Agreed -- he was fouled and then he made all kinds of extra motions to ensure the ref realized he was fouled. A little silly perhaps, but not the first time a player who was fouled makes sure it is seen by the ref. Now where that crosses the line to embellishment and then ultimately to flopping is the key issue. In regards to getting kicked in the face and there being no call --- I agree that was bad. However, it is consistent with most non-calls on high foot/dangerous plays. I always thought that technically the foot higher than the waist could be considered dangerous. When a player just ducks his head down to chest level, why does he give up the right to have his head protected from getting kicked? That seems wrong.
Though you don't want to see embellishment, the players would respond that if they don't make a big show of it, it will not be called. That play was hard-luck for Mexico and perhaps it's true the players were baited by the ball control. There were 4 defenders nearby and most likely if they had merely shadowed Robben more, Netherlands was not going to score but the breaks seemed to even themselves out. A lesson for defense in these crunch games.
Let's get rid of this nonsense. https://vine.co/v/MF6D0l1qDJ7 He did not get kicked in the head. The defender made full contact with the ball. The ball may have hit his head, but the foot does not. Thus, there is not a contact foul. In order to be PIADM, the player's attempt to play the ball must prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. The Mexican player attempted to play the ball and did not stop in fear of injury. Thus, it is no PIADM either. There was no foul on that play.
The truth is that the mexican defenders and especially Rafa continuously threw themselves in front of Arjen Robben. On almost every run from Arjen Robben he was impeded by a reckless tackle from a Mexican player, yet he didn't go down. Even the english commentator on the channel I was watching agreed that in the 74th minute Rafa Marquez was lucky that Robben didn't go down from his tackle, otherwise it should have been given. That's not even beginning to talk about the obvious double penalty earlier in the match. The truth is the Mexican players just kept on throwing in rash tackles, and they really have no one to blame but themselves. You just cannot go in like that on players in the box. It's just like the Costa penalty vs Holland, I was much more pissed at the dutch defender for going in like that on a player in the box than I was at Costa. Either way, here is a great view of why it was such a stupid tackle and a deserved penalty. http://www.gfycat.com/HeftyTartBaldeagle At the end of the day the Sneijder goal was the nail in the coffin for Mexico. Their tactics allowed Holland to dominate the game, and as soon as the goal finally fell there was really ever only going to be one winner.
OK...I thought I saw an angle which showed contact, but regardless of that....in the bolded text above (my bolding) -- and for the stakes these guys are playing for when will they ever pull out of a play for the ball? I'm not disputing the call, I'm saying that it appears that the rules force players to put their heads into very dangerous positions. Which I would think the rules would want to avoid. For instance, should the Mexican player then have pulled his head back, rather than playing the ball -- would that then have been called; i.e. the player didn't play the ball for fear of injury? You can at least see from your GIF that he certainly had every right to be afraid of being injured by the foot of the Netherlands player. So how is the ref really able to judge whether you didn't play the ball because of fear of injury or just will to win the ball?
That is also the way I saw it in real time. The central question is whether a defender has the right to play a ball in the air with his foot. The answer always is yes but the defender needs to be darn sure that he makes contact and clears the ball. I would ask a questions for the referees on this thread (I'm not one), if there is contact for whatever reason following a successful clearance of a ball such as in Vlaar's case should there be any call at all?
You've nailed exactly why PIADM is such a rare call in professional matches. It has to be something pretty egregious... like lying on top of a ball or coming in with the studs at head level before the opponent arrives, for a player to pull out of something at the top levels. It takes a lot less for an amateur or lower level youth player to pull out of a challenge and not want to compete, which is why PIADM are more common at those tiers of the game. Soccer has an inherent element of danger to it. You could clash heads competing for an aerial ball. You could get stepped on when you go into a tackle. You can get kicked in the knee when you're rounding a defender. There are risks. Players know they exist. In plays like the one discussed, both sides are taking them (Dutch player is risking a penalty in that he might miss and kick his opponent; Mexican player is risking an injury in that he might get to the ball first and then get kicked).
For better or worse, Law 12 only prohibits certain types of dangerous plays. It is a contact sport and a physical sport. At this level playing in a dangerous manner is almost never called because, in fact, players aren't prevented from playing the ball by the potentially dangerous kick because they go forward anyway. At lower levels, it is much more common. (And at the younger levels, playing in a dangerous manner is often called when opponents don't back off -- it becomes a safety issue with kids. What ifs are always tough -- but on this play, if there had been foot to head contact, I would expect a foul and a card (and a week long debate on this forum as to which color the card should have been).
Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever, you are saying the TIMING of the foul changes it? So if the game is 1-1 in the 20th minute and you award the PK to make it 2-1, the game ends 2-1, you awarded a PK that sent a team home. Same foul, same teams, same 1-1 score, you are not ok with a PK in the 93rd minute? Not arguing for/against this particular call, but your view itself is inconsistent. NOT calling a PK when it happens has as much "damage" to a game as calling one. Even the talking heads, Van Nistilroy and Martinez couldn't agree on right/wrong for the call (which makes sense as one is from Neatherlands and one from Mexico), but, they did agree that a defender should not create the situation which forces the referee to make that decision.
True as all that is, if FIFA wanted to go after Robben, they could do so without any of the complicating factors that you raise. Even he admitted that he was simulating earlier in the game.
Assuming you're talking about Roberto Martinez, I don't believe he has any connection to Mexico. He's Spanish and has lived close to half of his life in Britain.
Which I find absolutely fascinating, by the way. I don't think we've paid much attention to this at all, and I'm a bit hesitant to steer the conversation in this direction, but... Robben said he admitted he simulated in the first half incident. Thus far, ALL replays have shown he absolutely got kicked hard in the ankle before he ever had a chance to play the ball. Before Robben admitted he simulated, every single neutral pundit I read or heard said this was a penalty. There are plenty of posts in this thread, at the beginning, that say it was a penalty. Video seems to show it was a penalty. Yet Robben said he simulated. Two things... 1) Why is he saying this? Does he believe he really wasn't fouled at all? Did he not really feel the first kick for whatever reason because he was planning to simulate when he saw the second challenge coming in? Is it some sort of jujitsu mind game to help buy him credibility in future incidents (admitting simulation now and showing some remorse would help him later)? I honestly don't know. Like, I watch that incident, I read Robben's statement, and I don't have a clue what's going on. 2) Where does this leave us on video replay? Video shows foul. The player himself says he simulated. And now people want to believe the player, because he's presumably being honest. So, I guess video replay isn't the panacea everyone had hoped for after all.
Wasn't there a situation in between the first half hammering and the PK that was given at the very end where Robben was not given a PK? Could he be speaking of this incident? I seem to remember an incident early in the 2nd where we all thought Robben definitely shouldn't get a PK. Maybe he's mixing up his incidents? If that is not the case then I'm with you - why would he say that?
I'll third that thought. The double foul in the first half has to be fouls (and I'm surprised the referee didn't call it), if that's his idea of simulation then he needs a new dictionary tbh.
Wasn't his quote partially translated as "in the first half...?" EDIT: that's how it's being reported here: http://worldsoccertalk.com/2014/06/29/arjen-robben-admits-to-diving-in-mexico-world-cup-game/
But here's the deal -- both a foul and a FOUL result in a PK. Sometimes it doesn't take much force to completely wreck the attackers opportunity to proceed. As far as changing the requirements for a PK, I'm going to go ahead and ignore the fact that its a complete bastardization of the LOTG and address your suggestion. I don't know of many people who want to introduce even more subjectivity into the sport (just think about how much debate there is around Law 11). I also think giving an "easy" way out -- that would be the DFK in the PA -- would actually drive the number of PK/DFK calls UP, not down. The best argument I have is the reaction when you see a referee call a foul, then realize it's in the PA and then "decide" it's an IFK. This, to me, is how ugly it would look it we added the additional decision tree of DFK or PK to the mix. It's just silly.
That's the only way I've heard it so far. My only assumption (yes, dangerously using an assumption) is that he got mixed up on that point. If it was near the beginning of the 2nd half I could understand how he could confuse end of the first and beginning of the second. I'm sure most of us referees have been in a debrief with an assessor right after the game where he says "Do you remember that foul in the X minute" and our faces go blank because we have no clue what he's talking about. Robben remembered the situation, just not exactly when it was. Of course, to him, it's not really that important when it was. To us referees there are about 1,000 moments that build on one another and it becomes VERY important when each of them was.
Yikes. This is the kind of thought process that absolutely prevents you from making match critical decisions correctly. It might be daunting to consider the impact of your decision later, but as a referee in that moment you must not be thinking of anything other than foul/no foul. It's the pundits job to figure out what it all means, you just have to uphold the LOTG.
He was talking about this one, I think. https://vine.co/v/MF6wZnidz0p Images are not very good, might need a better look. It wasn't called by the referee. EDIT: Directly after the match. http://nos.nl/wk2014/video/668587-robben-schwalbe-eerste-helft-stom.html Here he clearly says it was "before" the 'double trip' at the very end of the first half. Almost definitely it is the moment mentioned above. About the 'double tackle', which he sees on replay, he says actually "here the proof you do receive kicks."
Agree with all of the above. Not to mention that it would be an absolute nightmare to try to manage DFKs that close to the goal. Right now, attacking IFKs in the PA are shockingly rare, the proposed model would make attacking DFKs in the PA relatively common.
Maybe he wasn't touched but the camera angle sure makes it look like a foul to me. There is a video out there of a player who IMO got fouled in the box but the player disagreed with it being a foul so deliberately kicked it outside of the goal.
Excellent point on the management of the DFK's! Sometimes I think we forget to look backwards before suggesting a "fix" as I'm sure there is a very good reason why the penalty area and PK was created...