The [Horribly Unpopular] Soccer Thread
- Thread starter Reno_eNVy
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
aygov
Well-Known Member
I love how the ref blew and made him take it back to the corner when he tried to throw it on to the grass.
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
haha, i have no idea why he thought that was going to be acceptable. I did like the solution they worked out.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
That's not a red on the professional level. Or it shouldn't be. Both players were playing the ball. There was no serious damage to Arbeloa.
At the very least, 3 managers I know of didn't think it was read. Both managers on the pitch that day and Michael Laudrup. Also former ref Dermot Gallagher.This ref was the who gave the controversial red to Terry in the UCL Semis last year.
As far as your last point, don't even know where you're going with that, I assume you're saying that Nani kicked Arbeloa. On the real though, that play happened in what a half second, you think in that short of a time he coudl process that he was kicking someone and then relatiate? I'm fairly certain that what happened was a natural reaction, your leg is pushed back to your body fast you push back. He deserved a yellow for reckless play but since Arbeloa wasn't hurt and it wasn't intentional (Nani was watching the ball the whole time) to me it doesn't justify a straight red. Yes you do it at the developmental levels (basically through college) but when you're in the pros players play balls in the air the way Nani did all the time. Sometimes they're dangerous plays but honestly I don't think Nani knew Arbeloa was near him, just like I don't think that Arbeloa knew Nani had his foot up.
In the end it should have been a yellow and a severe chastising for Nani and put him on a short leash for a second yellow.
lgilmore
Well-Known Member
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• 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, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match
Law 12.
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 in 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.Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless
there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send
off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.
A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is
restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred
inside the offender’s penalty area).
Sorry Fifa disagrees with you and those pro coaches. You don't determine the card based on the medical report. You can't say "well no ribs were broken, so it should be a yellow".
Again a player just has to make a poor play. The don't have to show intent. A clumbsy challendge is still a red card offense, even made by the nicest player. He's gone for a clumbsy challenge where he was late to the ball. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just a poorly played action on his part.
following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• 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, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match
Law 12.
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 in 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.Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless
there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send
off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.
A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is
restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred
inside the offender’s penalty area).
Sorry Fifa disagrees with you and those pro coaches. You don't determine the card based on the medical report. You can't say "well no ribs were broken, so it should be a yellow".
Again a player just has to make a poor play. The don't have to show intent. A clumbsy challendge is still a red card offense, even made by the nicest player. He's gone for a clumbsy challenge where he was late to the ball. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, just a poorly played action on his part.
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
This is asinine wording for them to have in their interpretations. Any tackle, no matter how clean, can endanger the safety of an opponent, simply because freak accidents can happen. There is no tackle that does not introduce more risk to the well being of an opponent.
Roy Keane– the ex Man U captain– said it best: “Regardless of Nani seeing Arbeloa, studs up, at the chest level, is a red card every-time. There are 22 players on the field, so you must always assume someone is near you.”
http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2013/...ff-man-utd-champions-league-march-2013-cakir/
http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2013/...ff-man-utd-champions-league-march-2013-cakir/
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
But by that logic, bicycle kicks are never acceptable. Because if you assume someone must be near you, a bicycle is always a dangerous play.
no not really
going in to a challenge with studs up and a straight leg into someones chest is different then a bicycle kick
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
Of course it's different. I never said it wasn't. But a bicycle if someone is right next to you is dangerous. You are putting your foot into the vicinity of their head. That is dangerous. Therefore, if you're always to assume someone is right next to you, a bicycle should always be assumed to be dangerous.
not my words but well said
"You can accidentally kick some one, bash heads, etc, etc, but if you are using appropriate technique for actually shooting, tackling, heading that's fine. That includes overhead kicks. Studs up and a straight leg is not appropriate technique for any of those and is dangerous."
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
Well given that he was trying to settle a ball, we wouldn't expect him to use proper shooting, tackling or heading technique, would we? So whether it was appropriate for any of those things is irrelevant.
lgilmore
Well-Known Member
"simply because freak accidents can happen"
Yes, absolutely, no disagreement. That said a freak accident done poorly is still a red card. A bad challenge is a red card even if no harm was intended. Clumbsy play still creates a red card.
While you don't like the wording, it's copied straight from FIFA. Laws of the game. Sorry for having to get all "lawsy" on you, but it's sort of the slap in the face to bring people back down from what they think should be called.
cheers man.
Yes, absolutely, no disagreement. That said a freak accident done poorly is still a red card. A bad challenge is a red card even if no harm was intended. Clumbsy play still creates a red card.
While you don't like the wording, it's copied straight from FIFA. Laws of the game. Sorry for having to get all "lawsy" on you, but it's sort of the slap in the face to bring people back down from what they think should be called.
cheers man.
I think were going to have to agree to disagree
the proper way to settle a ball isn't lunging with a straight leg, studs up at chest height
I just hope the Chelsea vs Man U game this weekend isn't ruined like the last one
lgilmore
Well-Known Member
To add.. bicycle kick.
A bicycle kick done correctly? a goal. A bicycle kick that cracks the head of an opposing player? Red card.
So a risky play can be just part of the game AS LONG AS IT'S DONE CORRECTLY. A bicycle kick that results in a goal without cracking open a head is a goal. A bicycle kick that takes out an opponents teeth.. a red.
A bicycle kick done correctly? a goal. A bicycle kick that cracks the head of an opposing player? Red card.
So a risky play can be just part of the game AS LONG AS IT'S DONE CORRECTLY. A bicycle kick that results in a goal without cracking open a head is a goal. A bicycle kick that takes out an opponents teeth.. a red.
OP
OP
Reno_eNVy
Well-Known Member
Did anybody watch the CONCACAF Champions League match of LA vs Herediano last night? Dude, that ref was awful. Not only did he not call a dangerous play when a Herediano player did a bicycle kick, whiffed the shot, and hit AJ DeLaGarza, but he also called back a perfectly good Mike Magee goal. Then add about 20 fouls from Herediano that went unnoticed. It's amazing LA got out of there 0-0.
Return leg is next week in Southern California.
Return leg is next week in Southern California.
Grannyknot
Well-Known Member
I think the Nani Red Card debate is getting a little silly.
Everyone has formed an opinion based on what they perceived to happen. The rule clearly states that the difference between "reckless" and "excessive" force is up to interpretation by the referee, based on what he or she witnessed at the time of the incident.
The referee was well within his right to give no foul, a yellow, or a red.
I just don't agree with his interpretation of what happened.
I hope noboddy feels like I have slapped them in the face, or whatever was previously mentioned.
Everyone has formed an opinion based on what they perceived to happen. The rule clearly states that the difference between "reckless" and "excessive" force is up to interpretation by the referee, based on what he or she witnessed at the time of the incident.
The referee was well within his right to give no foul, a yellow, or a red.
I just don't agree with his interpretation of what happened.
I hope noboddy feels like I have slapped them in the face, or whatever was previously mentioned.
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
Well, really its from the Interpretations of the Laws of the game, not the actual laws of the game, if you want to be all lawsy.
My point about the wording is that they don't say ANYTHING about bad challenge, or done poorly, or clumsy, all the things you added in as far as what makes it a red card. All they say is "A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play." I mean, it doesn't even say the tackle has to be illegal, only that it endanger the safety of an opponent. By that wording that they use in their interpretation, any tackle that results in injury *must* therefore be sanctioned as a red card. No matter how well done, because it clearly endangered the opponents safety. It not only endangered it, it actually compromised it. That is why that wording is, IMO, nonsense. To be clear, my argument with this wording has NOTHING to do with the Nani situation, merely with the wording itself.
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
Yup, its all about interpretation. As for the face slapping, I have no idea what that was really about, but certainly hope no one would feel slapped in the face simply because of a lively discussion on a message board.
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
I think were going to have to agree to disagree
the proper way to settle a ball isn't lunging with a straight leg, studs up at chest height
I just hope the Chelsea vs Man U game this weekend isn't ruined like the last one
Well sure, that's up for debate. My point was just that a quote about how it wasn't proper shooting, tackling or heading form is irrelevant, since he wasn't doing those things.
Schlimly
Well-Known Member
In my opinion that's the biggest difference between Americas and European leagues. The referring.
The level of players and skill are getting close between the two, but the reffing is still the biggest turn off for me watching CONCACAF. The European leagues aren't perfect as seen by some of the CL games this season, but they are closer to being consistent.
I don't go out of my way to watch a lot of the Americas leagues for that reason.
Of coarse just my opinion and subject to change
BrewKnurd
Well-Known Member
So, how bout them Xolos?
Exciting to see a team with a few Americans contributing regularly beat the CLub World Cup champs in the Copa Libertadores.
Exciting to see a team with a few Americans contributing regularly beat the CLub World Cup champs in the Copa Libertadores.
lgilmore
Well-Known Member
brewknud?
"Well, really its from the Interpretations of the Laws of the game, not the actual laws of the game, if you want to be all lawsy. "
No actually what I posted was directly from FIFA's lawbook.
Look up Law 18 when you get a chance. More than a decade as a licensed ref. Called games involving current MLS players.
I'm sorry you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Does the challenge meet the definition of serious foul play in the case we're looking at? yea, it does.
Was the CR justified in his call? Yes he was. Could the CR done something else? Yes. Was he required to? Would this red get overturned? no
His decision is the only one that matters. There is nothing in the laws of the game that would indicate an incorrect call.
"Well, really its from the Interpretations of the Laws of the game, not the actual laws of the game, if you want to be all lawsy. "
No actually what I posted was directly from FIFA's lawbook.
Look up Law 18 when you get a chance. More than a decade as a licensed ref. Called games involving current MLS players.
I'm sorry you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Does the challenge meet the definition of serious foul play in the case we're looking at? yea, it does.
Was the CR justified in his call? Yes he was. Could the CR done something else? Yes. Was he required to? Would this red get overturned? no
His decision is the only one that matters. There is nothing in the laws of the game that would indicate an incorrect call.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
You think Nani knew that Arbeloa was there? That's a pretty big leap of faith there.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
FIFA's laws are up for interpretation of course.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/7.%20law%2012_miscounduct_557.pdf
If you scroll down to page 4, you can see they consider a reckless foul a yellow, I think that's what Nani's foul is.
The serious foul is a player exerting excessive force (which you'd have a case for if Nani did it intentionally)
Now I'll know you posted this one and it repeats there so I'll address this
"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."
Key word there, lunges, if Nani had an inkling that Arbeloa would be there, I'd agree red, Nani though watched the ball the entire time. If you follow the event (Nani tracking the clearance) in his mind he was bringing the ball down, and it's no different than someone doing a bicycle kick in the penalty area or a high kick in the penalty area.
On the professional level, you shouldn't be handing out redcards like candy. If you do you're ruining the flwo and quality of the game. Man U likely wins that game except for an over-zealous ref.
lunging at the ball with a straight leg & studs up at chest level trying to controll the ball with no idea who is around you could be considered dangerous & reckless.
no leap of faith needed
"Retired referee Graham Poll on BBC Radio 5 live: "Only one offence has to be intentional - handball. It's not what you mean to do but what you actually do. He intended to jump that high with his foot raised - that's intentional. It's unfortunate, he's not that kind of player but the referee was doing his job and it is wholly wrong for us to castigate him for doing his job."
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
So should a bicycle kick? What about when the goalie punches a cross?
Without intent it's not as bad of a crime.
Even at that, Reckless play according to FIFA rules is a yellow.
Nani was trying to control the ball, if wasn't like he was kicking Arbeloa or aiming for his chest. I saw probably 3 or 4 other times that game someone brought a ball down in the the air with a high kick. It should be treated basically the same way as a high sticking used to be in hockey, it's cool if your don't hit someone, if you do, then it's a minor (or in soccer terms a yellow or caution), it's not a game misconduct, but if you use your stick as a weapon and smack someone in the head on purpose, that's a different monster.
"Retired referee Graham Poll on BBC Radio 5 live: "Only one offence has to be intentional - handball. It's not what you mean to do but what you actually do. He intended to jump that high with his foot raised - that's intentional. It's unfortunate, he's not that kind of player but the referee was doing his job and it is wholly wrong for us to castigate him for doing his job."
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
We could play the back and forth quote game all night
Jose Mourhino - “it was a poor decision”.
Former Ref Dermot Gallagher - "I don't think I would have given a red card for that offense"
And if context doesn't matter and a dangerous play is a dangerous play, then why wasn't Diego Lopez sent off?
Jose Mourhino - “it was a poor decision”.
Former Ref Dermot Gallagher - "I don't think I would have given a red card for that offense"
And if context doesn't matter and a dangerous play is a dangerous play, then why wasn't Diego Lopez sent off?
We could play the back and forth quote game all night
Jose Mourhino - “it was a poor decision”.
Former Ref Dermot Gallagher - "I don't think I would have given a red card for that offense"
And if context doesn't matter and a dangerous play is a dangerous play, then why wasn't Diego Lopez sent off?
sure that looks like it could of been a red
I also like the edit on the pic Live doesn't look that bad
I like this one better though
Last edited by a moderator:
dwarven_stout
Well-Known Member
hopstupid said:
Just requoting yourself quoting someone else adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Umm I edited the post he quoted while he was writing his post
So his quote of my post didn't include that part
So actually
It did
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
So a player hitting a guy in the chest with his foot while both are playing the ball = red
A player punching someone in the face = could be a red
Do you start seeing the hypocrisy yet?
Naw it didn't look like a red on the video. On the pic it did but that's just my opinion.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
In the video you can clearly see the ball coming off Vidic's head then him getting punched in the face. Again if context doesn't matter, it should have been a straight red. Certainly was more dangerous than Nani's foul. Gimme running into someone's foot over getting punched in the head any day of the week.
hoppyhoppyhippo
Well-Known Member
I think you have a case for that. That's certainly more deserving than Nani's penalty. The key word when it comes to the FIFA wording with handball reds is "deliberate". There were a good number of handballs not called that game, I also saw one on Higuin where he used his (IIRC) left arm to deaden a ball in the penalty area, should have been a yellow. Certainly that was a more legit shout than Nani's red. Nani committed a foul, but a reckless tackle is a yellow. I don't think he used excessive force, one could argue that Arbeloa used more force than Nani (see how far back Nani's leg went)
Again Nani should have been shown a card for reckless play, as a yellow, because that's the card for reckless play.
Again Nani should have been shown a card for reckless play, as a yellow, because that's the card for reckless play.
lgilmore
Well-Known Member
Check law 12 for serious foul play.
The laws of the game allow for a ref to have some room in their decision making on the field. Law 18 is hopefully applied. When I mentored young refs (maybe some you guys screamed at in your kids games) I would ask the question "what did you see?" Then I'd shut up an listen. If what they explained fell within the guidelines of the laws. I couldn't necessarily disagree. From where they were, they applied the laws of the game and made a decision appropriate to the laws. Doesn't matter what angle I saw it from, what did they see?
This extends to the big boys too. What did the CR or linesman see? Is the call or non call appropriate and within the laws of the game? Within the framework of the game are the calls consistent? Is a foul in the 10th minute a foul in the 85th minute?
I also have to question here if many of you have ever read the laws of the game or know that every year points of emphasis are released to be applied to matches? The laws evolve over time. What you may of played under, may not be applied the same way now.
The laws of the game allow for a ref to have some room in their decision making on the field. Law 18 is hopefully applied. When I mentored young refs (maybe some you guys screamed at in your kids games) I would ask the question "what did you see?" Then I'd shut up an listen. If what they explained fell within the guidelines of the laws. I couldn't necessarily disagree. From where they were, they applied the laws of the game and made a decision appropriate to the laws. Doesn't matter what angle I saw it from, what did they see?
This extends to the big boys too. What did the CR or linesman see? Is the call or non call appropriate and within the laws of the game? Within the framework of the game are the calls consistent? Is a foul in the 10th minute a foul in the 85th minute?
I also have to question here if many of you have ever read the laws of the game or know that every year points of emphasis are released to be applied to matches? The laws evolve over time. What you may of played under, may not be applied the same way now.
