"He won the ball"

[Mellotron]

Was anyone calling for a red card ? Had there been one the ref would have been the story. It makes no sense to me.

I don't follow the bullets analogy at all. It is a football match.

You're judging DANGER on how the tacklee (i.e. not the tackler) reacts. That's not how it works. Kompany was sent off from the moment he left the ground, not at the moment Nani comfortably skipped over the challenge.

Again, you cannot tell me that if Nani had planted his foot and it was broken in two places, you would STILL be saying it wasn't a red card.

 

[Mellotron]

The bullets analogy is similar to the argument "well, there was no contact, so how can it be a red?".

 

[Lady Whistledown]

A few City players did react to Johnson's tackle, and so did the crowd.

 

[sten_super]

Was anyone calling for a red card ? Had there been one the ref would have been the story. It makes no sense to me.

I don't follow the bullets analogy at all. It is a football match.

The highlighted bit is true, but is the real problem, IMHO. Certainly if the ref had sent him off, the managers and the newspapers would have had a go at him. However, as has been pretty exhaustively discussed here, the laws suggest that a two-footed challenge is a red card, so he would have only been enforcing those laws. Are we getting to the stage where negative publicity should affect a referee's decision making process? That's an extremely dangerous road to go down.

 

[Mellotron]

Reaction means bollock all. Refs can't be going on conjecture and player's opinions. It has to be based on the rule book, otherwise how can we ask for any consistency?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I once won a ball at a Seagulls Over London raffle.

 

[Acker79]

Was anyone calling for a red card ? Had there been one the ref would have been the story. It makes no sense to me.

The ref is every bit as much the story today as he would have been if he had given the red. I'd argue he's more of a story for not giving it, as if he gives it people would talk about how it was in keeping with the ref from sunday, and after such a high profile case, johnson should have known better and so johnson's challenge becomes the story. Because he didn't give it, Man City can make the ref the story, highlighting the inconsistency and injustice they have faced.

 

[logan89]

Ah, but as Gerrard stated, "Johnson won the ball"

Where has he said this?

 

[Mellotron]

Where has he said this?

When asked if he agreed with Mancini's view on Johnson's challenge on Lescott, Gerrard told BBC Sport: "I don't think so. He was the clear winner of the tackle."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Ah, but as Gerrard stated, "Johnson won the ball"

Maybe Johnson won a raffle as well?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

You're judging DANGER on how the tacklee (i.e. not the tackler) reacts. That's not how it works.

Really ?

I am not saying that at all as I am sure you know. But it is a better indication of dangerous play than some commentators. Including those on here. And if the City players did re-act it would be no surprise after their perceived injustice of the Kompany decision.

And if Kompany had broken Nani's leg - of course it would have been dangerous and reckless. On that tackle however - in my opinion (and many others - including it appeared Nani) there was no danger to Nani. No matter how you try to paint it.

 

[Mellotron]

And if Kompany had broken Nani's leg - of course it would have been dangerous and reckless. On that tackle however - in my opinion (and many others - including it appeared Nani) there was no danger to Nani. No matter how you try to paint it.

My point is, if Kompany had made the EXACT same tackle, but Nani's foot had got stuck in the turf, or he decided to try a clever trick and perhaps was twisting his leg round as Kompany came in, and Kompany went through him and broke his leg, you would be saying it was a red. For the SAME challenge.

Kompany was sent off because that was a distinct possibility due to the way he went in. Nothing to do with what actually happened to Nani, or Nani's reaction.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

As I say - no matter how you try to paint it.

 

[CHAPPERS]

As I say - no matter how you try to paint it.

Do you think the Burnley player should have been sent off for the Barnes incident?

 

[Acker79]

I can't say I've ever noticed players getting wound up by dangerous challenges that completely miss opponents. They are usually focused on the game, and the ball and only complain if their teammate is taken out. So in challenges like kompany's their reaction is 'still in play', as opposed to 'he just nearly scythed my team mate down', until they realise the ref has blown the whistle, then they react (like Rooney). Referees look at all challenges and judge their safety, not just the ones that hit people. That's why I'm with mellotron on this, you can't use player reaction to challenges. They're rarely looking at challenge and thinking about how the laws of the game should be interpretted. That's before you even get into how diving players muddy the waters.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Do you think the Burnley player should have been sent off for the Barnes incident?

Definitely.

I am not saying two footed challenges are always ok (which is what I think posters on here want me to say). They should be red cards if dangerous, reckless etc, in the opinion of the ref. I think poor decison making comes from following the letter of the law, i.e. he left the ground - red card. I think each tackle should be taken on its merits. And my reaction at the time to the Nani tackle was that it was not dangerous. I understand why others think it was - but to me Nani was not there at the point Kompany got the ball. He was not in danger. I would say that Lescott was in more danger last night. But again it is good that the ref judged the tackle on its merits and not "he left the ground so red card". When refs follow the letter of the law - there are problems. I would say Vincelot's sending off is an example. That was not a punch - or even a dig was it ? It was like a reminder to the Burnley player that he knows his elbow was up - and it was not appreciated. Stupid - but not a red card. But what happened - officious 4th official sees it as a punch. When refs follow the letter of the law - there are problems.

As I said between booing the ref for the Burnley game - the ref could have got both decisions correct. However the ref did not think the Burnley tackle was even a booking (did we got the free-kick?) - so he must have decided the tackle was not dangerous or reckless etc. Which I did not agree with at the time, and have not seen any footage that convinces either way.

 

[Acker79]

Perhaps he thought it wasn't a dangerous tackle because barnes didn't react, just laid there and let the guy throttle him.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I can't say I've ever noticed players getting wound up by dangerous challenges that completely miss opponents. They are usually focused on the game, and the ball and only complain if their teammate is taken out.

You may be right - but when the victim has been subject to a reckless challenge that could have caused real injury there is usually an immediate response. Sometimes towards the pepetrator. Players reactions can be a helpful indicator. Another example is where the ref thinks he sees a handball in a penalty area - but no players appeal. A sensible ref plays on (in my opinion).

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Perhaps he thought it wasn't a dangerous tackle because barnes didn't react, just laid there and let the guy throttle him.

Good point well made.

On that - I am sure our judgement was coloured by the fact it was Barnes - who does not two invitations to get physical.

 

[Mellotron]

So actually, DKM, our disagreement is that you felt the tackle wasn't dangerous or reckless, whereas I did? Do you not think Nani could've been in serious danger if he'd stay'd where he was? If you do then surely you're contradicting yourself.