Review: Question, Should've been PK

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Beardly P, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Beardly P

    Beardly P Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I posted this video in the player part of the forum, and it was suggested to post here. This is college level (NAIA) soccer. Please review and share your thoughts.

    What do you think, should this have been a PK?

    [ame="http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a25/rangerbp/?action=view&current=pk.flv"]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a25/rangerbp/th_pk.jpg[/ame]
     
  2. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
  3. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    Can't tell from that angle and the camera missed the crucial instant in the tackle.

    Let's go with what the ref said.
     
  4. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    A quick word of caution: Do not accept any answer here as THE answer. There are refs here who ref professional games, there are refs who only do youth games, there are retired refs, there are non-refs, there are foreign refs. Some good refs come off as wishy-washy, some non-refs seem to be great authorities on how to call a game.

    Rarely is there 100% agreement based on a video. A video only shows one angle and the ref on the pitch will probably not have the same angle. More than once I have changed my opinion after seeing a video from a different angle.

    Having said that: Based on theis angle-PK. The only way the defender was able to make a play on the ball was to go through the attacker. He may have kicked the ball but he also took out both of the attacker's legs. He could not have made the play without taking out the attacker.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Beardly P

    Beardly P Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In that case, the ref made no call what so ever. Not even a foul!
     
  6. DualYellow

    DualYellow Member

    Sep 5, 2006
    Well he can't call a foul here for the attacker without it being a PK. :rolleyes:
     
  7. ref2coach

    ref2coach Member

    May 27, 2004
    TN, USA
    With the advantage of freeze frame, at the 8th second, the defender's left foot is striking the attacker's right foot and the ball is untouched to the left of the defender's foot. PK

    First view at normal speed, College Men, With the training videos provided by NISOA over the last 5-6 years, I was leaning no call. Attacker was aware of defender. Defender did not appear to use excessive force. Defenders right leg hit the ground slowing his progress before he used left leg to apparently tackle the ball. Defended kept all body parts low to ground at and after tackle to not purposely upend attacker. If the crew was running a standard left diagonal then AR would most likely have had the best view in real time.
     
  8. Beardly P

    Beardly P Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right. That was sarcasticly said in order to emphasize the fact that no call was made at all. :rolleyes:
     
  9. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry, but the video is jumpy and does not show the tackle clearly. It's impossible to tell what happened.
     
  10. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    From the 2009-2010 Advice to Referees
    12.7 TACKLING
    The referee must judge whether the tackle of an opponent is fair or whether it is careless, reckless, or involves the use of excessive force. Making contact with the opponent before the ball when making a tackle is unfair and should be penalized. However, the fact that contact with the ball was made first does not automatically mean that the tackle is fair.



    Assuming the defender touched the ball away during his tackle... ...there are two relevant questions,
    1) Did the defender touch the ball away from the attacker before making contact with the attacker? If yes, then, 2) was the subsequent contact a foul?

    IMO, The film does not make clear whether the assumption is correct.
    IMO, The film also does not make clear whether point 1 is affirmative, especially allowing that some contact prior to the tackle could be considered 'trifling' at this level. Regarding point 2, the considerations elaborated by ref2coach become relevant:

    These considerations argue against a foul call. Other considerations that are relevant are:
    the typical level of contact permitted in this league,
    and the level or tolerance for contact that the referee has established in this game. I don't ref college games, but my observation is that these considerations would also usually argue against a foul.

    --------------
    If you disagree the above assumption, and If you are convinced that the ball was pushed away by the attacker whose foot was bumped by the defender, OR if you are convinced that there was a substantial amount of contact by the defender before the tackle, then if you were ref, you would be pointing to the penalty spot for the PK.

    I take back my previous statement that the camera had a bad angle, actually it had a pretty good angle, arguably better that either the CR or the AR had in real time. Having said that, and having watched the tape 8 or 9 times, I have a hard time saying the decision is clear cut one way or the other. IMO The events are borderline, the facts are not crystal clear, that is why I originally said Let's go with the ref's call. (or non-call)
     
  11. snolly g

    snolly g Member

    Aug 21, 2008
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    um... my screen goes blank at the 8th second.
     
  12. ref2coach

    ref2coach Member

    May 27, 2004
    TN, USA
    My bad. My reference s/b at the 2nd second. I thought the 08 out at the end was the seconds. :eek:
     
  13. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I went to the photobucket site and took a look at the video in normal speed and it looks like a PK and caution. The defender has to go through the attacker to get the ball. That was quite evident on the replay in slow motion. This I got ball first stuff is nonsense when the defender took both of the attackers legs out with his tackle.
     
  14. snolly g

    snolly g Member

    Aug 21, 2008
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    i disagree. i think it's a legitimate consideration. if you get to the ball first, subsequent contact generally means your opponent went through you (not you went through your opponent). it's physics.
     
  15. Beardly P

    Beardly P Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree with you snolly when making a general statement and consideration (bc that is what it is) however, I believe Alberto is directly talking about this video and in this case, the defender clearly and obviously does not touch the ball first.
     
  16. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    He clearly upends his left leg, then touches the ball and for good gets his right leg. Clearly a cautionable tackle in my view.
     
  17. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm talking about this tackle specifically, but in general if a player is shielding the ball with his body and the player comes through his body or more specifically his legs to get ball, it's a foul. Be careful who you talk to about physics my friend.
     
  18. falcon.7

    falcon.7 New Member

    Feb 19, 2007
    My analysis:

    First you create a post with the title "Question..." but then tell us the answer to your question ("...Should've been PK"). You have already made up your mind about what you have seen so you obviously don't need our input. Your "question" is really just that you want evidence to be able to go back to your buddies and say "well, I showed the video clip to some refs and they said...". That way you can complain for the next 10 months about how you think your team got screwed out of something and that even some refs agreed with you.

    Judging from the audio and the reaction of the attacker, it seems like the only people who had any problem with the decision (or lack thereof) were the spectators. I didn't hear a word from anyone else, and the look on the attacker's face is one of disappointment rather than incredulity. Actually, the only person who seemed to be even remotely not okay with the tackle was the one woman at the end.

    Not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, except to get some sort of validation.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Caveat: I am not a ref.

    Check out the defenders right arm. As he extends his left leg towards the ball in front of the attacker, the arm is behind the attacker almost reaching all the way across his back. Even the right shoulder is clearly behind the attacker. These are easy to see even at full speed on video replay. If you saw this when it happened would it influence your call? The first couple of times I watched the video I was focusing on the legs and the area of the ball and didn't notice this until replaying the video a few times.

    When you know a slide tackle is about to occur, where do you focus your attention?
     
  20. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you have followed the changes to the LOTG you will see that the IFAB has been changing the wording that applies to tackles. At one time it specifically mentioned tackles from behind. That was not applies like they wanted so they mentioned tackles from any direction.

    Same thing happened wih timing. They used to say that a contact with the opponent that came before contact with the ball was a foul. That has not been applied how they intended so now they just say that it is a foul when a player tackles an opponent carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force.

    There is now no mention of direction or timing whatsoever. The IFAB is sending several messages, one of them is that referees are way too reluctant to call fouls when the defender gets the ball first.

    As to your second point, I would say it is geometry :D. Centerbacks are quite accomplished at playing the ball from behind the opponent. Their foot may be the only body part that gets in front of the opponent. Then momentum carries them through the opponent. This is a foul.

    Similarly, a player overtaking the opponent from behind and to the side can get even and stick his leg in front of the other player. That can very easily be seen as a trip and not the player falling over the extended leg.

    If the player is making the tackle while upright he should have almost all of his body between the ball and the opponent, or avoid making contact with parts of his body that are not between the ball and the opponent.

    These are rules of thumb only, there may be specific plays that are exceptions.
     
  21. refmedic

    refmedic Member

    Sep 22, 2008
    Watching this play at full speed, albeit from a different angle than both the referee and AR, I don't think it's a foul, especially in a collegiate level match. We can dissect everything that happened and still frame whatever we want, but at full speed we have a high speed tackle that clears the ball away, and neither player seems to have a problem with it. Play on.
     
  22. snolly g

    snolly g Member

    Aug 21, 2008
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    food for thought: op is the attacker in the video.

    best i could tell from a freeze frame was left leg contact with the ball and right leg contact with the player at the same time.
     
  23. Beardly P

    Beardly P Member

    Sep 26, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ok smart guy. First, I did not tell you or anyone my answer, hints the "Question" title and question in the original post! I simply gave my opinion, which is what I expected others to do in return. The point of making this thread was a suggestion from other members that (once again) was clearly indicated in the original post! It was not to get validation from the cyber refs on a online soccer forum and complain to anyone. I made this thread in the Player part of this forum first. If you will read the original post, there is a question:

    Second, had it been a close game and we suffered a loss because of the missed call (IMO), I would have complained about it (who wouldn't?). However, we won the match and the call had absolutely no effect on the game what-so-ever. You are wrong. And for the record, I never intended on putting this video in the Referee part of the forum because I assumed I was going to get some egotistical, arrogant comments (such as yours) that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread and original post which posed the Question you and only you failed to see!

    Third, I am a 4 year captain at school and an Army veteran. I am 24 years old (the oldest on the team) and am very good at controlling my emotions and keeping my composure. I do agree with you about the look on my face being sheer disappointment - because I was! I was extremely disappointed in the decision the ref made and I strongly felt that I should have recieved a PK! But I am not going to yell and scream at the ref! He did not make the call, so what! Get over it and keep playing! Isn't that the attitude you would expect from a senior captain, or a captain on the field in general?!

    Lastly, I am not trying to accomplish anything here, nor am I looking for validation. This is simply an Opinionated Question about a decision made by a referee. Please keep your comments that have nothing to do with this thread to yourself, or send me a PM and we cant "type" all about it there. :) Thank You!
     

Share This Page