Sadly it probably won't be and that is a shame. Responsibility come squarely on the shoulders of the players. They are after all adults and should be capable of behaving rationally and understanding cause and effect.
Umm, this is quite unnecessary -- if you had read the full thread, you would see that our guest was quite responsive to the responses from referees. Let's save our eye rolling for those who won't listen like adults . . .
It's all a matter of timing. Response was to initial post when it was read. Can't say I respond to a post after reading the full 3 pages of response that follow it. Do you? Regardless, I agree this poster ultimately accepted the referees' point of view and responses on the situation.
Interesting. Personally, I'm more of the view that under a more common sense approach, this has to be DOGSO if the call is made. If you look at the photos with a mind to where the direction to goal, both of the other closest defenders are still a few steps behind and, if he doesn't go down, it sure seems the attacker has a clear unimpeded shot from 12 yards. At this level, that's OGSO (to me), even if a "D" is missing. That said, at least the initial consensus here seemed to be that it wasn't DOGSO. In terms of snapshots, here is one when contact began and one closer to when contact ended: In the halftime discussion, at least one commentator suggested it was too soft and that a "no call" would have been more appropriate. I didn't think it was the most blatant foul, but it's hard to argue with the call when he's got a handful of shirt of the attacker dribbling past him.
Wait, now the portuguese are complaining about simulation and baiting the opponent? How quickly you forget 2006 and well....everything after that.
Do you think they really believe this or is this just gamesmanship? http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/16/portugal-paulo-bento-germany-world-cup Or is the Portugal squad trying to see how many they can get suspended for the next match, just as an experiment?
Funny. I'm watching the US game -- Jermaine Jones and the Ghanaian player rolling on the ground like WWF and no card to either and, seeing the red card to Pepe for not nearly so much. Some consistency game to game would be so nice to see.
The referee did what was necessary on the red card, but he did not read, or even react to, the situation very well. He was a long ways away and didn't move towards the play although Muller was challenging Pepe with the ball. Then after Muller went to ground, the referee stopped walking toward the players and tried to wave play on. 1 player on the ground and an opponent standing near/over him is a recipe for disaster, especially with these 2 players. I'm not sure if the sendoff was preventable, but the referee could have come closer to preventing it than he did.
I pray this will be the last time silly things like the four D's are mentioned for this World Cup. Please stick with things that are actually mentioned is the laws of international football.
Notice on the replay how Muller's head shakes from the head butt. Yeah it's not strong, but it had enough force that it was not a case of Pedro just placing his head on Muller's. It's a send off and yet another example of indiscipline by this team.
The hold had it's intended consequence. It allowed the rest of the defense to catch up. This is for me a perfect example of DOGSO. If not for Pereira's hold, the German attacker has only the goalkeeper in front of him and the goal. At that distance, the other Portuguese defenders are not catching up.
I believe the call came from the assistant? Mueller's reaction on Pepe was not because of his head in his face, but because Pepe was accusing him going down for nothing. Mueller goes up and shouts: "What, do you want from me?" If you see Pepe back off after Mueller's outbreak he goes: "Okay, okay." (meaning "good that we are on same page"). The situation was solved – but now - the ref interfered. So - I do not think he saw it himself, but the assistant saw that Pepe approached Mueller, from his position, he saw the movement of Pepe going against Mueller and called out "headbutt". The ref reacts to the information he has and by the book both refs are right. It's not Pepe's job to educate the German players how to play (that's the ref's job)– and I bet Mueller would have get him as well, from a one yard distance. Even with all replays at hand – and on top of that I tend to say: Yellow - I understand a ref that would go for red, because if you let this run – and these both have another situation, the game can become very ugly and somebody gets seriously hurt. Same with the penalty, that was a 50:50. Goetze knew it, too. His first reaction as it was called out he went: YES! Then turned at a Portuguese, who went: For what? and Goetze showed: Holding. But to me they give penalties to lightly. I know some refs might disagree, because the penalty area is still a part of the field and no free-for-all zone, but a penalty kick is no free kick. That's why I would like to see more room for the defense.
For me, the PK does not look or feel like DOGSO. One thing I didn't see mentioned is that not all of the contact between the 2 players was a foul. It looks like some of the initial contact is fair enough. The defender ends up holding more blatantly near the end of the play and it is definitely a PK. But the attacker already had been slowed down by the defender and I don't think his next touch was going to be a shot on goal anyway.
I wish Mazic would have caught on with the simulation / embellishment by Muller even considering what happened afterwards. Any melodramatic acting like that, even if there is contact, should be USB. A few innocent players may get caught up, but if that is what it takes to put an end to this crap, so be it. In hockey, I've seen a penalty called on one player, along with another penalty for embellishment on the player that was fouled. I like that approach.
Uh...the phrase four Ds may be USSF, but the Ds themselves come straight from the I&G. (Ok, IFAB didn't use "distance" Within likelihood of continued possession, but that's semantics.). USSF's sin was not the four Ds, per se, but an overly strict way of applying them.
Portugal deny Raul Meireles gave referee the finger in Germany defeat http://www.theguardian.com/football...meireles-referee-finger-germany-pepe-red-card
It's actually pretty clear that he didn't: A lesson that looks--especially still photos--can be deceiving.
Pepe gets a one match ban for his head-butt. Isn't is the norm for VC to be an automatic three match ban?
It's 2 matches for violent conduct now. Why? I don't know. I guess the referee didn't put it as a violent conduct in his report. I personally though he got the red for unsportsmanlike behaviour and this ban proves it