Aspas goes down after clear contact from Ramos; referee sends him off for 2YC. Sure, Aspas did stop and waited for contact, but Ramos did bump into him. Even though I'm a Real Madrid fan, I can't see how this is not a penalty. What do you think?
Is this foul different than the same one committed in the corner at the end of games? He's shielding the ball which means he can be legally charged from behind. It's not a dive for me because there is contact but it's also not a foul.
I'm leaning towards that too. The caution for simulation seems a bit harsh but the contact is created by the attacker and he goes down in a fairly unnatural way. That said the way fouls are called in most games it might just as well have been called as a PK.
I have to disagree. The contact is created by the defender being unable to stop when the attacker suddenly cuts in front of him. The attacker never moves towards the defender, so he isn't creating the contact. And, while we could consider a legal charge from behind because of the shielding, I don't think running full speed into the back of the shielding player is going to ever be a legal charge from behind. This was, IMO, a good play by the attacker to win a penalty from a defender who was out of control followed by a very poor decision by the referee.
Wait, what? Since when can you legally be charged from behind? You can be "fairly charged" if you're shielding the ball. Being charged from behind does not constitute a fair charge. It constitutes a charging foul. But that's beside the point. I don't know how anyone can watch this, with the benefit of replay, and say it's not a penalty. I understand how, with one look like the referee got, it might seem that Aspas just let himself go as Ramos approached. But that isn't what happened. There is forceful contact between the legs--just look at the knee on knee (relative area) contact at 0:44. This is a penalty and an argument that the contact is created by the attacker is really confusing to me and sounds like the ghost of @PVancou... (nah, I won't tag him). If an attacker legally puts himself between a defender and the ball and the defender fouls, then the defender still fouled. Maybe such action from the attacker mitigates a misconduct level (a high force tackle, for example, might only be careless instead of reckless if the tackler had no way of knowing he might foul his opponent in the first place) but that's beside the point and irrelevant here. Ramos was going to win a ball in the penalty area that his opponent shielded and he fouled him. Unless you're willing to tell me Aspas fouled Ramos by carelessly tripping or challenging him, I see no alternative to a penalty call--simulation, it certainly is not. From what I understand, Aspas' reputation might have preceded him here. I've read that he has a habit of simulation and it might be something the referee was on the lookout for. That, more than anything, might have played the strongest role in this simulation call.
I know Ramos been sent off over 20 times in his career and has probably conceded twice as many penalties in his career. But it still blows my mind how he continues to get away with such stupidity. Fact he is probably should have been sent off twice as much as he already has and should have conceded even more penalties. Ridiculous and idiotic defending rewarded there. Interesting question is can the VAR remedy this situation here? Award the PK and rescind the caution for simulation.
I think there has long been guidance that a player shielding cannot deliberately interpose his back to an opponent to prevent insulate himself from a charge, and if he does so, the opponent can charge from behind so long as not dangerous or directed at the spinal area. (As I recall (without checking) that was listed in the decisions of the international board (the predecessor to the Q&A) back in the days when the foul was charging from behind rather than carelessly charging an opponent.) But certainly one must be much more careful with a charge from behind than with a charge from the side -- it is easy to cross that line to dangerous or at the spinal area. (I am not offering an opinion on whether this play could be considered an appropriately careful charge from behind, as I can't access the video.)
It is the question that really can now--and maybe should--be asked in any analysis of a CMI. It has to be a "clear and obvious error." I'd personally say there is enough. But it's all going to depend upon how that phrase is instructed. An interesting thing to realize here is that only the penalty decision could be reviewed in this particular case. So the question is penalty or no penalty and, if it's penalty, I presume the yellow card could be rescinded. However, there'd be no way to split the difference and say it's not a penalty but also not simulation--because you can't review a yellow card or a 2CT on its own.
I recall the language about the spinal area; as you said, it was a caveat to the "charging from behind" foul. In the interests of not going too far down the academic rabbit hole, I'll concede that by the text of the Laws as written it is technically possible for a charge to come (generally) from behind but still be legal if its not careless. Practically, I'd also argue it's basically impossible; once you move from more shoulder-to-shoulder contact into the actual back (rather than just the shoulder blade), if the force is more than trifling, it's a foul. Well the actual initial contact is a knee into the side or back of the knee of an opponent, so the answer is "no." I was just addressing the language about charging from behind as an aside.
I think we're on the same page. The shoulder blades are certainly part of the back, but once you get inside them, you're near the spine where force should not be directed. (I also think it is going to be very difficult to have contact with any part of the back that meets the standard if the players are running as opposed to a more static shielding situation.)
"A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body." I've always wondered what the highlighted part of that sentence means. Isn't that basically the definition of shielding?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that the text means that the shielding player can not step or lean back into the opponent, initiating contact to hold off the player. Kind of a fine line though.
FWIW, that's a distinction that's made in basketball all the time. "Boxing out" is legal, but displacing an opponent with your butt is not. That's how I've viewed shielding in soccer as well.
I agree with the analogy. But I would allow less pushing backward than is typically actually permitted in basketball.