Rizzoli was excellent. I, actually, thought he got the Costa incident perfectly right. It wasn't enough for a red card. He lead his head into him a little bit, but not enough to send him tumbling down.
Look at the video again. Casillas is jumping up, RvP is moving sideways. Again, experienced refs, what's your thought?
I too thought it was a penalty when I saw it live. But on replays, not only does Costa's trailing leg go down on the defender's, he's also "hunting" for contact with the defender's leg imo. I wouldn't call this is refereeing mistake per se, but I think it was a very marginal call. Overall, a well refereed game.
I don't agree with all this looking for the PK stuff, but in any event it was not a decision that affected the end result so it will not result in as much invective as the Brazil one did. PH
I only saw it twice, and I think it could go either way. The referee has to answer two questions: was there a foul, and if so was it trifling. Hard to tell, but looked like the contact may have been after the ball was beyond his reach -- that is often considered trifling. While Casillas wasn't moving as much as RvP, he also wasn't waiting stationary for the ball, but moving toward it. This is a close call -- it is also a less visible call than the Brazil game, as there are many moving players in the same area, which makes it a much harder call to have a good view on.
Surprised no mention of the ARs not giving benefit of doubt to attackers on tight offside situations. There were some flags that shouldn't have been raised.
Yes, we have discussed this before. ARs would rather be criticized for an incorrect offside than for a goal allowed incorrectly. Just human nature. IFAB tried to change it with the benefit of doubt instruction, but when push comes to shove, push wins. PH
Casillas is jumping backward. RvP is jumping toward goal, perpendicular to Casillas. The contact seems minimal and incidental and of equal fault to me. I wouldn't complain if it was called (especially considering all the time I spent as a goalkeeper ), but I have no problem with letting it run. In fact, I think it's probably the better choice.
I don't understand all this dissection. RvP never gets to that ball, so he is never even in playing distance. And he is draped all over Casillas who does have a chance to deflect it. Clear foul - maybe trifling - but clear.
This is what I have. Huge difference from yesterday. The Croatian player had his arm on his keeper before the ball arrived. The Dutch player makes contact as the ball is past Casillas. That's not the sort of foul you disallow a goal for. I'm also perfectly fine with the penalty. You go in like that in the area and completely miss the ball, when in that close of proximity to the opponent, there are consequences you might pay. And I say that as someone who had trouble with the Altidore penalty in the EPL. In the EPL game, I thought there was a controlled tackle, made in an attempt to block the ball, and Altidore went out of his way to step on his opponent. In this case, there's a relatively out of control tackle aimed directly at Costa, from the front. Sure, Costa did something similar to what Altidore did. But the nature of the initial tackles were different. The Dutch player made a careless tackle in the penalty area and suffered the consequences.
I don't understand your post at all. If Casillas had a chance to deflect it and you think it's a clear foul... how on earth is it "maybe trifling?" That'd be the definition of a game critical call, as it led to a goal. The reason for all the dissection is I don't think many are convinced Casillas could get the ball. And perhaps the contact occurred after he could reach it. If those things are true, you have a very, very strong case for trifling. The timing of the contact is absolutely critical here. That's why there's so much dissection.
Personally, I can't stand the way a lot of referees protect GKs. I think in general, no matter what league and in what country, way to many GKs get bailed out way too easily. That being said, the way I've had a National assessor explain it in the most simplistic terms is this: if your feet aren't landing in the same spot from which they left the earth, then you aren't jumping straight up. It does not matter if you body is perfectly level straight up and down. If you're landing 5 yards away from where you jumped, then by definition you did not jump straight up. Did RVP jump straight up? No. Did Casillas? Yes. That being said, I wouldn't have called it a foul either at this level. It's a man's game. But I can't say I'd have a problem if he had called a foul. I also thought the Olic/Cesar was a poor call. I disagreed with that being a foul. Let them play. GKs aren't helpless little babies. They get to use their hands for heaven's sake!
Badly stated on my part. What I mean is that Casillas will have a chance to deflect the ball long (many microseconds ) before it gets RvP's head, so any contact by RvP can't be dismissed as incidental and part of an attempt to play (the dissection I'm seeing). OTOH if the CR felt that Casillas wasn't going to get there in any event, then it's trifling and shouldn't be called.
well, in the opinion of ex-referees in Brazil who now are commentators (including the ones that refereed World Cup games) it was a foul on Casillas, and a dive by Costa. They always talk beyond the "Laws of the Game", meaning, what the latest FIFA referee meetings gave as advice for interpretation of the Laws of The Game.
that's how I see it. And also Julio Cesar foul yesterday. I mean totally bashed by hundreds of people on Youtube however for saying it was a foul on Julio Cesar lol what I see is that similar fouls happen all the time on midfield and the referee CALLS those fouls (when a player has a better position and is barely moving, waiting to get a high ball, and an opposing player jumps and hits him in the horizontal before touching the ball). nobody complains about those fouls, and most seem to think it WAS a foul. However, misteriously, maybe because they resulted in goals, people want to allow the same kind of play when it´s between a player and a goalkeeper. yes, there are plenty of stupid calls when GOALKEEPERS totally jump in the middle of other players who are STANDING in their place, the keeper hits them and the ref calls a foul. That´s bogus, but it´s not what happens yesterday and today. I think people are so annyoed by those bogus calls that they want every kinda of player against keeper contact to be allowed. Really... if those two are not fouls against a goalkeeper, what is? Only tackles from behind?
The thing is, this is kind of a misunderstood instruction. We are trained that if we have doubt, we should keep our flags down. We are not trained, however, that if it is close we should keep our flags down. That's a very important distinction. Referees at this level most likely very rarely have doubt. It takes a certain kind of personality and confidence to make it to the top. I think when referees are making incorrect calls on close plays, they likely were sure they were correct when they made the call. They were just wrong.
Just finished watching on dvr - on early pk I thought live it looked like attacker slipped and didn't like the call. On replay I still don't like it - since when is it a foul to get stepped on. Other than the PK Rizzoli had an excellent match IMO.
Not much difference, but enough. Compare the position of the right arm of Olic to the right arm of RVP.
Did they say "cavar" a penalty though? Because cavar is not always dive, and to me what Diego Costa did is "cavar um pênalti". I don't understand this distinction people in the thread are making about whether Diego's leg came down on the defender or not. Diego is not required to forgive the defender's miss by making an effort to place his leg anywhere in particular. He has possession of the ball. If he wants to plant his leg somewhere to get a different angle, or increase the chance that he is taken down by a tackle, or both, he can. That's how good forwards can create a PK. Fred tried it but there was no contact that could dispossess him, he was trying to create one out of nothing - but the ref bought it. Diego Costa created a PK out of something, not out of nothing, and I honestly don't understand this insistence on blaming the player who is in possession of the ball for not avoiding contact from a poor tackle. Finally, as for the Casillas call - RVP took a running start outside of the 6-yard box. I don't see how that can be anything but a foul on Casillas UNLESS Casillas had no shot at the ball (which I think he did, and even so might still be given even if incorrect). But a running start from yards away and jumping into the other player's body is not legal just because your shoulder crashed into their shoulder. And how about this for a random rant... the more I see bad calls (especially offside which is black and white) the more I wish we'd get over traditionalist notions and give refs the tools they need. And I don't even mean replay, I mean an assistant crew off the field watching on TV and equipped with the same angles we all see and capable of deciding in a few seconds and radioing in a correction to the center ref before celebrations are over. Just... anything less than an admission that refs don't have the tools and we need to figure out how to best integrate the tools because they do exist now, anythign less than that is a farce.
Costa dived, but I'll say that being so fast I could see Rizzoli buying it. So far refs are absoulute ****, excepting the one from chile australia
So let's assume for a second an attacker is incorrectly punished for offside. The ball is still in play when the whistle is blown. How would you restart? Drop ball for inadvertent whistle? And then tell the defending team to knock it back to the other GK, even though the attacking team may have been close to scoring a goal? If you could sell that call after being incorrect about the offside, you could sell beach front property in Kansas. You'd have to rewrite the LOTG essentially. Not saying I agree/disagree, but you're not considering the ramifications of your statement.
If it was only used as in the Mexico examples, when a goal is disallowed, the coach can get a review. Restart is IFK for offside if correct, or kick-off (as for a for goal) if incorrect. No Law change required there. PH