You’re not starting “a storm in a teacup”, you’re just blatantly confused. There is NO situation where a player taking a free kick can be offside or in an offside position.
Yes, I remember learning that in the first day of my Grade 8 class. If you take a free kick, any free kick, another player has to touch it before the kicker can touch it again. Rebound off the keeper, fine. Rebound off the post, nope.
correct only at a pk Anyhow, it is not actually called offside in the rule book. But to the point being talked about here, the kicker gets lots of advantage in regards to every other player in the pitch by being there at that moment. To most viewers, its like by taking a pk, a team not only gets advantage by kicking the ball at that range to the goal line with only the goalkeeper to avoid the goal from happening, but also gets along with it, a huge position advantage over any other play that may come after the pk is taken. On regards to the OP which started this, even though the pk may be seen as a restart of play. As how things are now in football, It's not a "normal" restart where no team gets any advantage over the other, but a restart where the team that has the ball, has an enormous advantage over the other.
Let me try for you, though I suspect I won't have any more luck. NO player is in an offside position if, at the time the ball is played, he is level with, or behind the ball. So, NO, the kicker IS NOT in an offside position.
This goes back to the “error of commission/omission” discussion that comes up from time to time. England had a really good penalty shout turned away (omission), but that has been completely overshadowed by the one given (commission). For my money, it was way more wrong not to give the first shout than to give the second softer shout. If anything, I think the English have a right to feel aggrieved for having to play an extra 30 minutes on a day shorter rest before the tournament final. There shouldn’t have been ET to begin with, As far as a very poor call, I’m curious how you get to there. You can say it was soft and I won’t argue. You can say that Sterling was always going to go to ground and you’re probably right. But here’s the thing: if we all know that, I guarantee you the Danish defenders knew that. And yet two of them both made poor challenges, stabbed at the ball, didn’t get it, and both contacted Sterling. Why are we so interested in bailing out two Danish defenders for doing something we all would have as a foul at midfield? Won’t pretend I didn’t boo at my TV and hope that Kane missed the PK (monkeys paw I guess), I would have liked to see Denmark win as well, but stretching a soft penalty to “very poor” and blaming him for taking the game away for Denmark when a worse no call was the reason the game made it to this stage is off to me
Plus, let's not forget, that Denmark's goal was pretty suspect anyway. Between the foul that led up to it and the shifting wall to block the keeper's view...well, if the referee made an error that affected this game, I'm looking at that Denmark goal before I get mad at the PK. I'm not saying Makkelie should have waived off the goal (although I don't even know if that's the kind of thing VAR is allowed to intervene on?--its not a foul in the AFP, it's more of a technical violation), but it does go to show that errors of omission are more forgiven in the fans eyes than errors of commission.
At midfield, Sterling doesn’t throw himself to the ground at contact, and it doesn’t force the ref to make the decision.
There are obviously some apples to oranges issues here. Because at midfield, Sterling doesn't start dribbling slowly in tight space to manuever through or past defenders--he just plays the ball off to a teammate if he draws that sort of defensive attention. But in the unlikely scenario where he's near two defenders like that and they both challenge in that manner, no, I think Sterling is doing the exact same thing because it's even more likely he gets that call at midfield. But again, I admit--both from the pro and con standpoint--it's not really a fair comparison.
You don’t think attackers at midfield get contacted on their trailing leg go to ground to win a free kick?
I’d say that the closer an attacker gets to the goal, the more likely they are to dive upon any contact. At midfield, if the contact didn’t slow him down at all, then no, I don’t think he goes to ground.
I didn't like the PK call either and I thought it was soft as well. He could have easily played on. What's fascinating about this call, is from a philosophical standpoint about "getting involved" and making a big decision. I really don't think Makkelie makes this call in the first 5 minutes of the game, yet he somehow felt compelled to make this call in extra-time. That's where I'm kind of lost. It's apples and oranges, but he had a backpass call set up on a platter for him in the first five minutes of the game and just completely looked the other way. Granted, it's become such a rare call now, that your typical/average fan has probably even forgot about it, but it couldn't have been more textbook and he just chose to look the other way. I guess he didn't want to be the referee to call a backpass violation 5 minutes into a Euro semi-final, but he had no problem being the guy calling a "soft penalty" in extra time of a Euro semi-final. Why didn't he bother to let this one go?
Everyone is focusing on the 'soft penalty call.' If it is not a penalty, should Sterling have been cautioned for diving? I can't remember if there was a dive call in the hole tournament.
I believe the current guidance is not to give a card for diving if there’s any contact whatsoever. One thing I love about hockey, is that you can penalize a player for a foul, and also penalize the fouled player for embellishment.
A little late to the party, but... I've enjoyed hearing Clattenburg's perspective even when he's waffled, although what was up with the audio the first week or so? Edited to add: I also think he's gotten better as the tournament has progressed, as has the audio. FWIW, this is the only forum I visit on bigsoccer any more, and it's so I can read what referees think about refereeing decisions.
Right. But in ice hockey it results in coindicental minors and it's a wash for both teams. In soccer, that would still result in a penalty kick. And I'm only replying because I wanted to continue the apples to oranges theme of this thread.
I think that advice is coming from non-IFAB/non-FIFA Referee Committee sources. (CONCACAF Referee Committee?) Indeed, I recall coming across UEFA educational material indicating that simulation may involve "using slight contact to deceive the referee", but it is somewhat dated now and might not represent their current position.
I think there have always been a little bit of myth here. And I don't pretend to know what the active instruction is from which bodies right now. But I do know, generally, FIFA referees have been largely discouraged from giving yellow cards for simulation if contact is involved. At the same time, it has never been an explicit over-arching prohibition (unless maybe at a specific event or events?) and instruction has always allowed for the punishment of simultation if the attacker is the one who clearly and deliberately (my words) initiates the contact. After all, the clause in the Laws is about deceiving the referee so if the attacker creates contact that otherwise wouldn't occur, that's deception. The embelishment clause in the LOTG is murkier--indeed, it doesn't really exist as the word isn't in there. It's actually about "feigning injury." So the logic is that if a player is victim of trifling contact and exaggerates the severity of it, he's not feigning injury and he's not necessarily pretending to be fouled. So, in theory, relevant instruction authorities have argued you can't really or shouldn't have a yellow card for simulation when tangible, if trifling, contact occurs. Having said all that, the bottom line is that referees are human and do I think some or even many have treated that "this is rare, so you should rarely do it" admonition about contact as a blanket prohibition? Probably. But I don't think it was ever intended that way (again, except possibly at a specific event or events--I truly don't recall).
I think you’re really overselling the clarity of the back pass call. It was a stab at a ball. Yes, it’s a professional player with control, blah, blah, blah, but it’s still a stab rather than a clearly controlled pass. I don’t think there is any ref at that level whistling that and being the first ref of the tournament to make a game altering back pass call in the semis. I think it would have to be a lot more obvious than that before it got called—and I think a non-call here is exactly what UEFA wanted. While the back pass has not quite gone the way of 6 seconds, but it is certainly a disfavored call now that it has served its purpose. All that makes it completely apples and oranges to compare to the PK scenarios.
The notion that something is either a foul or a dive is a myth perpetuated by TV commentators who have no interest in learning the LOTG. Sometimes people fall from legal contact, sometimes people fall because they trip or lose their balance, and sometimes people fall to draw attention to what they believe (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) to be a foul. And yes, it's perfectly possible to call a foul and still caution the aggrieved party for simulation. Remember when a Turkish player kicked the ball at Rivaldo, who went down clutching his head even though he was hit in the leg? Rivaldo was later fined. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/jun/05/worldcupfootball2002.sport17 If someone holds my shirt and I roll around on the ground holding my head and screaming, I'd hope someone would show me a card. But Efan Ekoku admitted on a broadcast this year that he'd never heard the term "kicks from the mark," just as he misunderstood offside in this clip: (Does anyone know if he ever acknowledged the mistake?)
This is what confuses me also. Webb and Hernandez (MLB) are famous for trying to make big games about them, but Makkelie doesn’t have that reputation. This call didn’t need to be made nor should it have been made. People (including Sterling) keep talking about “contact”. Contact doesn’t necessarily mean a foul. In my view, Sterling dove. He was going down before any contact. That being said, the first contact, if there was contact, was not a foul. The hip contact was where the foul occurred. But that contact was long after Sterling headed to ground. It simply isn’t penalty material because it had zero effect on Sterling. It should have never been called.
What's the possibility here that to Makellie, from his angle, he perceived it as a clear foul on the field in real time? Is that possible? Because if so, it would explain why he called it.