From the Baku (Azerbaijan) - Levski Sofia (Bulgaria) game - third qualifying round (Champions League): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z2lSax9Zt8"]YouTube - baku levski highligths[/ame] (1:43-2:09) Seemed like a clearcut penalty to me, but the Norwegian referee did not call a foul. The defender who committed the infraction was already on a yellow, btw. It seems to me that the ref was distracted due to the seriousness of the injury to the Brazilian forward. In addition, the Azeri players did not really seem to appeal for a penalty, which is commendable, as their primary concern was probably their teammate's health. Still, the non-call looked like the wrong decision to me. Should the defender have been shown a straight red for dangerous foul play?
It looked like both referees were shielded from the kick - as were most of the the teammates. Definitely a missed PK.
Good point, very difficult to properly gauge the situation..the defender did his best not to appear guilty of an infraction...
sure looked like the defender kicked the attacker in the head but the referee was shielded from the play
As others have said, the referee had to have been shielded. There's just no way he saw that contact and thought it was no call. In fact, I imagine that the minute he realized the true nature of the injury, he felt guilty about the no-call. You are correct when you point out there isn't much of a penalty appeal (there is one from a player in the lower right part of the screen as an initial reaction, though). But when faced with a serious injury to a teammate, players tend to forget the penalty appeal--especially when there's an honest attempt at the ball. Players tend to view the foot-to-head contact as more of a freak accident--witness the John Terry incident several years ago, which on the merits was almost surely a penalty, but one that Chelsea players didn't appeal for. In fact, the play was somewhat similar to this one. To answer your question, it would be a penalty for "kicking an opponent" rather than "dangerous play" (which would only be an indirect free kick). I'm sure some would debate the color of the card based on the nature of the foul--either red for serious foul play or yellow for reckless (unsporting) play. But in this case it would be a moot point because the foul is also a clear DOGSO scenario. In short, the way the misconduct is written up would only affect the punishment, because no matter which way you look at it the player would have been sent off.