Isolating the yellow card incident after the second goal: I know things happened pretty quickly on this one, but did anybody see an indicator for the advantage play? I think that this (second) yellow card and the way it was handled was right on the spot(regardless of the advantage indicator, but it would be better if it was there). I dont buy that this was just incidental contact. Defender running that close to a forward simply has to be careful and make sure that he does not actually trip the attacker one way or another. And once you agree on the trip, yellow card has to be shown in this instance for a tactical foul IMO. For the no penalty call, when watching it the first time and during the replay I leaned towards a no call at this level of gameplay as well. Main deciding factor for me was the direction and location of the contact, i.e. from side around shoulder area, even though amount of force was very close to a 'charge' and I can totally see why this may be a missed penalty call for some refs.
Footage of the Torres... incident. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PZT0vriLE"]YouTube- fernando torres dive[/ame] My first reaction was, massive dive. Maybe I'm missing something. EDIT: I see what people are getting at now, looks like contact. I think that is a pretty harsh caution though, seemed incidental.
WRONG! Mexico is in North America. Just because the main language is Spanish doesn't change the geography. "Mexico is located at about 23° N and 102° W in the southern portion of North America. Almost all of Mexico lies in the North American Plate, with small parts of the Baja California peninsula on the Pacific and Cocos Plates. Geophysically, some geographers include the territory east of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (around 12% of the total) within Central America. Geopolitically, however, Mexico is entirely considered part of North America, along with Canada and the United States." As for the Medel yellow... I also think it was a harsh yellow, but I expect no less from Chiquidracula (Marco Antonio Rodriguez). I watch him almost every week and he likes to be the main protagonist in any match and loves to book and send people off. He is usually pretty consistent though and does not seem to favor a team in his decision-making process.
Exactly, but the caution was extremely harsh. Referee's need to temper their decisions. Purely, accidental, still a foul, apply advantage, but don't issue a caution.
Just to be clear, you are not disagreeing with LiquidYogi, as he only stated a clear foul occurred to dispute RayRichards claim that it was a dive. I completely agree with your statement. Nice work, Cirdan.
That would be all well and good, Alberto, if he shouldn't already have been off the pitch. He deserved to go 2 minutes earlier and was likely gone in any event so it doesn't matter so much that this was a minimal contact.
Oh I agree he should have been sent off for his second cautionable offense earlier. My remarks were strictly to the contact on the accidental trip. That would not be considered a cautionable offense the majority of the time.
I agree...that's the time for good man management come over and explain your decision very calmly. If the offender pipes up you explain that you'd call the same thing the other way and he certainly wouldn't like it if it happened to him while he was making a run into the box. If the offendee pipes up for a card explain that it was accidental and that you don't want to be mean when no one earned a card.
Sorry mate, this was not aimed at you, my sincere apology. Must be all the late nights watching the football