2014 World Cup

[Stuttgart88]

How would we know if it was a foul?
Just touching a player in the box doesn't mean it's a penalty or leaving a foot out. There is no entitlement either for a player to turn a bit of contact into a foul, no matter how many times Shearer says it does.
That late contact on Robben had to be careless and with sufficient force to trip him.
It was a bit careless but was it enough to trip him? It looked very tame to me.
When there was so much obvious simulation involved, the ref should have ignored the penalty claim, as he couldn't possibly be expected to decide if it was a careless trip.
I think if I was the ref and had seen the kick I'd still not have awarded the penalty because of the nature of the dive. Any clown can see that the "archers bow" shape is artificially concocted and is only the result of an act of deception.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6193679/Psychologists-help-referees-spot-a-dive-in-football.html

In fact, in light of that article I just linked above you'd think referees would be trained in these matters.

However the broader issue is a bit of a grey area. I'm all for forwards going down if they've been clipped or kicked of it means that the ref would notice something that he wouldn't otherwise. In an EPL game recently Bacary Sagna absolutely walloped a West Ham player in the shin but the player wasn't brought down by the kick. Ref gave nothing. I'd say it was a certain penalty so the need to trip up the opponent isn't an essential part of the decision.

But for me, in this instance Robben hammed it up so much, I'd have let play go. Also, in this instance, it was a kick on Robben's ankle but not all kicks are fouls.

I don't think the ref was wrong as such, but it's a shame to see such extreme theatrics rewarded.

[osarusan]

The penalty was clearly a penalty and in no way a dive.
I don't think it is clear at all.

What is clear to me is that the way Robben's arms and right leg behaved was not a consequence of the contact to his left leg.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think it is clear at all.

What is clear to me is that the way Robben's arms and right leg behaved was not a consequence of the contact to his left leg.
His arms are irrelevant. He was clearly caught on his standing leg and tripped. If he had been able to stay on his feet, he'd have long lost control of the ball on account of being fouled.

[osarusan]

His arms are irrelevant. The movement of his arms is completely relevant when you say that it was in no way a dive by Robben.

[Charlie Darwin]

The movement of his arms is completely relevant when you say that it was in no way a dive by Robben.
When I say it was in no way a dive I'm saying he was tripped. I'm not commenting on where he puts his hands.

[osarusan]

When I say it was in no way a dive I'm saying he was tripped. I'm not commenting on where he puts his hands.

In my opinion, he felt the contact, recognised it was significant and would either actually trip or otherwise cause him to lose the ball, and made a conscious decision to dramatise the fall by the way he moved his arms and right leg.

(Looking at how his right leg moved past Marquez's tackle easily and then suddenly, and mysteriously, shot backwards instead of landing as a step, makes me think he could easily have stayed on his feet if he had wanted to)

I don't see how you can just 'not comment on where he puts his arms' if you are arguing that it 'wasn't a dive in any way.'

[bennocelt]

He didn't say he dived to con the ref, he said he dived because he expected contact and the player pulled his leg away. The penalty was clearly a penalty and in no way a dive. I don't think anyone would dispute that apart from the Mexican coach, who has become the latest coach to blame a very good refereeing performance for his own team's failure.

I do.:)
I didnt think it was a penalty at all, went down very easy, BUT as Ardee mentioned the law of averages worked out for the Dutch in the end, they could easily have had 3/4 other penalties in this game. Mexico deserved to go out, total lack of ambition to kill the game off.

[Charlie Darwin]

In my opinion, he felt the contact, recognised it was significant and would either actually trip or otherwise cause him to lose the ball, and made a conscious decision to dramatise the fall by the way he moved his arms and right leg.

(Looking at how his right leg moved past Marquez's tackle easily and then suddenly, and mysteriously, shot backwards instead of landing as a step, makes me think he could easily have stayed on his feet if he had wanted to)

I don't see how you can just 'not comment on where he puts his arms' if you are arguing that it 'wasn't a dive in any way.'
His right leg moved exactly as you'd expect it to if he was trying to squeeze past a player. His left foot was planted on the ground and Marquez tripped it. It's pretty straightforward, regardless of whatever trivial nonsense he does with his arms.

[osarusan]

His right leg moved exactly as you'd expect it to if he was trying to squeeze past a player. His left foot was planted on the ground and Marquez tripped it. Watch this video and tell me if his right leg moves exactly as you'd expect it to, if a player wanted to stay on his feet. Explain the sudden kick of the right leg backwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJGKDaUDpsI

[Charlie Darwin]

Video removed by user. He kicked his leg back because he'd been fouled and he didn't want the referee to miss it.

[osarusan]

He kicked his leg back because he'd been fouled and he didn't want the referee to miss it.

But this is still 'in no way a dive'?

[Charlie Darwin]

No. Drawing the referee's attention to a clear foul is not diving. Diving is the attempt to deceive by simulation.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Whether or not he was fouled, it was an exaggerated reaction. Even for Robben.

[osarusan]

He kicked his leg back because he'd been fouled and he didn't want the referee to miss it. you just said earlier that his leg moved exactly as you'd expect from a player trying to squeeze past another.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I saw a player still able to stay on his feet, decide not to stay on his feet, and use his arms and right leg to dramatise and exaggerate the contact.

[Charlie Darwin]

you just said earlier that his leg moved exactly as you'd expect from a player trying to squeeze past another.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I saw a player still able to stay on his feet, decide not to stay on his feet, and use his arms and right leg to dramatise and exaggerate the contact.
I thought you were referring to him hurdling Marquez's outstretched leg, not the later part, sorry.

I think it would have required incredible leg-strength for Robben to remain on his standing foot. If he'd tried to regain his balance by bringing down his right foot, he'd have got his legs all twisted and probably fallen anyway, but he'd have lost the ball in either case. I don't think there was any plausible situation under which Marquez's mistimed tackle would not have impeded Robben, therefore it's always a foul and always a penalty.

[Stuttgart88]

Just to add another dimension. Look again at Marquez' immediate reaction. I think he knew he fouled him.

[geysir]

His immediate reaction could have been 'I barely touched him',
and Robben could have leapt into the dive because there was not enough momentum in the contact to trip him up or make him stumble.
You can read it in many ways but we don't know because of Robben's theatrics.
Once such obvious theatrics are put into play in such a soft contact, then the ref should ignore the claim.
Mild contact is part of the game and so what if a forward is mildly inconvenienced by such contact.
There is no entitlement to turn mild contact into a foul.

[Razors left peg]

My initial reaction when I seen it was that it was a pen so I can see why the ref gave it. I dont think the Mexicans argued too much about it at the time either, although their manager made up for it later.

[DannyInvincible]

He didn't say he dived to con the ref, he said he dived because he expected contact and the player pulled his leg away. The penalty was clearly a penalty and in no way a dive. I don't think anyone would dispute that apart from the Mexican coach, who has become the latest coach to blame a very good refereeing performance for his own team's failure.

Why did he feel he "must apologise" if he was simply jumping out of the way of his opponent in order to avoid contact?

Keown, Murphy and Ferdinand on the BBC all saying it shouldn't have been a penalty. Graham Poll didn't believe it should have been a penalty either: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2674147/Referee-Pedro-Proenca-fell-Arjen-Robbens-theatrical-dive-sides-half-penalties.html

In fact, Poll says he would have booked Robben at least three times for diving in that game!

[strangeirish]

In fact, Poll says he would have booked Robben at least three times for diving in that game!

Haha, Mr. Poll has experience with that...

[ArdeeBhoy]

Lucky bassas...

[Charlie Darwin]

Why did he feel he "must apologise" if he was simply jumping out of the way of his opponent in order to avoid contact?

Keown, Murphy and Ferdinand on the BBC all saying it shouldn't have been a penalty. Graham Poll didn't believe it should have been a penalty either: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2014/article-2674147/Referee-Pedro-Proenca-fell-Arjen-Robbens-theatrical-dive-sides-half-penalties.html

In fact, Poll says he would have booked Robben at least three times for diving in that game!
Because it looks bad, I suppose. I'm not denying that Robben dives - he did earlier in the game and was denied a clear penalty probably because of his theatrics - but there was clear contact here. I disagree with geysir - if somebody times their tackle badly enough that they disrupt your movement, it's a foul. It's the defenders responsibility to get the ball.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Some of you have clearly never played the game...a lot of the time, even at the lowest level, the forward goes down like they've been shot, so them crying foul doesn't always mean there is one. And 'disrupted movement' is as likely to be self-inflicted...by either party FFS.

[Stuttgart88]

I think CD's point is that if a defender slides across or attempts to tackle an attacker but fails to get the ball it can be a foul, especially if the attacker takes evasive action that costs him control.

A foul doesn't require contact, and contact doesn't mean a foul. The ref has discretion to opine, that's hard wired in the rule. A foul is a foul if the ref considers it a foul.

I wouldn't have given the pen myself, the scale of the theatrics would have deterred me even if I had seen the contact. But that's not to say he was wrong

I haven't read that Poll article yet but in the past he has said he only awards pens for stonewall incidents. I think that's probably a good policy.

[DannyInvincible]

Nigeria really are an enigma.


Haha, Mr. Poll has experience with that...

Oi! That was my gag. :(

[DannyInvincible]

That clearance off the line was casual as ****!

[Stuttgart88]

I think this tournament just proves that a good team can contain players outside the top levels.

The English soul searching in the media is all about whether the players are technical enough and their latest buzzword is game management. I think the big thing in this tournament is team cohesion. All the good teams, even the less heralded ones, are all in tune with each other.

Garth Crooks, most irritating pundit ever, was on the radio yesterday saying all the English players are technically excellent and rubbished the observation, or at least he importance of it, that English players don't like receiving the ball under pressure. I think that's key, and one of the reasons I really rate Darron Gibson.

[DannyInvincible]

Criminal goalkeeping from Enyeama there.

More goals have already been scored now in this World Cup than were scored in the entirety of South Africa 2010.

[Stuttgart88]

I used to tell my defenders that if I come out far for a cross to cover the line. I think the Nigerian defenders were ball watching there. At least one of them should have had the savvy to anticipate the keeper not properly making that corner.

They all got caught under the ball and nobody was at the back post or on the line.

[Stuttgart88]

Nice to see the team in front defending their lead in their opponent's half.

[pineapple stu]

Nigerian defence asleep again. Yet still managed to score an own goal.

Shame. Would have liked an upset or two in this round, but it looks highly unlikely now.

[Razors left peg]

Oi! That was my gag. :(

You were too subtle with it Danny :)

[DannyInvincible]

You were too subtle with it Danny :)

I should have stuck two exclamation marks on it! :p


I think CD's point is that if a defender slides across or attempts to tackle an attacker but fails to get the ball it can be a foul, especially if the attacker takes evasive action that costs him control.

A foul doesn't require contact...

I might have thought that contact was an implicit prerequisite to carelessness, recklessness or excessive force, but perhaps not. You make a good point; the rules do explicitly mention that careless, reckless or excessively forceful attempts to kick, trip or strike can constitute fouls (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx).

If a player has reasonable opportunity to get out of the way of a defender's outstretched leg though, isn't that what he should be doing in the interests of honesty, fair play and all that, rather than dragging his leg into the defender's leg in order to manufacture contact? As geysir says, there's no entitlement to manufacture contact or exaggerate its effect. I suppose if referee's called tacklers up on causing impediment without bringing the tackled player to ground, attacking players would feel less of a need to force the issue by contriving a dive.

[DannyInvincible]

Suarez has apologised for the bite after having had time to reflect with his family: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28099336


"The truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me," said Suarez in a statement.

...

"I deeply regret what occurred," added Suarez. "I apologise to Giorgio Chiellini and the entire football family. I vow to the public that there will never again be another incident like this."

A step in the right direction.

[DannyInvincible]

In light of the bonus disputes earlier in the tournament, a story like this certainly warms the heart: https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/the-rio-report/greece-surprising-request-turning-down-world-cup-bonus-133423113.html


Whether it be their surprising Euro 2004 success a decade ago or their dramatic qualification from this year’s World Cup group stages, Greece tend to be a team of feelgood moments.

Their latest warming turn of events comes courtesy of a Greek report which suggests the squad have politely turned down a bonus from their Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras, for reaching the knockout phase for the first time in the famous tournament’s history.

Instead, they requested that the cash be used to build a brand-spanking new training centre for the national side so that they can continue to provide better results for their country.

A very brief letter read, according to NewsBomb.gr:

"We do not want extra bonus, or money. We only play for Greece and its people.

“All we want is for you to support our effort to find a land and create a sports center that will house our national team ".

[Stuttgart88]

I have to say our players' dispute with the FAI over their Euro 2012 bonus really rankled with me.

[pineapple stu]

Anyone else think Suarez is a bit of a Michael Jackson character?

So shielded from the real world that he can barely function in it as an adult.

[Stuttgart88]

If a player has reasonable opportunity to get out of the way of a defender's outstretched leg though, isn't that what he should be doing in the interests of honesty, fair play and all that, rather than dragging his leg into the defender's leg in order to manufacture contact? As geysir says, there's no entitlement to manufacture contact or exaggerate its effect. I suppose if referee's called tacklers up on causing impediment without bringing the tackled player to ground, attacking players would feel less of a need to force the issue by contriving a dive.

What about Duff in Suwon? He could have avoided the leg but chose to get tripped by it. Dishonest? Not really because the defender's slide missed the ball, cut across a Duff and would have cost Duff control of it. Penalty for me.

What about Pires at Highbury all those years ago? Definite dishonesty. He did what Duff did to an extent but the defender's outstretched leg didn't interfere with his travel but Pires altered the direction if his leg purely to make it look like it was a trip.

What about Huth on David Meyler? No contact but definite foul. Meyler jumped away to avoid having his ankle broken.

What about Hutton on Long? He met the ball full on but only Long's athleticism avoided a leg break. Won the ball but definite foul.

Danny, I think you read these situations like a lawyer would rather than a guy who just gets what's a foul and what isn't, if you don't mind me saying. But yes, if refs called fouls without players going to ground more often, then players wouldn't feel the need to go to ground. The Arsenal v West Ham situation was a perfect example of refs almost being conditioned to requiring a player to hit the ground to constitute a foul.

[Stuttgart88]

Why is it really bad for German fans to blacken their faces but not bad for Nigerian fans to whiten theirs?

[The Donie Forde]

Why is it really bad for German fans to blacken their faces but not bad for Nigerian fans to whiten theirs?

Why are the Ivory Coast players referred to as Ivorians, and not Coastians?

[ArdeeBhoy]

You make a good point; the rules do explicitly mention that careless, reckless or excessively forceful attempts to kick, trip or strike can constitute fouls (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx).

If a player has reasonable opportunity to get out of the way of a defender's outstretched leg though, isn't that what he should be doing in the interests of honesty, fair play and all that, rather than dragging his leg into the defender's leg in order to manufacture contact? As geysir says, there's no entitlement to manufacture contact or exaggerate its effect. I suppose if referee's called tacklers up on causing impediment without bringing the tackled player to ground, attacking players would feel less of a need to force the issue by contriving a dive.

Fair enough, but if everything was based on 'attempts', then there could be a lot of abandoned fixtures...
Impractical in reality, no matter what the rules state. And the thing about impediments is just too subjective.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Why is it really bad for German fans to blacken their faces but not bad for Nigerian fans to whiten theirs?

The Nigerians I saw, looked white, or whiter than the majority.
And not bad for the Germans either, if as part of their flag. Otherwise a bit daft on both counts.

And Ivorians comes from the French name of the colony. See about 500-odd posts back.

[Stuttgart88]

I don't agree at all AB (your post 1341).

The rules are absolutely bang on and cover it perfectly. Lots of refs penalise correctly on the basis of the "impediment". It's the pundits who confuse everyone with their "there was contact" or "there was no contact" red herrings.

[DannyInvincible]

As if a quarter-final place isn't motivation enough for Algeria. they'll face France if they make it through. That'd be a real juicy contest. Can't really see it happening, mind.

[Charlie Darwin]

Lovely sweeper work from Neuer. He did similar to put off Stokes in Cologne.

[pineapple stu]

Good call by the linesman there. But what a goal to have to rule out!

Algeria are well up for this.

[Stuttgart88]

I hope the Germans persist with CBs as full backs when we play them. McGeady, McLean and Pilkington would love it.

[Charlie Darwin]

Germany are a mess. The high line is bizarre, their full backs are centre halves and they have a full back who's a ghost playing in holding midfield. It's like watching Stan all over again, except with better players.

[Razors left peg]

The more this world cup is going on the more its p1ssing me off that Trapattoni had managed to convince the players and lot of the fans that its ok to accept that we cant compete with the big teams.

I hope every Irish player is glued to this world cup and thinks that they are every bit as good if not better than most of the players for Costa Rica, Greece, Chile, Mexico, Nigeria, USA, Switzerland,Algeria etc.

Its early on it this game but look at how the Algerians are having a go at the Germans already. Yes, they might get beaten but they are not afraid to try to win.

When the draw was made for the qualifiers for the next Euros some of the Irish players were already talking about how Germany will definitely top the group and that we are playing for 2nd place. If they do nothing else I hope O'Neill and Keane manage to get that attitude out of them.

[DannyInvincible]

Lovely sweeper work from Neuer. He did similar to put off Stokes in Cologne.

He's great at it. So effective in defence, possession retention and kick-starting attack, rather than drilling it up the field like a more conventional keeper might do. It's surprising more keepers aren't encouraged to perform similar roles for their teams. He's quite a rarity. They probably lack the ability/confidence in their footwork. For some reason, poor David James springs to mind. I vividly recall once seeing footage of the master of blunder himself attempting some footwork under pressure and well outside the box for Portsmouth a few years ago. He was like a deer in the headlights.

Algeria looking dangerous this evening. Upset on the cards?