "intent." Intent is not really mentioned in the letter of the law though, is it?

I could definitely see why the ref would give it, and I loved to see United go out, but if it would have been Liverpool I would have been upset about that red card I'm sure. While I was watching it I was surprised to see him give a red. Thought he was booking him.

[alfieconn]

nani shouldn't have jumped with his studs into an opponent's chest then. making a european referee make a call like that is always a risk and european refs aren't as terrified of mister ferguson as premier league ones are.

just reading elsewhere that madrid were denied a nailed-on penalty and red card for a handball by rafael?

The red card really reminded me of the Charlie Adam yellow card (which was his 2nd of the match and so he got sent off) against Tottenham last season where his eyes were on the ball the whole time and he ended up with a high and dangerous tackle on Parker.

So what are you saying ? Nanis should have been a Yellow or Adams should have been a straight red !

[Sparkles]

nani shouldn't have jumped with his studs into an opponent's chest then. making a european referee make a call like that is always a risk and european refs aren't as terrified of mister ferguson as premier league ones are.

just reading elsewhere that madrid were denied a nailed-on penalty and red card for a handball by rafael?

Absolute drivel.Nani never took his eye of the ball and he didnt jump into a player with his studs it was a legitimate attempt to get the ball and Im no Nani fan.. RM players didn't exactly surround the ref asking for Nani to be punished.It was a yellow card at worse.Commentator Niall Quinn described the incident as the worst decision he had EVER seen.This myth that EPL referees are scared of Ferguson is complete tripe and you know it and then you "read" that Rapahel gave away a nailed on penaltly and should have got a red card. Suggest you watch the replay. Mourinho,to his credit ,said the best team lost and United supporters will accept defeat but not the total incompetance of the referee.It ruined what was a to that point a great spectacle and RM may well have still won.

[smedly]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

if both players had been running for the ball in full view of each other then this was a card offence, the difference I see here is that Nani had his eye on the ball looking away from the direction of the RM player closing in at speed - the RM player was able to better see and possibly avoid a coming together but he didn't - so were was the intent and who was in the best position to avoid contact - I know what I think and it's very clear to me who was at fault here and who should have taken evasive action

Is every overhead kick in the box penalised with a red card if a player behind gets clobbered trying to defend the attack ? - I think not

why would arbeloa 'avoid a coming together'? it's not his responsibility to get out of the way of an out of control, dangerously-playing opponent. nani knew full well he was there and as you can see from the reverse angle even had a little flick of the foot at arbeloa after he'd studded him in the chest.

this was not an overhead kick. it was nothing like one. if you stick your studs in an opponent's chest with your foot five feet off the ground what are you expecting to happen?

it is your opinion that Nani knew he was there - not shared by me and many others, Nani was looking the other way at the incomming ball

I'm not saying it was an overhead kick but simply applying the principal that a player peforming an OHK will not be aware of a defenders head coming in hard behind him

arbeloa had full view of the situation and IMO put himself in danger, Nani put his foot up to bring the approaching ball to the ground and under his control arbeloa did nothing to avoid the collision

the ref got it wrong and that fact is obvious

[SantiSuk]

Intent is not mentioned in the laws of the game but referees normally take intent into account when considering the extent to which an incident was careless or reckless. A person cannot be careless or reckless if it was not reasonable to assume an expectation that another player would be injured by the action. That last bit is what the ref judged. He must have thought that Nani should have been aware that Albeloa was closing down fast. That or hes connected to asian betting rings

Ex ref (minor league, long time ago)

[rixalex]

Was very surprised to see us starting with Nani and Giggs, and without Rooney, but tactically, we got it spot on in the first half. They had a lot of the possession but did virtually nothing with it. We looked dangerous every time we went on the attack, with Welbeck in particular doing a fantastic job. Second half it was more of the same... until the sending off. Absurd decision. High boot in my opinion is only a red if it is done with obvious malice to injure an opponent. The angle that Nani came onto the ball, there clearly was no malice whatsoever. There has to be some consistency here. If a high boot is a red regardless of any intent to injure, then any high boot should be a red, even when played with no opponent in sight, and how ridiculous would that be?

Sad but predictable all the ABUs who didn't even watch the game nodding in agreement at the red. Respect to those here, and respect to those on the Real Madrid side, who saw the decision for what it was... not only completely wrong, but game changing. I'm not certain we would have won with eleven men, but we were well on the way.

Anyway, being cheated by the ref (no i don't think he was bent) is far preferable to being cheated by the opposition. Well done to Real. They took advantage of the refs stupidity, and what else could they do. Good luck to them.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." - law 12, fouls and misconduct.

yes, absurd decision rix. or alternatively good to see a referee implementing the laws of the game as they're intended to be implemented in a match involving man united for a change. you want consistency? this is the consistency. a referee doing his job correctly. as opposed to doing what mister ferguson bullies them into doing.

That's what this is really about. Some people enjoying what they perceive as Fergie getting some comeuppance. That's fine, but don't try dressing the opinion up on the red card as being based on anything other than what it is.

or rather what you perceive it to be, as per. "absurd decision" says rix. "cheated by the ref" says rix. "there has to be some consistency here" says rix.

this IS the consistency. the inconsistency is what united are used to getting and going their way domestically. of course i'm pleased to see united go out of europe. but i'm more pleased to see a referee correctly implementing the laws of the game in a match involving them, refereeing the incident and not the team's manager and the referee's future career opportunities.

Makes me laugh when a supporter of a club like Liverpool gets on one about decisions going United's way. Any club in England "smaller" than Liverpool - in other words at least 90% of the clubs - going to play at a place like Anfield, will feel, rightly or wrongly, with good justification or without, that the ref will at some stage in the game, or at some stages, make decisions against them that are prejudiced because of the might of the club, the might of the team, and the might of the grounds. Very few games does Liverpool ever play when this perceived prejudice goes against them. Vast majority of the time the perceived prejudice is in their favour. Just ask supporters of the likes of the Wigans and the West Broms on match day at Anfield what they think their chances are of getting a penalty.

[JacknDanny]

It was never a red card.....yes,it was a foul.....yes,his studs were high but there was no malice whatsoever.....a yellow card at the very worst.

Up to the sending off it had been an enthralling game but once United were down to ten men there was only going to be one winner.

Even Jose Mourinho is saying the best team lost which is a round about diplomatic way of saying that the Turkish kebab seller referee spoiled a cracking match for millions of viewers !

Same as Vincent Kompany getting red carded.... twice!! Depending on how you interpret the law. In my opinion Kompany should not have been sent off, there was certainly no malice. But using the same yardstick, then Nani getting sent off was the right decision. You cannot have it both ways, even though United fans would prefer it that way

I was expecting one of the newspapers to have the headline...

BREAKING NEWS.......... REFEREE GIVES A DECISION AGAINST UNITED, AT OLD TRAFFORD. FIRST TIME SINCE 1971

[StevieH]

it is your opinion that Nani knew he was there - not shared by me and many others, Nani was looking the other way at the incomming ball

I'm not saying it was an overhead kick but simply applying the principal that a player peforming an OHK will not be aware of a defenders head coming in hard behind him

arbeloa had full view of the situation and IMO put himself in danger, Nani put his foot up to bring the approaching ball to the ground and under his control arbeloa did nothing to avoid the collision

the ref got it wrong and that fact is obvious

"put himself in danger"? where does this nonsense come from? there would be no "danger" were one player not recklessly sticking his studs five feet in the air.

the ref correctly implemented the laws of the game. that is the only "fact" here.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

what bit of the law being implemented correctly are people having trouble with here?

[StevieH]

Makes me laugh when a supporter of a club like Liverpool gets on one about decisions going United's way. Any club in England "smaller" than Liverpool - in other words at least 90% of the clubs - going to play at a place like Anfield, will feel, rightly or wrongly, with good justification or without, that the ref will at some stage in the game, or at some stages, make decisions against them that are prejudiced because of the might of the club, the might of the team, and the might of the grounds. Very few games does Liverpool ever play when this perceived prejudice goes against them. Vast majority of the time the perceived prejudice is in their favour. Just ask supporters of the likes of the Wigans and the West Broms on match day at Anfield what they think their chances are of getting a penalty.

well there we go, bring liverpool into the discussion. is this the football equivalent of godwin's law?

[smedly]

The fundamental difference with the Vincent Kompany incident was that the other player was in full view,

put it this way- if you have two players running towards each other in full view of each other with an approaching ball and one of them decides to go to ground with a high speed sliding tackle (at which point the tackle is commited and out of control) and with open studs slams full force into the opposing player - that is a red card even if neither player is injured or there may not even be contact - the potenial was there - the intent was there - it was dangerous

the key point here is that each player had full view of each other and the approaching ball - Nani did not have any view of an RM player approaching at speed from behind because he was looking and facing the other way - I've watched it several times and it's obvious

[rixalex]

Commentator Niall Quinn described the incident as the worst decision he had EVER seen.

He also said the only person watching that game who thought that challenge was worthy of a red card was the ref. I thought he was right but i hadn't counted on the depth of bitterness of the ABUs.

You know what, I hate City as much as the next United fan, but when Ba dived for that penalty against them the other day it pissed me off

[smedly]

it is your opinion that Nani knew he was there - not shared by me and many others, Nani was looking the other way at the incomming ball

I'm not saying it was an overhead kick but simply applying the principal that a player peforming an OHK will not be aware of a defenders head coming in hard behind him

arbeloa had full view of the situation and IMO put himself in danger, Nani put his foot up to bring the approaching ball to the ground and under his control arbeloa did nothing to avoid the collision

the ref got it wrong and that fact is obvious

"put himself in danger"? where does this nonsense come from? there would be no "danger" were one player not recklessly sticking his studs five feet in the air.

the ref correctly implemented the laws of the game. that is the only "fact" here.

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

what bit of the law being implemented correctly are people having trouble with here?

are you saying that no player should be allowed to lift his foot above a certain height - please explain

[mrbojangles]

It was never a red card.....yes,it was a foul.....yes,his studs were high but there was no malice whatsoever.....a yellow card at the very worst.

Up to the sending off it had been an enthralling game but once United were down to ten men there was only going to be one winner.

Even Jose Mourinho is saying the best team lost which is a round about diplomatic way of saying that the Turkish kebab seller referee spoiled a cracking match for millions of viewers !

Same as Vincent Kompany getting red carded....

And Vinny was later proven innocent as his Red was rescinded. Would Nani's be rescinded if it went to appeal?

BTW. Even down to ten men and Vinny being wrongly sent off, we still won the game 0-2 at Arsenal.