OK, anybody else think this is a carbon copy of the PK in England-Argentina in 2002? Every player making that tackle in the box knows the risks. Let's not over think things here. 100% correct decision.
The more I watch this the more I am convinced the attacker steps on the defender intentionally. Just focus on the attackers left leg. 100% dive.
There is only one person that knows: Costa. It is possible he stepped on his leg on purpose knowing he would be taken down. It also appears possible that while Costa could have jumped over the defender, the initial clip of the defenders knee on Costa's foot may have actually prevented Costa from jumping. Regardless, it's a 100% penalty for me. I thought so live, on every replay on TV during the game, and every replay I've seen since.
I just don't get this discussion. Costa steps on the defender. The defender didn't take Costa's legs out, it is Costa himself that places the foot there. What is a defender supposed to do if someone steps on him - support the forward's foot so he doesn't fall over?
Wait, so whistle blown, defenders arguably stop, ball goes in, and you award the goal? Or, whistle blows, defenders don't stop, but a foul is committed, then what? I like the idea of getting the calls right, but the logistics make video replay completely unworkable in a game with continuous action.
No, I think he is referring to the common context where the whistle only blows after the ball was in the net. (And you can bet there would be slow whistles if such a system was ever adopted.)
I guess I'm not sure what your point is. The ARs thought a couple plays were offside when it wasn't. They were wrong. ARs in many parts of the world just aren't that good. However, I would expect that these ARs have watched enough games and reviewed enough offside decisions on video to understand that attackers are usually onside when it seems close -- even when the ARs are 'sure' of offside. This topic has been discussed before and it's not unique to the World Cup so there's no point going into it again here. Regardless if they were sure and wrong, or had doubt but still put the flag up, it's not good enough at this level.
Surely by that same token Costa should have been sent off for headbutting even while it was not a full force headbutt? What are the ideas about De Vrij his yellow card for 'impeding' David Silva? Could and should he step out of the way?
Main lesson: if you are going to blow three game critical calls, do it in a rout. Some guys get all the luck.
It's what happens when refs never played. Everyone else except the referees forum says it was never a PK...
Hi. You're new here. Friendly explanation. This is the sort of crap that is unwelcome. If you really believe this, then don't post here. It's a news and analysis forum about refereeing. What you are offering is neither news, nor analysis. If you must post here, either change your attitude and follow the rules, or deal with the consequences. Thanks. And the same pretty much goes for you @Marratacaja--you've also been pushing the boundaries. Again, if all you want to do is bitch about refereeing, this isn't the forum and the rules are very clear.
There's no point in making generalizations like this. It's just ignorant and ruins your credibility. Many top referees HAVE played at a reasonably high level - much higher level than the majority of football fans. You also should have noticed that some of the referees in this thread, including me, believe that this was NOT a PK.
This not actually true. A lot of observers think it was a legitimate PK in real time, and after replay. And do you know that Rizzoli has never played? I don't know for sure but with him being Italian it would be unlikely. PH
The reason referees miss a call is not analysis? Please make sure you also swear at any poster who says a referee had a player in his way or makes other kinds of excuses for a bad call. To say it's not worthy of discussion after the other guy talks about telling his young refs to put their hands on the ball before he kicks it and MLS has been studying bringing players back as refs shows nothing but bias against any criticism of referees. And your profanity ruins your credibility.
Oh I'm going to have fun with this one... When it's demonstrably false, no, no it is not analysis: See, Rizzoli grew up playing football. But wait, you weren't offering it as a reason why the call was missed, like you claim now. You were offering it as a slander against everyone in the "ref forum." See how you tried to change what you said with the hopes we wouldn't notice? Too bad it's wrong no matter which way you slice it. I literally have no idea what you're talking about in these three sentences, other than the point about MLS trying to invite former pros to referee (which no one has taken them up on). Regardless, there's actually no debate on the issue. I've played. Rizzoli has played. Dozens of referee posters here have played. And I actually firmly believe the best referees are former players and I've advocated that for years. But you just chose to slander everyone and then assert it as fact. Care to try again? Because I suddenly feel like I've got my credibility back.
The problem is mate that all you gave a reason but didn't offer any help as to fixing the problem. How many times do we hear "the game wasn't the same as it was 10/20 years ago?" So even if they had played the game has changed. If you have an idea of how Rizzoli could have done something different other than "not call the foul" then please, we love debates on this stuff, we sit in ref tents every weekend and argue. But you are going to ruffle feathers when you come in wielding your opinion like a wreaking ball. And yes I have played, and I think its simply a smart play by Costa to create contact after a dumb challenge. Edit: As MassRef so helpfully pointed out most of these guys have played.
Me too, and I have the championship medal (adult) to prove it. As well as playing with and against pro players in friendlies. PH
I hate the idea of review because it slows down the game and in my opinion it doesn't address the issue. It's an attempt by the organizing entity to look like the problem is being taken seriously that completely ignores better tools. It would be a paradigm shift if the sorts of tools we already have were implemented one day (and they will be, but hopefully not just 100 years from now). Maybe offside would generally be play on - you can always call a goal back for offside, it seems silly to me to make the close call and then give the ball back to the attacking team if you got it wrong (that's not to say if could never be called but that there would be a shift in that direction). In fact, why have assistant refs on the sidelines at all? At the highest level, have all but the center ref off the field, watching from better angles. I fully recognize that there are separate problems that come with that - but I would dismiss any counterargument based only on tradition or resisting substantial change just because it's a lot at once. Going back to what @GoDawgsGo asked, I am absolutely aware of some ramifications and sure there are some I haven't even considered (if calls are suddenly much more black and white, at least on offside, that also contributes to the evolution of player behavior, just as imperfect refereeing has since the beginning of the game, I cannot predict - nor can anyone else - what direction some of that change would take). TLDR: Replay is a band-aid, wholesale adoption of technology should be considered at least for the black and white calls like offside in major tournaments that can afford it.
I think i'm in the minority, but I hate that PK call. I'd defend the Brazil PK before I'd defend this one. I get what PH is saying, that in real time from the camera on top of the cheap seats it looked like a PK. But I just don't get trying to defend it after seeing the replay. MassRef (I think) said that it was a reckless challenge, and that's the consequence. Ok, maybe. But even being that charitable, I'd have to say that the consequence for that kind of slide is that you put the ref in a position to miss the call, which happened here. So in that sense I guess it is similar to the Brazil PK--sloppy defending allows the ref to make a call that upon further review was missed. But I just don't get doubling down trying to defend this one.
I said it was careless, not reckless. But you've got the general point. You make a tackle like this directed at an opponent, and you know a consequence is that you could concede a PK. Don't tackle carelessly, miss the ball completely, and land in close enough proximity to the opponent that the next contact very well might cause him to trip. To be fair, I've heard directly now from four people who have been FIFAs on this call (just happened to be lucky enough to ask at the right time). Two adamantly have a PK; two adamantly don't. So I think it goes without saying that this isn't the easiest of calls. Isn't refereeing fun?
I'm not sure what specifically you take issue with though. You say you don't understand why anyone would defend the call but, you don't say what's wrong with it. I guess you kind of suggest that it's the careless tackle being a bad idea that is not really something people should defend. But what about the actual contact, is contact that dispossesses a player not a foul? Do you not see it as enough to dispossess Costa? Do you think he's somehow responsible for avoiding that contact even though the defender missed the tackle? I'm a bit confused by the "put the ref in position to miss the call" part too.
Well to me what's wrong with it is that he defender did not trip the attacker. The contact was initiated by the attacker when he stepped on the defender. That is not a foul. What I meant by "put the ref in the position to miss the call" was my attempt to rephrase what others are saying. It seems they are saying that the challenge was so careless and ill-advised that it put the referee in a position where a PK is a reasonable/likely outcome, so they shouldn't be surprised when its whistled. I don't agree with that logic on this play. I was trying to explain what I hear from others, and said so less clearly than they probably would have. I am also quick to say--as MassRef points out above--that I'm in the minority on this. A lot of other referees at the highest level say it should be a PK. But I'm not there yet.
Fair enough. I've gone over before why I don't think the evaluation that Costa initiated the contact is correct (though I didn't put it in those words) so I won't go in circles here, at least your objection is clearer even if I disagree. I found the description "put the ref in the position to miss the call" peculiar enough to reply again because to me the carelessness put the ref in an easier position to make a correct call - and ultimately it's not what the call was about since the call was probably for the trip itself.