Rocchi gave a penalty for a tug in the penalty area after an OFR today during Bologna-Juventus. Pretty run of the mill grappling in the box, nothing out of order for me. Absolutely was not a clear and obvious error, and was thoroughly surprised the VAR sent it down. Play is at 0:41 of this Such a strange VAR intervention in fact I’m inclined to believe somehow I’m missing something!
It's a blatant shirt pull. He reaches out and stretches his jersey almost a full yard. I love to be a VAR critic, but what are we really criticizing here? Don't we want the presence of VAR to dissuade this sort of cynical fouling? If VAR never calls this, then it's never going to get curbed. More to the point, perhaps, I know in MLS that a shirt/pull hold enters the "clearly wrong" or "missed incident" realm if it's committed against the player who is in the drop zone. I suspect it's the same in Serie A. So, no, not every single shirt pull or grappling on a corner kick is going to get called a penalty. But look at which player gets fouled here and look where the ball lands. That's why this is a VAR intervention. Think of it as a three-pronged formula: 1) Blatant foul 2) In the drop zone 3) Referee affirms he didn't see it If you check those three boxes, it's getting sent down. Except in England, of course, where this would never be given.
Any opinions on the penalty at 2:23 here withstanding the scrutiny of a VAR check? The frames from 2:32-34 or so tell a different story to me.
I think it’s difficult for VAR to overturn a penalty decision when in fact there is contact (even if the contact was created by the attacker) In this case, Fabbri mouthed “l’ha preso” (he got him) in reference to the GK. Which in fact ... is true. I don’t think this is a penalty, but I would wager that the non-VAR intervention is due to the fact that contact does indeed exist. I read elsewhere that VAR’s can’t consider events where contact does actually occur as clear and obvious errors. That is to say, this could have been called down had there been NO contact between attacker and goalkeeper. But since contact exists, there isn’t enough evidence to overturn decision.
posted this under what is the restart, but I thought I would post this here also. so this happened. check out at about 2.05 from this clip. I was watching the game and the whistle did blow before the player pulled up and didnt take the kick https://highlightsfootball.net/video/hellas-verona-vs-parma-highlights/ watched 3 games yesterday. got to watch rocchi award 3 pks, - all legit.
you really think the 2nd one is a penalty from Rocchi? I don’t. And I barely think the 3rd one is either. as for the clip you shared, it’s an interesting situation but per my understanding correctly dealt with by Valeri with a re-kick and not an IFK.
Third one seemed less of a penalty than the second. The second one had me looking closely over and over, but the outstretched right leg was pretty bad, so it was defensible even if not always given. I truly just didn't see the foul on the third one.
Hey - I’m a big Rocchi fan too! I usually look for ways to defend my favorite referees, but neither Penalty #2 or #3 are fouls I expect to be given at the professional level.
While I sort of agree with you, here's my quibble: of all referees, I actually DO expect Rocchi to give the second one. It's an ugly challenge that gets a lot of ball, but also takes man. It's a foul any place else on the field and probably should be a yellow card. It's one of those that is never a penalty in England, but if any top-level referee is going to give that regularly, it's Rocchi. So I guess what I would say is that if you're a big Rocchi fan, #2 shouldn't surprise you. But yes, #3 seemed just soft bordering on non-existent. I think Rocchi had a bad angle and there was just enough there to prevent a VAR intervention.
Agreed, but can understand no intervention. It also may have been offside though with the ODP player preventing the defender from challenging
I only saw the 2nd penalty given to Juventus in the match with Atalanta. I don't understand the ESPN match announcers. this was a stone cold penalty. the players arm was extended quite a way out from his body and they are saying this should not be called. I don't understand this at all, the hand ball rule has been called consistently in every match I've seen.
I wasn’t watching the ESPN broadcast so don’t know what they were saying. The second penalty, as you say, was stone cold. did you see the first penalty? Much more dubious. I think harsh, but given Giacomelli called it on the field unlikely to be considered a clear and obvious error.
Only the 2nd. I forgot about the match and only saw the final 15 minutes. The ESPN announcers were arguing that it was a weak penalty and shouldn't have been called. It was strictly in keeping with the current rules as the arm was way out from the body.
Genoa (who I like) has been in unusual situations. On Sunday, they had a player not get seen giving an obscene finger gesture. What (if anything) does the LOTG say about obscene gestures? I don't know if VAR has ever reviewed to find an obscene gesture, but "using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures" is a sending-off offense in the LOTG, so if an opponent tells the referee that an obscene gesture wasn't seen, should it be looked at by VAR? When the four categories for VAR of goals, penalty kicks, red cards, and mistaken identity are defined, are there any more words, such as to differentiate between possible red cards during play and possible red cards while the ball is not in play? Today at the end of the first half, a Genoa player collided with the goalkeeper, a foul wasn't called, and Genoa scored. The announcers said it's called a foul nine out of ten times. It's always a foul to knock the ball loose from the goalkeeper. In this case, the goalkeeper never had control of the ball, but it could still be a foul. VAR reviewed it, and it turned out that the announcers didn't know what was being reviewed. The goal was disallowed, and then they showed that a foul wasn't called and the goal was disallowed because Romero, who made contact with the goalkeeper, was a tiny bit offside, which I agree with. In terms of being a tiny bit offside, it was similar to what I recently posted about in the Premier League topic.
A very poor offside call by the AR that was then overturned by the VAR. The replay at 0:40 shows the attacker in question was behind four defenders.
It would seem the AR thought there was a second touch at the point the attacker (the one who played the ball forward on the decision in question) sort of ducks down in a jerking fashion after moving forward. AR probably thought he headed the ball at that point. If you consider that (utterly imaginary) touch the actual point a decision needs to be made, the player in question would have either been offside or barely held on by the defender in the goal area. Long way of saying it's a more understandable miss than it seems, because you're right that four defenders keep him on (and all four are closer to goal by at least full body length--he's not even with any of them). One of those situations where everyone is happy to have VAR.
Rocchi has retired after the Juventus - Roma game to end the league. http://www.sportmediaset.mediaset.it/calcio/arbitri-rocchi-saluta-chiudo-al-momento-giusto-con-var-c-pi-giustizia_21412633-202002a.shtml We will miss him.
This should be a drop ball to Roma at the edge of the box, not a penalty right? The ball clearly hits the ref which sets up the shot (sequence starts at 3:10).
An interesting test case. By the letter of the Law, it's actually not necessarily a dropped ball. For it to be a dropped ball, possession would have to change (it didn't), the ball would have to go directly into goal (it didn't), or a team would have to start a promising attack from the touch off the referee. So everything comes down to that word "start." Since this is all still relatively new, I am actually not familiar with what the powers that be are teaching around "starting an attack" at the FIFA level. Based on limited observation so far, I think that, yes, a lot of professional-level referees have been erring on the side of caution and going to a dropped ball almost whenever it touches them. But the referee didn't even think about it here, so you've got to believe there's been some more detailed instruction around it in Serie A. In this case, the decision appears to be that Roma was already in the midst of their attack and, therefore, the touch off the referee does not necessitate a dropped ball. The counterargument, of course, is that the touch off the referee led to a more promising attack. But, that's not how the Law was written.
A nice tribute to Rocchi at the end. I understand Orsato volunteered to serve as 4th for this match. https://streamable.com/nit9xi
That was great and really cool of Juve and Roma. Also, Rocchi had to bring out the red card one last time! I'm guessing somebody in that celebration must have made a similar joke!
The intent, based on the change comments, is that a promising attack be created or continued because of the touch of the referee. So, yes, by the way the book is worded... continue, by the intent, drop that ball.
All the more suiting given Rocchi hadn’t refereed Juventus-Roma since 2014 in one of the most controversial games of the last decade. I can try to find highlights for those interested. Well deserved tribute to one of the best! Ciao Gianluca!