QuoteWhat a nightmarish moment for Dzeko.
For a team that scored three goals a game in qualifying, Bosnia have been disappointing in front of goal in both games. Ok, they had a good goal ruled out, but Nigeria have had the better chances.
What a nightmarish moment for Dzeko.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
As I said Im not getting much sleep.......Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Could we not have robots as linesmen?
Today's games were great
Thought the Iran goalie messed up, he shoud have caught the ball and held onto it, slow tempo down. But he punched it away, few seconds later Messi scores.
Ghana threw away that game. As they said on the Beeb not often you can say it that you wished the game would never finish
Nigeria deserved to win, legit goal to me
Just heard Martin Keown and Phil Neville on BBC agree with one another whilst reassuring us that it was "very nearly" a penalty but that the ref did get it right as Zabaleta got the slightest of touches on the ball. Why do the so-called experts think there's something in the rules about a touch to the ball rendering permissible what would otherwise be a foul? Zabaleta tripped up his opponent inside the box; that should have been a penalty. Whether or not he got the faintest of touches on the ball is irrelevant.
You're right of course. Perhaps you could have a system where the ref is notified if any part of a player is beyond the last defender, the play is allowed to continue until over, and then they could check and see if it was a "true" offside. But that's basically just a half-step from video referrals/goal checking anyway.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
This is a really grey area for me.
If he had got more of a touch to the ball, sending it out for a corner or a throw (or even just nudging it towards the sideline / corner flag), and made the contact he did make to trip the player up, should it have been a penalty?
Last edited by osarusan; 22/06/2014 at 12:39 AM.
Hmm, by the letter of the law, I think it has to be, no?
Admittedly, for whatever reason, officials often decline to award penalties under circumstances such as you've outlined above. I mean, the rules don't mention anything about a touch to the ball negating possible fouls. I'm sure the whole question of whether a player has touched the ball or not is primarily relevant when a tackler has indirectly caused his opponent to fall by way of, say, forcefully pushing the ball through his opponent's feet/legs/body whilst following through himself but only remaining in contact with the ball in the process despite bringing his opponent to ground. In that scenario, the opponent may have been brought to ground as a result of the tackle, but it was not as a result of any direct contact between the two players. Am I correct to think that wouldn't be a foul? Does what I say make sense? I'm pretty tired and rephrasing isn't all that tantalising a prospect.
Surely the keyword here is 'careless'. If you get the ball, it's not careless.
By the definition you seem to be arguing, a goalkeeper who got to the ball before a striker and hugged the ball to his chest but still caused the striker to trip over him would also be committing a foul. Would you agree with that?
My take on it is that if Zabaleta had made the contact he tried to make and smashed the ball out for a throw or a corner, and then brought the forward down on the follow through, nobody at all (apart from you?) would have been calling for a penalty.
If Zabaleta had missed the ball completely and brought the forward down, everybody would agree that it was a penalty.
The issue here is that even though Zabaleta made contact before bringing the player down, the contact was so insignificant as to not nullify the threat of a goal being scored. So, has he been careless or not?
But I think that it would be an absolute nightmare to legislate a rule like that, because you will be getting into degrees, and trying to determine what constitutes acceptable contact. Also, what happens in situations where a tackler makes solid contact with the ball, but it rebounds off the attacker and continues on much the same course as before?
Players are often taken out in a good tackle after contact is made with the ball. Take the Uruguayan player who had concussion, came back on and flew in to a tackle, got the ball and then creased the English player in the follow through. That's the nature of a tackle. Otherwise any tackle that got the ball and then made the opponent fall to the ground would be a free. No peno but a corner.
It was good to see an African team in the Germany vs Ghana game actually play at high tempo and take on their opponent, so much so that the Germans were out on their feet at the end and not have 11 men behind the ball at every opportunity and just rely on the break like Iran.
In the Italian game, I am not sure an equalizer for the Italians would have made much of a difference. What they had to do was avoid losing by 2 as either way they would still need a draw against Uruguay who lost by two to Costa Rica. It might have made a difference in who won the group but surely the main object was to avoid a second but no one seemed to pick up on this but as usual I am probably missing something??
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
From the ref's angle it looks like Zabaleta made a very fair tackle and got the ball, no question of a penalty from the ref's angle.
On the replay angle, I think Zabaleta missed the ball completely and took down the attacker, the ball received a little nudge pushing it a crucial few cm ahead and I can't see how that nudge came from Zabaleta.
Looks like he get a sliver of a boot to it here, at about 0.22 into the video.
Zabaleta clearly got a touch to the ball; in fact, from the angle in this replay (1:58 in), it looks a very good tackle. But from the angles shown after the game (can't find it online now; FIFA being quite strict getting highlights taken down), it appeared that, although Zabaleta got a nudge to the ball, the tackle was still careless and the touch was almost by chance.
That said, the linked angle is quite good, and has kind of swung me towards thinking that the ref got the call right. Except that it should have been a corner, not a goal kick. I don't see how it could have been a goal kick at all.
Edit - osarusan's clip is actually clearer. Zabaleta would have gotten a cleaner contact had the Iranian not nudged the ball just beforehand. But Zabaleta still got the ball, and the tackle wasn't as careless as I'd first thought; the nudge changes a lot. Still a corner, but the ref got the penalty call right I think.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 22/06/2014 at 10:51 AM.
The TV said umpteen times it wasn't a penalty, the radio umpteen times it was.
Hmm.
i hadn't seen that one at 22 seconds before, there it looks definitely like he got a hairline touch on the ball. In other ones, eg 30secs it looks like he hit fresh air, that the nudge took it too far ahead.
Regardless, from the ref's angle I don't think he had much of a decision to make.
Zabaleta later made a lunge in the box missing the ball and clattering the attacker, but the attacker had just managed to get his shot in forcing a save from the goalie.
He's bound to concede a penalty later in the tournament
Yeah, good point. "Careless" has to be the crucial word, doesn't it? Maybe under my previous overly-literal interpretation in which I overlooked that, I'd have argued that the goalkeeper scenario you outline above might have been a penalty, but it's not a call I would ever seriously have made in reality based on my traditional understanding of what does and what doesn't constitute a penalty from watching the game. You're most likely correct in what you suggest "careless" connotes. I was looking for some specific rule or guideline giving mention to "touching of the ball" as it is something that is so commonly mentioned by pundits and commentators of the game, but, as you say, legislating for such, especially in terms of degrees of contact warranted, would be a nightmare and it may well not be necessary anyway as carelessness is implicitly evident when a tackling player completely misses the ball.
In terms of the question you ask specifically of Zabaleta - did he get enough of a touch to the ball to nullify the goal-threat so as not to have his tackle deemed careless? - I think he might well have done. He did nudge it from its path, so I can see how a ref might deem it no penalty even if he had complete view of all aspects of the incident, unlike yesterday's ref whose view was limited.
Did Zabaleta play GAA as a youngster too?i hadn't seen that one at 22 seconds before, there it looks definitely like he got a hairline touch on the ball. In other ones, eg 30secs it looks like he hit fresh air, that the nudge took it too far ahead.
Regardless, from the ref's angle I don't think he had much of a decision to make.
Zabaleta later made a lunge in the box missing the ball and clattering the attacker, but the attacker had just managed to get his shot in forcing a save from the goalie.
He's bound to concede a penalty later in the tournament
You may well snigger Danny, it might not be this world cup, could be the next world cup, but mark my words unless he sharpens up, he will concede a penalty and i'll be back to remind you
It's not really the question I'm asking - in fact it's the question I don't want referees to have to ask, because it means getting into the whole degrees of contact question, and having to make a decision on whether there was 'enough' contact with the ball (and a definition of 'enough' too).
I didn't see the game, and have only seen clips of the penalty decision. I learned on here that the referee gave a goal kick, so I have no idea what his thought process was on the incident. His decision would suggest that he didn't see Zabaleta make any contact with the ball, but in that case, how could he not give a penalty?
Do you think then it should be a simple case of: careless if no contact is made with the ball but the man is taken out; not careless if contact is made with the ball? Surely a tackle could still be deemed careless even if contact is made with the ball though? How would a referee make a judgment over that though? What distinguishing criterion would he use to help him decide if there was careless contact or non-careless contact? Isn't that where a ref would have to make a subjective judgment as to what constituted carelessness and whether there was enough contact to nullify a goal-threat?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks