So, do players now take off their shirts to celebrate because it's a caution and they're saying "see, we won, the caution doesn't matter"? (But did he get cautioned for it? [Edit: He did. I don't think TV showed it, and it took the ESPN stat folk a while before it was on their site.])
Have to say I have a good friend who's making the same argument about it not being a "lunge". I just have to throw my hands up.
And apparently the player in blue here has come into the path of the yellow player well after the ball has been cleared and kicked him. Even though the ball is by his shoulder.
Danielson launched himself in the air with a locked leg parallel to the ground 2 feet in the air. The moment he did that he became an unguided missile and when you do that you are responsible for anything and everything that happens next. In this case that means he is responsible for crashing into his opponent with excessive force. It’s really no more complicated than that.
I guess this is my sticking point. If any of that were true, I’d agree with you. But if you watch again, Danielson’s trail leg never left the ground. Additionally, Danielson takes less than a full stride. He never lunged, he was never a missile, and he never launched himself into the air. At the same time, the defender took three full strides to get there and did so very late.
why did our referee only initially show yellow...and why pray tell did we need to involve VAR in order to get this one correct?
The ESPN studio crew was also questioning whether or not this was a red card in their post-match discussion, using some of the same logic as SportBilly. So the question for me is....how did there get to be such a big gulf in how referees interpret the rules and see the game and how professional media members (many of whom are former players) do? I mean, Gary Lineker is not your average man on the street....he's a former international striker who was undoubtedly subjected to more than a few of these types of challenges himself. I happen to agree that this is a straight red, but the dissonance surrounding the correct interpretation of the rules is quite jarring at times.
Because referees are imperfect, just like everyone. Even the people who can't let go of things when they've been proven wrong. We all have to be empathetic and understand...to a point.
If Lineker was on the receiving end of that challenge I really doubt he would care that the ball was gotten.
This is a silly argument, if that's what it is intended to be. To start, @LampLighter nails the obvious response. Because referees are human. On top of what he describes, in this case you have Orsato's angle and distance from play. You have a question of a referee--any referee--instictively following the ball at that point and perhaps doubting what else he saw. And then you have the psychogical pressure against giving a red card in extra time of a knockout match. But more to the point, a converse argument could easily be made. If this isn't an obvious red card... why did a trained VAR who is only there to catch clear errors, working under a competition authority that has seemed to do everything to reduce SFP red cards for years, call the referee over for a clear error and why did that referee take only one look and realize the error in his original decision? The system and training means this only gets over-turned if it's a crystal clear red card in the eyes of two--maybe even more--people that matter. And that all happened seemlessly despite all the institutional pressures against a red card.
I would make the wild suggestion that there is an incentive to be contrarian on broadcasts at times. I'd also suggest that professional players can be wrong, just as people here can be. To use one player as your represenative of "professional players" is peculiar, given we also have professional players saying it's a clear red card. Besides my point above, I'd also suggest that the game has changed. In Lineker's era, such tackles often went unpunished (though, occassionally they were properly sanctioned). But the point is they were more commonplace then so more "accepted," if that's the right term, when the referee missed them. The point is, they aren't accepted now. The reaction to this tackle is so (nearly) uniform precisely because it has been nearly eradicated from the elite international game in a way that it wasn' in, say, 1988. Are you going to let this go after the tournament is over, or is this now a permanent feature of the referee forums?
I dunno... Naturally I give a lot of weight to the opinions of the refs here, but I dunno... I have a hard time seeing the Danielson challenge as "standard textbook SFP" as someone here described it. He's not "lunging at a player" but lunging at a ball where an opposing player has no more right to it than he does. I agree with the soccer writer Sophie Lawson and some on her Twitter timeline that the still-frames don't provide proper context 1409993705692401665 is not a valid tweet id Some claim the "locked-leg" position is a no-no; that's false, he isn't sliding in with a locked leg, he's flicking at the ball with his leg. It's a kick and not even a forceful kick at that, just an attempt to flick the ball away or tip it away. But of course a single still-frame distorts our perception He may have misjudged how fast his opponent would get there and therefore his ability to flick the ball without kicking his opponent, so I have no problems with a yellow card. I think the exact opposite because I think VAR is fundamentally flawed. Video review has fundamental inherent problems. Slo-mo and the single still-frame fundamentally distorts perception. It's the reason, in American football, after nearly a century no one knows what a pass completion is anymore and makes the game unwatchable. And the arguments here on this forum prove it. People are using a still frame to take away all the context of a real play in real time. Hence we get the "locked-leg" argument, which is simply nonsense, an illusion created by taking a single frame of motion happening in a split second and extrapolate it out timewise into seconds and even minutes of staring at the still frame and arguing about it. Again, I respect this forum enough to give considerable weight to the consensus here that it's a red card. But I don't buy for a second that the fact a VAR review deemed it a red card is automatically authoritative evidence of it. It's the opposite. VAR is fundamentally flawed.. Slo-mo is a fundamentally flawed lens with which to adjudge. I said decades ago that slo-mo would ruin sports and VAR is determined to prove me right. ADD: I've gained enough respect for referees, in part from this forum, that my normal inclination would be to defer to the referee on the pitch. It certainly applies here.
Maybe three inches or .25 seconds away from absolutely shattering a man's knee cap and ending his career and we've got people on the "I'd be okay with a yellow" train. The opposite? Like, it's evidence against it? And, I didn't say a VAR intervention was authoratitive evidence. I used it to fight the apparent argument that, because the referee missed it the first time, it wasn't obvious to the decison-makers. As anyone who has followed this forum knows, I have had long-standing issues with the implementation of VAR and have regularly question decisions arrived at via VAR. But I'm certainly not questioning this one. As to your point about slo-mo, you do realize the VAR is looking at it in full speed before he sends it down, right? You're sort of onto something here, though--my one quibble with all of this is that Irrati didn't show Orsato the challenge on loop at 100-speed, which is something any MLS referee would ask for. But, A) I don't know what the exact protocols are there with UEFA and Italian officials and B) well, if you think the full speed loop was going to make that look better, I don't know what to tell you. So while from a practical standpoint I have sympathy re: what got shown in the OFR, from an outcome standpoint it wasn't going to matter. There was absolutely no scenario where this was staying as a yellow card. I think I'm done here. If some people want to be wrong about this and think this should happen and only be a yellow card, there's nothing else that can be said.
Hey! Big Soccer Referee Canon * (Dialectic? Doctrine? Praxis?) as I understand it is you don't issue cards based on the injury. You don't NOT issue a card simply because the fouled player walks away. You don't issue a red card only because she or he was stretchered off. And that goes for yellow cards — yellow card offenses can lead to serious injury; that's why they're sanctioned with a card. That's what I think I've been told here. Thanks for the description of the VAR process used here. That's very interesting. And I'm glad you think I'm "sort of onto something here". Your quibbles with VAR? I'm here for it There was absolutely no scenario where this is staying a yellow card? That's because of the tyranny of the slo-mo, or freeze-frame, which distorts reality, robs our perception of context. It doesn't help us to an objective determination; it alters the political calculus of how a referee defends his decision when all the newspapers and newscasts are broadcasting the same still-image over and over and over again. VAR simply drums conformity into people by triggering cowardice
I'm being punked right? Now we live under a tyranny of slow images that we can use to analyze? Why didn't Galileo warn us about the Tyranny of Telescopes. This was fun, but I feel like breaking some ********ing kneecaps now, so I better log off.
You've never studied, in the Secret Archives of Big Soccer, the Treatise on the Use and Abuse of Slo-Mo?! But I'm not kidding. In American Football, they don't really know what a completed pass anymore because of the circumstances on when and how slo-mo is used in video review. Studs may be out, but it matters whether the leg is locked, braced, transferring the full force of a slide versus flicking at a ball where the foot will be retracted by the resistance of a force it comes nto contact with. And a still photo can't show the difference. The referee on the pitch can often better judge these things in real time. I'm curious, did everyone here scream "Red Card" watching the play in real time? I'm sure some did. But without video review, would you have berated your fellow refs for choosing yellow? I have learned from this forum to respect the real-time on-pitch decisions of referees in many situations. Was I not supposed to do that?
Who is "they"?? I guarantee the on-field and replay officials making those decisions know exactly what criteria they've been asked to use, even if the commentators you're listening to haven't taken the time to reach that understanding and lead the viewers to believe that this is all a big guessing game