Cüneyt Çakır

[redevil2]

But is that a real UEFA spokesman or a fake? And who can we trust to confirm that?

UEFA spokesman confirms @RefereeCuneyt is a fake account.

Not a big thing I know, but why is he saying that to a Spanish newspaper? Why not an English (which would make much more sense) or a Turkish one?
....

First off, how did UEFA know the Twitter account is fake? Basing on what the Cnut told them?

Secondly, like you said, why didn't he speak to English or Turkish media but just the Spanish one? It's so fishy it is unreal UEFA is turning a blind eye and protect their officials to such an extend. That's how they ruin the beautiful game by being so incompetent and corrupt!

There should be an open investigation to UEFA in their handling of these matters

 

[Chabon]

There should be an open investigation into UEFA's beliefs regarding trapping the ball above chest height, if it's true they've entirely back their man.

If it's been banned by convention, they should say so, because it's sure as shit not in the rules.

 

[Cold_Boy]

Lets not get rawkish about the UEFA's conspiracy and stuff.

But whats there to see is the man is self centered, incompetent twat.And maybe he favours Spanish teams.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

cnut Cakir.

He ruined the game, and ruined our chances of winning the game. He will probably never referee us again because of it. /end.

 

[Ruud10]

Cakir told newspaper AS: 'I feel good and I do not doubt my decisions. Nani's red was correct. The world will realise the truth over time.'

There is absolutely nothing in the rules to support the decision to give Nani a straight red.

Quoting directly now:

A player is sent off and shown the red card if they commit any of the following seven offences:

Serious foul play

Violent conduct, such as throwing a punch

Spitting at an opponent or another person

A player other than the goalkeeper denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball

Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free-kick or a penalty kick

Using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
Receiving a second caution in the match

We can rule out all but the bolded part, "serious foul play". cnut Cakir, should he be brought to the witness stand, would have to argue that Nani was guilty of "serious foul play". What is "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 when 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.

We can rule out "the use of excessive force".

We can rule out "a tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent".

But what about "lunges at an opponent"? Nani clearly did not lunge at Arbeloa from the front or from behind. But what about "the side"? Arbeloa, as we all know, himself came from the side and behind of Nani. Let's take one more look, cnut:

Nani committed to controlling the ball in the air before he knew Arbeloa was charging into the play. It was not a "lunge at an opponent", as there was no opponent in that space at the time Nani committed to the ball. Had Arbeloa been in that space and Nani went in with a chest high boot, such as De Jong on Alonso in 2010, that would absolutely be a red card. But Nani didn't even know Arbeloa was coming from behind. This was in no way a serious foul.

There is no "truth" the world will ever "realise", you Turkish shitbag.

But if, in your mind you piece of shit cnut, you believe Nani v Arbeloa was a straight red, then why is this -- Arbeloa v Evra straight on -- only a yellow?


Fukkin hell.

 

[redevil2]

Lets not get rawkish about the UEFA's conspiracy and stuff.

But whats there to see is the man is self centered, incompetent twat.And maybe he favours Spanish teams.

Well you have to be stupid to regard our concern as such! To appoint a biased referee (against English and for Spanish) to officiate a game of such magnitude and then stood by him regardless is ghastly, and irresponsible.

NOTE what The boss says in the press conference today:

Ferguson said he had been concerned about the appointment of Turkish referee Cuneyt Cakir prior to Tuesday's game.

Cakir has now sent off seven players from English teams, but never one against them.

"I was concerned. I said that to my staff," he said.

"I had a big worry about it but it is gone now. There is nothing we can do about it."

 

[redevil2]

There should be an open investigation into UEFA's beliefs regarding trapping the ball above chest height, if it's true they've entirely back their man.

If it's been banned by convention, they should say so, because it's sure as shit not in the rules.

They should make clear Bicycle shots are not legi then?

 

[kouroux]

cnut Cakir was never gonna admit his mistake.Surely if there is this much uproar he must realize that something was wrong with his decision but it's all about saving face now

 

[redevil2]

cnut Cakir was never gonna admit his mistake.Surely if there is this much uproar he must realize that something was wrong with his decision but it's all about saving face now

It's really not about how the Cnut behaved after the game or defended himself. Of course he's not admitting mistake (or bias) unless he's a true gentlemen and has integrity.

It is the UEFA who should start to do their job properly by looking into the matter and investigate how come a referee who is not impartial was given the job! It's such a mess they can do whatever they like to single handedly dictate the outcome of a match without being accountable!!

 

[SteveJ]

The supposed SA interview with Cakir is fake, says the Turkish Football Federation.

 

[evra]

I don't know what's real and what's fake any more. Does this Cakir guy even exist? Was he just a hologram controlled by Platini?

 

[Relevated]

Uefa spokesman confirms Platini a fake.

 

[Relevated]

Uefa spokesman confirms that Platini is a twat who should piss off.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Fukkin hell.

Now that's a red.

 

[redevil2]

The supposed SA interview with Cakir is fake, says the Turkish Football Federation.

Source?

There is something fishy and we need to know whats going on!

 

[mswiss]

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)


i demand answers!

 

[kouroux]

It's really not about how the Cnut behaved after the game or defended himself. Of course he's not admitting mistake (or bias) unless he's a true gentlemen and has integrity.

It is the UEFA who should start to do their job properly by looking into the matter and investigate how come a referee who is not impartial was given the job! It's such a mess they can do whatever they like to single handedly dictate the outcome of a match without being accountable!!

I agree with you.Referees should be at the same time protected AND held accountable when they feck up

 

[SteveJ]

Source?

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/engla...nd-nani-off?source=breakingnews&ICID=HP_HL_11

 

[redevil2]

NOTE what The boss says in the press conference today:

Ferguson said he had been concerned about the appointment of Turkish referee Cuneyt Cakir prior to Tuesday's game.

Cakir has now sent off seven players from English teams, but never one against them.

"I was concerned. I said that to my staff," he said.

"I had a big worry about it but it is gone now. There is nothing we can do about it."

Can you see the frustration of the gaffer? His hands are tied because whatever he (or the club) does will be subject to UEFA's scrutiny. There should be an independent inquiry to look into why this cnut sent off only English players and still be given the task in games of importance.

Issuing cards is a great way of him achieving result certain referees want. They have a job to do but being incompetence is one thing whereas having an agenda is quite another.

 

[Ringo 07]

sad that in 50 years it will come out that this ref had indeed been bribed by Real Madrid!

 

[redevil2]

sad that in 50 years it will come out that this ref had indeed been bribed by Real Madrid!

Or he is just a Spanish supporter (like his twitter account clearly shows and he's now not going to admit it is his real account)

And we don't really have 50 years! Must act now if there is anything we can do.

 

[AngeloHenriquez]

Or he is just a Spanish supporter (like his twitter account clearly shows and he's now not going to admit it is his real account)

And we don't really have 50 years! Must act now if there is anything we can do.

You have actually lost the plot TOP red.

 

[Scrumpet]

Everybody makes mistakes, but not everybody makes a huge one and pretends that everyone in the world is wrong except him(...and Roy Keane). What a big, bouncing, ballbag.

 

[redevil2]

You have actually lost the plot TOP red.

Please explain how I have lost the plot? Seriously!

 

[Red Defence]

This is starting to look uncomfortable for UEFA.

There's been all this stuff in the press lately about match-fixing from players and refs that UEFA should have even more of a responsibility to ensure that their officials appear as squeaky clean as possible.

So, in order to do that they go and appoint an official to referee a match with a PL team against a Spanish team when his record of issuing red cards against PL teams is certainly questionable and may even imply bias.

Does make people wonder if UEFA are a just touch dense, bloody-minded or if the choice of Cakir was quite deliberate.

 

[RedRover]

This thread is nothing short of amazing.

The decision the other night was plainly wrong - that's a fact, but losing the game had as much to do with sitting back and defending far too deep afterwards.

There are bad decisions in a lot of football matches. We were on the wrong end this time but I didn't hear anyone complaining following the debacle at Chelsea earlier in the season.

As galling as it is, these things happen. The club will take it on the chin and move on - as it should be.

Spouting shite about a referee or suggesting he was bribed is embarrasing. Its like RAWK or Blue Moon and frankly I thought most on here were better than that.

 

[Brightonian]

This thread is nothing short of amazing.

The decision the other night was plainly wrong - that's a fact, but losing the game had as much to do with sitting back and defending far too deep afterwards.

There are bad decisions in a lot of football matches. We were on the wrong end this time but I didn't hear anyone complaining following the debacle at Chelsea earlier in the season.

As galling as it is, these things happen. The club will take it on the chin and move on - as it should be.

Spouting shite about a referee or suggesting he was bribed is embarrasing. Its like RAWK or Blue Moon and frankly I thought most on here were better than that.

Yep, thought this too. He was incompetent, not biased. He missed Evra's penalty and Arbeloa's foul on Evra, but he also didn't give a penalty against Rafael which, whilst harsh, wouldn't have been at all out of line with usual CL decisions.

I don't agree that we did too much wrong sitting back, though. Ten men down to Real Madrid, shell-shocked by a terrible decision, and with Mourinho making the perfect substitution to capitalise on the advantage, the consequences were somewhat out of our hands.

 

[redevil2]

This thread is nothing short of amazing.

The decision the other night was plainly wrong - that's a fact, but losing the game had as much to do with sitting back and defending far too deep afterwards.

There are bad decisions in a lot of football matches. We were on the wrong end this time but I didn't hear anyone complaining following the debacle at Chelsea earlier in the season.

As galling as it is, these things happen. The club will take it on the chin and move on - as it should be.

Spouting shite about a referee or suggesting he was bribed is embarrasing. Its like RAWK or Blue Moon and frankly I thought most on here were better than that.

Are you suggesting our boss is spouting shite too?! Why do you think Sir Alex said the following in today's press conference

NOTE what The boss says in the press conference today:

Ferguson said he had been concerned about the appointment of Turkish referee Cuneyt Cakir prior to Tuesday's game.

Cakir has now sent off seven players from English teams, but never one against them.

"I was concerned. I said that to my staff," he said.

"I had a big worry about it but it is gone now. There is nothing we can do about it."

 

[redevil2]

Yep, thought this too. He was incompetent, not biased. He missed Evra's penalty and Arbeloa's foul on Evra, but he also didn't give a penalty against Rafael which, whilst harsh, wouldn't have been at all out of line with usual CL decisions.

I don't agree that we did too much wrong sitting back, though. Ten men down to Real Madrid, shell-shocked by a terrible decision, and with Mourinho making the perfect substitution to capitalise on the advantage, the consequences were somewhat out of our hands.

Do you tink UEFA is incompetent too? Or not? How do your feel when UEGA send an incompentent referee to a game of this magnitude and chose to stand by him regardless? Like sir Alex said, how are we going to have faith??!!

Cakir has now sent off seven players from English teams, but never one against them.

Do you think only Sir Alex knows of this record? Or UEFA is too lazy to track these records or simply dismissing it as co incidental? Or you have absolutely no problem with all tha and accept whatever come your way?

Even RM manager said, "the best team lost".

 

[Amar__]

Sorry if this is posted already(I haven't read too much of these threads about the red card).

If anything, this is identical situation, and even at this situation Richards clearly sees Vidic coming, yet no one complaints at all.

 

[TheRisingSun]

Rio kicked Joe Cole in the head from a similar situation in Moscow and nothing was given.

They happen all the time - I can kind of see how you could make a case for it being a red with the letter of the law, but certainly not with the spirit of such a big game.

The "harsh Euro red".

 

[dhstriker]

Not sure if this has been posted, but this quote was taken from the FIFA laws of the game:

"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"

The Nani incident was a challenge and not a tackle. I didn't see any excessive force or brutality on Nani's part and I think any neutral would be hard pressed to say he did either.

 

[TheRisingSun]

Not sure if this has been posted, but this quote was taken from the FIFA laws of the game:

"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"

The Nani incident was a challenge and not a tackle. I didn't see any excessive force or brutality on Nani's part and I think any neutral would be hard pressed to say he did either.

You could say that studs being up at what would have been neck height if Arbeloa hadn't jumped was endangering his safety, by the letter of the law.

If he'd used discretion it should have been a yellow. It's not as harsh an injustice by the letter of the law as some on here are making out - I think it's more an issue of the spirit and needing to keep 11 players on the pitch where possible in a huge game like that.

Is there a distinction between a challenge and a tackle in the rules?

- Look at the height the studs would have been if Arbeloa hadn't leapt for the ball.

 

[SER19]

This thread is nothing short of amazing.

The decision the other night was plainly wrong - that's a fact, but losing the game had as much to do with sitting back and defending far too deep afterwards.

There are bad decisions in a lot of football matches. We were on the wrong end this time but I didn't hear anyone complaining following the debacle at Chelsea earlier in the season.

As galling as it is, these things happen. The club will take it on the chin and move on - as it should be.

Spouting shite about a referee or suggesting he was bribed is embarrasing. Its like RAWK or Blue Moon and frankly I thought most on here were better than that.

it pisses me off when people trot out this line. weve been on the end of a huge succession of awful decisions this year and the chelsea game is actually used as one that went for us?! offside goal certainly but it was literally borderline and that was the linesmans shout. torres shouldve had a straight red in the first half for his atrocious studs up kick into cleverley, and his "dive" did for all the world look like a dive at full speed. in fact i do think it was still a dive,to quote neville, was there contact? yes, was it a dive? yes. the ivanovic was a stonewall red. there was contentious decision and the "debacle" began when chelsea started accusing people of being racist, which they got a slap on the wrist for.

 

[dhstriker]

You could say that studs being up at what would have been neck height if Arbeloa hadn't jumped was endangering his safety, by the letter of the law.

If he'd used discretion it should have been a yellow. It's not as harsh an injustice by the letter of the law as some on here are making out - I think it's more an issue of the spirit and needing to keep 11 players on the pitch where possible in a huge game like that.

Is there a distinction between a challenge and a tackle in the rules?

Definition of a challenge is "to enter in competition with or opposition against."

I would define a challenge in football terms as a 50/50 ball where neither player has clear possession.

 

[TheRisingSun]

it pisses me off when people trot out this line. weve been on the end of a huge succession of awful decisions this year and the chelsea game is actually used as one that went for us?! offside goal certainly but it was literally borderline and that was the linesmans shout. torres shouldve had a straight red in the first half for his atrocious studs up kick into cleverley, and his "dive" did for all the world look like a dive at full speed. in fact i do think it was still a dive,to quote neville, was there contact? yes, was it a dive? yes. the ivanovic was a stonewall red. there was contentious decision and the "debacle" began when chelsea started accusing people of being racist, which they got a slap on the wrist for.

Again, sending Torres off wasn't in the spirit of that game (I accept Ivanovich was a stonewall red). Even if it was a dive (which referee guidelines apparantly state it shouldn't be if there is contact) then there is no need to reduce the home team to 9 men for a soft second booking when it was turning into a thoroughly engrossing contest. The officials ruined that game as a spectacle just like Cakir did on Tuesday, a limelight hungry ref trying to dominate proceedings instead of managing them.

If Torres should've been sent off in the first half then so should Johnny Evans for his kung-fu kick on Drogba (which Drogba was booked for) and the Rio tackle on Joe Cole in the final in Moscow etc...

 

[dhstriker]

You could say that studs being up at what would have been neck height if Arbeloa hadn't jumped was endangering his safety, by the letter of the law.

If he'd used discretion it should have been a yellow. It's not as harsh an injustice by the letter of the law as some on here are making out - I think it's more an issue of the spirit and needing to keep 11 players on the pitch where possible in a huge game like that.

Is there a distinction between a challenge and a tackle in the rules?

- Look at the height the studs would have been if Arbeloa hadn't leapt for the ball.

Studs would have been at the same height if Nani wasn't leaping for the ball. To control it, both players had to jump.

Was Nani reckless? Yes. Was he excessive? Far from it.

 

[I'm always right]

Is there a distinction between a challenge and a tackle in the rules?

Thing is, Nani is neither tackling or challenging for the ball, he's trying to control the bloody thing.

Similar to this:

A player should never ever ever be sent off for trying to control a football, it's fecking ludicrous.

 

[Cevno]

You have to know you're committing a tackle (i.e., planning to dispossess a player) when you are doing it for it to actually be a tackle. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. But I really think this is one of the reasons why "kicks or attempts to kick" an opponent is one of the penal fouls. I really don't think this counts as a "tackle."

If this is a tackle then why do we have penal fouls like, "striking," "tripping," "charging," "holding," "kicking," "pushing," and... "tackling?" If tackling actually encompassed all the things you say it does, then there should only be the need for 3 or 4 penal fouls.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Thing is, Nani is neither tackling or challenging for the ball, he's trying to control the bloody thing.

Similar to this:

A player should never ever ever be sent off for trying to control a football, it's fecking ludicrous.

Exactly. That's basically it, he was trying to control the ball and counter attack for his team not tackle the opponent but go in high like arbeloa himself did on evra. Shocking decision.