A&H

Bravo in the Manchester Derby

A

Andy A

Active Member
Did he get away with a red card seeing as he is a Keeper?

I'm talking about the incident where he lost control of the ball and overrun it then clashed with Rooney with his studs up.

I agreed with Clattenberg in real time, but with the benefit of multiple replays I believe it was a penalty and he should have at least seen yellow with a strong case for a Red..

Thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
In a word, yes in terms of giving a penalty away. I've said before that keepers get away with throwing themselves feet first at opponents in a way that outfield players just wouldn't be allowed to get away with. If a defender had made that challenge, especially if it was outside of the area, it would be penalised 99% of times.

The colour of the card is probably debatable, but my argument here is it should have been a foul which it wasn't.
 
This was a stonewall penalty. The keeper jumped at the opponent, studs first. Got some of the ball but also got his studs right on the opponent's ankle. Minimum caution but I think there was clearly enough danger for excessive force
 
I'm on a referee's facebook group....it's concerning how many referees on there are perpetuating the misconception of 'no foul - he got the ball' (I've asked about the fact that he got solid contact with studs on the ankle after a glancing blow on the ball - unsurprisingly, no response).
Even getting nothing but ball he should be copping an IFK for it!
 
Pen and red for that.
I am an ABU but I am gutted that Bravo wasn't punished for that, but also for the other of the two clangers with Stones. On any other day Bravo's show would have cost three goals and a defeat and a ban. He got away with moida there.
 
There was probably two reds. Both Romney and Bravo were "jumping in" , so possibly both should have gone.

But it was a pen and a card of some nature for Bravo.
 
Definitely a foul ! card colour probably yellow for reckless just to sell it

But wouldn't argue if clatts went red
 
Belatedly - here's why it shouldn't have been a penalty. Rooney shouldn't have been on the pitch. (And it doesn't include his clear dissent to the referee.)
https://twitter.com/MCFCworld/status/774742914836598785/video/1

But I've raised before the arbitrary nature of which incidents the FA reviews for retrospective action (under a concession from UEFA who didn't like games to be re-refereed). Mike Riley's said they don't look at all incidents, just those highlighted in the media. Now just suppose a broadcaster had an interest in promoting one club - let's call it Manchester United, in whom Sky once held shares. Would they put on a loop an incident which showed a rival team's player throwing an elbow back at an opponent? Yes, they would - Aguero. So why is it that this is the only clip of Ibrahimovic's (very) serious foul play against Otamendi, rather than its being shown over and over again? (I won't bother with the Fellaini elbow on Kolarov.)
https://player.vimeo.com/video/182687642
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SM
No different in Australia - the inconsistence in post-match review is absurd. Different players and teams are definitely treated differently.
 
But I don't suppose you have a director of one club who's on boards of the domestic, continental and world governing bodies?
 
Bloovee, you do understand that not everything in football is a two-pronged conspiracy to simultaneously "do down" Manchester City while unfairly favouring Manchester United, don't you? :)
 
Not everything, but Financial Fair Play obviously was (especially when UEFA left out leveraged debt from what they call "fair"), so is this TV deal, and you do know that there are a few suspicions about corruption in football's governing bodies. Anywhere other than the rarefied circles of football governance it would be unacceptable for a director of one club to sit on bodies making rules that advantage his club and disadvantage rivals. (We're in a thread about a possible red card tackle highlighted by the media, but of the far worse challenge - Rooney in the second sequence in the clips above - neither Sky nor the FA made a fuss.)

It's not a new problem. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ll-manchester-united-rafael-benitez-liverpool

Oh, the irony:
Gill today claimed there is no issue with him being involved at English football's governing body and with the current league and European champions. "I was elected over the summer by the Premier League clubs. I'm very clear in my role. I think it is totally incorrect to assert that [there is a conflict of interest]," Gill told Yahoo while in Macau launching details of United's 2009 summer tour of Asia
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
Bloovee, you do understand that not everything in football is a two-pronged conspiracy to simultaneously "do down" Manchester City while unfairly favouring Manchester United, don't you? :)
Click to expand...
bloovee said:
Not everything, but Financial Fair Play obviously was (especially when UEFA left out leveraged debt from what they call "fair"), so is this TV deal
Click to expand...
So FFP and the new TV deal are a conspiracy to favour Man Utd and disadvantage City. Really? Clubs throughout Europe have to abide by FFP just so that Man U can get one over on Man City?

bloovee said:
It's not a new problem. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ll-manchester-united-rafael-benitez-liverpool
Oh, the irony:
Gill today claimed there is no issue with him being involved at English football's governing body and with the current league and European champions. "I was elected over the summer by the Premier League clubs. I'm very clear in my role. I think it is totally incorrect to assert that [there is a conflict of interest]," Gill told Yahoo while in Macau launching details of United's 2009 summer tour of Asia
Click to expand...
If Gill's membership of the FA board is part of a shadowy anti-Man City conspiracy it has been spectacularly unsuccessful. The year Gill joined the board Man City finished 14th. Since then (as you know) they have won the league twice, finished second twice and have not finished out of the top three for the last five years whereas Man United's fortunes have waned considerably over the same period. Or is there another pro-City and anti-United cabal at work. Enquiring minds need to know.
 
McTavish said:
So FFP and the new TV deal are a conspiracy to favour Man Utd and disadvantage City. Really? Clubs throughout Europe have to abide by FFP just so that Man U can get one over on Man City?
Click to expand...

I didn't know there was any serious doubt that FFP was targeted at City (and owners willing to invest rather than take money out of the game).

But not just United, but the Milan clubs too. Did you not read the article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3787806/Europe-s-elite-shafting-poor-enjoy-Leicester-City-can.html
"That Giorgio Marchetti, UEFA's director of club competitions, should be one of the prime movers in the reorganisation of the Champions League co-efficients is no doubt purely coincidental. Marchetti was born in Luino, north of Milan, was educated in Milan, and supports Milan. Not that he will have let that cloud his thinking when plotting this new course — or allowed Milan's enormous self-regard to skew the competition in their favour."

Let's say City came second in the PL and United scraped fourth - Gill's team would go straight to the group stage (whereas now the 4th placed English club would need a play-off game). Under the new coefficient rules (replacing the current ones which only came in a couple of years ago when ancient success in European competition was restricted to the last five years) then United could be in a higher pot (so playing weaker teams) because of Law, Best and Charlton (and Stepney). And - even if they lost all six group games and City won the competition - United would get more money from the TV rights.

It doesn't need an enquiring mind. Remarkably, most journalists seem to be ignoring it. Don't forget what the incentive is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...he-Premier-League-says-Richard-Scudamore.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top