Match #39 - ITA : URU - RODRIGUEZ (MEX)

What foul was committed. Interested in your answer.

 

Here's the rest of my quote

The basis of your new argument is that if it's not written in specific and plain language in the LOTG then it's not valid, correct?

Where are studs written in the laws?

It's an example of the redundancy of your argument.
"show me where it's written in the LOTG!"

Ok, your turn. Show me.

If it has to be written in the LOTG, as an example, SFP states a lunge has to be committed. Where was Marchisio's lunge? I get that in order to pretend there was, you need to say kick and stomp. Where were those?

Which, per the LOTG, need to be judged

Careless
Reckless or
Excessive

In this case you and your cohorts are saying it was excessive. The referee must have had to believe the same.
I dispute that.

I dont agree with the former. As for the latter, I suppose that if the ref wanted he could have booked the Uruguayan for simulation had he interpreted the obvious playing up of contact. He did not. He believed otherwise. His judgement, for being so close, was obviously flawed.

"Danger of serious injury"

How about that foul at the 73rd that injured Verratti? It was, by definition a lunge, studs were up, contact was made with the player, not ball.

So we're back at the first argument.

I say careless or reckless at best for lifting his leg to avoid a lunge by the Uruguayan and obviously turning away from the play. The contact was incidental, and both made contact. The ref called a very weak Red card that influenced the match.

 

He thinks it was incidental......possibly careless. (post 446)

 

I want him to say what the foul was.

 

I do not believe any. I don't believe he kicked, jumped, lunged or attempted to strike the opponent. That is why I've been arguing reckless or careless with the caveat "at best."

A direct red card is more than just very heavy handed IMO. I'm trying to work with your views of the interpretation of the LOTG to even justify a free kick.

The Uruguayans reaction probably warranted a whistle to judge if he was even really injured, though I think he was simulating strongly and got the outcome that he wanted from an incompetent or biased ref.

 

Careless what? Reckless what? Did what with excessive force? If you don't believe he committed a foul(you conceded it was a foul earlier) that is fine. Most people who are taught and study the lotg at length disagree with you.

 

Careless/Reckless/Excessive is use of the LOTG to attempt to find some common ground with you guys who support the decision, though it's obvious that this is not going to happen between us. In this case, I'm happy to continue providing my counter arguments.

Basically you guys are arguing kick or striking at an opponent because stomp is not written in group of six, unless you're suggesting tackle in the group of four, which is absurd since Marchisio was running with the ball and about to get tackled. The Uruguayan was about to tackle and ran into him as he was turning. Incidental contact. He did not lunge, tackle, kick or strike. So no foul. The Uruguayan probably simulated. I believe he did. The ref blew the whistle and if the ref believed it was a tackle, then careless/reckless at best. Direct red only if incompetent or he wanted to influence the game. If we want to argue influence, it obviously helped Uruguay because they only really started to come forward more after this as evidence by their formation change. Correlation/Causation argument fallacy says the philosopher in the house. Moving along, they (Uruguay) took advantage and even then were hesitant in going forward. That's another story though.

If my suggesting one or the other annoys you and makes you want to call me a conspiracy theorist or troll, so be it. I'm happy to settle at incompetence because I believe strongly that it was a very poor decision. You believe otherwise, but I think I've demonstrated enough to prove that you want to believe this more than it is written any where in the LOTG.

 

It is entirely possible for a well qualified referee to determine that Marchisio KICKED an opponet.

If you accept that(which you have conceded,) then it is also entirely possible that a well qualified referee could determine that he endangered his opponent.(he did this, we can subjectively say, by using his cleats into the shin/knee area.)

The referee had a perfect view of this. It's not a case of maybe he cleated him. The referee saw his foot move into the defenders leg, leading with the cleats. His leg moves away from the rest of his body, pushing into the leg of the defender.

If you don't want to accept the opinion of the referee community here, then please save your time and energy. We are not going to the Italy forum telling you what to believe. You are telling us a FIFA Referee is either incompetent or biased. Your foundation is disagreeing with how the laws are taught at every level. That is against the forum rules.


You have shown no interest in understanding how Rodriguez came to this decision, which for most of us wasn't that complicated. Your sole purpose appears to insist that Rodriguez is guilty of being incompetent or biased against Italy. You are free to think that, but this is not the forum to argue that.

 

Incorrect.

I don't think the word "studs" show up in the Laws of the Game. Then again, as I wrote in post 450:

"The Laws do not need to have to phrase "studs contact" in them to judge this challenge SFP. The excessive force definition is enough."

I know you easily get hung up on simple words like "lunge", "kick", and "stomp", but there is good news! The Laws do state that a "player who lunges at an opponent.......is guilty of serious foul play". But there is other language in the Laws that we can use! If you don't think a "lunge" happened then simply use:

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play."

or

"A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

to defend your argument. Either way, whether you think there was a lunge or not, there are other parts of the Laws whose criteria define this challenge as SFP.

I don't understand what you are trying to imply. Please be more clear. Pretend there was what? What does "you need to say kick and stomp" mean? Where were what?

Everyone reading this thread understands you dispute that. Again, on what grounds?

Obvious to you, and who else?

If you would provide video, we could discuss that play separately.

I'm not sure what "first argument" you are referring to. Could you be more clear please?

 

To believe.
Then we'll have to define a kick.

You used Merriam-Webster before, correct.

Let's see what it says (best possible answer, you tell me if you think another one fits):

[INTRANSITIVE/TRANSITIVE]to move your legs as if you were kicking something
Take your baby's nappy off and let her kick a bit.

Thesaurus entry for this meaning of kick

Show me where he was moving his legs as if kicking something? He lifted his leg as he was turning, as the Uruguayan was coming in for a tackle.

How is that a kick? That's one stretch of the imagination there.

I've given my caveat. I've conceded that the ref must have judged tackle, which is absurd because the definition does not follow the movement. Kick is even more absurd, as I've said before and given a definition of above.

I stand in the same place as before. Not a red, not a fould.

I'm not allowed to believe he was incompetent? That's against rules of the forum?
What sort of authoritarian trip is this?

I had to have in order to dispute his decision. I simply do not agree. I already understand you don't like that I don't agree.

 

transitive verb
1 a : to strike, thrust, or hit with the foot

 

Why is that? You argue that I need to show something written into a law as valid. I ask you the same question and it's now invalid? Why are there two sets of rules for how we can present our arguments?

Good then we're back at the part where we dispute the subjective interpretation of his actions again.
No kick, no lunge, no stomp and no tackle since he was running with the ball and trying to avoid a tackle. Incidental contact should not have been dealt with harshly like this, especially when a decision would heavily influence the game. I would hope that a competent referee would have had the sense to understand that. A warning would have been sufficient. Marchisio had not made any other infractions on rules to this point. The red card was more than harsh, it changed the game and it did so with poor judgement on the Ref's part.

No but it cites the group of 6 and 4.

Which one of those did Marchisio commit then?

Start there, then go with careless, reckless or excessive, please.

I asked stj to break it down earlier and I suspected he would not, and did not.

In other words you have to believe it was a tackle and brutal or excessive force. I disagree. Not only that but the ref, as you and others have argued was in close proximity which makes his error in judgement (for me) even worse.

 

No thrust there. Are you arguing strike because of the contact? I guess we have to see what Merrieam and Webster say about strike and hit then, ya? Let's get these words defined fellas.

 

Actually there is (for a stomp). I understand that you feel that those word doesn't just describe a motion but also have an inherent meaning of intent for that kick/stomp to be directed at someone/something. Problem here is that the IFAB (the guys that writes the Laws) have tried really hard for a long time to get that kind of intent out of the Law and only focus on the actual acts that the players make and thus instructs referees to judge what a player did but not why he did it (and that's why discussions in the ref forum quite often turn up the word "movement", i.e that it was a kicking "movement" or it was a stomping "movement", when describing situations). The intent that referees are meant to determine is of the "did he intentionally move his foot to the point where it connected to the opponents gonads?" kind and not of the "did he mean to kick the opponent in his nut sack?" kind, it's about intent of act, not intent of result. As has been said before, referees are not meant to be mind readers.

Learning and understanding not just what the Laws say but also what it means and how they are meant to be applied takes quite a lot of study and practice. And that is also why some referees turn a little hostile at times, having people that quite clearly doesn't have that knowledge and experience come and so adamantly proclaim that they and they alone have the definitive answer to how a certain situation should have been called can be a little trying, especially in situations like a WC where there is a lot of decisions that are questioned and a lot of fan bias behind most of those questions.

 

Watch the video again. He moves his leg towards the other player after contact is made. He doesn't move his leg away, and his leg is not stationary(how else did it get there? Just hanging in place?)

As I said before, I don't care what his intent was(to spin and protect the ball as you say.) The result was his boot moving(striking or hitting/kicking) in to the defenders leg. The defender did not kick him. If you want to argue that the defender ran into Marchisio's leg, we will have to agree to disagree, and massref should reclose the thread.

 

Fan bias? Sure.
Ref bias? Never?

I'm not judging the ref solely on his decision in this incident either. I think he missed worse plays.
No one has answered the contact made in the 73rd minute for example. He was further away, but based
on the arguments so far, I'd love to hear one of you comment on whether it was a foul or not.

 

Clear video? I've never found one.

 

http://livefootballvideo.com/fullmatch/world/world-cup/italy-vs-uruguay

I already answered that. I believe he lifted his leg to avoid contact from the Uruguayan charging at him while simultaneously trying to keep possession of the ball and spin away to continue attacking the goal. He had to place his foot on the ground again in order to keep progressing. I don't believe it was a kick or thrust at the other player. Incidental contact IMO which is why I think a straight red was harsh and heavy handed. The ref had to know it was going to severely influence the game. Are refs not taught to be very careful with their judgments in cases where it could effect the flow of the game when an individual does not clearly commit a foul?

 

There are not two sets of rules. You were arguing that that the referee needs to determine "intent" to foul or "intent" to commit SFP in order to call the foul or card for SFP. I asked you to demonstrate where the Laws require the referee to judge intent. (hint: they don't)

I on the other hand was using the words "studs" and "contact" as descriptive words to describe what actually happened in this play. I was not arguing that those words needed to be present in the SFP language in order for the SFP language to be applied. As I wrote in post 450 (why do I feel like I am repeating myself?), the excessive force language is enough.

You are the only person who believes that this play is incidental contact.

I cannot break it down further without using the words "kick" or "lunge" both of which you dispute. We cannot progress if you continue to look at this play irrationally and not come to a consensus on what actually happened.

You have created a caricature of this play in your mind, and are refusing to continue unless everyone else will play by your rules and accepts your view of the play as fact. I refuse to cow to your irrational presentation of the facts.

I shall end my involvement here.

 

You used the argument "show me where it says ____ in the LOTG"
I did the same.
You said my example is invalid.

I do, and therefore if there is no kick or lunge, what is the foul?

Amongst some of you, perhaps, but that's another exaggeration.

Hardly. I just disagree with your interpretation of the events. I haven't cited forum rules in order to try and silence anyone here that is disagreeing with me. That tactics has been used to avoid directly disputing my arguments however.

 

Falc was like this last World Cup, too.
IIRC, he claims, as a ref, he's never had any dissent from anyone.

 

I could see calling a foul here on Uruguay, but not sure how it equates. Verratti would much rather be hit on the follow through then on the plant leg. Uruguayan does not kick an opponet and Italian player does not kick with a Uruguayan player with the studs. Rodriguez is also about 30 yards away with at least 2 bodies blocking a clear view. The replay doesn't show the opposite view either. Tough to really see what happens here. I would lean foul and possibly caution, if I was 100% sure the Uruguayan ran through(CHARGES AN OPPONET) Verratti. As it stands, I think that's what happened, but not nearly as clear as Marchisio.

I never said I thought Rodriguez had a good game...just said that one decision was right. You want to take that a step further and call him incompetent or biased, which is not the purpose of this forum.

Irrelevant to how we call it on the field, but what was the injury report after the match?

 

Well, that escalated quickly.

 

There didn't seem to bemuch force to Marchisio's "stomp", so I can see the possibility he was just trying to shield the ball by placing his foot between the ball and the defender. As for the gif that shows his foot lunge out after making contact with the defender's shin, this is a natural motion after you step on something that then gets immediately taken away from your foot.

So, as Marchisio is turning he is placing his foot between the ball and the defender, but the defender gets his leg in there, Marchisio steps on defender, defender pulls his leg out from under Marchisio, Marchisio loses his balance and sticks his leg out further to regain balance, and then goes in his way. Sounds more careless than excessive.

 

Marchisio's main problem is that these are the type of fouls people have committed on purpose in Liga MX before. When the ref sees a leg miss the ball by that much (off balance or not) and studs showing, he will assume what he has seen before.

This is seen in other sports like the NBA and NFL. Where players have learned to play off officials tendencies. In the NFL, some refs will allow the WR/DB to battle it out a little past the 5 yards, others do not. In the NBA, some refs will call forearm checking by a center a lot more closely than others will.