Let me break it down for a man of your fragile mental stature, It's not just coming from an Italian. Others are saying it too, not like I'm biased. Your sarcasm comes from your insecurity.
What proof is necessary beyond the replay, paused at the moment when the ball is played, with the player clearly onside? I'm asking seriously... what proof do you have in mind?
UEFA has been very aggressive getting videos yanked from Youtube. Even if I could find the clip, it probably wouldn't stay valid long. If you didn't see the replay, you should be the one to track it down, I think. I already saw it.
Three very tight decisions. One looked to be incorrect to me....just. Barely. The other two I felt the AR probably got correct, and certainly with the camera angles I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone else noticing that one way refs are trying to stop the man handling in the box on set pieces is carding the players before the kick is taken? Motta got cautioned for that. Then the kick was taken and he did the same thing, practically, and we played on. I'm really not a fan of this tactic. It doesn't really put a stop to anything. Also, would Webb have carded Motta if he was on a yellow? Just call the PK and it stops. It really does. I frankly think it's a cop out call by the refs. Either call the penalty kick which will really stop it or do nothing. Don't give a preemptive card and then ignore it on the next play. It's like trying to make a decision without really making a big decision. I'm just not a fan of that. Otherwise, typical Webb performance. Letting a lot of stuff go and making excuses for player behavior.
Well, in Webb's defence: Before the kick was taken, Motta had a bit of a stranglehold on the defender - a good arm hold in the neck area. It wasn't exactly your run of the mill CK jostling. I think that caused the caution, as opposed to just a plain hold.
You mean typical guy who's made it to the highest level behavior? Seriously though I think you're being completely unfair. The reason why he gave a caution is like it show'd on the replay, he had the guy in a headlock. It wasn't even close to what happened on the next play. Also yeah just call the PK no one wants called and it stops...and you get threats from fans, and your family has people on their doorstep trying to get at them. This is what happened when last Euros Webb called a PK against Poland. It was in Les Arbitres if you wanna check it out. Webb called a good game, I don't think you could find a player on that field that said he decided it or they didn't think he should be there.
I think Webb has shown himself more than willing to call holding in the area for a PK. In Poland. In a pretty high-profile match.
So let me get this right...you're going to call a pk BEFORE the ball has been put into play? Or are you saying do nothing preemptively, let the foul occur, and THEN make a game changing decision/call? Brilliant, absolutely frickin brilliant.....
If you want to critique the match, I'll do that with you. I think it was the referee's fault that Italy couldn't keep up late in the match and surrendered the equalizer. Also, Mario's miss from close range in the first half was because he was thinking of the flag going up and he slid it wide. Also, the lighting in he stadium was poor being an Eastern Bloc country. And the uniforms of the other team reminded the Italians of tablecloths which distracted them. How many excuses do you want?
I think the management of the mosh pit on free kicks and corners has been WAY above average in this tournament. Lots of proactive work before the restart and players actually trying to play soccer (for the most part). I even credit one goal directly to the referees' work here. But I did think this game started to creep back to some of the uglier defending we see quite often. And Howard chose (no doubt correctly) to use a pop-gun, rather than a cannon, to counter it. So, though I agree with what's been done so far, there are certainly fouls (pks) that COULD have been called. And, perhaps even more to the point of the arguement, I'll bet we are on the cusp of some the MUST be called. Then we will see what weapons are chosen, and whether or not the behaviour is "stamped out." I hope for 2 outcomes (one a twist of fate, the other a matter of professionalism): 1) please don't let this come to a head in (another) one of Webb's games 2) please let all the refs be on the same page and demonstrate some consistency
Well you forgot the ref didn't even stop the match when Italy's penalty area was covered in a cloud of smoke.
Yes he did. Then he went and talked to Buffon because he couldn't see the ball. Then he restarted woith a dropped ball. What more explanation do you need for ceasing play for outside interference (smoke).
I think I answered your smoke in the PA question somewhere already. TV probably overemphasized the conditions. And Webb talked to the Italian GK about it once. The mentality is blame the referee instead of your own teams inability to put the ball in the back of the net. Balotelli? How many chances do you want at close range? Maybe it was Webb's fault? The tying goal was Webb's fault too? Give me a break. The italians aren't that good. Unless, you want to count match fixing. In that category they lead the World Rankings.
lol, its obvious you have some bias against Italy. I was joking about the smoke. But its true the ref didn't stop play until Italy won the ball and Buffon complained. Anyway, most people on the Italy boards are only talking about their bad play in the 2nd half and the coach's weird substitutions. The broadcast did show 3 wrong offsides calls against Italy though so its natural that this was mentioned here. At least one of those plays could have led to a goal.
There was one offside call that was clearly onside. The Croatian defender at the far side of the pitch kept the Italian attacker on. Regardless, the Italian (Di Natale?) continued play and took a shot, but it was wide. The other two offside calls were borderline, and complaining about them is quite immature.
No-one wants called? I would bet that the team that gets the PK wants it called! Fear of threats etc., is not a good reason to avoid making a correct decision. PH
Yes it is, the threat of death is always a good reason to do something. I'm sure you can find many historical examples where people have done exactly that.
To quote one of my favourite films, you're not exactly Mr. Current Affairs are you Tommy? Linesmen were renamed Assistant Referees in 1996. 16 years ago. Debate points tend to be considered more seriously if the offerer is accurate with their facts. Just sayin'....
Yes, I could but I am not going to because I didn't say threat of death, I said fear of threats, totally different concept! It might be helpful if you read the message properly.
Of course, this is conveniently/selectively disregarded by ONE poster. Its one thing to render an objective critique of a performance, quite another to engage in a deluded, factually inaccurate one man crusade against a particular ref.