Realize this is the wrong thread, but damn, if I'm the referee crew I'm SO glad that that ball didn't roll in.
I think his point is that the ball went in the goal. Which of course doesn't matter if the referee has declared the penalty over before that, which I think he has in this case. Also, I'm not convinced that the ball is in. Judging by the following twitter search, that's definitely his point: https://twitter.com/search?q=ron vlaar penalty goal&src=typd
After seeing a few more videos, it's clear that not only does the ball not actually enter the goal, but that it touched the kick taker again as he walked past it after the save. Interesting, though.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=531923356953201<br/> Was posted in referee assignment thread. First, I don't think the ball ever fully crosses the line. 2nd, I saw another video that appears to show the ball touch Vlaar in the shoulder after the save.
Posts moved. As someone else pointed out elsewhere, the ESPN tactical cam likely gives a good look at this (I haven't looked at it yet).
Is the penalty effort dead if it does touch the player after the initial kick and save? (I'm not a referee and curious after seeing the video)
During KFTM, yes. No follow up. Can't determine if touch affects ball movement or not. The kick is over when the referee determines it is. So, if Cakir determined the kick over when GK saves and ball moves away from goal what happens after really doesn't matter. During a normal PK, if the ball is saved, the kicker can touch again. If it bounces off the post(no touch from GK) he can not.
I'm not sure where (or if at all) FIFA states this explicitly, but USSF does explicitly state that a player may only play the ball once in it's "Kicks from the Penalty Mark Checklist" (and I presume in the ATR as well, though I haven't checked). But the basic answer is yes, it's dead.
About the missed first penalty, our referee makes no reaction to either a Vlaar touch or the ball crossing. Wow....that could truly have been something.
This video seems to show it stopping on the line: https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/CB...p4?versionId=10ppZVZ20JSjZeM3ta8szjDOtzLHjc7w With that said, a key phrase in FIFA's instructions is "The ball may touch the goalkeeper, goal posts, or crossbar any number of times before going into the goal as long as the referee believes the ball's motion is the result of the initial kick" So...is this motion the result of keeper's block, and not the kick itself? Would that be the escape clause? What of a shot that hits the post, then the keeper's back and goes in. Surely that motion is not caused from the initial kick. In fact, wasn't there a KftM in the 86 WC that was not allowed when that is exactly what happened (keeper dove, shot hit side bar, then hit the now supine keeper, entered goal, goal not given)? My memory could be off about that though.
Fun conjecture but the ball likely hit Vlaar although there's really not a good video that I've seen of it. If Romero's save imparted lots of backspin to the ball it's possible for it to hit the ground and roll back towards the goal and go in as this in keeping with Newtonian physics. IIRC, I had a first term university physics problem almost exactly like this one that involved a billiard ball with lots of reverse spin and we had to calculate how far it would travel. Were that to happen and there was no contact from the shooter then I think it should count as a goal. I wonder if GLT was turned on during the PKs and they had any record of the Vlaar shot.
There is a video floating around of a keeper stopping a PK and not paying attention to the deflected ball as he is celebrating. The ball goes nearly straight up in the air, comes back down, and spins into the goal. Oops. Goal! Edit: Different than the one I remember, but the same theme:
I believe that is what happened, and I believe that IFAB subsequently said that such situations should be awarded as goals. (I would say that is such a case the goal is caused by the ball's momentum from the initial kick, whcih had not yet been expended.) Trivial note: if a PK is awarded and time expires, then the application becomes exactly the same as on KFTPM, as the game ends with the completion of the PK.
Muaha...it's apparent that you've never visited the "Global Warming" thread in the PC&E forum...but I digress.
Persistent infraction: the yellow card was the second and last foul by the player, if it was a foul. [4:30] "first should have, and would have most times, been a caution." Definitely and surely not at this tournament, most of the times. It hasn't happened in this tournament. Yet it were the Argentinean players stating pre-match that they would roughen Robben up, "be aggressive" and "get under his skin" because he "doesn't like physical contact." The Dutch players didn't do those pre-match talk (if they had, the media would certainly notice it). Just to give the narrative some balance. The announcement to make it a physical match came from one side, which doesn't mean the other side had different intentions though. [no foul called btw] http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/08/martin-demichelis-arjen-robben-holland-argentina
Not going to get into a tactical battle with any of the Oragnge supporters on this board. There are other places for it. My only complaint would be the lack of goals in their last two matches. They are better than what they showed, but they didn't show. And there are no instances where a referees decision would have impacted the match. Even the Robben no call. Schneider would have but the free kick into outer space anyway!
The best place to go for the tactics discussion is on The Netherlands forum on Big Soccer. Most of us didn't bother to post on the World Cup thread. You'll find breakdowns on all the games and a summary of the team's performance (we mostly believe they over achieved given the players van Gaal had). I agree with your point on the officials!
During KFTM, yes. The kicker can not touch the ball a 2nd time after the initial kick. During a regular PK, no. If it rebounds off the GK, the kicker may play the ball. If it rebounds off the post or crossbar, the kicker may not touch the ball until it is played by any other player on either team.
In the video posted it looks to me like both the center and ar start writing after the ball comes to a stop. I'd say that they were waiting to see specifically what would happen.
The Robben no call in the 103th minute could have had an impact. One never knows how the adopted refereeing stance impacts a match in favor of which side. It can wear attackers out. I'm simply pointing out to you that it was the other side announcing they planned to make a physical game of the encounter. We all know what the reaction would have been if Nigel de Jong had made such comments before the match.