And what would that call have been? I've got a foul, most likely DOGSO (but the shot is too tight to be sure), with probably (based on the slow motion) a DFK just outside -- bad angle to tell from and in a game I suspect I would in fact call a PK.
DOGSO was definitely correct (this is more apparent from other replays than the one posted here) - it's not really up for debate even. Looks to me as though it was outside - Demichelis trips Messi's right foot, which after the contact touches the ground still outside the PA. This was incredibly hard to see in full speed, as it was very close. Eriksson had almost no hope (he was trailing play), and I'm not sure if the far side AR gave any input.
Watched it live and even with the replays during the game, I had no idea if it was in or out. It took me looking at this .gif about 8-10 times to realize Messi plants his right foot outside the penalty area just after first contact, so a DFK might have been the correct decision. That being said, in real-time it looked inside the box and you don't get 8+ times to look at a replay. You can't fault the officials at all for this decision. DOGSO was 100% and obvious--not a question was raised. Also, it took a great non-offside decision from the AR to make sure this opportunity ever existed.
Almost directly before the DOGSO/PK, it seems like there was an odd no-call at the midfield, where a Barca player took down a Man City attacker on MC's right side. Was watching in a bar & they showed replay a few times, but I'm not recalling the players involved. Very curious what others thought of that (if they caught it) and of the CR's overall performance. At times, it seemed like he was calling things very tight, other times a bit looser (see above).
Did the City player actually foul him by tripping him or did Navas make sure there was contact with the knee after he lost the ball, in the hopes of drawing a call? I'm not sold either way. If it didn't lead to a goal, it'd be the sort of no-call we wouldn't think twice about.
The latter applies. Presuming the video "proves" the first contact is outside the penalty area, the only way you can logically argue for a penalty kick is if you determine there was an initial trip, tried to apply advantage, and then there was subsequent contact for a second trip inside the penalty area. But I don't think the video shows that. But again, before we go too far down this rabbit hole of finding the "right" answer, I think this is the poster child for something we could analyze to death on replay but would be impossible to get 100% correct in real-time, with one look. We are talking about a matter of inches when professional players are running at full speed and the referee will have an angle from behind. It's an impossible call to be certain of when you're actually refereeing, so I don't think there's too much value in picking it apart based on instructional guidance. Eriksson knows the Laws, I'm sure, but it doesn't mean getting this exact call accurate in real-time is any better than a 50/50 proposition.
They really say the same thing. The old Q&A being referenced was also about continuing fouls, not about a trip -- there is no concept of picking the bettter of where the trip occurred and where the player fell.
Graham Poll was quick to come and disagree with all of us again http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...=rss&ns_campaign=socialnet-twitter-mail_gpoll
Not all of us. It was a PK IMO. This is referee with courage, unlike one we discussed over the weekend, and he applied the LOTG properly. The first contact may not have brought Messi down, but the 2nd one did, and that one was clearly inside the PA. PH
Graham Poll should be mindful of his own travails at EURO 2000 when he writes things like you 'you can't guess a penalty' (and no, despite my best efforts, I can't find video right now--but I think some here will remember the decision). Anyway, right now I'm more interested in how many UEFA matches Pellegrini will be watching from the stands: http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1720568/pellegrini-vents-fury-swedish-ref-defeat?cc=5901 It takes a healthy dose of ignorance to slate a referee for being from Sweden given A) the pedigree of referees from that nation and B) the fact that the current referee has a good shot at the UCL Final and will probably be one of the top European officials at the World Cup.
Watching it real time on TV, I thought it was a PK from the outset. Looked like a PK, felt like a PK.
I thought watching live it was outside the area. And having watched the entire match, the non-call at mid field that led to the counter was the opposite of the way the referee had been calling the match. But it was Messi on the break, and he will get that call. (Yes, he will.) But, if City has spent all that money and their best back line has DiMichelis on it, then they weren't winning this round anyway. Btw, I thought overall our Swedish referee had an okay match. First yellow set such a low bar that he immediately raised it by not carding a much harder foul seconds later.
Am I misreading all of your comments on Poll? My read of the column says it was a penalty and send off and may or may not have been a foul that led to the break. Usually, I'm not a fan of Poll's comments, but I think he explains it fairly well.
I'm confused. It took a good several seconds for the ball to get to Messi after the no-foul call and turnover. Are you suggesting Eriksson knew what was going to transpire after the non-call or are you talking about the foul on Messi? As for the non-call itself, I personally thought it was a foul, but it's a lot closer to a non-call than people seem to be insinuating. Navas seemed to touch the ball too far and went looking for the contact. Again, I leaned more toward foul but it's not an egregious no-call. Also, if that call gets made, I'd argue it gets made by the AR. The contact is to the touchline side of the defender's body and the referee is likely at a 90 degree angle at that point. That's not to excuse the no-call, because the quintet works as a team, but if the argument is Eriksson was inconsistent, I think that's a point to consider. I think it was the second yellow you're talking about, against Negredo (Alves was carded in the 23rd, Negredo in the 28th) because I also observed the hard foul that Zabaleta was lucky to get away with. However, it is crucially important to note that Eriksson indicated both of the first two cautions were for PI. You can still argue Zabaleta was lucky to escape a yellow on the foul's merits, but not in the sense that Eriksson suddenly lowered the bar. Maybe I watched a different match than the British press, but I thought Eriksson was very good.
I'm fine with Poll's article. I was just taking a jab at his one statement about never guessing on a penalty, because he got himself in a lot of trouble at EURO 2000--long before his WC2006 situation--by doing just that.
I'd say any attacker gets the benefit on that play, given momentum, referee angle, and speed of play. But there's no way for us to ever really know the answer to the question.
I like how you're stating it like you're breaking to us a hard truth. "I'm very sorry boys but this is how the world works, says me." It's a statement meant to prove something that you haven't proved, well done. Anyways it looks just BARELY outside to me, I would never condemn the referee for that though. I thought he did fine, and I hope Pellegrini gets a few games off for such boneheaded remarks. You can debate the foul before, you can debate the spot, but you can't take it to that level.
what about Pique´s goal, which the linesman called offside? Imho, it was clearly onside. The ball was passed to Fabregas, who was onside (he was outside the box in the top of the video, while Nasri I think, on the bottom, is over the box line). It´s a new play and when Fabregas passes for Pique to score, Pique is onside too. However the linesman apparently had a twitchy arm and raised the flag before seeing WHO was going to receive the first ball (Fabregas, who was not offside)
Is your question "Why can't all referees get everything exactly right?!" Cause that's what it sounded like. It's onside, it's close but it's on. Let's see how you do at field level at a game this big.