The Ref is right there looking at the play. It is up to his discretion and I believe he felt the Mexican player was exaggerating a bit. Glad he did not want to be a protagonist in the match but Totoro is right. It could have been called a penalty.
Wish there was a gif of the play. But whoever posted that his foot hit Edu's knee on the back swing is spot on. (I had to watch the UniMas broadcast last night, and they showed this very clearly). When his foot comes back through, it had been bumped down because of the contact, and he kicks the ground - very hard. But although there was contact, is that Edu's fault? Edu's running behind him, and his foot makes this huge back swing and catches Edu. Edu did not try to make contact. If anything Aquino's actions caused him to fall. I don't see how Edu has to be "clear" of him so he can make a clear shot.
This is pretty much it for me. They were good calls both I think (thanks replay) but that doesn't change the fact that they were also both stupid plays, because those get called in away wcq games. Compared to Berhalter's hand in his forehead...yeah. We were really lucky with the fairness and the balls of the ref to not call those, especially with the linesman already having signaled the call on Bradley's.
Nice work by the OP. Bottom line as I posted in another thread, whether it's this play, or the Michael Bradley shove earlier, or Herc getting rugby tackled in the Jamaica match, or Dempsey getting hacked down in the Costa Rica match... ...referees are not calling penalties. Defenders are better off taking the aggressive route rather than playing it safe. Playing it safe gets a defender posterized from a bicycle into the net as at Costa Rica. That penalty against Gooch in '06 doesn't get called today. Referees are quick to call stuff outside box however. The slo mo caps are really besides the point.
Credit to the Univision telecast they watched and instantly realized it was not a penalty and not a corner. The US camp was claiming penalty. Excellent call. The ref was perfectly positioned and never hesitated. It was Juan in a million for sure.
What makes this a foul is when Edu's left leg comes across and takes out Aquino's right supporting leg. Before that, there is no foul. Aquino's foot hits the ground and then the ball. Goal kick, right? But then Edu takes out Aquino's right leg from behind. This is certainly a foul. It doesn't matter that this foul had no effect on the outcome of the play. It's a foul nonetheless. That is the way the rule is supposed to be applied. The referee's job is to determine if a foul has occurred. This would be called a foul if done in midfield. Therefore, it is a foul everywhere on the field. Now given that it is a foul, what kind of foul is this? It's one that warrants a direct free kick. And any direct free kick in the penalty area is a penalty kick. This was a boneheaded play on Edu's part. _________________________________________________________ LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: kicks or attempts to kick an opponent trips or attempts to trip an opponent jumps at an opponent charges an opponent strikes or attempts to strike an opponent pushes an opponent tackles an opponent A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences: holds an opponent spits at an opponent handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick). Penalty kick A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play. _________________________________________________________ I'm absolutely thrilled that the referee didn't call it, don't get me wrong. We really deserved the draw. It would have been a terrible waste of our great effort if this play had cost us a point.
I tend to think this is the right point. He was fouled after the ball was gone. I'm going to go over to the official's thread to see what they have to say, but the reality is that these tend to be called penalties about half the time -- much more in domestic league play and much less in international play. Handling is the same. In international play, more often than not, the referee it seems to me asks whether or not there was a significant advantage lost before calling a foul in the box. We sort of saw the same thing in the Costa Rica game -- Dempsey's back to goal, contact after the ball was gone, seems like a foul but did it deprive a realistic chance to go for goal? Probably moreso in the Costa Rica game than in the Mexico game. I didn't really understand the commentary by Darke and Twillman -- I think they were being influenced by the shout for the Hernandez penalty earlier in the game. When I saw the play, I thought we were lucky to escape but it's certainly the type of play I've seen refs take a pass on in international competition before. Not relevant anyway -- Guzan would have made the save. :0)
For those who are saying the shot off before the contact happened, didn't we just have a penalty in Colorado-LA awarded for something that happened off the ball? This could have been called a penalty and it would be difficult to argue with it. Even with Aquino's shot fired before Edu's wrap around tackle. We dodged a bullet. I'm not going to quibble with the ref though My guess is the ref probably the thought the irregular trajectory of the shot was from Edu getting a piece of it rather than Aquino kicking the ground first.
my opinion, the ref saw the shank and didn't award the penalty because of it. However, it was a foul, and the sporting thing to do, if you will, is to award the ball to the team that was fouled. Hence the corner kick. You see this in every level of soccer in "head-scratch" throw-ins where the ball obviously came off of one player, but because he was fouled, a throw in is awarded because it was only a small foul and the throw-in is a just reward over a free kick from a dangerous position. It is one of the intricacies of good officiating. Knowing when a foul merits a simple awarding of the ball as opposed to a dangerous free kick.
This is a close call. It could have gone either way. However, it's very much according to the opinion of the ref. I believe that the ref went with no call because his view was more of Aquino's kick and because he believed that Edu made contact with the ball. Did he get it right? Not sure.
Based on the slow motion view we have and the position of the referee I am going to assume the ref thought the act of the Mexican attacker hitting the ground first (flubbing the shot) actually caused him to go air born, at which point you can assume the contact by Edu was incidental. Last night I thought it was definite foul. After reviewing the breakdown, Edu did not barrell into to him as I thought and frankly you can make a case either way whether contact on the supporting leg was the cause of the fall or a result of the Mexican player falling from hitting the ground. It certainly doesn't help Mexico's cause that the player went down clutching the OTHER leg.
For me the question is if the foul was made before or after the ball was in the field of play. If the ball was out of play when he took out the second leg, there is no penalty kick.
Live I thought Edu held up his challenge and that combined with his ostentatious, "look at my hands I'm not grabbing him", move influenced the ref. Generally I come down on the side of allowing more sporting contact, meaning that because Edu did not recklessly or violently come through the player after the ball was gone there was no foul. If Edu had shown his studs that would have changed the equation but instead he showed commendable restraint for the situation at hand.
In the 80's one often observed a lot more of the defensive player making a play on the ball from behind. It was exciting to watch because often a faster, often taller and longer player could sweep in and make a play on the ball, sometimes waste the attacker, often without him even seeing it coming. The rules or maybe it was the perspective or interpretation changed in the late 80's to protect the attacker. Tackles once considered great were now considered fouls. Things have changed so dramatically that one rarely even has the occasion to see someone making a defensive play from behind. When I first saw it, like many others, I went OMG, what was Edu thinking? It looked like a clear penalty. Anyway following all of the discussion and review, I can see why the referee did not call it. The United States, for years, had calls (or in this case no-calls) go against us. Very unusual stuff indeed. It is good these days to be receiving the benefit of some of the pendulum swing. Props to the Guatemalan referee, Walter Lopez, for making what he believed was the appropriate call rather than making the "easy" call or the one that the crowd might have wanted.
You are right, i feel much better now,Aquino kicks the ground takes his shot before Edu makes contact with him
I think there is something called "if in the opinion of the referree the following law has been infringed". That is where you start and finish; sometimes unfortunately. BTW: why did Omar leave his feet on the play? In the box no less ...
After reading all that i belive the ref did not belive Edu had intended to be reckless, players colide on the field all the time, ball was gone by the time the incident happend.
Video makes clear that Mexico didn't deserve the penalty. The ball was gone. Ref only calls that a penalty 10% of the time if he sees the play clearly. Time to move on.
Page 3: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf Has to be in play. But that said, whatever happened, it's pretty clear the ball was still in play when it did. You didn't say which infringement Edu's action constituted, but I assume it was tripping. But the term 'tripping' usually means you have to be the main reason they fell, and I'm not seeing that here, though one could go back and forth on it.
Ugh. Somehow his words "in play" went into my eyes and arrived at my brain as "had already been played." Stupid of me -- I think I need some sleep. Thanks.