Get over yourself, okay? I'm not on that field at that level and I never will be. We come here to ask questions and make statements that are sometimes outlandish, but that's what it is. Messi gets that call and someone from Stoke doesn't. If you don't think that's the case, I have a bridge in London to sell you. The best players get certain benefits. Like Stevie G on the weekend.
That post wasn't a response to yours. And his question wasn't really a question, it was a "Hey guys look at this bad call." Which was definitely an understandable bad call.
This fun little tactic of diverting the media attention from your team's crappy performance by manufacturing an outrageous attack on the referee's integrity is disgraceful, and needs to be discouraged by UEFA. Managers feel comfortable doing this now, because the fines aren't substantial enough. I hope he gets hit with a massive ban.
Is the bridge still available? I'm interested. Seriously, I think that call is made regardless of the striker. Eriksson is in a position from where penalty is the most likely decision, especially given the speed and direction of the play. I think referees at this level care too much about assessment grades/future assignments to do any favors to star players.
Agree to disagree. Barca gets that call. Others don't. If you don't think there is an unintentional bias for top teams then you haven't been watching over the last 50 years. All sports. Do you want me to bring up my Collina conspiracy theories again?
i think you are being harsh just a bit here. the aim of the forum is to discuss these type of issues. i suppose the bolded bit could apply to this thread and there is no point in any further discussion then As an aside credit to @Pierre Head for pointing out the continuation part of the play to me. my initial thought was there was a single discrete contact but upon reading his post, i watched the replay again to evaluate his comment and there is actually what i would describe as a dragging after the initial contact. that stutter came i think from messi trying to regain his balance but cant get away from the defenders out of control body so the conituation is there.
didnt see this whole activity on page 2 so my twitchy fingers got the better of me you are probably right about the intent of the post in question. but i think it would be awesome if you explained why it was a right call (if you thought it was) or why the mistake was made (poor bastard just missed it, poor positioned here should have been (here or there), it looked like he was passing to the offside player and thus decision was correct as by being the decoy he interefered with play {okay lets this last bit slide y'all} my point is despite the twattishness of the post we could learn something.
It's really getting tiring hearing the British press/manager blame a referee's mistake on the fact he is from a "small" footballing nation. Can they come up with something more original? Be a little more nuanced and sophisticated. When it comes to referee stereotypes the Spanish and Italian press are a little bit more sophisticated than the British coaches/media. Before the game, the Spanish press were worried that since Eriksson was from Northern Europe he would allow a more physical/"British" game than some one who is from Latin Europe. It's funny that Pelligrini said that the ref was not experienced enough/used to refereeing this level of game, yet in the same press conference he said Eriksson was trying to get back on Barca's good side after missing two PKs in a Milan vs. Barca quarterfinal. I love the irony there.
There are two separate issues. Whether there are certain calls that certain players are going to get called for or against them by reputation, image, home-team bias, or whatever. And whether this call is one of those calls. As to the second question, I don't think on this call that it being Messi mattered. I think angle, nature of contact, a breakaway, where he fell, all mean that this call is going to go in favor of the attacker for a PK the overwhelming majority of the time -- regardless of who the attacker is. I think any of us who have been an AR on a game past U14 know this can be an extremely difficult call. The player who was flagged was on the far side of the field, almost in line with numerous players from both teams who were moving at the moment the ball was played. So the AR in this case has to make a split second evaluation through multiple bodies -- and misjudging when the ball was kicked by a tenth of a second might change the call. (The angle of ball/potential OSP player is also a tough one to see both at the same time; I suspect listening to the sound of the ball is also harder in a stadium like that than the fields I work on. Oh, and what about the speed of sound? We pretend it doesn't matter . . . but the speed of sound is 344 m/sec. That means it takes sound a tenth of second to travel 34.4 meters -- and the AR is at least that far from the play. So his vision angle is tough to see both at the same time, and his sound cue is off by a tenth of a second -- which is probably long enough for the player to have moved from onside position to OSP.) Very, very tough call to make in real time on the field from the AR's position.
seriously?? the speed of sound? now the accuracy rate in % terms is now a f(x) where x = the speed of sound? why not throw in the speed of light in there as well? i am sure some of the geniuses on this board can come up with an equation. hope my function attempt above worked or some of the posters are going to lynch me not using the correct symbols or some such
Since light travels 300 million meters in a second, it doesn't really matter and is for all human percecption instantaneous. (This is, of course, why the difference between lightning and thunder allows us to calculate the distance of a strike.) Go ahead and scoff at the tenth of a second. But the simple reality is that when we rely on the sound (which often is the best cue), when the ball is 35 (or more) meters away, the sound takes a tenth of a second (or more) to get to us. A sprinting player can move about a yard in a tenth of a second. Will that usually matter? Of course not. But on the hyper close plays, the point is that we have the limits of physics and human ability that prevent us from being perfect in the same way we can be when we are looking at a freeze frame visual.
At state clinic this year, we had an mls AR as the instructor. He said that they usually can't use sound as a cue because of crowd noise but when you do, you definitely have to factor the delay when making the offside decision.
No. X is the distance from ball to ear. I am surprised you never thought about it. We make offside decisions involving less than a yard all of the time. In fact, the majority of OS are less than a yard, I'd bet. Though, I don't 'take it into account'. How would you, practically speaking?
This cannot be a continuation foul but actually a second trip (semantics and following the LOTG). In effect it is a continuation of the sliding tackler but he actually trips Messi twice - not trying to be a jerk (although probably succeeding anyway) but it is different from normal speech and the LOTG where continuation has a specific meaning.
Easy. Each meter is .03 seconds of delay. So when the play is 42 meters away, you simply need to multiply 42 by .003 seconds so you know the delay is .126 seconds. So when you hear the sounds, you have to reset back in your mind to where everyone was .126 seconds ago. . . . well, no. I think any kind of precise accounting in real time is beyond the capacity of the human mind. I think what it means in practical terms is that you want to, when the ball isn't close to you, as much as possible use eyes not ears. And you can know that when you do rely on ears for a ball that is across the field, than any error should be in realizing the ball was actually kicked a smidgen before you heard the sound. But realistically, at the edges here, we are running up against the limits of the human animal.
no scoff at all, just a poor attempt to be funny continuation / second trip - i didnt Wenger it (that is until the poster i mentioned said it) i knew i made a mistake someplace. can you account for your whereabouts .126 seconds ago??? Cripes, I hate you people!
Exactly! Looking at the races in the winter olympics, there are fractions of a second between a gold medal and nothing. Without the electronic timing, it would be almost impossible to tell who won. I noticed that in luge they are now going to thousands of a second! In reality probably just centimeters of difference. But getting back to the AR call, when these things occur I always wonder what happened to the instruction to favor the attacker in close decisions. It seems the ARs always default to the old adage of "better a bad offside call than a bad goal." PH
I would sure hope at this level on the Messi call: 1) The AR is in line, or VERY close 2) He's got an opinion and isn't afraid to share it - via the communication system Heck I cover this in pre-games with semi-experienced ARs
Alleviate all of this uncertainty and simply tweak the laws to award a goal scoring opportunity (i.e. a PK) in any case of a DOGSO no matter the location on the pitch. A red card may be nice, though a goal is usually better.
You think there is controversy now in DOGSO calls, this would produce mayhem if a PK were to be given rather than a free kick. Don't hold your breath about this becoming law, and it would not be a "tweak." PH
Agree -- its a major change to a fundamental concept of the game, not a tweak. (Not sure I dislike it, but its not a tweak.) A similar major change to a fundamental conept that I wouldn't mind is chaning how we punish GK IFK infractions -- the stiffness of the consequence is part of why referees are so reluctant to enforce. Change it to a CK -- still an incentive for the GK not to do it, but we'd be a lot more comfortable making that 6 second call if the consequence was a CK than with the IFK right in front of the goal. I don't see either of these happening any time soon because they are both too much at odds with the fundametnal concept that restarts are where an offense occurs.
Interesting that we had the second dogso send off in today's match. To be honest, it ruined the game for me, but if the Arse GK isn't sent off, we would have more of these rash challenges because the consequences would be lower. The penalty area means you have to defend differently. Players seem unable to grasp the concept. Those two plays were not very good. Both English teams would have been better served if the defenders allowed Messi and Robben to score in a two-legged tie. Instead, both squads are in 0-2 holes. If neither player committed dogso, 0-1 holes with a full compliment of players is easier to come back from then any 10 man situation.
I can't recall a single instance where the Chair of the FIFA Referees Committee has publicly backed a referee. Even at the World Cup, it's usually a FIFA press officer. Maybe this just happens to occur because the Chair is from the UK right now and the press knows how to get hold of him. Even still, Eriksson couldn't get a bigger backer at this moment. This is a UEFA match that Boyce has nothing to do with, yet he publicly defends Eriksson. Only partially related, but I foresee big things from Eriksson at the World Cup. He might be in line for the huge Spain-Netherlands first round match.