Get them down to ten men early

[s1ty m]

The most annoying thing about it is that Foy wasn't even going to blow his whistle until Rooney runs over to him. Nani doesn't even say anything until after Rooney has interfered. Poor refereeing from Foy and we definitely should appeal.

I know, Rooney has so far escaped our wrath over his mouthing at Foy. He just nudged the ref at the right time and out came the card. Fuck you, Rooney. He is a pathetic little turd who once paid for elderly prostitutes and is so enamoured with himself that he has a fucking hair weave. What a fucktard he is.

[freshie]

Blue Blood,
Please don't fall into the same trap as many fans, most players and pundits regarding getting the ball and not touching the man.

he Law is quite explicit and has no regard to getting the ball nor winning the tackle. The tackler does not even have to touch the player if there was intent. The decision is wholly considered by the tackle. Was it a foul? was there intent to foul? Was the tackle dangerous?They are the only considerations.

I agree that the tackle was clean, I don't think it was dangerous, Kompany's other foot was not near the player and I don't think there was any intent, other than to win the ball cleanly and fairly.

I would be happy to appeal that red card.

I would also be happy to see Foy slowly roasted over gas mark 4 and be castrated with a blunt butter knife.

I only got to see the incident when it happened and from where I was sat it looked like a really good tackle - were both his feet off the ground?

[dazby]

I initially thought Nani was getting the red for whatever reason.

[david yearsley]

The most annoying thing about it is that Foy wasn't even going to blow his whistle until Rooney runs over to him. Nani doesn't even say anything until after Rooney has interfered. Poor refereeing from Foy and we definitely should appeal.

I know, Rooney has so far escaped our wrath over his mouthing at Foy. He just nudged the ref at the right time and out came the card. Fuck you, Rooney. He is a pathetic little turd who once paid for elderly prostitutes and is so enamoured with himself that he has a fucking hair weave. What a fucktard he is.

I simply cannot stand the twat. I do not want him near the Euro squad - I will boo his every fuclin touch. The lowest of the low . Filth , vermin , bile

[freshie]

I initially thought Nani was getting the red for whatever reason.

When the whistle was blown my initial reaction was that we had won the free kick cos I couldn't see how Vinny could possibly have committed a foul. You can imagine my shock when he pulled out the red and sent Vinny off

[john68]

The law makes no mention of whether both feet are on or off the ground. Itis a common misconception by fans, managers, players, pundits and the media.

The referee's decision is solely based on whether the tackle was dangerous or if there was intent to foul.
Whether both feet were off the ground or not is merely a factor the ref uses to judge any intent to foul.
Wherever Kompany's feet were is irrelevant in this case because his 2nd foot was not near the player nor was there any intent to foul or injure, It was a well timed and well executed tackle.

[DoomMerchant]

I initially thought Nani was getting the red for whatever reason.

When the whistle was blown my initial reaction was that we had won the free kick cos I couldn't see how Vinny could possibly have committed a foul. You can imagine my shock when he pulled out the red and sent Vinny off

it was laffable...

Here's the general rule:

A player who jumps into a tackle two-footed is not in control of himself and therefore if he makes contact with the player, ball and player, or if the referee determines there to be excessive malice in the challenge, he will be dismissed.

Foy can argue that he felt that it was malicious, end of story, and win vs any appeal i'm sure. Any actual sentient being can tell not only was it not two-footed, but even if you deemed it was that it wasn't in any way malicious. Not EVERY two footed challenge is a Red card as i read it.

[john68]

Doomie,
Law 12 is quite specific and the relevant bit is as follows:
A direct free kick is awarded if the ref considers that a player has kicked or attempted to kick, trip or attempted to trip, jumped at, charged, struck or attempted to strike, pushed or tackled an opponent in a manner deemed by the ref to be careless, reckless or done so with excessive force. It is also an offence to hold or spit at an opponent.

There is no mention of the ball or getting the ball, neither is there any mention of having both feet off the ground. The only judgement to be made by Foy was if Kompany did any of the above. You can watch that tackle as many times as you like mate but at no time and in no way did Kompany do any of the above.

Kompany committed no offence. It was NOT a foul and the sending off was a disgrace.

[Blue Since 76]

Doomie,
Law 12 is quite specific and the relevant bit is as follows:
A direct free kick is awarded if the ref considers that a player has kicked or attempted to kick, trip or attempted to trip, jumped at, charged, struck or attempted to strike, pushed or tackled an opponent in a manner deemed by the ref to be careless, reckless or done so with excessive force. It is also an offence to hold or spit at an opponent.

There is no mention of the ball or getting the ball, neither is there any mention of having both feet off the ground. The only judgement to be made by Foy was if Kompany did any of the above. You can watch that tackle as many times as you like mate but at no time and in no way did Kompany do any of the above.

Kompany committed no offence. It was NOT a foul and the sending off was a disgrace.

Reckless challenge is yellow, excessive force is red. Two footed lunges generally appear to be one of the above and usually the latter. Kompany's was neither and, as you said, wasn't even a foul.

Watched it earlier but haven't got it to see now - does Shrek cross in front of Foy as it happens? If so, all he may have seen is Vince starting to dive in followed by Shrek's accusation that it was two footed. His view if he sees a replay should be different, otherwise he is a bent twat.

[Beefymcfc]

I think most people have a decent grasp of the laws of the game but none, I mean none can be attributed to a low, one footed successful tackle. We don't need regulations to judge that, we can clearly see it with our own eyes. Foy, Vinnie and Nani seen it as well and continued play until a certain scrote reminded the ref that this was an opportunity to affect the game.

I can't see it being overturned either, perfect opportunity to turn the knife, if it needed turning further.

[john68]

A ref can only give what he sees and by making taking the action he did, he is also making the statement that he saw it.
If his view was blocked, he cannot make any decision. To do so would be merely assuming something happened and that would be cheating.

[patrickblue]

Not a lot of time for talkshite, but they got this smack on.

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/big ... y-revealed

[marvin]

What do you think our chances are of winning this appeal?

Regarding whether the tackle was two-footed, it clearly was. He goes in two footed but takes the ball cleanly with one foot on either side of the ball. There's also not much force behind the tackle so I think it was harsh, but I doubt it will get overturned. They will stanf by the ref

[CityGer]

I was adamant we'd win it but I'm surprised at the number of neutrals who think foy made the right call.

Patrick Barclay is a journalist I respect and he has just said that he thought it was red. I also had a look on a neutral forum earlier and the split was around 60/40 in favour of no red.

Id like Doug to ellaborate (if he can) on what he said earlier re rumours of foy admitting he got it wrong. If foy admits an error it will be over turned.

[Londonblue1]

Blue Blood,
Please don't fall into the same trap as many fans, most players and pundits regarding getting the ball and not touching the man.

he Law is quite explicit and has no regard to getting the ball nor winning the tackle. The tackler does not even have to touch the player if there was intent. The decision is wholly considered by the tackle. Was it a foul? was there intent to foul? Was the tackle dangerous?They are the only considerations.

I agree that the tackle was clean, I don't think it was dangerous, Kompany's other foot was not near the player and I don't think there was any intent, other than to win the ball cleanly and fairly.

I would be happy to appeal that red card.

I would also be happy to see Foy slowly roasted over gas mark 4 and be castrated with a blunt butter knife.

I have to agree with this,but really how often do you see someone avoid a tackle , lose the ball and get nothing?its something that bugs me but in this case clearly winning the ball with his right foot before his left comes to the ball,still think it was a shocker and nobody apart from shrek and foy thought it was afoul

[marvin]

Id like Doug to ellaborate (if he can) on what he said earlier re rumours of foy admitting he got it wrong. If foy admits an error it will be over turned.

Where's that come from? That would be hugely significant.

[CityGer]

Where's that come from? That would be hugely significant.

Yep. Doug said it in the Kompany Ban thread. No more info than that, just that he'd heard foy had acknowledged that he may have got it wrong.

[marvin]

been looking at the FA's rule of the game.

This is what it says about Serious Foul Play

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.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Kompany lunged for the ball, but I don't think there was excessive force or any danger to Nani.

[Blue Since 76]

What do you think our chances are of winning this appeal?

Regarding whether the tackle was two-footed, it clearly was. He goes in two footed but takes the ball cleanly with one foot on either side of the ball. There's also not much force behind the tackle so I think it was harsh, but I doubt it will get overturned. They will stanf by the ref

Doesn't matter if one, two or three footed, it has to have been excessive force for a red. There clearly wasn't that, so it SHOULD be overturned. Whether it will or not is a different matter

[dario2739]

The best marker to see whether a Ref thinks he made a huge mistake is that they always try to balance it out by giving a huge decision the other way - Foy waved away what looked a pretty clear cut penalty for them... in my book that says it all - he must have seen a replay at half time and realised he'd dropped a big bollock!
Also, when the tackle was won by Vinnie, it was about 3-5 seconds after VK came away with the ball that he blew up... now if that really was such a clear-cut red card, the whistle would have been in his lips instantaneously... It was only that cunt Shrek mouthing off that got him sent off!
Also, not seen it mentioned but Welbeck was in the Refs face trying to get Kolarov sent off for the penalty too!