mank1234:


So if you were a referee, you'll be giving only yellow for career threatening tackle because you're applying the rule. That was an attack on the person with malicious intent not for ball winning. There were several calls in March that the referee refused to make call. Watch it again to clear your doubt.

Mickael2:



so if you are a ref you will be using sentiments? Oga, there is nothing like 'I know murder when I see one', you are the ref, you are meant to enforce the rules not make the rules, I am strongly going to believe that you have never been to any referee refresher course, infact, here in Nigeria, coaching courses also come with a healthy dose of referee tutorials and you probably didn't attend either. This is what the referee asks; has this player done anything contrary to the rules? The ref does not say 'in my mind I think this guy deserves a red card, why? Because I THINK so'. I already showed you the rules and yet you now want to argue with the rulebook.


Oh, if you are still looking for the ball, watch the extended highlight and you will see it, if you still don't understand then check what a 'follow-up' means

Mickael2:



so if you are a ref you will be using sentiments? Oga, there is nothing like 'I know murder when I see one', you are the ref, you are meant to enforce the rules not make the rules, I am strongly going to believe that you have never been to any referee refresher course, infact, here in Nigeria, coaching courses also come with a healthy dose of referee tutorials and you probably didn't attend either. This is what the referee asks; has this player done anything contrary to the rules? The ref does not say 'in my mind I think this guy deserves a red card, why? Because I THINK so'. I already showed you the rules and yet you now want to argue with the rulebook.


Oh, if you are still looking for the ball, watch the extended highlight and you will see it, if you still don't understand then check what a 'follow-up' means

mank1234:
If you see nothing wrong in the referees judgment, I can only conclude by saying may all your situations in life be judged in like manner. If you said the ref was fair to Onazi, it will be fair for you too. No personal attack intended.

Mickael2:


did you say one viral foul like that on Sane? That is a career-threatning, life ban worthy foul. The guy's studs were clearly showing and the second foot was off the ground, red card everyday of the week. Matuidi's case was a case of a body check with a stamp on the ankle.

Ok let me give you a simple assignment. Stand erect with you foot firmly on the ground, then let someone stamp you on the ankle, your leg wouldn't even come close to twisting. But if you are about to move your leg and someone stamps on it, you will twist your leg and get injured.

Now had it been that Onazi's leg was on the ground firmly this wouldn't even be a niggle, and nobody would even say yellow card, but within the split second that Onazi raised his foot off the ground, the whole scenario has changed. As a ref, you cannot say that MATUIDI deserves a red card because ONAZI moved his leg at the last minute. These are things that happen in split seconds which opposing players cannot help at all

Mickael2:


did you say one viral foul like that on Sane? That is a career-threatning, life ban worthy foul. The guy's studs were clearly showing and the second foot was off the ground, red card everyday of the week. Matuidi's case was a case of a body check with a stamp on the ankle.

Ok let me give you a simple assignment. Stand erect with you foot firmly on the ground, then let someone stamp you on the ankle, your leg wouldn't even come close to twisting. But if you are about to move your leg and someone stamps on it, you will twist your leg and get injured.

Now had it been that Onazi's leg was on the ground firmly this wouldn't even be a niggle, and nobody would even say yellow card, but within the split second that Onazi raised his foot off the ground, the whole scenario has changed. As a ref, you cannot say that MATUIDI deserves a red card because ONAZI moved his leg at the last minute. These are things that happen in split seconds which opposing players cannot help at all

TheGoodJoe:


A middle finger to sentiments and rule book. We are talking of a team that already had a clear case of injuring a player on their head. A dirty player who made repeated wild lunges on our player. I think Onazi was at the end of one, left the pitch and came back, Ambrose took one.

Yet you are talking rule book in a case of a clear attempt to destroy a player.

Kompany got a red card for a wild tackle, even though he did not contact the player and also won the ball.

mank1234:



Are you implying that Onazi shouldn't have moved? Besides, the referee should have given him yellow card for at least 1 of 2 earlier bad challenge and this would have been a second yellow if at all you're right. The ref protected them. France are usually protected as a physical side but not African teams.

TheGoodJoe:


No need for that. He is just a bias to the team. Even hates seeing the team win.

Mickael2:



now you are seeing the light.

I am not arguing that the ref shouldn't have given him....even a red card before that. My discussion here is based solely on this Matuidi-Onazi incident and it wasn't a red card, definetly a yellow but not a red. That is all

Mickael2:



funny you should mention Kompany's case. Do you remember the level of uproar that followed that event? Especially since Glen Johnson did something similar the very next match day and walked away clean? So here is the thing, just because the ref in that Manchester derby made a mistake does not make it the norm

FINITO

Mickael2:



lol. So after losing out this is what you came up with? Pitiful really

Mickael2:



now you are seeing the light.

I am not arguing that the ref shouldn't have given him....even a red card before that. My discussion here is based solely on this Matuidi-Onazi incident and it wasn't a red card, definetly a yellow but not a red. That is all

mank1234:


It was a red for me. Give me a link to the complete ref rules and I'll show you another rule that would have been used to send him out. You're only using one rule and in retrospect after the event had already occurred to buttress your point.

Mickael2:



now you are seeing the light.

I am not arguing that the ref shouldn't have given him....even a red card before that. My discussion here is based solely on this Matuidi-Onazi incident and it wasn't a red card, definetly a yellow but not a red. That is all

BascoVanVeli:


My bros u are looking suspicious o. We all know about your lack of love for Onazi
Was it a red? yes but I have seen referees miss that same call in certain games. I think u guys are both right tbh no need for the extra gra gra. Save your world class debating prowess for another time.

BascoVanVeli:


My bros u are looking suspicious o. We all know about your lack of love for Onazi
Was it a red? yes but I have seen referees miss that same call in certain games. I think u guys are both right tbh no need for the extra gra gra. Save your world class debating prowess for another time.

TheGoodJoe:


I can accept the referee missed a clear red card. We saw it repeatedly in the attack against City. As Bernardo Silva put it, Slaughter. However, I can not accept a Nigerian trying to justify a clear red card the referee missed. the my friend, is a new low.

TheGoodJoe:
Mikel said of the incident with Giroud: “I got an elbow and the referee saw it and he only gave him a warning, not even a yellow card, nothing. It was bad. We know the game – if you see it, act on it. The ref saw it. He did catch me. I don’t know if it was too hard but the intention was definitely there. I don’t think he is a dirty player. Everyone wants to win for his country. He hasn’t done those sort of things before so maybe it was just one of those things in the heat of the moment.”


The bolded highlights the point I am making. It is the intention that warrants the card. The rule book is for cases like a player making a tackle and contacting a player. However, when the intention is clear, there has to be a straight red. There is no room for violence in the game.

That was a repeated violent act on Onazi and someone is trying to use the rule book to justify murder on tape. A player who also made a wild lunge on Ambrose.

Give me a break.

Icon4s:


Oga, I don't know what you are saying.

90% of pundits world-wide who reanalyzed that incident called it a straight Red card.

I am more vexed with Mikel because due to his position as one of leaders of the team and also his experience in the game, he should have made the best out of that incident.

Common, we are not talking about a WAFU competition or an AFCON qualifiers. This was a Works cup 2nd round game for goodness sake's. A game we were having the upper hand in terms of ball possession and chances created and you know with France being one man down we stand a better chance of carrying the day. Is it every day you get to play at the 2nd round of a world cup?

Rohr better teaches his boys about some of these acts o. They can make the difference in critical games. Look at Kaita's case at the 2010 WC and how the Greek player made the best of it.

I was really vexed at that Matuidi vs Onazi incident and I am still pained. We were robbed.

TheGoodJoe:
"I am not happy with the officiating," Keshi said, per Stuart James at The Guardian. "On two occasions, he [Onazi] had a very bad tackle and nothing was done by the referee."

Matuidi made two attempts to injure Onazi and succeeded on his second attempt. Yet, someone is talking rule book and winning. Baffles me. Maybe Stephen Keshi did not know there is a rule book.

mank1234:


It was a red for me. Give me a link to the complete ref rules and I'll show you another rule that would have been used to send him out. You're only using one rule and in retrospect after the event had already occurred to buttress your point.

realpoacher:











All of you have strength o! Arguing with a known hater of the SE. He has a track record here na,...

Always negatively against anything Super Eagles. Sometimes I wonder if he a Nigerian

We win... He will be absent, and shows up days after the euphoria have died down to downplay the win

He seeks to see us lose,... Many times he even go as far as prophesying that we will lose

Our players do well in their clubs... No commendation, no applaud, no nothing

Rather he looks out for their flaws and blows it out of proportion.


Is that the person you people are arguing with?.. Let our opponents slaughter our players on the field with knives, him and his cohorts will turn a blind eye, to them, killing our players is even better.

Don't waste your energy on known haters

gbosaa:


The pix of the tackle was scary but when I watched the video, it didn’t look as bad. It was a horrible tackle and it hurts because the French capitalised on that to win. I’m sure Matuidi would be celebrated in Paris.

When I reflect, I remember similar incident in 1988. Nigeria vs Algeria in Maroc 88. Nigeria was leading 1-0. Ademola Adeshina was given a red card and there after, Algeria equalised.

Manfred Hoener whispered to Bright Omokaro to use his ruggedness to our advantage, the result...Omokaro went on a tackle against Menad Djamel. Djamel left for treatment, came back with braces all over his leg but it wasn’t enough. Algeria had used all their three substitutes. Djamel couldn’t continue and Bright Omokaro earned himself the nickname 10-10. Even IBB hailed him.

We should forget this Matuidi incident and focus on more positive news about Nigeria football.

gbosaa:


The pix of the tackle was scary but when I watched the video, it didn’t look as bad. It was a horrible tackle and it hurts because the French capitalised on that to win. I’m sure Matuidi would be celebrated in Paris.

When I reflect, I remember similar incident in 1988. Nigeria vs Algeria in Maroc 88. Nigeria was leading 1-0. Ademola Adeshina was given a red card and there after, Algeria equalised.

Manfred Hoener whispered to Bright Omokaro to use his ruggedness to our advantage, the result...Omokaro went on a tackle against Menad Djamel. Djamel left for treatment, came back with braces all over his leg but it wasn’t enough. Algeria had used all their three substitutes. Djamel couldn’t continue and Bright Omokaro earned himself the nickname 10-10. Even IBB hailed him.

We should forget this Matuidi incident and focus on more positive news about Nigeria football.

BascoVanVeli:


My bros u are looking suspicious o. We all know about your lack of love for Onazi
Was it a red? yes but I have seen referees miss that same call in certain games. I think u guys are both right tbh no need for the extra gra gra. Save your world class debating prowess for another time.

TheGoodJoe:
“Spanish newspapers had headlines saying Nigeria was robbed; they said the referee cost Nigeria the game,” Henry Makinwa, the ex-Vitoria Setubal striker said.“Emenike’s goal should have stood and why would Matuidi earn a mere yellow card for that crunching challenge on Onazi, who was our best player on the day?“It was a career-ending tackle and that should have earned the player (Matuidi) a straight red card. The officiating was nothing to write home about.”

A clear intention to injure a player with a career-ending tackle and someone wants to justify it with a rule book.