Subject: CHAMPIONS LEAGUE 2012-13

this iss not red, as when you give this a red, you can give any high foot a red, as it's all potentially dangerous. It happens in almost every game that a player has his foot near the head of the opponent. I never saw a red card though... So, tell me, what's the difference here? He raises his foot high. Coincidentally, a player who clearly can see what Nani i doing, decides to jump for it anyway... This is just no red whatsoever...

as when you give this a red, you can give any high foot a red, as it's all potentially dangerous.

as a matter of fact, you can :P

It happens in almost every game that a player has his foot near the head of the opponent. I never saw a red card though... so, tell me, what's the difference here?

yes, that is the difference here. you don´t see opponent getting hit to the head with that foot every game. you only see the foot being near the head. I´m pretty sure, on Nani´s case, that if his leg would´ve been only near Arbeola, the game wouldn´t have been stoped(unless Nani had won the ball with that move, in which case probably woul´ve been dangerous play foul). but it crashed into Arbeola, which is a whole new different case here.

He raises his foot high. Coincidentally, a player who clearly can see what Nani i doing, decides to jump for it anyway...

Arbeola did the only right thing. Arbeola was clearly getting first to the ball, and Nani had zero chance to get there first. Are you suggesting, that Arbeola should´ve stopped his run and give the ball to Nani just because Nani was coming in with potentially dangerous run? cool story bro.

This is just no red whatsoever...

at first I was 50:50 with this situation being red card or not. the more I´ve seen folks´ arguments about why it should NOT have been red card, the more I am convinced it is a 100% correct red card. in the end, it is a ref´s call, if he has enough balls to give a red card or not, but there is definitely nothing to argue, no matter which card he would pull out.

and yes, I agree, that red card ruined the game. but it is definitely more Nani´s fault than refs.

the ball was with Nani, he was actually closer then Arbeloa. Arbeloa must run to get there, Nani is allready there. Don't try to make things up when you're argumenting. Saying it's red because others that say it's not, afre not saying good things, is not a good reason btw. And what you say about the ref is just a deadmaker. Off course he decides, and when he pulls red, nobody can say anything (during the match). This is an analysis and opinion, not a fact. The fact is Nani got red, and the ref has the finale decision in this...

you must be blind or fan of MU ;)

the ball was with Nani, he was actually closer then Arbeloa.

Arbeolas chest hit the ball before Nani managed to hit it with leg pointed far out. Nani was closer? fuck logic, right?

Arbeloa must run to get there, Nani is allready there.

Nani flew in the air for 2+ meters. quite difficult to do do this, if you are already there and are not running. again, fuck logic, right?

Don't try to make things up when you're argumenting.

look who´s talkin :P

Saying it's red because others that say it's not,

I´m saying it is red, because so far, I haven´t seen not even one argument that would prove he did not deserve red card. if every argument that should prove Nani being innocent is incompetent and is easy to push over, it is really really hard to believe it.

Sorry, i'm not a fan nor blind. I'm just saying that the red card is too harsh.

arbeloa ran towards the ball, Nani didn't need to run as the ball was allready there, so yes he was closer... He didn't jump 2 meters lol... Plus, Arbeloa saw Nani and the beginning of the action, Nani didn't see anything. Actually you can say the same about agruments why it should be red, as those are ridiculous. Giving red for the sake of a high foot, is as allready said over the top. The only reason why those feet are just besides the head of the opponent in my example, is because the opponent decides not to head the ball. Here arbeloa did decide to do just that...

Nani didn't need to run? Nani didn't see Arbeloa? And you're not blind?

he only saw him after turning when his foot was allready high yes. You can not take that foot back after that. I remain where I am, when you give this red, you must give red every single match, as this sort of things happen very often in soccer. Do you play it yourself? You sure must have had it happen once yourself. I know I raised my foot too high sometimes, mostly in a reflex to get to the ball.
Ow and yeah, every overhead kick where the defender is first, is red too? :p

he only saw him after turning when his foot was allready high yes.

not true
there is a video from anothe camera where you can see that Nani looks in Arbeloa's direction

All this "fighting" because of one wr.. I mean very questionable red card. You guys know that there were three other more or less interesting UCL matches this week? ;)

Anyway.. Seen that situation dozens of times and still can't really say 100% whether it should have been red or yellow card, or just a free kick. I'm sure Arbeloa knew how Nani is going to take the ball so he just decided to go and take the kick. But then again it's always very risky to play with foot so high.. At least now nobody can say that referees always whistle in Uniteds favor.. :p

http://youtu.be/CSghuD7lzH0
yellow!

http://youtu.be/7chkWlTU3DI
red!

difference is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge, why not yellow for Nani and (two) reds for De Jong?

Real is Platini's club, period.
(edited)

Cant always pick Barca ... could he?

but I like to see Barca on their knees :D

Me too. On their knees celebrating another goal :-)

I like to see Milan on their knees as well :P

I actually liked Barca for once. They had to score, so the had a push forward instead of keeping the ball and doing rat's ass with it for 95% of the time :)