2014 World Cup

[osarusan]

This referee is allergic to his whistle.

Can't believe that goal was allowed to stand. Ref actually ran towards the spot of the foul too, put his whistle to his lips, then just let play go on.

[pineapple stu]

Thought the challenge was fair enough tbh.

Bosnia's ruled out goal was an awful call though.

But Bosnia can't cope with Emaneke at all.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I wonder if this goal line tech could not be adapted/evolved one day to check offsides in real time. It's the same basic principle right? Obviously an issue of greater complexity for a computer to work out, but its possible I think. Some kind of sensor in boots perhaps?

[BonnieShels]

What a staggeringly brilliant example of the truly beautiful game.

2 from 2 at that stage. A good day all round. I think I will begrudgingly concede that perhaps, 2006 has now been relegated to second. And we haven't even hit the knockout stages.


That was not a game to relax into after Iran Argentina.
Perfect Main course that.

The dessert is shaping up nicely.


How was Iran v Nigeria so awful, yet Iran played so well against Argentina and Nigeria have started at a great pace against Bosnia?

Football is weird sometimes

It wasn't entertaining but it was fascinating. (Dublin-Donegal 2011 schtyle)

Japan-Greece was truly awful. I just shuddered thinking I watched it all.


Thought the challenge was fair enough tbh.

Never a foul for me. It was a tussle for the ball. Great reffing.

[BonnieShels]

And I think it now doesn't even need to be said that this is a great game; you can just take it as read.

Your grá for this World Cup is astounding. Well played sir.

[osarusan]

Nigerian player clearly ankle-tapped him as he cut in behind him. Foul for me.

[BonnieShels]

It ain't rugby Limerick lad.

:P

In all seriousness. If it was given I wouldn't have complained but I agree with the decision on the field.

[pineapple stu]

I wonder if this goal line tech could not be adapted/evolved one day to check offsides in real time. It's the same basic principle right? Obviously an issue of greater complexity for a computer to work out, but its possible I think. Some kind of sensor in boots perhaps?
Not sure how that would work tbh. Remember if any part of you that can score is offside, you're offside. A sensor in the boot couldn't tell where your head is.

Maybe there's a way alright, though I can't picture it.

[osarusan]

Bosnia not showing enough urgency in getting back into this.

[NeverFeltBetter]

They just always seem to make the wrong choice going forward. Nigeria barely tested this half.

[pineapple stu]

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.

[NeverFeltBetter]

What a nightmarish moment for Dzeko.

[bennocelt]

90%? Must be a record you left-wing pinko.

As I said Im not getting much sleep.......

[bennocelt]

I wonder if this goal line tech could not be adapted/evolved one day to check offsides in real time. It's the same basic principle right? Obviously an issue of greater complexity for a computer to work out, but its possible I think. Some kind of sensor in boots perhaps?

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

[DannyInvincible]

Panel all reckon Dejagah had no shout for a penalty because Zabaleta made the slightest contact imaginable with the ball before he took him out of it with both feet. Baffling considering this has never been a rule in football.

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.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Not sure how that would work tbh. Remember if any part of you that can score is offside, you're offside. A sensor in the boot couldn't tell where your head is.

Maybe there's a way alright, though I can't picture it.

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.

[osarusan]

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.

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?

[DannyInvincible]

Hmm, by the letter of the law (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx), I think it has to be, no?


FIFA Laws of the Game 2013-14

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:


kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:


holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

Penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

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. :o

[osarusan]

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?

[OwlsFan]

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??

[geysir]

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.

[osarusan]

Looks like he get a sliver of a boot to it here, at about 0.22 into the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYdADLtcEjM

[pineapple stu]

Zabaleta clearly got a touch to the ball; in fact, from the angle in this (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/22/368033/iranargentina-referee-has-no-excuse/) 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.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The TV said umpteen times it wasn't a penalty, the radio umpteen times it was.

Hmm.

[geysir]

Looks like he get a sliver of a boot to it here, at about 0.22 into the video.
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 :)

[DannyInvincible]

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?

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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 :)

Did Zabaleta play GAA as a youngster too? :p

[geysir]

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 :)

[osarusan]

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?
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?

[DannyInvincible]

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).

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?

[osarusan]

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?
Basically yes. The Zabaleta decision shows us that the current rule can look unsuitable at times, but I can't imagine a better one.

[DannyInvincible]

Is there any circumstance then where contact might be made with the ball under which you could envisage a penalty being given or under which you think a penalty should be given? What about, say, when the tackler first goes lightly through the foot of the attacker to make contact with the ball?

Law 12 does specify that the judgment as to whether or not a foul has occurred should be made "irrespective of the position of the ball". Of what consequence, if any, should that be here? Does it lessen the significance of making contact with the ball and render more significant the specific action of the tackler? I'm not certain either way; just throwing out some thoughts and questions.

[pineapple stu]

The old over the top tackle might be what you're talking about there? Studs up, tackle from the front but the point is to follow through the ball to the shins. Definite free. Outlawed years ago I'm fairly sure

[DannyInvincible]

Hehe, I was thinking something a little more subtle; no studs showing, the tackler slides without substantial force through the foot of the attacker to get in clean contact with the ball. No harm is done but the attacker is tripped.

[geysir]

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?

From the ref's angle, which is the angle of truth, Zabaleta got a touch on the ball and it rebounded of the attacker's foot, that's why he gave a goal kick.

[DannyInvincible]

Thibaut Courtois has yet to lose a game for Belgium. I don't see that changing today, although Russia do look to be offering a bit more already than they did against South Korea.

The BBC commentator was suggesting that the cameras focused on Sepp Blatter's presence in the stadium during the anthems so that the crowd wouldn't have a chance to boo him. It wouldn't surprise me seeing as he's regularly booed by crowds when he appears on the big screen.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

How did we conspire to make Russia look so good in the Euro '12 campaign? They are f***ing pants...

I know they are missing a lot of the same players - Shirokov might make a bit of a difference - but bloody hell...

[Razors left peg]

Because we had a manager who was too subborn or incapable of changing his ridiculous tactics to match them

[Razors left peg]

Belgium are frustrating average when you consider the players they have

[NeverFeltBetter]

Assume this remarkably defensive Russian attitude stems from expectation of a point here and three against Algeria. Hope Belgians punish them for it.

[Razors left peg]

This is the worst/ most disappointing game of the tournament so far

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Amazing how Belgium found a higher gear out of nowhere over the last ten minutes. Mertens and De Bruyne were like different players in the first half. If they had brought on Januzaj to get at the vulnerable Kombarov, and brought on Defour and/or Mirallas on earlier they could probably have killed off Russia much sooner.

Can't see Capello managing Russia on home soil in 2018..

[DannyInvincible]

Given the timing in the game and the magnitude of the occasion, Origi's finish was very composed for a 19-year-old. It was the type of chance that many a decent striker would scuff under pressure or blare over the bar.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Terrible contest. Belgium have had half an hour of decent play in 180 minutes.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Given the timing in the game and the magnitude of the occasion, Origi's finish was very composed for a 19-year-old. It was the type of chance that many a decent striker would scuff under pressure or blare over the bar.

Like Dzeko last night.

[BonnieShels]

This Algerian anthem is lethal.

[Stuttgart88]

Is there any circumstance then where contact might be made with the ball under which you could envisage a penalty being given or under which you think a penalty should be given? What about, say, when the tackler first goes lightly through the foot of the attacker to make contact with the ball?

Law 12 does specify that the judgment as to whether or not a foul has occurred should be made "irrespective of the position of the ball". Of what consequence, if any, should that be here? Does it lessen the significance of making contact with the ball and render more significant the specific action of the tackler? I'm not certain either way; just throwing out some thoughts and questions.Hutton's tackle on Shane Long. Took a lot of the ball but red card all day long for me.

[DannyInvincible]

This Algerian anthem is lethal.

So good, you've had it on repeat for nearly half an hour? :p

[DannyInvincible]

South Korea aren't up to much at all. Algeria completely dominant here with ten shots on goal already after half an hour compared to none for South Korea. Algeria should take second in this group with at least a draw in their final game against Russia.


Terrible contest. Belgium have had half an hour of decent play in 180 minutes.

To be fair, they have come up against two units who were more interested in keeping things tight at the back. Russia weren't interested in three points today. Such contests will never be the most enthralling for those looking for end-to-end flair like, say, Germany-Ghana last night. Belgium might have looked limited and frustrated at times during both games, but they eventually came through with two deserved victories.


Like Dzeko last night.

Exactly. That was an unforgivable miss. He and Bosnia must be kicking themselves today.


Hutton's tackle on Shane Long. Took a lot of the ball but red card all day long for me.

Would it constitute a foul in osarusan's book?

[NeverFeltBetter]

This unfolding result is a disaster for the Russians. They'll need to beat Algeria by two clear goals as it stands, and it could yet get worse.