The man in the middle - Referee Admiration/Angst/Appointments thread

Smithy was talking about a trip. I don't see one in that clip other than he tripped himself. If there is another replay then I would love to see it (and be corrected)

I seen a replay where he moved his foot back to put power into the strike and going for the strike his striking foot (was still behind him) clipped the ivory coast defenders leg, probably causing him to then go on, hit the ground with his foot and trip over.

i think its incredibly unlucky and a little harsh but he did cause the player to trip. Does this mean that a player can deliberatly put their leg back in action of striking the ball, to attract contact and get a penalty?

the replay i saw was on the official Fifa website highlights package if you want to see it.

Good question.

Was the defender carelessly making a tackle? I think yes in this case.

I retract. Just seen a better view. Penalty.

The answer is no and that's the challenge for referees. To identify who iniates the contact.

'Clear contact' shouldn't dictate what is a foul or not in a contact sport. There was contact on Fred against Croatia in the form of a hand placed on his shoulder, which happens throughout the 90mins of every game played anywhere in the world at any given time, but that pen was widely condemned as there was no way that amount of contact could possibly make someone fall to the ground as heavy, and in the direction that he did.

I believe there needs to be obvious blatant force or intent used in the contact. There was neither in this instance. The Ivorian had is foot firmly planted on the ground not extended in any way as to indicate he was even making a challenge, Samaras made the contact (not he other way around), then he kicked himself. Not a pen. This is the one thing I truly hate with football - everyone looks for the slightest hint of contact to validate a foul. 

He didn't actually make a tackle though, he was merely man marking/holding his ground. Both feet firmly planted at the time of this contact.

you actually seen the video? he isn't just standing his ground.

http://tvnz.co.nz/football-news/controversial-penalty-sends-ivory-coast-packing-6011931

The point I was making is that there was no challenge at all. At very worst he's back tracking and holding territory. There's nothing more than man marking going on here. I can accept the laws Smithy posted, they all only apply to a player if a tackle is made. How the ref interprets this as a tackle though is beyond me.

I read Smithy's post before. In it he shows the definition for a foul and 'intent' is not relevant. Careless is the word that is now used for just the basic foul which would cover things like accidental. I think the best case I can think of is a player running at full tit on a wet surface and then slipping but the slip causes him to continue on and clear another play out. He may not have intended to do that, but its still a foul and that does happen. I think that really does remove your blatant force or intent argument. Also a player that is in the air. Players that jump have no control of themselves once they are airborne. By the same token, they don't need much of a push for their jump to be drastically altered because they have no way of bracing for the contact.

I didn't think it was a foul but then saw the reverse view. Its a trip. It was not necessarily intended or done with great force but its still a foul.

Even it isn't technically a tackle, it's a trip.

The defender has let his marker get on the wrong side of him. As such he plants his foot in the swinging arc of the shot. Clips the leg, causing the attacker to fall over.

If he was a better defender, he'd goal side and blocking the shot.

No question in my mind that it's a foul.

I'm sticking with my argument, each to their own. When something so minimal like this occurs it'll be the ref on the day who has the say, whether or not he gives it is up to him and I guess either decision is correct (unlike Dzekos offside goal which was blatantly incorrect in being disallowed). It's like being blown up for offside when 2mm in front. Personally for me it's play on, I wouldn't have given this or expected it to be given if I was the striker. If I'm not seeing feet swept out, players being forcefully pulled back or pushed over etc... I don't like these decisions being made. Samaras didn't simulate here, but I believe these kinds of decisions keep simulation alive in the game. Players will see this and know what it takes to win a penalty. 

Not sure what your argument is, but whatever.

sweet post bro. Top marks for unique use of internetz. I endorse this!

Hadn't seen that angle till now thanks.  Clear penalty.

+1, like, recommended to friends co workers and family alike. 

 

I think you're right in re tackle.

But, careless trip is still up for grabs.

I do think it's got some shades of grey in it, but in my view the contact caused him to fall, which equates to a trip whether it was a tackle or not, and it was careless. So I think the referee is right to give it.

 

I think you have a few good points in there actually.

But the flip side is that if you do NOT give these decisions then it rewards 'robust' defending which in turn (so the argument goes) makes for a less enjoyable football spectacle.

Etc and so on.

You said there has to be intent. 2B posts the law that states there doesn't need to be intent. You stick with your argument.

Nice use of the internetz bro. 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10202800/Fan...

Bit like how Sir Chris Hoy got abused by Spurs fans angry at referee Chris Foy.

I suppose the problem I have, is with the inconsistency.  The Penalty in the Brazil is, probably marginal. Grounds to give it grounds to not give it, But if that is the case, every corner and set piece that sees players in the Penalty area should result in a penalty, following the inevitable scrum that occurs. 

Inconsistency is always going to be an issue though as many laws are down to interpretation 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10202800/Fan-with-same-name-as-Kiwi-ref-cops-online-abuse

Really AJ.  You couldn't look 4 posts further up?

call the internet police big boy 

Round here I am the internet Police...  have some time off for community service.

That come back made me laugh my ass off

Ben Williams being Ben Williams. Who had money on him red carding someone?

Good decision though. Two footed, studs up, with a fair degree of pace into the shin. Definitely a red.

Imho it was a straight red, he got the guy right on the ankle. It had to be Ben Williams of all people but he got the call right and did ok for the game of such importance, well for South Korea anyway.

Its funny. Ben Williams is an absolute fuck up at HAL level but has been pretty decent at this tournament. By pretty decent, he is still behind the big guns but if I canvased 100 folk, I think 100 would have said " *facepalm* ". Kudos to him because he has punched above his weight with two good performances. When you consider we all collectively laughed at him getting AFC referee of the year, he has been better than the other 3 AFC guys...

...and all the AFC teams.

Makes you wonder if he is so good, that some of his performances against the Nix that skew the curve shouldnt be looked at in more detail?

I think half if that is he wants to be seen as impartial but he overdoes it.

I reckon he thinks the game is about him.

ROUND OF 16, Match 52

Cream running the line against Greece. I know there is something just wrong about that. Good luck to Williams. Those Greeks can be pretty temperamental. 

Fascinating to see the A league reffing this 1/4 final

He's certainly made his mark on the game. Can't be many coaches that get sent off at the World Cup.

Can't blame him for sending of the coach though, he was right up in Williams' face after Ft and et