Darren Fletcher - Should he be able to play in the final?

[Jill]

No he shouldn't. Simply because it would be unfair on all of the team who have played in the competition already this season who haven't been able to appeal against any such decisions impacting their team.

 

This.

 

Perhaps the rules should be changed, and I do feel bad for him since it was obvious very soon after the card that it was a bad decision, but the rules shouldn't be changed at this stage in the season just because one particular team is inconvenienced.

 

(Anyway, back to basics, I hate Man U, so ner ner)

[Andy]

Rules are rules, you cant rape someone and then claim that the laws should be changed just because you feel good when you do it.

 

Probably the worst metaphor I have read in my entire life

[matta]

The rule is crystal clear. Cant see they do anything about. Should be changed, he only tried to get the ball, and penalty is punishment enough in my opinion.

[lovejoy]

the spurs decision, which was very similar in that the ball clealry changed direction, went for them, this didnt.

 

 

you win some you lose some.

 

end of.

 

except it isnt the end of, because the debate is about whether he should be allowed to play in the final, not whether it was a penalty or not.

 

the rules state he shouldnt.

 

 

end of.

[Guest Sheriff John Bunnell (Ret]

Haha unlucky Fletcher, ya Manc scumb@g

[lovejoy]

the spurs decision, which was very similar in that the ball clealry changed direction, went for them, this didnt.

 

 

you win some you lose some.

 

end of.

 

except it isnt the end of, because the debate is about whether he should be allowed to play in the final, not whether it was a penalty or not.

 

p.s - the debate is about a penalty in essence.

[lovejoy]

the spurs decision, which was very similar in that the ball clealry changed direction, went for them, this didnt.

 

 

you win some you lose some.

 

end of.

 

except it isnt the end of, because the debate is about whether he should be allowed to play in the final, not whether it was a penalty or not.

 

stupid f***ing debate really isn't it, he was sent off and the rules say he can't play right?

 

so of course he shouldn't be allowed to play because if barca lose tonight they'd be within their rights to kick off with the puyol yellow that put him out of tonight's game for a challenge that i heard was not worthy of a yellow

 

rule changes are never made mid season for good reason

and we have a winner.

[Incognito]

I have no sympathy for him whatsoever....or indeed any of their players who are done wrong by.They have referees kow-towing to them week in week out,so when one fucks up at their dispense,I rather enjoy it tbh.

[Disco]

No he shouldn't play but the rules for at least the CL should be ammended for next season.

 

Be hard to do it for Waffa Cup as a prelim game B36 v Mypa47 isn't likely to be televised and thus you can't have one rule for tv games and one for not.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I agree that there shouldn't be an appeal against a 'factual decision of the referee' though, people have to learn to just accept the referee's decisions.

 

In a case of mistaken identity they can appeal, which is fair enough obviously.

 

well thats never going to happen, if you got a speeding fine for driving within the speed limit, you'd want the right to appeal, surely?

 

Yeah, I see what you mean, and I've already said that I think red cards shouldn't carry a ban anyway. I think being down to 10 men is punishment enough, and that can't be corrected after the game anyway.

 

And often refereeing decisions are a matter of opinion, whereas my speed at any particular time is a matter of fact.

 

(By the way, that currently is the UEFA rule, so it obviously is going to happen!)

[Cronky]

I can't see why a referee shouldn't be allowed to cancel a red card after the game, if they realise that they've definitely made a mistake, as is the case in the Premiership. Their entire authority doesn't crumble as a result.

 

BUT - you can't change the rules half way through a competition. So the answer's no.

[LiquidAK]

Yep, completley unfair to make him miss this when it's likely he won't get another chance at it. (Of course Man U will probably get there again next year, but still).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I can't see why a referee shouldn't be allowed to cancel a red card after the game, if they realise that they've definitely made a mistake, as is the case in the Premiership. Their entire authority doesn't crumble as a result.

 

BUT - you can't change the rules half way through a competition. So the answer's no.

 

Good point, but I suppose allowing a referee to cancel a red card under their own steam is a bit different from allowing an 'appeal'.

 

And who knows what sort of direct or indirect pressure refs would start to come under if managers and clubs knew that they could reverse their decisions after the game?

[Nobody]

I can't see why a referee shouldn't be allowed to cancel a red card after the game, if they realise that they've definitely made a mistake, as is the case in the Premiership. Their entire authority doesn't crumble as a result.

 

BUT - you can't change the rules half way through a competition. So the answer's no.

 

Good point, but I suppose allowing a referee to cancel a red card under their own steam is a bit different from allowing an 'appeal'.

 

And who knows what sort of direct or indirect pressure refs would start to come under if managers and clubs knew that they could reverse their decisions after the game?

It works in the premiership, don't see any reason why it wouldn't work it the champions league.

[Guest guinness_fiend]

Rules are rules, you cant rape someone and then claim that the laws should be changed just because you feel good when you do it.

 

Probably the worst metaphor I have read in my entire life

 

And an even worse analogy

[Guest guinness_fiend]

I'd be disgusted if it happened to one of our players.

 

UEFA should use this opportunity to update their rules in preparation of next season.  Most (balanced) fans would applaud the decision.  No matter what the team, I would not want anyone to miss out on what is possibly a once-in-a-lifeteam opportunity because of essentially being robbed by a referee.

 

Man Utd were punished by losing a player and conceding a goal, despite Fletcher not doing anything wrong.  That should be enough in this instance.

[leazes.ender]

Under the UEFA rules it was a foul anyway being a tackle from behind, adding to the shirt tugging he was doing. Fergie should instead be wasting his time asking him why he was being such an idiot for making a daft tackle in the first place.

 

Serves him right for being banned for being thick enough to make the foul in the first place.

[steve_69]

This 'he touched the ball' protest is bollocks anyway - he went through the player to get the ball which is a foul.

In the 1980's and possibly even the 1990's it wouldn't have been but this is something FIFA clamped down on ages ago. Regardless of whether he touched the ball or not he took the player out in the process which he isn't allowed to do.

So, no he shouldn't be allowed to play in the final because he should've had more sense than to make that challenge towards the end of a game that Man Utd were going to win regardless of whether Arsenal scored or not. Serves him right for being a thick cunt!

[M4]

This 'he touched the ball' protest is bollocks anyway - he went through the player to get the ball which is a foul.

In the 1980's and possibly even the 1990's it wouldn't have been but this is something FIFA clamped down on ages ago. Regardless of whether he touched the ball or not he took the player out in the process which he isn't allowed to do.

Wum?

 

Seriously of course it wasn't a foul. Was actually a very good piece of defending.

[steve_69]

I didn't notice leazes.ender's post before I wrote my own - pretty much just echoed what he said.

I didn't copy, honest!

[steve_69]

This 'he touched the ball' protest is bollocks anyway - he went through the player to get the ball which is a foul.

In the 1980's and possibly even the 1990's it wouldn't have been but this is something FIFA clamped down on ages ago. Regardless of whether he touched the ball or not he took the player out in the process which he isn't allowed to do.

Wum?

 

Seriously of course it wasn't a foul. Was actually a very good piece of defending.

 

Joey Barton touched the ball when he tackled Alonso - was that a great bit of defending?

[M4]

This 'he touched the ball' protest is bollocks anyway - he went through the player to get the ball which is a foul.

In the 1980's and possibly even the 1990's it wouldn't have been but this is something FIFA clamped down on ages ago. Regardless of whether he touched the ball or not he took the player out in the process which he isn't allowed to do.

Wum?

 

Seriously of course it wasn't a foul. Was actually a very good piece of defending.

 

Joey Barton touched the ball when he tackled Alonso - was that a great bit of defending?

 

Fletcher's wasn't from behind. It was from the side first of all. He didn't go through the player to get the ball and he got the ball first. Whether there's tangling within the same motion is irrelevant.

 

Please don't compare it to Barton's that's stupid. If anything compare it to Beye's red against Man City because it's almost the exact same incident. And of course Beye's red was overruled and ref said he made a mistake.

[Guest iliketoonarmy]

Anything can happen to ManUtd, so yes.

[PM]

I was disappointed but not surprised that a penalty and red card were given.  For me it was a superb challenge, but I think it's the kind of tackle that FIFA and UEFA are trying to outlaw, where the trailing leg takes out (scissors almost) the player after the ball has been won.  That's why I think even if an appeal to UEFA had been possible, it might well have failed anyway.  In England it'd be a different story, and M4TT makes a good comparison with the Beye tackle.

[Mowen]

Yep, very similar to Beye's superb tackle on Robinho. Not a dive, and not a foul.