Freeze the video and it looks more like a cm than a foot.
I think the dive by the Madrid player is out of order too though. The current Laws are just stupid about this sort of thing.
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I think the dive by the Madrid player is out of order too though. The current Laws are just stupid about this sort of thing.
My point is that the attacker gets to the ball first and the defender is nowhere near it and makes an out of control lunge. The attacker does dive too though. But I don't see giving a penalty as a clear error.
It's not a foul. The defender doesn't make an out of control lunge, he simply swings for the ball and misses.
There's no danger to the attacker and he isn't impeded. It's not a penalty and it is a dive.
I'm not condoning the current Law but it says it is a foul if a player makes a careless challenge. It's that sort of wording that causes this sort of decision.
That was my initial point. The laws of the game are what they are, but if that incident is a foul and a penalty, the game's in deep trouble.
No chance do Levante get that decision against Madrid. No chance.
Since neither 'Challenge' nor 'Tackle' is defined in the Laws you might be right.
However he may well have kicked him. This is the best freeze frame I can get
You must log in or register to see images
I don't think that there's enough there to call a foul, but there's certainly enough to call a dive.
Casemiro's subsequent actions are clearly an attempt to cheat.
I'm not saying there is, but I think the Ref gave the penalty and the vaR would have to overturn it. There isn't clear evidence that he didn't kick him and the human eye is better at this sort of thing than a frame by frame replay because the feet move relatively by about 6 inches between frames.
I agree Casemiro is cheating by the way.
There's no evidence that he was kicked. The visuals are inconclusive and Casemiro's reaction doesn't suggest significant contact.
Even if there is a challenge and not a row z attempt, there is no reason for Casemiro to fall like that if at all.
Does that mean , every time a defender attempts to clear the ball with extra thrust the player nearest to him should fall over and claim a penalty-or does he not need to fall and just politely ask the ref?
Does that mean , every time a defender attempts to clear the ball with extra thrust the player nearest to him should fall over and claim a penalty-or does he not need to fall and just politely ask the ref?
I agree. But doesn't that mean the VaR can't overturn the on field decision? There was an incident in the Chelsea match yesterday where the Assistant Ref flagged Aguero offside and the still frame from VaR they showed looked very inconclusive, so I assumed the goal would have stood if he hadn't been flagged...
I think that the evidence suggests that there's an error, in that there's no evidence of a foul.
The Aguero incident would probably have stood for the same reason.
Part of the problem is the way the Law is worded:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•tackles or challenges
•trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
•Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed
•Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
•Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
It is mangled in several ways:
1) The first list has six things which are actually offences and 'tackles or challenges' which are usually not.
2) The use of the word 'careless' is crazy. It suggests that a deliberate trip or push which is not reckless or using excessive force is NOT a foul as it couldn't be careless if done deliberately, could it?
3) The sentence before the second list is just confusing. Why mention 'contact' here when an attempted trip etc (where contact presumably is not made) is already defined to be an offence for a direct free kick?
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following
offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
•charges
•jumps at
•kicks or attempts to kick
•pushes
•strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
•tackles or challenges
•trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
•Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed
•Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
•Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
It is mangled in several ways:
1) The first list has six things which are actually offences and 'tackles or challenges' which are usually not.
2) The use of the word 'careless' is crazy. It suggests that a deliberate trip or push which is not reckless or using excessive force is NOT a foul as it couldn't be careless if done deliberately, could it?
3) The sentence before the second list is just confusing. Why mention 'contact' here when an attempted trip etc (where contact presumably is not made) is already defined to be an offence for a direct free kick?
Last edited:
Actually I'm only half right. A Tackle is defined: 'A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)'. I find it hard to suggest that these two players were not challenging for the ball with their feet......but as Challenge remains undefined who knows? I would prefer a tackle to be defined in terms of one player dribbling and the other attempting to take the ball away though. I've always thought that when a ball is lose and two players genuinely go for it that it is unreasonable to penalise the one who got there second.
…….and goal keepers spat on their hands,while todays goalies wear gloves the size of mattresses and other players wear gloves in case they break a nail!!!!?
I think we'll be singing a few choice songs abiut Mike "****" Dean...