I think that in addition, the ref was clearly in view of Aquino. He likely thought that if anything Aquino fell because he kicked the ground.
That always seems to be the case with PK's. Refs always are more hesitant because the punishment of a goal seems so high. Legally speaking, any holding is always a direct kick. But when have we ever seen that called a penalty?
In this regard the US fan base is hardened steel. We never get the call and we all know it. Two red cards in the Confed Cup for at best yellow card offenses? Phantom penalties and missed calles at the biggest stage in 2006 and 2010 and 2002? I can say that we as a group, perhaps like no other, can roll with it.
So, to those who claim it was not a penalty because the ball was mishit before the foul, does that mean that players can just wait for the ball to leave a player and then clatter all over them with impunity anytime? Or are they only allowed to run down opposing players after they make a bad pass?
I saw this too, and I think (and said as much in another thread) that because of the lateness and the scissor, this would have been a fairly easy yellow card if it happened at midfield.
Except the player clearly initiated that contact by rearing back 180 degrees as if he were using a pitching wedge. It would be awfully hard to foul a player's foot with your inner thigh. . .
I'd be pissed if it were the other way around. I mean you take someone out from behind and it's a foul and probably a yellow card as well, regardless of where the ball was at the exact moment of the foul. It's a foul in the box so it's a penalty. The fact that the shot may well have been flubbed even if Edu was nowhere near the play, makes his decision to go all in from behind even more questionable.
It was a really poorly timed tackle - what good is a lunge behind a player? In that case if you risk any contact at all you shoulder challenge and hope to throw off the shooters timing/balance just enough. We got lucky - but as many others have pointed out, we probably have a karmic credit or two. That was not a pretty tackle however. If it were me or my team I'd be very angry about coming through a leg like that.
No reason to miss that! It's only late in the 2nd half of a high-pressure game that you must win, in front of 100,000 fans who have turned on you, plus you can feel a defender closing in. No reason to shank that.
As I see it Edu makes a slight contact that makes Aquino miss the shot and then he body checks him after the shank. In Spain that is a PK, in England not so much. Also the two hands on the back of Hernandez and then Chicharo dives forward, as a defender when you put your hands on a player like that you are just asking for the ref (lineman) to call a foul. I think the diving helped the USA get a way with two PKs (the ref did not like the "exaggerations" IMO). It happens refs make bad calls it is part of the game. What this dude said, to me it is a PK (not an easy call for sure);
I still don't see how edu caused him to miss the shot? He hit the ground (his foot) before Edu touched him! This is the reason why he missed the shot. Even if Edu didn't touch him, he still was going to kick the gruond and make a fool of himself lol
I see a slight contact on top before he kicks the ground, but again this is slow and seeing it a bunch of times, so really it is really hard to call that. So the question is should there have been a foul after the player kicked the ground and Edu knocked him down or does the ref think it was the kicking of the ground that caused the fall. The ref saw #2 but awarded a corner kick because of the slight contact (or he was under the impression that Edu got part of the ball).
Man, this is getting to be like a Rorschach test. I certainly thought live it was a penalty. The clip casts enough doubt that I can see why the ref went the other way, especially if he was looking at the shooting foot. It's a fair argument to make that the ball was on its way wide before Edu made contact. The issue is when the contact happened. When I look at it, I think the contact comes against Edu's thigh, which it means the shot was onits way already and he had no further chance to play the ball. You see contact earlier. And without an angle from straight on, we'll never be able to tell. But I think everyone can agree that: 1. As US fans, we really couldn't complain if the call went against us. It was too close. 2. The ref made a reasonable call on a bang-bang play 3. The ref has brass cajones, since this was in Azteca. 4. It was a risky, dangerous play by Edu There are probably more arguments to be made about 4 than anything else. Some would argue that Edu took a last ditch risk to break up what looked like a certain goal. But to me, Edu several times during the game stood flat footed when the action got behind him, covered no one and reacted late. I don't remember where he was on this specific play, but he had enough late arrivals during the game for me to think this was probably another one.
There is no way the first play was a PK. That would have been a bad call (but, obviously, calls like that do get made occassionally). So say that that one has a 10% chance of getting called. I'd say that the Edu play was just the opposite. It should have been called a PK and probably would be 90% of the time. That said... it wasn't a "horror" tackle, and I don't feel the least bit bad about the US getting that break. As others have said, it's all part of the game, and we've had plenty of those calls go against us.
I think Edu did not really foul Aquino, but it will probably be called 8/10 times. I think the referee didnt make calls when the players exaggerated going down and that benefited the US.
Hypothetically, if I'm running behind my mark, then he inexplicably collapses in front of me, then I bowl over him, that may not be a foul on me. It's more like obstruction on him, but not really... It's a no-call, just as we saw. (Just hypothetically. I love being hypothetical when it benefits the US.)
I was mulling the same thing over in my head. There were a few times a Mexican player went to the ground begging for the call, in this instance the player 'assumes the position' so instead of seeing a legitimate play the official is thinking it is yet another attempt to gain the call thru simulation.
This should have been a penalty, folks. There isn't any gray here. We got away with one. First, it's clear that the referee thought that Edu got the ball (he didn't). He called for a corner kick. Secondly, I don't think the referee saw that Edu took the player's right leg out. Things just happened really fast. Many people, though earnest in their views, don't understand the rules, and make up their own criteria for determining whether this was penalty, using reasons that are not in the rules. You simply cannot do what Edu did. The rules don't allow it. You cannot tackle a player from behind, taking out their supporting leg. If the referee saw the slo-mo replay, there is little doubt that he would have called for a penalty. Things that have no relevance in the decision making: (1) Aquino kicked the ground. (2) Aquino kicked the ball before he was fouled. (3) Edu's tackle had no impact on the play. (4) The ball had already gone away from the players.
But you know that the refs don't call the game strictly by the way the rules are written. I beleive the ref said to himself "Did Edu's challenge cause Aquino to miss". I think his answer was no, thus no penalty.
The ref didn't see Aquino miss. He saw Edu tackle the ball. Hence the corner kick. Even then it should've been a penalty kick. It was a bad call for a number of reasons.
Jeez you guys are ruthless... I admit, I was wrong in saying "players at that level never miss by that much." What I meant to say is, in that particular situation, with the ball rolling slowly and the shooter fairly well balanced and not at top speed, I can't see a strong professional player just kicking the turf 2 feet in front of the ball like that without contact. To be fair, almost every one of those blooper misses in that video come from the ball hopping up at the last second, not someone kicking the ground. And yes... pros do kick the turf before the ball sometimes, but almost never when they're well balanced (and without contact).
It's a little before my time, but it seems like I've heard/read that the prematurely shortened career of Van Basten is what prompted the change in the pov on tackles from behind.