Manchester United vs Arsenal. Champions League Semi Final, leg 2

[Mango Chow!]

The implementation of the red card for th elast defender in th ebox has always been one of FIFA's stupidest rules. Before the "last defender/goalscoring opportunity" red card was in effect you would have players fouling opponents with impunity outside the box a la Schumacher vs battiston in 1982.

Because the foul was outside the box, there could never be a penalty an dif the foul was very professional and not violent there would be no red card as well. Hence really cynical defenders could get away with murder.

It makes sense to apply the penalty of being sent off for a professional foul outside the box and that helps the game.

It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to a foul called within the box however because the penalty kick is already an adequate punishment for such an offence. if the foul is violent  then certainly give a red card. I could even understand if you add an automatic yellow card to the penalty to further punish the player but the automatic red card for a foul called in the box is overkill.

Remember I started this thread years ago....years ago, and get real fight down for it..It was only you & me on the same side of the argument.  I still agree that a pro foul in the box should NOT result in a red card (unless it would be considered a red card type offense on its face) because the penalty restores the scoring opportunity that the defender is accused of preventing. 

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=4394.msg33401#msg33401

  A penalty, on its face, does not necessarily restore the exact same goalscoring opportunity that a defender has prevented. 

[kicker]

The implementation of the red card for th elast defender in th ebox has always been one of FIFA's stupidest rules. Before the "last defender/goalscoring opportunity" red card was in effect you would have players fouling opponents with impunity outside the box a la Schumacher vs battiston in 1982.

Because the foul was outside the box, there could never be a penalty an dif the foul was very professional and not violent there would be no red card as well. Hence really cynical defenders could get away with murder.

It makes sense to apply the penalty of being sent off for a professional foul outside the box and that helps the game.

It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to a foul called within the box however because the penalty kick is already an adequate punishment for such an offence. if the foul is violent  then certainly give a red card. I could even understand if you add an automatic yellow card to the penalty to further punish the player but the automatic red card for a foul called in the box is overkill.

Remember I started this thread years ago....years ago, and get real fight down for it..It was only you & me on the same side of the argument.  I still agree that a pro foul in the box should NOT result in a red card (unless it would be considered a red card type offense on its face) because the penalty restores the scoring opportunity that the defender is accused of preventing. 

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=4394.msg33401#msg33401

  A penalty, on its face, does not necessarily restore the exact same goalscoring opportunity that a defender has prevented. 

True though i'm not sure if it matters whether or not its the "exact same"... so long as a clear goal scoring opportunity is restored.

....and yuh could also argue that being awarded a PK can make the goalscoring opportunity easier in some cases.

My understanding is that a pro foul is punished by a red card because a clear goal scoring opportunity is prevented by the perpetrator.  When a PK is awarded (for a pro foul in the box), in my opinion that clear goal scoring opportunity still exists...so a red card should not be necessary. 

[Mango Chow!]

Not necessarily.  A goalkeeper diving at the feet of an opponent is not always the same as a player tackling
 another from behind.  Missionary and doggie style is not the same even if yuh trow een a gouti look back.   That is all about timing (and in the replays you can clearly see carrick do like most attackers do in that situation and "drag/extend" his leg, quite unnaturally, to embellish the contact.)  But in that play, the so-called deviation of the ball, (a sharp 90-degree deviation) as somebody tried to bring up, was clearly because the goalkeeper had made contact with the ball and not anything else.  Webb was supposed to be able to discern that.   Maybe what he could not see was whether Gomes touched the ball first, or "made contact" with Carrick first.....or simultaneously.  (but that is an issue that the governing bodies need to address because the rules are very unfair to the GK's, bu that is for another thread)     Even so, the only thing blocking Webb's view would have been carrick's feet, plus whatever other players stood between him and the play.  Yesterday's referee, given where the ball was when fletcher made his jiu-jitsu move, had his vision obscured by both players' upper bodies....plus whatever players stood between him and the play.  I think Webb had an easier call to make and he blew it.  The question must be asked, though, where were the respective linesmen on either of these calls?  They are supposed to be called "referee's assistants" now but they are of no help whatsoever.  

wow, talk about illustrating a point.. ray hudson want nutten with you.. lol

Agree with the sentiments here and JDB makes some good points with regards to flaws in the law..

Nevertheless, there is a strong element of 'EPL-ness' in the uproar and arguments from Ferguson and the english contingent.

This is Europe, not England..

The refereeing is much different in that its less accomodating for wildness, it is fairer and it encourages cleaner play..

   ....with that being said, teams from the EPL STILL tend to get away with levels of physicality that is a part of their games and successes that the continental teams don't get away with.

  

[Mango Chow!]

The implementation of the red card for th elast defender in th ebox has always been one of FIFA's stupidest rules. Before the "last defender/goalscoring opportunity" red card was in effect you would have players fouling opponents with impunity outside the box a la Schumacher vs battiston in 1982.

Because the foul was outside the box, there could never be a penalty an dif the foul was very professional and not violent there would be no red card as well. Hence really cynical defenders could get away with murder.

It makes sense to apply the penalty of being sent off for a professional foul outside the box and that helps the game.

It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to a foul called within the box however because the penalty kick is already an adequate punishment for such an offence. if the foul is violent  then certainly give a red card. I could even understand if you add an automatic yellow card to the penalty to further punish the player but the automatic red card for a foul called in the box is overkill.

Remember I started this thread years ago....years ago, and get real fight down for it..It was only you & me on the same side of the argument.  I still agree that a pro foul in the box should NOT result in a red card (unless it would be considered a red card type offense on its face) because the penalty restores the scoring opportunity that the defender is accused of preventing. 

http://www.socawarriors.net/forum/index.php?topic=4394.msg33401#msg33401

  A penalty, on its face, does not necessarily restore the exact same goalscoring opportunity that a defender has prevented. 

True though i'm not sure if it matters whether or not its the "exact same"... so long as a clear goal scoring opportunity is restored.

....and yuh could also argue that being awarded a PK can make the goalscoring opportunity easier in some cases.

My understanding is that a pro foul is punished by a red card because a clear goal scoring opportunity is prevented by the perpetrator.  When a PK is awarded (for a pro foul in the box), in my opinion that clear goal scoring opportunity still exists...so a red card should not be necessary. 

  What I'm getting at is that, in many cases, the penalty itself would be more difficult that the actual goalscoring opportunity, and the arguments that could possibly follow could be never ending (especially when you compare Lehman's sending off a few finals ago to fletcher's last night) so I could imagine that FIFA/UEFA, whoever, just make certain rules clear-cut and indiscriminate.  It's probably supposed to discourage rash acts and strategic fouls and leave no room for debate. 

[kicker]

Fletcher is class and didn't carry on with his red card cuz he know he do shit. Big players know you can't tackle from behind, even if you get ball first. How many times you see many come in studs up, get all ball and no man and still collect a yellow. It doh matter..you cna't come in studs up, you can't tackle from behind..it never matters how much ball you iwn first. Refs in England does let man get away with that. But this is Europe fellas. Rules are rules. He get the red or being the last man. Fact is, his side was up 4-0 and had 3 away goals. Just continue to put pressure on the mana nd let Van Der Saar try to handle the rest. Absolutely no need to go through the man. Man is an experienced pro. He know he do stupidness.

In all fairness I don't consider Fletcher's tackle a "tackle from behind" per se.  True his body positioning technically was behind (as in not as far avanced) that of Fabregas/V. Persie (don't remember) when he made the tackle, but I think a tackle from behind has to do with where the contact was made- He didn't go through the back of the attacker to get the ball- he actually came across him and actually made clean contact with the ball before making contact with the attacker.  I think the ref just didn't detect that contact that was made with the ball and if/when he watches the replay, he'd probably realize that he got that one wrong.  

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

In all fairness I don't consider Fletcher's tackle a "tackle from behind" per se.  True his body positioning technically was behind (as in not as far avanced) that of Fabregas/V. Persie (don't remember) when he made the tackle, but I think a tackle from behind has to do with where the contact was made- He didn't go through the back of the attacker to get the ball- he actually came across him and actually made clean contact with the ball before making contact with the attacker.  I think the ref just didn't detect that contact that was made with the ball and if/when he watches the replay, he'd probably realize that he got that one wrong.  

Guy yuh reaching, the ref eh get nutten wrong!  Fletcher barely tipped the ball.  It is arguable that had he not brought down Cesc, Fabregas would still have had the advantage.  Allyuh over analyzing this ting to make it seem like the ref botch the call when in fact he made the only call he's allowed to under the rule book.  Do you honestly believe fletcher got enough of the ball that had he not tripped up Cesc in the process the opportunity would have been thoroughly thwarted.  If there is even any doubt then yuh arguing nonsense by saying the ref got it wrong.

[kicker]

Do you honestly believe fletcher got enough of the ball that had he not tripped up Cesc in the process the opportunity would have been thoroughly thwarted.  If there is even any doubt then yuh arguing nonsense by saying the ref got it wrong.

Yes I believe so.  The ball clearly changed direction after he touched it and would have made Fabregas' angle more difficult- you talking about tipping the ball, and what woulda happened if he wasn't tripped after contact was made with the ball yadda yadda, and then telling me I over-analyzing lol what a laugh- "enough of the ball" ...lol please... iz now you want to bring a whole other degree of subjectivity into the talk....

It eh have no overanalyzing- it's simple- As long as he played the ball first (which he did), and the tackle was not dangerous (which it wasn't) then the tackle is a good one.  If the ref called him for a tug on the shoulder then fine, if the ref didn't see the contact made with the ball then ok- it happened very quickly- refs get those kinda calls wrong all the time.  If it was deemed a tackle from behind, then ok- though I would dispute that because to me Fletcher was in a good position to make a fair tackle....but that "only tipping the ball" nonsense you comin' with...I eh buying that.

The replay showed it was a fair tackle...

Anyways....

[GunnerStunner]

In all fairness I don't consider Fletcher's tackle a "tackle from behind" per se.  True his body positioning technically was behind (as in not as far avanced) that of Fabregas/V. Persie (don't remember) when he made the tackle, but I think a tackle from behind has to do with where the contact was made- He didn't go through the back of the attacker to get the ball- he actually came across him and actually made clean contact with the ball before making contact with the attacker.  I think the ref just didn't detect that contact that was made with the ball and if/when he watches the replay, he'd probably realize that he got that one wrong.  

Guy yuh reaching, the ref eh get nutten wrong!  Fletcher barely tipped the ball.  It is arguable that had he not brought down Cesc, Fabregas would still have had the advantage.  Allyuh over analyzing this ting to make it seem like the ref botch the call when in fact he made the only call he's allowed to under the rule book.  Do you honestly believe fletcher got enough of the ball that had he not tripped up Cesc in the process the opportunity would have been thoroughly thwarted.  If there is even any doubt then yuh arguing nonsense by saying the ref got it wrong.

fletcher stil had his arm around cesc, that alone is a penalty, any foul on an attacking player in the penalty is a penalty kick

last man and goal scoring opportunity, inside or outside the area is a sending off, harsh but the full measure of the law.

however the referee number one job is to maintain the integrity of the game

i feel the card was harsh and coul dhave used his disgression

but the referee did not go beyond his powers

and for those who listen to tomy smith on espn are on drugs that irish twat dunno half of what he spews out

[Mango Chow!]

Do you honestly believe fletcher got enough of the ball that had he not tripped up Cesc in the process the opportunity would have been thoroughly thwarted.  If there is even any doubt then yuh arguing nonsense by saying the ref got it wrong.

Yes I believe so.  The ball clearly changed direction after he touched it and would have made Fabregas' angle more difficult- you talking about tipping the ball, and what woulda happened if he wasn't tripped after contact was made with the ball yadda yadda, and then telling me I over-analyzing lol what a laugh- "enough of the ball" ...lol please... iz now you want to bring a whole other degree of subjectivity into the talk....

It eh have no overanalyzing- it's simple- As long as he played the ball first (which he did), and the tackle was not dangerous (which it wasn't) then the tackle is a good one.  If the ref called him for a tug on the shoulder then fine, if the ref didn't see the contact made with the ball then ok- it happened very quickly- refs get those kinda calls wrong all the time.  If it was deemed a tackle from behind, then ok- though I would dispute that because to me Fletcher was in a good position to make a fair tackle....but that "only tipping the ball" nonsense you comin' with...I eh buying that.

The replay showed it was a fair tackle...

Anyways....

   So....as long as a man "play the ball FIRST" any kinda tackle is fair game then?  Yuh could go "through" a man, clip he legs, break he shin, (as long as it eh dangerous) anyting?  And even so, a foul have to be dangerous to be a foul?  Nah, Kicker, you cyah be serious on dat one.

[daryn]

  Yuh could go "through" a man, clip he legs, break he shin, (as long as it eh dangerous) anyting?  And even so, a foul have to be dangerous to be a foul?  Nah, Kicker, you cyah be serious on dat one.

clearly, a tackle that could potentially break someone's shin would count as dangerous.  the two of you disagree about whether he went "through" the man or not.  I think this line of Kicker's already answered the question.

it's simple- As long as he played the ball first (which he did), and the tackle was not dangerous (which it wasn't) then the tackle is a good one. 

It's not that a tackle have to be dangerous to be a foul, but it have to meet at least one of the two criteria.

[Mango Chow!]

  Yuh could go "through" a man, clip he legs, break he shin, (as long as it eh dangerous) anyting?  And even so, a foul have to be dangerous to be a foul?  Nah, Kicker, you cyah be serious on dat one.

clearly, a tackle that could potentially break someone's shin would count as dangerous.  the two of you disagree about whether he went "through" the man or not.  I think this line of Kicker's already answered the question.

it's simple- As long as he played the ball first (which he did), and the tackle was not dangerous (which it wasn't) then the tackle is a good one. 

It's not that a tackle have to be dangerous to be a foul, but it have to meet at least one of the two criteria.

   I was being facetious when I begged that question, daryn.  The problem is, even IF you want to give fletcher credit for playing the ball first, you cannot ignore the follow-through with his trail leg that impeded fabregas' progress. fletcher didn't exactly play the ball out of fabregas' reach, did he?