oh, he finally remembered his crusade and makes a comment about it when Danilo is subbed off after halftime.
FWIW I didn't mention Neuer to support an argument that Lloris should not have been penalized, or indeed carded. For myself I get a lot of "people who know the game" telling me (as a keeper or ref or both) that The Keeper Can Always Protect Himself. Not when in so doing he commits a foul. Anyway i was not trying to justify a mistake--that's my real point here. I was harking back to another and (in)famous case where keeper contact with an attacker gets looked at and talked about partly as player-player, and partly as keeper-player. There's Law, there's tradition, there's feel, and somewhere in all there is how we call the incident when the keeper initiates contact that in and of itself would be judged more harshly if an outfield player did the same thing. Not to say keepers get a free pass, they/we certainly don't. But if there's a difference, that difference has to be evaluated, and by virtue of the fact that these contacts are usually in/near KMIs, that difference is getting evaluated in the mother of all pressure-cookers. No question in my mind Lloris' was a foul. I thought at the time so was Neuer's. But as you say, how it was called then (Neuer's) may well differ from how it would be called now.
just curious from a refs point of view from you guys in here: please explain how that was different from Turkey vs Italy the handball incident not given at the end of the first half?
Arm was higher and above the shoulder. The Italy one was right on the borderline. This was well past that line.
Uh, well his arm was literally above his head to start. It's about "expected position." There's no scenario where you expect the French defender to have his arm there on that cross. The Turkish defender was running and a good argument can be made that the arm position was consistent with his natural running motion and gait. Of course, no one from UEFA has actually said if that first incident was a good call or not, so that one is still up for debate. But this one isn't.
This is a standard method to deal with dissent and confrontation at a PK incident. Classic example and well executed! Keep moving around, organizing the situation, they soon get fed up following you around. It is easier for the complaining players to surround you if you stand still. Done it many times myself always works. PH
Unless they have the contact just outside the area. I can't help but think that's a VAR miss in the contact is on the line.
Agreed. Though the reason the attacker starts going down in the first place is a clear pull/hold, which continues into the area. It's a deliberate foul followed by maybe an accidental foul but a painful foul. It just had so much to it. We never know what Mateu Lahoz and the VAR spoke about. It's possible Mateu Lahoz described the incident relatively well and that was enough for the VAR. He would have also known that a fourth penalty would have been crazy. Not saying it's right, but a lot could be going on in the VAR's mind there. And it all just sort of reinforces how subjective some of this is. But yeah, I've got a penalty.
I also expected VAR to come back with a PK--fortunately it didn't involve a goal that would have changed who went through to knock out stage.
Should of been a red, punch the head and follow through with the elbow should of Been a red dangerous play.
Um, no. "Dangerous play" is not a red. The question on whether it is a yellow or red is whether it was "reckless" (caution" or was "serious foul play" (send off). The definition of serious foul play is: Serious foul play A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. The definition of reckless is: Any action (usually a tackle or challenge) by a player which disregards (ignores) the danger to, or consequences for, the opponent There was no excessive force or brutality. The GK was simply punching the ball--and he did get the ball. As noted above, this is not the same as a field player who punches an opponent, as that is not a soccer play. This was a quintessential soccer play, a GK punching a cross, that happens in every game. While the fist/head contact certainly raises the specter of a send off, I don't see a credible argument that this should have been one.
And just what does that have to do with anything at all? Unless it is the GK in the PA, a punch is not a soccer play but a violent directed act against an opponent. This GK was making a soccer play that happens in every soccer game --indeed got the ball. Had the GK not been close to the ball, I would agree with red. But that's just not close to what happened here. He wasn't careful enough, resulting in the PK and caution.
I agree with you. FWIW I've been trying to keep in mind this board is a DMZ between those of us who chat about this stuff for fun & profit, and those for whom words like dangerous and reckless and excessive aren't as loaded as they are for us.
Listening to the ESPN FC podcast last night, it gave a pretty interesting window into how analysts and former professional players saw this: Penalty #1 - your expected debate on this, though a pretty solid majority opinion that this had to be a penalty, which was somewhat refreshing to hear. BUT--and this is the kicker and where this is going to cause huge problems if FIFA/IFAB don't start a proactive campaign about it--absolutely consensus that it would NOT be a penalty if Lloris had clearly punched the ball first. And this is why I've been raising this over the years as the call has become more prevalant in the wake of the seriousness around head injuries. One day a referee is going to give a "less clear" version of this penalty and the world is going to lose its mind. Penalty #2 - everyone says its Mbappe "cheating" or "being clever," even French partisans. No one thinks it's a foul and a penalty. But some understanding of why it's called because an unusual one was called on the other end. Penalty #3 - 100% consensus it's a penalty. Penalty shout - 100% consensus that this is a penalty and the most egregious of the three. Strong criticism for the lack of VAR intervenion. Ultimately, nothing too surprising. But the harping on why VAR couldn't intervene on #4 did take me aback a little. I think, as referees, we sometimes get in the mode of "well, I don't want another controversial decision here...," which is what I think the VAR was probably thinking. When the reality is that people want the call if it's clear. It would have been very interesting if this result had eliminated Portugal or changed up the qualification elsewhere somehow. This is one of those weird cases where I think the focus would have been on the error of omission rather than the error of commission (Mbappe) because people sort of understood the balancing aspect of it. With the Fernandes foul, not a single commentator had an excuse for the no-call from the VAR (to be clear, they understood why Mateu missed it, though there was an argument he should have called the hold).