No. The standard punishment is one match. There are vague guidelines that say serious foul play and violent conduct should usually be more than one match, but it's not as stringent as a competition like the EPL, where all VC or SFP is a 3-match ban. As for this incident... I might be wrong, but I don't think a DOGSO (or DOG) foul has ever received more than a 1-match ban by itself. People may not like what Suarez did, but tacking on another match would be the worst case of "making it up as we go along" that I've ever seen. Would FIFA even be considering such an extension if Ghana had converted its penalty?
But the defender wasn't moving out (or stepping up as you say); he was moving back toward the goal as shown by where he is in the two frames, so if anything, his presence at the back post in the still probably makes it look even closer than it was and/or should at least remove any doubt about whether the still is an instant too soon or an instant too late.
Having looked at the article, it looks like this "may" be nothing more than an ordinary review that every red card gets. So, yes, it will be "considered" just like it would be considered in every situation; there has not been any suggestion as far as I can tell that they will treat this handling any different than any other dogso-h that we've seen. Time will tell.
It really would be somewhat extraordinary if they added games to this suspension. Until they do something, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that this "consideration" is just the natural course of events. (FIFA and benefit of the doubt; oh, brother......)
Just for kicks, let's say FIFA decides this DOGSO was an utter disgrace to the game and wanted to make a bigger deterrent for it. How would they do that? Again, for kicks, let's say Uruguay has to have a second player go off as well (just humor me), the PK is awarded, and Suarez is suspended for 3 international competitive matches. With the players completely aware of these implications, does anybody think Suarez wouldn't have done this again in a heartbeat in a World Cup quarterfinal's dying moments, tied 1-1, to give him team a chance to win in PKs? The only deterrent for this would be to somehow allow the referee to award the goal anyway. If that wouldn't open up a can of worms, I have no idea what would...
Exactly. This was an unfortunate event (from Ghana's standpoint), but it was met with the correct sanctions as per the LOTG. There doesn't need to be any changes to the Laws, things are fine as is. To maybe lighten the mood around here on this issue, since the referee did his job right so there's not a lot left to analyze as per this particular incident, I must say I love MS Paint:
For situations as this you could always award a PK w/ no keeper - still no guarantee that Ghana makes it though...
If you want to punish him then suspend him for the next two matches and the group stage of Copa America, but there is no way you can have a penalty goal like rugby has a penalty try.
And in 1882, that's exactly what we did: When any player other than the goal-keeper willfully stops the ball in the vicinity of his own goal by using his hands, when, in the opinion of the umpires or the referee, the ball would have passed through the goal, a goal shall be scored to his opponents.
I wish they'd amend the Law for something this horribly blatant. Don't give them a chance to be able to miss the PK, just give them the goal. Only in these very NARROW set of situations because if we start doing it for fouls we're gonna get into all kinds of ifs. I know it's probably not the best solution, but I really don't like that someone can take that risk and it might pay off, it's a crime.
This situation was pretty clear cut, but what about the Harry Kewell DOGSO? So we just give the goal? It didn't look like Kewell was as blatantly trying to keep that ball out of the goal. I see your point on the Suarez offense and don't necessarily disagree. I just think you'll run into some iffy situations where the judgment of the referee can be called into question. Lord knows that happens too much as it is already...
You're absolutely right...and if they gave referees that choice, there's bound to be some inconsistency in the application and some serious problems. HOWEVER, something this extreme is just horrible, and I can't understand how I could let it go. I think as a referee if that happened and then missed the PK, I'd be looking for ANYTHING to give them another PK, it bugs me that much. You're right it could open a very large can of worms, and it isn't exactly an epidemic, or something that happens even that often. It just burns me is all.
There have been lots of crimes in this cup. This was probably the least important. At least this one was sanctioned, and the ref did what he was supposed to do. Most refs in this cup Refs can't even determine anymore whether a ball has crossed a line - And you want to give them MORE discretion? sweet mother of Jesus, NO! Let's figure out how to enforce the laws we have, first. Figure out what to do about holding players in the box on corners, diving, cynical fouls, how to cal an ofsides properly, not carding on DOGSO - deliberate hand balls on scores (two on L.Fabiano on one play) -- any number of things that weren't called at all. Today was another nightmare in the Spain-PAR match.. The real issue as I see it is officiating the rules that exist. Whether it's another official on The pitch, replay, technology... Something needs to be done. Rather than give refs moré rules to muck up, I say take some away. Let's just reduce it to "no blood, no foul"
Your examples don't match up in any sense of the word...just please go, I'm embarrassed for both of us.
Really? After the England Germany game you think a ref can properly judge if a goal WOULD have gone in? They couldn't even judge when it did. And I'm not an England fan. Your embarrassment should be a reality check. Get the laws we have right first.
You're not talking about Law interpretation, you're talking about events which weren't witnessed properly. No interpretation about them. So yes you're examples aren't the same as my changing of the Law argument. Anything else?
Since you ask, Your logic is twisted and your changing the law argument makes no sense. Not witnessing properly is a form of interpretation. Got any proposed laws that will actually help the game and solve problems? This one won't.
Then come up with a hand ball law that doesn't allow Louis Fabiano's two hand balls in one play to stand as a goal. Should be easy for you.
You're not a referee are you? Because if you were you'd understand the difference between SEEING something and being SURE that you saw it. And NOT being able to correct something which is obviously illegal and should be corrected. You can argue forever, I'm pointing out something that should be changed...you're pointing to other examples that have nothing to do with what I'm asking be changed. Why not try and argue against the proposed change rather than something else? There's plenty you could argue, but everything you've pointed out isn't about it at all, it's just a cop out.
Wait a minute... After this World cup you want to pull out the "understanding the difference between SEEING something and being sure you saw it" card? Hahahahahahaha No wonder the game is a mess. You are aWorld Cup referee, aren't you?
So let me get this straight. Because referees make mistakes...we shouldn't ever change the Laws is that right? You want to be playing how we did before the game split from Rugby? Because I guarantee you that refs have made mistakes every single year since that one. That's a great argument. Hey since sometimes democracy doesn't work, we better just give up and go back to the feudal system. You see what I'm doing here? I'm taking your argument to the illogical extreme not because I need to but because absurd arguments need to be shown to be as atrocious as they are. You're done, you've said absolutely nothing of merit.