When Is a Foul Not a Foul?
Posted in Dumbarton FC, Football at 12:00 on 6 March 2013
Manchester Utd 1-2 Real Madrid (aggregate 2-3)
UEFA Champions League*, Old Trafford, 5/3/13
This game, of course, hinged on the sending off. Up to that point United had been marginally the better, certainly David De Gea in Unitedâs goal had fewer saves to make. Actually, even afterwards Diego Lopez in Realâs goal made more saves but Real were in the lead by then and not pushing forward so much. They could even have afforded to lose a goal.
It looked to me like Nani had tried to get the ball, there was no intent to foul – but intent does not come into the law. As Roy Keane argued in the post match discussion Naniâs foot was raised, ergo it was dangerous, worthy of a red card.
This immediately invites a question.
Why, then, when a player takes down any high ball (or indeed executes a bicycle kick) is it not dangerous play? His foot is at least at chest height, as Naniâs was. Are such instances of control of a high ball now all to be banished? In which case Brian Pruntyâs much You-Tubed (and sublime) opener for Dumbarton against Livingston a few weeks ago would have been chalked off as dangerous. Should it also have been accorded a red card?
The only difference is the possible nearby presence of another player. But Nani wasnât aware (till too late) there was a player coming in, he was looking at the flight of the ball. Roy Keane suggested he should be alive to such a possibility, he must expect a challenge. This, though, would also apply to any attempt to play a high ball as above.
Surely, equally, a player is entitled to attempt to control, or pass, the ball in the most effective way?
Naniâs control of the ball arguably wasnât dangerous or reckless in itself. What may have made it so was the incoming player.
The thing is; it also looked to me like the Real player was never likely to get to the ball first. He was aware of what Nani might attempt to do and yet still came in to make contact with Naniâs foot after Nani had played the ball. In other words the Real player came in late. If Nani had played the ball on the ground and then been impacted the foul would have gone the other way for a late challenge. So who was in the wrong? From one point of view the Real player deliberately ran into a foot he knew was going to be high in order to make it look like dangerous play. In other words he bought the red card. Which is a form of cheating.
The ref and assistants have only real time to make decisions. They do not have the benefit of replays. But even in real time Naniâs high foot did not seem to me to be a sending off offence. But can anyone else be entirely sure what went into the refâs decision making processes?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this we will never know what would have happened if the red card had not been issued. Real might have scored twice anyway. But United might also have scored again, they made chances even with ten men.
Given the stories floating around about match-fixing there is now an element of doubt about such high profile matches. (And possibly low profile ones as well.) It is unfortunate that a refereeing decision appeared to be central to the outcome of this game.
In an unrelated point I thought that Ronaldo might have been just offside when the cross was hit in for Realâs second goal in that a scoring part of his body was beyond the last defender. None of the replays focused on this and it was given no analysis. Strange that.
* so-called