Tur:cze [r]

[Ref Flunkie]

What a match! I really do like the CR (Peter Frojdfeldt), mostly because he actually smiles while he is officiating (which I do as well). Too many guys do the Mr. Serious act. I guess the main talking points in this one are

1. Should that have been dangerous play 5 yards out from the Turkey goal on the clearance that cut open the Czech attacker? (I think no)

2. Was Turkey's 3rd goal offside? (I think no)

3. Should Volkan have been sent off? (From what I've seen before, I think yes)

Discuss :).

And......Andy Gray is still an idiot.

[bobshlo311]

1. no
2. no way...he was on by a yard
3. no i think a yellow would have been fine

[oneref]

If the high boot cut the attacker, there must have been contact, if there was contact you cannot have an IFK. Kicking a player in the head is a DFK, in this case a PK.

[Ref Flunkie]

If the high boot cut the attacker, there must have been contact, if there was contact you cannot have an IFK. Kicking a player in the head is a DFK, in this case a PK.

Oh come now, they call PIADM all the time when contact is made up high. Rarely do they call PIADM at that level without contact (unless it is for studs up).

[code1390]

1. No
2. No
3. Yes...you don't need a punch for VC.

[CanadaFTW]

What about the amount of stoppage time? They displayed 4 minutes, had a red card, a keeper change and a yellow to the bench, yet they didn't even play 5:30 of stoppage time. Should more have been added?

[Ref Flunkie]

What about the amount of stoppage time? They displayed 4 minutes, had a red card, a keeper change and a yellow to the bench, yet they didn't even play 5:30 of stoppage time. Should more have been added?

I think 1:30 was sufficient. The RC didn't take THAT long.

[MetroFever]

(Note- I was not rooting for either team):

1. If this was not an indirect free kick for dangerous play, then I don't know what is.

2. It's impossible to be 100% certain based on the replays we saw on TV. It seems that they cut the action too early giving the appearance that he's onside by at least a yard. Once someone paste's a clip here of that play, we'll be able to stop it at the right time.

3. Definte red card.

As a side note, I think Koller bumped into Volkan, causing him to be off balance (I admit I may be wrong) and barelling into his own defender. Koller committed two late fouls where I think anyone else on the Czech team would have been booked.

[Englishref]

No.

Probably offside. The director paused the action way before the pass was made. When it was, I think he was off, but the angle they gave wasn't the greatest, so he might just have been on.

I don't think that's a red card. It was a push in the chest, massively overexaggerated by Koller, who, lest we forget, is 6 foot 6! That's USB to me. And not that it vindicates it, but not once from the moment the ball left the Czech's foot on the pass, did Koller look at the ball - his focus was solely on the keeper, and he then jumped into him, causing understandable anger from the keeper.

[nonya]

I did a college match once with a FIFA official who told me, there is no dangerous play if he misses. At that level, they hardly ever call dangerous play anyway, you swing and miss or you make contact for a foul.

The goal was good, the red card was good (stupid red card on the goalie's part) , I thought the yellow card to the sub at the very end of the match was kind of dumb. Just let the guy rant for ten seconds and blow the whistle to end the match.

[seadondo]

Why wouldn't that be dangerous play? He got kicked in the head (the defender,s foot was near his own head level), that seems pretty dangerous to me.

[code1390]

Why wouldn't that be dangerous play? He got kicked in the head (the defender,s foot was near his own head level), that seems pretty dangerous to me.

When you make contact, it becomes a direct FK foul. He was saying at that level, they almost never call dangerous play (which is when they don't make contact).

[Kebbie Gazauzkas]

1. It seemed a bit reckless, but some may argue that it was a legitimate attempt to clear the ball.
2. I don't think that Nihat was offside, no complaints from the Czechs.
3. I guess it's similar to the Schweinsteiger/Leko incident, which resulted in a red card for the German. The ejected player was guilty of retaliation, I guess some refs would only consider a yellow, while others would not hesitate to produce a red card. I am not sure whether it was a more forceful push than in the Schweinsteiger situation. Koller may have deliberately initiated contact with the goalie, perhaps the Czech giant also deserved a caution. I think that Arda Turan was lucky to escape with only a yellow (it was around the 65th minute of the game when he almost stepped on a Czech player, he was clearly frustrated due to the second goal that was conceded by Turkey).
It may have been a good idea to let the teams play for 2 more minutes, as there was the red card and the caution to Baros, who was sitting on the bench.

[colins1993]

The third TUR goal was onside. When I watched live I could have sworn Nihat was OFF but only after watching the BBC highlights, were they super imposed that yellow line, could I tell it was a valid goal.

What appeared initially to be really TIGHT in actuality turned out to be not so tight at all - Nihat was on by about a yard.

It's all about angles and positioning as they say.

[macheath]

On the sendoff of the keeper, perfectly fine call. And not that he gets to trump the referee, but here's a refreshing point of view from Turkey's coach:

Referee right to dismiss Volkan, Terim says

GENEVA, June 16 (Reuters) - Ref Peter Frojdfeldt was right to send off Volkan Demirel after the Turkey keeper clashed with Jan Koller in the final minutes of their thrilling Euro 2008 Group A defeat of Czech Republic, his coach Fatih Terim said.

Here's the link to the full story. A coach agrees with a ref's sendoff decision on his own player! Man bites dog!

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=547502&cc=5901

Go Turkey! All refs now have to consider supporting them in the tourney. :)

[superdave]

I wouldn't argue with the red card, but in context, a yellow, IMHO, would be the better decision. Reasons for amelioration:

1. It was provoked...Koller never looked at the ball.
2. Context: that's the kind of play where you give a red if you need to calm the game down. I didn't think the game needed calming at that juncture.
3. Context: the suspension for the GK will be a quartefinal knockout game.
4. Koller embellished the contact. Plays like that in the midfield, after two guys have been scrapping for the ball, often draw yellows.

[PVancouver]

Why wouldn't that be dangerous play? He got kicked in the head (the defender,s foot was near his own head level), that seems pretty dangerous to me.

I agree with seadondo that this should be called, but unfortunately it cannot according to the USSF Advice to Referees:

12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing "in a dangerous manner" can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground).

The third criterium was not met: Jan Polak did not back down in at all from his challenge for the ball with his head.

Despite the contact, in real time it wasn't even clear that contact was made. Even acknowledging contact, typically that amount of contact would be seen as trifling (yes, I know it was later determined that Polak was cut, but in real time no one could know). Had Lasik made contact with the ball and then Polak's head, he could have gotten away with even more damage to Polak.

So, it short, this should not be a foul. But it was clearly dangerous. Had Polak been there a split second earlier, Polak would have had his face all cut up and Lasik would have been red-carded. Lasik did not even make contact with the ball.

Had this occurred in a U12 girls game and the referee did not call dangerous play, it would be the referee's head that would be rolling.

The ATR says:In judging a dangerous play offense, the referee must take into account the experience and skill level of the players. Opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through. Younger players have neither the experience nor skill to judge the danger adequately and, in such cases, the referee should intervene on behalf of their safety. For example, playing with cleats up in a threatening or intimidating manner is more likely to be judged a dangerous play offense in youth matches, without regard to the reaction of opponents.

So, in youth matches, referees are to take into account that players may not properly recognize dangerous play from their opponents and may not back down when they should have. So the referee should call dangerous play even when players do not back down.

I would agree with the ATR that "opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through." In top level professional play, they will play through almost anything, regardless of the perceived danger. It is not a question of their ability to recognize danger. Clearly they should have that ability. The problem is their willingness to play through it. They will play through dangerous situations that they really should refrain from. And the speed of play is so fast, that often the opponent has no opportunity to pull away from the dangerous play, even if he wanted to.

This gives professional players carte blanche to play very dangerously (as long as they don't foul), without penalty. Is that what we want?

[PVancouver]

I wouldn't argue with the red card, but in context, a yellow, IMHO, would be the better decision.

Despite the fact that there was no face or neck contact with this push, which seems to have been given special emphasis, any rude physical contact made while not playing for the ball, especially when the ball is not in play, is now apparently VC.

For comparison, in MLS, Eddie Robinson's push against Marcelo Saragosa was more violent but only received a yellow (Robinson's second). The referee was not admonished for only administering a yellow card to Robinson (although he was reprimanded for dealing with that and other related misconduct in other ways).

[Sport Billy]

I wouldn't argue with the red card, but in context, a yellow, IMHO, would be the better decision. Reasons for amelioration:

1. It was provoked...Koller never looked at the ball.
2. Context: that's the kind of play where you give a red if you need to calm the game down. I didn't think the game needed calming at that juncture.
3. Context: the suspension for the GK will be a quartefinal knockout game.
4. Koller embellished the contact. Plays like that in the midfield, after two guys have been scrapping for the ball, often draw yellows.


This is ridiculous ... the official is not the one who should have thought "the suspension for the GK will be a quartefinal knockout game" - the goalkeeper should have thought about that before commiting the violent conduct. He forced the officials hand.

[colins1993]

[QUOTE=superdave;14904794]I wouldn't argue with the red card, but in context, a yellow, IMHO, would be the better decision. Reasons for amelioration:

1. It was provoked...Koller never looked at the ball.

USUALLY this is a telltale sign BUT I think that was really hard for the ref to determine on that particular play.