Actually... as a non-ref, non-partisan, it's still not clear to me what was going on on the OS call. And, I've been looking for someone to provide some clarity. See my prior post trying to lay out what I thought I saw. No agenda here, I'm just not sure of what I saw or what the proper ruling is. Just curious.
I posted the central point of this earlier in this thread, but I'll elaborate here for you. Hope this helps. The text of the Law: Offence A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by: interfering with play or interfering with an opponent or gaining an advantage by being in that position __________ There are two different arguments being made by people for penalizing Colombia for offside. Those who contend that an offside positioned player touched the ball after a rebound from an opponent are using point three above as support. It is hard for me to tell who touches the ball and who was where in that scramble. I have a different notion, which I believe is clearer. Use the second bullet point above and the corresponding definition below to demonstrate that an offside positioned player interfered with an opponent by challenging for the header when the free kick was crossed into the area. He doesn't have to touch the ball under this wording, merely contest for it with an opponent. --------------- In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.
All well and good. And if there are some that say that the OS player was first to touch after a deflection, then yes, OS it is. But I remember it differently, and I think the AR's flag went up before the ball even got there, which is what BillF is referencing. But, you could be correct. I would need to see whole play again and not just a screen grab of the time of kick.
http://www.espnfc.us/blog/marcotti-musings/62/post/1934334/fifa-wants-refs-to-show-fewer-cards Good analysis of FIFA and Busacca basically handicapping Carballo and taking away what brought him to Brazil.
NY Times weighs in: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/s...avy-price-loss-of-neymar.html?ref=sports&_r=0
Brazil Asks FIFA to Overturn Thiago Silva Ban http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/brazil-asks-fifa-overturn-thiago-silva-ban-24442930
An orange tackle on Chicharito during BRA-MEX. I thought it was red, as did a few others. That was after a rough challenge on Marquez that should have been yellow.
I feel bad for Silva. He is such a likeable, clean, technically gifted and athletic player, but what was he thinking?
I've got nothing against Silva - but what can you possibly argue with a straight face on why the suspension should be waived? That lots of other players should have been cautioned and suspended so it's not fair? (Which has a ring of truth, but FIFA couldn't possibly grant it on such grounds.) I just don't see any remotely plausible basis - which is why I'd love to see what they actually argued.
From Sky Sports: "However, the CBF is urging FIFA's disciplinary commission 'to annul the yellow card unjustly shown.'"
I'm surprised Brazil didn't just ask for permission to borrow Suarez to replace Neymar for next match.
This kind of comment should not be allowed on the refereeing forum. And then some other people have the NERVE to say Brazilians should not post regarding this match because they are not "neutrals". Yeah right, this kind of comments really do show there is hardly any neutrality. Plenty of these "neutrals" actually have they pre made opinions about Brazil, about CBF, etc Anyway, what the CBF is saying is that Thiago was running towards his half of the field and was unaware of the goalkeeper going to kick the ball in that position over him. Would need to see a replay to check if Thiago Silva is really unaware or if he changes position to block the kick. My initial impression is that he changed his position to block it.
Nah, I could care less who wins. But, as a referee, appealing deserved suspensions for blocking a keeper kick and biting another person is pretty low-class to me. Goes along with the whining, dissent, and gamesmanship I mentioned earlier in the thread. Some countries play the game the right way. Others are Brazil and Uruguay. You can check as much as you want, but it wouldn't change anything. Intent does not matter. Being unaware does not matter. It happened, it's against the LOTG, and Silva was rightly cautioned. If he didn't want to get a yellow card (resulting in his suspension) he shouldn't have committed a clear yellow card offense.
are you seriously and ridiculously putting "biting someone" and "blocking keeper kick" on the same category? That´s even lower class in my opinion. Well, I ASKED it and nobody answered. People are too worried on this thread on bashing Brazil instead of talking about the LOTG. And I really doubt you. You mean a keeper can in theory kick the ball on PURPOSE on a player running out of the box and that player would get a yellow card? If INTENT DOES NOT MATTER, as you saw, then yes, it OPENS such possibility. Btw, I saw the replay and the ball did not hit Silva on his back. Silva came running towards it, therefore he was pretty aware and guilty. But again, that´s not the point of my posts here. I keep trying to discuss the LOTG but you and some other people keep trying to discuss only Silva's case. plus, we have tons of posts that should go to the rivalries forum. Instead of discussing refereeing here, people like AremRed are discussing the "lack of class" of Brazil and Uruguay Federation, etc. And then the same people say they are neutrals...
Aces High, if a player prevents the GK from releasing the ball in play, most of the time he will receive a yc for usb. We recently had the post kick discussion(which silva obviously was not post kick, he prevented the kick from happening) The consensus is that there is a small circle around the gk, and moving into the circle puts you at risk of USB. Moving towards the GK or "shadowing" the gk are things we generally look for. If a player is walking up the field and the gk chooses to kick(or throw) the ball AT an opponent, the opponent will probably be off the hook.
And depending on the circumstances, the GK could be cautioned. If the attacking player turns around and starts running back, and the goalkeeper intentionally runs at him and kicks the ball, the keeper could even be red carded. It is important to pay attention to what happens at this stage. Usually the referee is pedaling back and the AR is sorting out who is going to be the 2LD to follow while at the same time paying attention to the moment the goalkeeper releases the ball from his hand.