I don’t think it’s sarcasm. I’ve struggled with this once since I first saw it. With all the angles above, I’m fine with red. And think it probably has to be. But I also think the opponent has gone into that contest… peculiarly? I can’t say recklessly because of the connotation per the Law. But he has gone to try to head a ball that he must lean quite low for at a time he knows his opponent is coming with his leg. And he probably also should know he won’t get there first. I’ll stop short of victim blaming, but I might come pretty close. An odd decision by that player helps ensure this all unfolds in the most spectacular way possible. That said, the result is quite bad and it’s a straight leg with studs flush to the head. Maybe from a culpability standpoint it shouldn’t be SFP but if it’s not, I have a hard time figuring out what the alternative is. I think the leg is just high enough where you have to punish it fully. But there’s a scenario where the victim’s head is either a little lower or a little later in arriving where this becomes a referee’s nightmare.
Exactly my thoughts. And I struggle with the “with all the angles…” angle. In real time at game speed I’m not sure the player has enough time to premeditate anything brutal, and if the “victim” decides to play the ball more naturally with his body instead of leaning down to head it, there’s likely no offense at all. There’s an argument that says he endangered his own safety. And since we’re slowing it down, he starts his head movement toward the ball second. A nightmare for the referee for sure. And if it were me “with the angles” I’d be okay I showed red. Just hard for me to see it in real time.
But that’s not the standard for SFP. I saw this very similar to MR. The “victims doesn’t have his head low enough to excuse the kick to the head. Lower and we have a different scenario. That different scenario raises the question of PIADM and whether it can still be PIADM if the opponent snoozes to play through anyway—but regardless, I think it would affect whether we should consider the kicker to be acting with disregard for the safety of an opponent,
The offending player (white) makes contact with his cleats exposed, reaching, and above his own waist. If the injured player had come in completely upright, that's cleats into the mid-section at best and more likely into the abdomen or chest.
To be clear and fair, I'm right on the border here. At first look with one replay (the one at 1:06 in the clip, which I saw over the weekend by itself), I only had yellow as a sort of compromise position that doesn't have much grounding in the laws. From Tello's perspective (there's one camera angle over his shoulder at 1:10), I have red. But it's still somewhat close for me. I don't think you can just postulate that "if" and assume all other factors stay the same. One of the reasons this happens is because the victim is leading with his head, which I think is a surprise. I can easily see a scenario where the "victim" tries to run through this with his chest, and he's late to arrive so he actually just hits the stretched player's leg at calf/shin level... at which point he's probably the one committing the foul. Could the scenario unfold as you're suggesting? Absolutely. No debate there. But it's also not clear-cut. My big point here is that the victim is second arriving to the ball and he does so in an awkward/unorthodox manner, given the situation. Obviously that doesn't excuse a foul/misconduct on the other side. Getting the ball isn't an excuse--Refereeing 101. But there does reach a point where that player arrives so late or so low that you have to start asking how culpable and guilty the other player is. When we are measuring things in fractions of seconds, this nears the border for me. That's all.
Neur sent off for the first time in his career. I agree with the red card, but I think some would argue that it isn't DOGSO (unless you think the shoulder barge should be SFP) due to lack of control of the ball and number of defenders. Thoughts?
I think it’s both. On DOGSO, goalkeeper is out of net and you’ve got to presume the attacker’s momentum without the foul. He gets to that first and then juts has to control and cut back for a shot with just a field player defending. But the foul is also incredibly violent. Look at how the body snaps back. That said, I imagine it’s written as DOGSO because that feels like the path of least resistance.
Celta-Mallorca, right now they’re doing an OFR for DOGSO-H outside the 18 by a MLL center back. He went to head a long ball down while shielding the attacker on his back but ended up slapping the ball with his hand instead of heading it (he was the last man back other than the GK). Very odd play, probably would’ve been accepted as play-on pre-VAR. And it’s a RC.
Juventus-Bologna from the weekend: 25th minute, ball over the top and a possible DOGSO red to Juve. Referee says play on and VAR doesn’t intervene. This seems like one of those plays that has to be a RC if you give the foul. The defender was running a bit behind the attacker and clipped his legs, which would normally be a foul. Christina Unkel said on the broadcast that the ‘possession/likely to gain possession’ criterion wasn’t met, which was echoed by Italian refereeing analysts according to some online articles. I initially thought that assessment was absurd, but after looking again the large bounce may have resulted in the attacker not getting the ball (trifling?), though it seems rather uncertain (which I suppose means VAR should support the on-field decision). I checked 2 extended highlights packages on YouTube and neither included the incident, so if someone could post a clip, it’d be appreciated.
Guus Hiddink was a guest in one of our soccershows. He's the chairman/president of the Dutch coaches interest union (dunno how that's called in English). He told about a meeting of them with the new boss of the Dutch referees. One thing that was interesting was a penalty moment talked about. Guus told the refs 100% of them called it a penalty, while the coaches 100% called it not a penalty. What that penalty moment was they didnot show on that programm, because Guus mentioned it in the run of the show. However, the suggestion by the coaches was to be more involved with the referees education, as in certain cases you have to have been a player to know if something is or isnot a foul. The referree boss was open to the suggestion to add (input of) former pro level players to VAR teams and is taking it to the (Dutch) referee organization. Will be interesting to see what comes out of it.
And a gift penalty gives Juventus an underserved equalizer at home against Venezia. Venezia keeper parries a shot into a group of players and the ball happens to glance off a defender's arm and then out of play.
https://www.realmadrid.com/es-ES/noticias/futbol/primer-equipo/cronicas/rayo-real-madrid-14-12-2024 Real Madrid releases official game reports criticizing the referees, classic La Liga big 2 behavior.
Thoughts here? Player is on a caution already. Do we play the result here? Or is this just a fluke accident?
This is really difficult, because I would call this just a coming together of players, the attacker can’t really do anything, but then you have examples of a player passing/shooting a ball and “following though” with studs on someone’s leg and they get a yellow/red for it Although I think this is a different situation, because it isn’t a player passing s ball and then having his leg locked parallel to the ground driving into a players shin
My instinct is that it's nothing and that Letexier has this right. He is trying to hurdle him. There's no secondary motion. There's just no space for him to get over Donnarumma, who's head is high there given the circumstances. Normally hurdling a goalkeeper involves going over someone who is low to the ground and any misconduct is when the leg is dragged or the foot is stamped. But that's not what happened here. Chipping him and hurdling him is usually the route that would lead to the least worse physical outcome for the goalkeeper, but that just didn't happen here. For what it's worth, PSG's coach essentially said he didn't fault Letexier and didn't make a big deal of it. Yes, they won. But given the circumstances and result, I think you'd have heard a lot more if he truly thought this was a deliberate play. And I think this is where there can be a disconnect between some referees and participants in the game. I think everyone here could just feel and sense this was an accident (in this case, Letexier included). Look at the reactions (and lack thereof in real time) and the body language. This is a pretty big match and absolutely no one seems to be pressuring Letexier to do anything about a player who, as you point out, is already on a caution. I know players are capable of feigning sincerity, but even his reaction after making contact with him, visually signalling the mea culpa before anyone really even knows there was significant contact, points toward this being a total accident. I am impressed with how Letexier handled this. I'm also impressed with the fact that the VAR chose not to intervene, though without hearing the audio we cannot know how much of that is his own assessment or if it's following Letexier's lead, where he walks through exactly what he had and why he isn't going to give a card unless he saw XYZ incorrectly.
Does anyone remember that premier league challenge that happened this past season or two, where the defender cleared the ball but his straight leg studs went into the attacker, and they went to VAR and it gave a red card plus penalty kick? I think a lot of us were amazed that the EPL of all places gave that one. I wanted to look at it compared to this one.
Wow. Fenerbace demands it's matches be refereed by foreign referees. The Turkish superpower is of the opinion that Turkish referees are no longer able to lead their matches in the right direction.
I assume you’re thinking about Christian Romero’s challenge. Not really the same thing, in my opinion both are correct decisions. Red card for Romero, no card for Singo. I agree with what is written above about the Singo challenge, especially that he is trying to jump over the goalkeeper which would normally reduce the danger to the goalkeeper. He is not, therefore, making an action that endangers the safety of the opponent; rather quite the opposite, he is making an action that reduces the probability of injury. Romero’s challenge, by contrast, creates the danger for the opponent. Although he plays the ball, his action endangers the safety of the opponent because it creates forceful studs contact with the opponent’s shin.
Referees get microphone and will explain VAR decision to fans in Dutch cup tournament Referees will explain to the public from next week in the KNVB cup tournament about their decisions in which the VAR has been involved. Up to and including the cup final, the football association is introducing this as a test, a spokesperson confirms after reporting by the NOS. It concerns fifteen matches in which tests are being carried out. The eighth final between AZ and Ajax next Tuesday could be the first match in which the referee updates spectators and TV viewers immediately after watching the video footage. It is a 'clear, short and powerful explanation' that will be heard through the microphone of the referee in the stadium. For example, that the video footage showed that a foul had been made outside the penalty area and that a free kick instead of a penalty remains. In international football, the public has already received such a live explanation from the referee as a test, but not yet in the Netherlands.
Gil Manzano had a very poor Supercopa Final....missed both KMI's in real-time and had to be bailed out by his VAR, and failed to give both Camavinga and Vini Jr. deserved second yellows for professional fouls.
Agree. The penalty given via VAR is at the 2:50 mark and the red card for DOGSO is at 7:00. Two basic decisions. Feels like Manzano just decides to punt this VAR. If you have no foul there in real time for both (possibly understandable), I don't understand how you don't have simulation there. But I guess the caution for simulation in the VAR era in real time is just not practical anymore. Also, love how on the DOGSO red card he had to give a card for dissent because he decided not to take any decision. Remember how VAR was supposed to cut down on the dissent?