Just so that we are clear I never argued anything about Silva being justified to play the semi-final. I just stated that I like him and admire his play. That doesn't mean that he should have his caution rescinded.
And, thankfully, loks like Appeal has been denied, no post match punishment for Zúñiga. Of course, now Brazil fans will say FIFA is against them, even though all the anti FIFA comments have been about FIFA wanting Brazil in the final.
I think you are quite adrift here. The foul is interfering with the GK's release of the ball. That is pretty indisputable here. But nothing in the LOTG says that foul is cautioned every time. (Ironically, we saw a deliberate, cynical version of this not cautioned already this WC.) The caution would be because, ITOOTR, the foul was also unsporting behavior. If, ITOTR, he was unaware of the GK and just happened to intefere, a caution would not be warranted. But the catch is it is ITOOTR -- if this caution is subject to review based upon disagreeing with the referee's judgment on the field, then every caution is reviewable on the same bais.
Clearly you jest, because some lawyers are truly silly and laughable. I suspect FIFA also thought the request to rescind was without merit. Thus, the rejection of the request. What is silly is the fact that despite the clear events on the pitch and the fact that (ITOOTR)Silva's action were deemed to qualify for a caution for unsporting behavior (thus an un-reversible event to date by FIFA), the CBF elected to put itself at risk of ridicule in the court of public opinion by its request to rescind. Obrigado belo.
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=7/news=disciplinary-update-on-matters-relating-to-brazil-colombia-match-2401371.html "With regard to CBF’s request for the cancellation of the caution shown to the player Thiago Emiliano da Silva during the match played against Colombia, the chairman came to the conclusion that the FIFA Disciplinary Committee cannot consider the matter given the fact that there is no legal basis entitling it to grant such request. " Also in the article is the justification for no action on the Neymar foul...the referee saw it and failed to act so we can't intervene. I think they got both decisions correct on their limitations of power. I am especially happy that they treated the CBF's request to allow Silva to play with such little interest...just a footnote in the article. While I hate the YC accumulation rules, it would be farcical for them to even consider the request.
This is to me the sad part. Brazil knows that FIFA has no means by which to review the card on Silva. They just make themselves look foolish. Plus the evidence was clear even if FIFA could review it. It was a poor play buy Silva and he got what he had coming. A yellow. Do I dislike the card accumulation system in place? Yes. But it is the system in place so Brazil has to abide by them just like everybody else. Perhaps they should train their players to be less hacks! They should have plenty of talent to not have to resort to such tactics.
I'm sure CBF knew they were pissing in the wind, but that a large number of their fans did not. It was a PR, "We're standing by our guys" move.
well, that´s what I thought, but it obviously is different from AremRed's interpretation. It´s USUALLY a yellow card, but it IS up to the referees discretion if the player was aware or not of what he was doing. Otherwise, it would allow a keeper to on purpose, go behind a player leaving the box and kick the ball at him and the referee would give the player the yellow card. Well, that is obviously absurd and wouldn´t happen (unless the referee didn´t see it, which is also a possibility). There must be INTENT on commiting the anti-sporting behaviour of blocking the keeper's ball reposition.
Maybe, but on some matters it is, in fact, part of the analysis.* Most obviously, tactical fouls: tactical fouls, per IFAB interpretation, occur when done "for the purpose of" stopping the promising attack. We can quibble with whether purpose and intent are exact synonyms, but they're awfully close. But we don't judge by being mind readers, but by observing the behavior that takes place. In blocking the GKs release of the ball there are two questions. The first is, "did it happen?" If the answer to that is "yes," then it's a foul -- the foul requires nothing more than an occurence of interference. The second is "did something about the interference make it unsporting behavior?" Like tactical fouls, reckless fouls, and deliberate handling, this is ITOOTR. If, ITOOTR, it was inadvertant, no caution is needed. If, however, ITOOTR, it was more than that, the referee will likely consider it unsporting and issue a caution. ______________ *As an aside, until the great re-write, all penal fouls were fouls only if, ITOOTR, they were intentional.
Please note that "blocking the ball" is not what is illegal per the LOTG. The language which one must consider is "preventing the GK from releasing the ball from his hands." A GK doing as you write and kicking the ball into an opponent is not a foul by the opponent because the ball has been released. Note: Releasing it from his hands is not considered to have occurred during a punt until after the ball has been kicked.
as far as I understand, even after the goalkeeper "released" the ball, there is a certain amount of space the ball must "travel" before it´s considered as released. it´s clear in this video the keeper "releases the ball". In the short space of time when the ball is falling for him to kick, Thiago Silva hits the ball FIRST with his belly. I guess at the midfield that would be considered a clean tackle. But not against the goalkeeper. Someone said early it was a concensus here at refereeing forum there should be an imaginary circle of protection on the referee. so, how far must a player be from the goalkeeper, for him to be able a goalkeeper shot and not get a yellow? If the player is outside the box and the goalkeeper inside the box, does this "imaginary space" around the goalkeeper extends beyond the box? If the goalkeeper is bumping the ball against the ground and picking it again with his hands, is another player allowed to "steal" the ball (if coming from behind) or is it considered to be on goalkeeper possession? I know that if the keeper puts the ball on the ground, then yes, it´s allowed (didn´t Eto'o scored a goal like that in the last Champions League? Coming from behind and stealing a ball the idiot goalkeeper had put on the ground?)
No. The keeper release includes the punt. The part where the ball is in the air between the keeper's hands and his foot is part of the release. The "bubble" is sufficient for the goalkeeper to complete his release in a natural playing manner without having to alter his release. No. Bouncing the ball off the grass or throwing it up to catch it again under control is part of the goalkeeper possession of the ball. Ball controlled between both hands, between one hand and any part of the goalkeeper's body, or between one hand and the ground is possession by the goalkeeper. Putting the ball down on the grass to kick it is not part of possession. Deflecting it and trying to catch it is not part of possession.
^^^^^too quick for me If the keeper is bouncing the ball they still are considered to have control of it. Per the I&G for Law 12, A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands for more than six seconds. A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball: • while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) • while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand • while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air
Ok. What player is OS in the clip you provided? Is it the player who challenges Luiz initially? Because, if it isn't then that's a good goal.
Silvia's play was something we would see from in a u13 boys game. Really dumb and pretty much indefensible.