Furious Fergie..

[Rockman]

I was looking to see if anyone was holding RvP's hands preventing him from swinging.
Yes, he confronted his assaulter(can't definitively rule out a stare down) but did nothing to warrant a red card.
To say that he was luckier than Williams that actually did something is puzzling.
If memory serves me right,the FA has tough sanctions for specific retaliation;hitting someone with a clench fist and hitting someone in the face are usually dealt with severely.That shows it is not just retaliating but the severity of it is what determines the punishment.
Yeah unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree.

[Paul Marin]

... yuh upside down head confusing you... is YOUR head bury! LOL Anyway, tell me if RVP did no go after the player... IMO that is retaliation and "red-cardable" if you don't think he did let us agree to disagree..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2asmW42o4g

Oh boy...I am sitting here on "pins and needles" waiting to see you dwarfed by the sheer brilliance of Rockman's coming response. LOL!!!

[Peter R]

... yuh upside down head confusing you... is YOUR head bury! LOL Anyway, tell me if RVP did no go after the player... IMO that is retaliation and "red-cardable" if you don't think he did let us agree to disagree..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2asmW42o4g

[Rockman]

Okay, only because I can't see you doing that without unburying your head.

[Peter R]

...I see your head still stuck in the sand... I will send a backhoe

[Rockman]

This is like fighting when we were much younger,as long as someone is there to hold me back I am as tough as can be,besides,it is not unusual for a heated player to show better judgment at the point of confrontation;in the end a stare down.
In any event both players were given a yellow, I can't see how RvP is luckier when all you have is intent in his case against a clear action by Williams in which intent never figured.

[Peter R]

I can't help you... if you want to play naive and stick your head in the sand go ahead. You said he only grabbed his shirt... I explained what the shirt grabbing was,... if you did not the see the intent then and the subsequent attempts by him to clawt Williams and having to be restrained by others, while Williams stood there with his hands out... as I said I can't help you.

[Rockman]

So the (only) contacts RvP made with his assaulter were accidental?.
Retaliated "so to speak"?
Which leads me to this question,EXACTLY what did RvP do to warrant a red card?

[Peter R]

That blow literally knocked the sense out of RvP,who amazingly immediately showed great restraint(he is guilty of grabbing Williams shirt,happens all the time in football without it being whistled by a ref).
I see it this way, kicking the ball away after the whistle halted play is time wasting,killing time off the clock or buying time to reset the defense,that is one offense. Committing felony assault is another.
In the end Williams offenses were penalized as time wasting, nothing more.

Rockman if you check the replay you'll see that rvp was tripped by the defender BEFORE he got to Williams and what you call grabbing his shirt was rvp actually breaking his own fall... had he not been tripped he might very well be serving a four match ban or longer for assault .
Williams was reckless and is lucky to have escaped with a yellow ..but it was obvious rvp was not hurt ... rvp is even luckier as he retaliated so to speak and that is a sending off... no matter how understandable rvp's reaction.
Fergie crap really should keep his mouth shut and stop complain so much... the ref imo did not handle the situation badly.

[Rockman]

That blow literally knocked the sense out of RvP,who amazingly immediately showed great restraint(he is guilty of grabbing Williams shirt,happens all the time in football without it being whistled by a ref).
I see it this way, kicking the ball away after the whistle halted play is time wasting,killing time off the clock or buying time to reset the defense,that is one offense. Committing felony assault is another.
In the end Williams offenses were penalized as time wasting, nothing more.

[Mosiah]

Almost killed...please!

[Rockman]

Look, modern day football players are sensitive bastards,a little baby injury can rule them out for a long time.Williams not only kick the ball, he took out his frustration on it.Almost killed RvP.
The tackle that resulted in Cisse having a broken leg was not unusual(the same for the unfortunate Arsenal youngster)but it was those incidents that spurned those tackles.

[Mosiah]

as much as I dislike manu,and not to mention turncoat, it is Williams that should have been red carded for kicking the ball at RVP's head after the whistle was blown (by his own admission). Whether or not he was aiming for RVP is irrelevant as the outcome of his actions was kicking the ball at a player laying on the ground. Lets call a spade a spade.

Is this the first time a ball is kicked at an opponent in that fashion?

How come we didn't hear how cruel it is on those other occasions?!?

[Peter R]

as much as I dislike manu,and not to mention turncoat, it is Williams that should have been red carded for kicking the ball at RVP's head after the whistle was blown (by his own admission). Whether or not he was aiming for RVP is irrelevant as the outcome of his actions was kicking the ball at a player laying on the ground. Lets call a spade a spade.

if we want to call spade spade then BOTH should be red carded and rvp an extra match ban for reacting like an idiot! that is how the laws are written .

[Karl]

It all depends on the refs opinion.
If he thought Williams was reckless i.e. with disregard for safety of RVP (...and indeed, his own teammate) deliberately hurt RVP - a card should be issued and it should be expulsion!

If he also thought that RVP should have been expelled i.e. RVP attacked Williams...albeit RVP had cause to be alarmed at what he thought was an attack on him. However regardless of any perceived severity of an attack...all players should refrain from retaliation/attacking another! = violent conduct!!!

On neither of the above described actions could a caution be given.

...on the flipside if he thought Williams had not committed an offense...then 'no card' for Williams....and RVP showed unsporting behaviour/ungentlemanly conduct then caution for RVP.

If he thought Williams committed an offense but it rose only to the level of dangerous play...then a caution would be justified.

...as I saw it RVP did not strike Williams...but had to be restrained from so doing! ...so...???

So called 'Sensible refereeing' for issuing a caution to each player?
Well the incident was defused (save for Sir Alex's 'There was an attempt to kill RVP'... in the dark!) - I have no problem with how the ref handled the matter. Reasonable person(s) could conclude the ref did well! Not Sir Alex!