Real-United and Shakhtar-Dortmund

[Rival]

Predictions?

[PaderbornCaley]

Can‘t see them merging IMHO.

[ICTPaisley]

Real - Dortmund - Inverness

[MarkD]

I predict a foreign referee will correctly red card a MU player, Baconface will explode on the touchline and the MU players will berate the referee ceaselessly, as will the media the following day.

[Rainbow]

Sorry Mark, but the red card for Nani was nothing but ridiculous. You can debate a yellow, but nothing more. Even the German commentators who always demand cards for every wee contact agreed with it.

[KingBeastie]

Clearly a man city or liverpool fan then eh.

(not that I watched the game BTW)

[+DoofersDad]

As usual we have a total over-reaction from Man U about a decision which went against them.  Let's look at the facts.

• Nani had his eyes firmly on the ball and lifted his foot to control the ball.  There was absolutely no intent to foul.
• There does not need to be any intent in order to send a player off for what is deemed by the referee to be reckless or dangerous play.
• Whilst Nani had his eyes firmly on the ball he should still have had an awareness of players round about him.  Before the ball was played he would be looking around and would know roughly where players were and he really must have been aware that a Real player would also go for the ball. 
• Nani was turning away from his line of sight with his foot raised chest high and it is not unreasonable for the referee to consider that as reckless.
• The referee sees the incident just the once in real time.
• It looks on the reply as though Nani maybe caught the Real player high on the arm and not in the chest despite the chest clutching and rolling around, but really that is irrelevant in terms of the decision against Nani.  If it was deemed to be reckless, it was reckless wherever it happened to catch the opposing player. He may have caught the player on the arm or the chest but it could just as easily been his throat.
• In mitigation, it is clear that Nani was attempting to control the ball with his foot rather than kicking it and therefore the consequence of any contact with the opposing player would be significantly less than it might have been.  In other words, the incident will have looked worse than it actually was.

In my view their can be no doubt that at least a yellow card was warranted and whilst I think a red card was maybe harsh, I can understand why the referee made the decision.  Man U were possibly hard done by but these things happen and they just have to get on and deal with it.  And whilst there can perhaps be a little sympathy for them over the decision, there can be absolutely none for the way they behaved afterwards. 

 

Firstly, whilst they are blaming the decision for changing the game, I think that is actually not the case.  They lost to two very good goals.  The first by Modric was a magnificent strike and the second soon after was a well worked goal - neither were a consequence of being over-run being a man over. 

 

Ferdinand applauding the referee right in his face at the end and other players pointedly refusing to shake his hand at the end was simply pathetic as was Ferguson's petulant refusal to speak to the media afterwards.  I for one sincerely hope they have some sanctions imposed against them for that as to my mind that sort of behaviour brings the game into disrepute.

 

 

[Rainbow]

Beastie, your're wrong. My team in England has been Everton since 1984.

DD, well written, but meanwhile many former refs and bosses of referee organizations (e.g. Switzerland) have deemed the decision wrong and unbelievable. It doesn't change your points, however, except that I'm not sure whether the behaviour of FIFA and UEFA (or SFA and DFB) officials bring the game into even more disrepute. Freedom of speech is a basic human right and includes criticism, and football is not the Third Reich as most of those officials seem to believe.

[Kingsmills]

The incident was worthy of a yellow and was borderline red.

 

The sending off may have been a tad harsh but nobody could seriously argue that it was patently unfair.