Does getting the ball absolve one of a foul? Here's a clip showing that Pickford's right boot makes contact with Mandzukic's right knee. https://www.clippituser.tv/c/plaawm I think that is SFP regardless of getting the ball. But goalies are held to a different standard...
I saw the boot come through between the legs. On review, it’s clear that he did contact the leg. I was mistaken. But the play of a keeper is different by nature than a field player. You have two players running directly at each other. Unlike a field player, a GK’s job is to make himself as big as possible and get a piece of the ball to keep it out of the net. He did that. Yes, there was contact, but, by the nature of the relative positions, it is expected and part of the game. You’d never have a play like this at midfield. And I’d be shocked to ever see this called on a keeper.
As a former GK who was known for contesting balls with the subtlety and grace of an 18-wheeler -- fair challenge, play on.
Agree as to both of these. No one tries to block a ball like that other than in front of the goal, so the "anywhere else" argument is really flat. Had he not connected with the ball, clear foul and we can debate the misconduct. I'm not saying anytime a GK gets the ball ball gives him carte blanche (I've called my share of PKs on keepers, including at least one who was holding the ball at the time), but they get a bit of latitude. I think this is close, but not a call the game expects. The GK gets the ball, the forward has already made his play, and the force of the collision is far more the forward's pace coming forward than anything the GK did. (The GK did come forward a bit.) Nothing suggest the GK was playing anything other than the ball.
Usually if I see/hear a difference in opinion between fans and refs when I come to this form, it's that the fans think a referee is terrible when the consensus is that s/he was much better than presumed. But this time is different. I watched with about 20 other people - fans of both teams plus neutrals - and no one thought the referee had a poor game. That doesn't mean we thought he was perfect, but reading through this thread it appears he had a very poor game indeed.
I think there's a lot of people on this forum that consider him to be the best referee in the world right now. If anything he's just being held to such a high standard that he probably couldn't reach today.
I am one of the people who think he’s the best in the world. I think you can judge him today in three sort of general categories. On enforcement of misconduct he was in line with if not slightly more lenient than the rest of the knockout stages. For fans, since nothing catastrophic happened, that’s fine. For referees here, who realize what gets seen in these matches sets expectations for their own matches, that’s a disappointment (particularly given Cakir’s own typical standards). But either way it’s not something out of the blue. On game management, he showed why he’s the best in the world. He has a unique presence and set of mannerisms. But they work. He defused so many potentially volatile situations in ways that others simply can’t or wouldn’t even try to do. This game could have gone sideways. Yes, there could or should have been more misconduct. But he managed the match without those cards and in a way that made hundreds of millions of fans think he did a good overall job. That counts for a lot. That said, he missed some free kicks and simple fouls. More than his normal share. Nothing that was clearly match critical (aside from the potential Croatia penalty), but a couple that could have led to important attacking chances. So that’s a blemish that we usually don’t count because we are always focused on penalties. And if you count the potential penalty (let’s remember he awarded Nigeria a far less blatant penalty), now you’re talking about a missed KMI. Where does that leave him overall? I don’t know. Probably in the “no one definitely would have done it better” camp, which is a good camp to be in.
I’m an admitted Çakir fanboy—I did not need watch to know what whistle he used—so maybe my judgement is clouded and of little use, but I am consistently impressed and entertained by the tone he establishes and maintains for his matches, today included.
From what I could see, Dr. Joe appeared only once to say "the Croatian team voiced their displeasure before and after halftime about the Lovren play". In a half where he could have discussed many specific plays, it appears he is no longer watching the entire matches and instead said something the average fan could already see for themselves on TV (about the players approaching Cakir). The Pickford play on Mario Mandžukić wouldn't even get called in a domestic league match. Keepers always get the benefit of the doubt that they're out to make a save (even with the foot in that position), regardless of what the end result is. Funny that Rebić commits two hard fouls within a 45 second span in the 2nd half, but the guy who winds up getting the caution is Mandžukić for slapping/punching the ball out of bounds right after the whistle (Rebić was cautioned for a tactical foul in ET). I agree that Cakir did a very good job to get involved in skirmishes that could have gotten worse with his presence (ex. delaying the restart for a throw-in with guys trying to grab the ball away, Rakitić engaged in the final minutes). After 3 straight ET games, I am spent.
Once again without reading the thread: for a guy that was touted here is a candidate for the final, I must say I was fairly unimpressed with Cakir, perhaps influenced some what by the fact I watched that game in an English pub. But if he does get the final, do you think he might finally give Lovern a yellow for persistent infringement for his first Foul in that game? The only consistent yellow card given in this world cup, is for a professional foul to stop a breakaway, and he had two in the first 10 minutes. Definitely called about 3 fouls that replay showed were pretty much nothing or embellishment. I know it's not all on him, but the team pretty clearly called two corners as goal kicks. In a world cup where set pieces are even more significant than normal, these are not insignificant errors. I think I saw of the World Cup equivalent of the High School ref who ignores clear fouls, to concentrate on foul throw ins. In a game where both sides had possible yellow card fouls ignored, the first 2 yellows of the game, one each way, were for time wasting by throwing a ball away...
I agree with everything you said; however, by the LOTG, it is SFP. Nothing in the laws says the Goalkeeper gets special treatment. I am also not advocating that this play should have been called differently, I'm just pointing out (something everyone already knows) that the Goalkeeper gets more latitude when it comes to these types of challenges. I guess what really irked me about this play, was not that there was no foul called, but that Pickford taunts Mandzukic after Pickford cleaned him out.
Any idea why , in the last few minutes when Maguire was clearly barged in the back as he was gonna head the ball to score .... why the ref didn't refer it to var ?? Such an important moment and such an poor decision!
IMHO great performance by Çakır. He could have given penalty for Croatia, but that was on the verge anyway.
There is no prohibition against a “high boot”. There is only a prohibition on plays that are so dangerous that another player can’t play the ball because he would risk injury if attempting to play the ball. This wasn’t one of those cases. Not even close.
I’m not so certain about that. It did not endanger the safety of the opponent nor was excessive force used. Contact with thighs is not as dangerous as contact to joints. Additionally, much of the force in the play is the result of the attacker running toward the GK.
And just to piggyback a little on that, @TitoTata, Playing In A Dangerous Manner is almost never called at the highest levels of play because you just don't really see players pulling out of a play for fear of injury. On the other hand, in youth games I see it called more often than the laws strictly provide for when a player is doing something potentially dangerous but no one's play is affected by it, in order to reinforce safety as a priority on the field. Even though the English player's header attempt wasn't affected by the high boot, I wouldn't be surprised to see an identical play get called PIADM in youth ball.
At 117’ Two points: - there was no foul, two players fairly challenging for the ball. The fact that Maguire became unbalanced doesn’t mean a foul was committed. - he was never going to get to that ball Doesn’t mean it’s not a foul, but he wasn’t “gonna head the ball to score”
some of my complaints were more of how I personally would like to see the game reffed, rather than how well he actually reffed overall, despite my personal rooting for England to win, I recognize that Croatia was the better team this match, and I don't think the CR made any big mistakes that would have likely changed the result
How can you claim that it wasn't dangerous to go for the ball so high on the penalty box - when the natural thing ( what the defender did ) was to go for it with your head ? View attachment 132239