Review: The Penalty Non-Call (Edu)

Thanks for the GIF, makes me feel better that Edu fouling wasn't the cause of the miss.

Having said that more times than not this equation is true (from behind)+(makes contact with the player)+ (no contact with the ball) + (in the box)= Penalty Kick

 

I think this is the most interesting observation and question. Not a referee, so I don't know the answer. This is the essence of whether a penalty would be "justified" in my book.

 

I'll just think of this as some compensation for the 2010 WC screw up against Slovenia that shafted Edu.

 

Do folks not know how to edit quoted text?
Those little bracket thingys aren't force fields.

 

Do you know why he kicked the ground instead of the ball? Edu just grazes his kicking foot as it prepares to hit the ball, throwing it off slightly and making him kick the ground. Hard to see but if you believe he clipped his kicking foot then its a clear foul to me.

Players at that level would never miss the ball by that much without some contact.

 

Except who hit whom? Aquino appears to hit Edu with his massive wind up, not the other way around. Edu is running through normally, although pretty close behind him - it's not until Aquino kicks the ground that he starts to fall, then seems to fall into Edu's path, Edu barreling over him.

At least, that is one interpretation. Of course, if Aquino hadn't been thrown off his windup, Edu probably barrels into him anyway, but when the play happens, the ball is already away, and Aquino is already falling.

 

pretty easy from the comfort of your basement. Out on the field after 75 minutes, less easy.

 

The ground was clearly enough of a challenge for him to deal with.

 

Wow, I'm seeing some outright wrong reasoning here. I'm by no means a FIFA referee, but have reffed up to the college/adult amateur level for 10 years and think I have a pretty good grasp of the Laws and how they are supposed to be interpreted, so let's get these things straight:

Makes no difference. The Law says nothing about the location of the ball when a foul is committed, only that it needs to be in play (hasn't left the field or play has otherwise been stopped). In fact, you might be more likely to pick up a yellow card for a foul when the ball is already gone, since you obviously arrived late.

Again, irrelevant. The Laws were changed a while back so the referee does not need to read minds--it does not matter what a player intended to do, it matters what he did. If Edu was merely careless and barged the player over, no matter what he meant to do, it is a foul. "Careless" is the very definition of a garden-variety foul.

This is the reason the language about tackles from behind was strengthened. In that kind of situation, the player in front has no way to see or prepare for the contact--it's still dangerous. Even if the contact is minimal, the player coming from behind must be careful (there's that word again) to not trip the opponent.

Plus, after all that, Edu's leg still comes through and takes out Aquino's plant leg and that foot ends up scissored between Edu's legs. Aquino was going down on that tackle, period. IMO in real time, and in the gif here, it should have been a penalty. USA got one in their favor for a change.

 

First, thanks for the interpretation. So often the ref 'creates' the rules in the match. He initiates early on how 'his' match will be played.

Each match is a learning experience for the teams. The best teams in the world, Italy, Argentina, Germany constantly test the ref early to gain the limits of the particular refs rules.

There were a number of heavy leg tackles in the match the ref let go. He seemed to relish good tackles and did not like for the players to go down easy.

While the contact may have been a penalty in the context of the rules, under the refs game that call was consistent.

The cross came in and the player missed the kick and the ref was not going to punish the US defender for defending after the miskick.

 

That seems to be contradicted by Beasley's caution just 6 minutes in, though.

Of course, we can interpret all we want, but of course at the end of the day it comes down to ITOOTR: In The Opinion Of The Referee. And he decided it wasn't a foul. I can see a few mitigating factors: from the ref's angle, it may have looked like Edu kicked the ball or got a good piece of it first (thus the corner given); Aquino's arm-up-arched-back fall looked like embellishment. My own opinion is it's still a foul yesterday, today and tomorrow--but I wasn't the referee.

 

Exactly.

 

To me he pull his kicking leg and strikes Edu.

...

I definitely don't think this was a point blank pk, not even close.

 

Hehe.
I love some good, dry sarcasm.

 

Well, that's probably closer to what the ref saw.

 

still a reckless challenge.

Edu still is a horrible footballer and shouldn't be on the nats.

 

The bigger question realyl is why did Aquino kick the ground?

 

Why is it a foul if he brushed into someone who was already falling down?

Never? Are you sure about that?

 

Yep, never seen a player miss a ball or a sitter without someone contacting them. And if there was nobody around them...it was ghosts!

 

I think there was enough evidence for the ref at an incredibly close angle to have doubts. For a PK, there needs to be irrefutable evidence in my opinion.

 

Have a million people already said "Switch those shirts in your head and tell me how you would see that play?"

Or am I the very, very, very first....