Wrong. Brazil retained its high level between 1994 and 2002 through World Cup final appearances. Whatever else happened with the federation didn't affect that.
Not sure if AFA wanted to join, but it somehow became news and UEFA promptly issued a statement no invitation was ever sent (which probably means AFA never asked UEFA for membership either). I wouldn't be surprised if this was just a joke or a rumor that some people unwisely took way too seriously.
i dont think anyone is arguing that that was their intention. what im saying is the line up against chile in which they got rinsed 4-0 is different than the one against uruguay. the manager realized that if they kept the same team and structure they would get beat bad every match
how is this even possible with teams like uruguay performing equal or better than brasil in the last decade? to me the best and most consistent team in south america for a sec has been uruguay
According to the new rules, nothing has changed really. The central referee of a match, still has the last call on any call. The only point to which anyone else is entitled of having here, is their own opinion on how things went, which at the end still means peanuts, for the outcome of any match. In conclussion, you like it or not, new rules or old rules, it was still a PK.
What you just said is categorically wrong. Old rules, that's a PK (or least not well defined for refs to make a call .. in which they typically called a PK), new rules it's not. It's clear in the new guidance. Don't try to be too smart.
Probably so, but fact remains the same, CR has the last call and if he decides it was a PK, than it is a PK.
Not saying he was wrong. You are wrongly asuming it. Besides, the guidance for referee's aren't rules according to the LOTG. They are basicly an assistance to referee's, or a tool if you want to call it that way, so they have better elements in hand, to help them make a better judgement call. More so, in my opinion (which also means peanuts), it was correctly called, as it was "hands to the ball", and not "ball to the hands".
And since you edit a post, after I had replied to it. I can also tell you, that once again you are wrong. I don't believe it was a mistake as everything was done right, according to the rule book : A PK was called, the VAR see's it and suggests the CR to see the replay of the action, the CR accepts the suggestion and goes to the monitor and see's it again, and finally he decides to keep the PK call as it was originally called for. (whole issue suggests he had no doubts, he had the correct call, from the start ).
Example used in ref training: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/co...ee-discussion-rs.2102918/page-8#post-37958436 Video talking about new rule: Wording on training: There is no offence if: - if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger) https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fi...ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20
Only problem, is that T. Silva's arm, wasnt vertical on respect to his body with the floor, but laterally extended instead. To prove what I say, as the play continued, he landed with his body directly on the floor with his arm still extended to his side. If his arm was meant to protect him from the fall, it should have finished under him. His extended arm wasn't there to avoid contact of his body with the floor, but to pose an obstruction to the path of the ball, instead . . Besides, according to Diego Rebagliati (a peruvian sports journalist), who happened to travel post match in the same plane as Tobar, he told him him that he called it as a penalty kick, basicly for this same issue, which I'm explaining here : https://ojo.pe/deportes/seleccion-p...gada-de-penal-de-carlos-zambrano-nndc-320864/ (Also told him the reason, from his point of view, why he called the other penalty kick as well)
completely diferent. in the picture exposed in the referee forum, you can clearly see that the player extends his arm (almost vertically) below him, only slightly to his side, while in T. Silva's picture, specially the second one, it was clearly extended towards his side (in fact, the player could've perfectly avoided putting his arm there as his body was going to hit the ground anyway, and his arm there had no effect on his fall) Besides the angle of the body of both players, on respect to the floor, is completely diferent. In the picture at the referee forum, it was about 45-60 °, while for T. Silva, at most was 20-30 °. A very important issue, as it allows you understand if the position of the arm was going to have any impact on the fall of the player, to the ground, where in the first example (at the referee forum), in some cases, the arm could allow the player to avoid contact to the floor with his hip. For the case of T. Silva, not even with the use of some sort of special magic trick, he could avoid landing on the floor with his body.
Where your arm is going to be for support is really going to depend on the angle of your slide. I just don't see a difference.
yes, that's what I tried to explain in my post editing of my recent past post, to which this time you replied before I had finished doing so, to which I ask for your excuse.
ESPN FC actually brought up something really interesting: CONMEBOL members considered this type of play a PK during the meeting on new guidelines. UEFA considered this kind of play not a PK. To the South American contingent the argument was if you as a defender put yourself in a situation where you have to go to ground, you shouldn't be given the benefit of a non call. You've been outplayed basically and if ylur hand happens to affect the trajectory of the ball it's your fault. I'll try to find the clip and post it once I'm home, I found it interesting. To me, personally, not calling that a PK would be a travesty but I do understand that with the new guidelines it can be seen as not a PK.
I don't know man. The one WC where Brazil did not play qualification matches, it had to rely on penalties to advance from semifinals. Then it got beat down 3-0 at its 1998 WC final appearance. I would not dismiss the benefits of tough competitors during qualifiers.
It is possible, since Uruguay was unable to keep its good form when it faced Brazil. In the last decade, Brazil remains undefeated against Uruguay. Matches 16/11/2018 FRI Brazil 1 - 0 Uruguay 23/03/2017 WQS Uruguay 1 - 4 Brazil 25/03/2016 WQS Brazil 2 - 2 Uruguay 26/06/2013 COC Brazil 2 - 1 Uruguay 06/06/2009 WQS Uruguay 0 - 4 Brazil 21/11/2007 WQS Brazil 2 - 1 Uruguay Hopefully, Conmebol will raise its competition level so it may get past emerging UEFA squads.
Smashed Russia at their own home, beat the reigning Euro champs with Ronaldo and all only lost to the eventual champs because if a stupid goalkeeper mistake and a god in sitter. Beat England and Italy before that. I think Uruguay is doing pretty fine against uefa teams. France just barely beat the 5th place conmebol team. England only got past Colombia on luck of penalties. Belgium had to bunker to get past Brazil. The difference is not as staggering as you’re trying to make it seem. When you have 13 countries against 5, all with mostly better infrastructre, more money, more immigration and bigger pool of talent. It would be an embarrassment if uefa couldn’t perform better.