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/6...-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/wor...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...