Review: The Penalty Non-Call (Edu)

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by ImaPuppy, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. orcrist

    orcrist Member+

    Jun 11, 2005
    Bay Area, California, USA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was waiting for someone to post something like this
  2. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    I think that in addition, the ref was clearly in view of Aquino. He likely thought that if anything Aquino fell because he kicked the ground.
  3. deejay

    deejay Member+

    Feb 14, 2000
    Tarpon Springs, FL
    Jorge Wilstermann
    Nat'l Team:
    That always seems to be the case with PK's. Refs always are more hesitant because the punishment of a goal seems so high. Legally speaking, any holding is always a direct kick. But when have we ever seen that called a penalty?
  4. Sam Hamwich

    Sam Hamwich BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 11, 2006
    In this regard the US fan base is hardened steel. We never get the call and we all know it. Two red cards in the Confed Cup for at best yellow card offenses? Phantom penalties and missed calles at the biggest stage in 2006 and 2010 and 2002?

    I can say that we as a group, perhaps like no other, can roll with it.
  5. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    So, to those who claim it was not a penalty because the ball was mishit before the foul, does that mean that players can just wait for the ball to leave a player and then clatter all over them with impunity anytime? Or are they only allowed to run down opposing players after they make a bad pass?
  6. Crimen y Castigo

    May 18, 2004
    Los Angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    To be clear: I'm tickled as f/ck about the non-call.
    cleansheetbsc repped this.
  7. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I saw this too, and I think (and said as much in another thread) that because of the lateness and the scissor, this would have been a fairly easy yellow card if it happened at midfield.
    SPA2TACU5 repped this.
  8. Stan Collins

    Stan Collins Member+

    Feb 26, 1999
    Silver Spring, MD
    Except the player clearly initiated that contact by rearing back 180 degrees as if he were using a pitching wedge. It would be awfully hard to foul a player's foot with your inner thigh. . .
  9. NMMatt

    NMMatt Member+

    Apr 5, 2006
    I'd be pissed if it were the other way around. I mean you take someone out from behind and it's a foul and probably a yellow card as well, regardless of where the ball was at the exact moment of the foul. It's a foul in the box so it's a penalty.

    The fact that the shot may well have been flubbed even if Edu was nowhere near the play, makes his decision to go all in from behind even more questionable.
  10. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Hell, don't even go back that far. Michael Bradley non-call at Antigua and Barbuda.
  11. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    It was a really poorly timed tackle - what good is a lunge behind a player? In that case if you risk any contact at all you shoulder challenge and hope to throw off the shooters timing/balance just enough. We got lucky - but as many others have pointed out, we probably have a karmic credit or two. That was not a pretty tackle however. If it were me or my team I'd be very angry about coming through a leg like that.
  12. canchon

    canchon Member

    Aug 22, 2008
    Sao Paulo FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No reason to miss that! It's only late in the 2nd half of a high-pressure game that you must win, in front of 100,000 fans who have turned on you, plus you can feel a defender closing in. No reason to shank that.
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    As I see it Edu makes a slight contact that makes Aquino miss the shot and then he body checks him after the shank.

    In Spain that is a PK, in England not so much.

    Also the two hands on the back of Hernandez and then Chicharo dives forward, as a defender when you put your hands on a player like that you are just asking for the ref (lineman) to call a foul.

    I think the diving helped the USA get a way with two PKs (the ref did not like the "exaggerations" IMO).

    It happens refs make bad calls it is part of the game.

    What this dude said, to me it is a PK (not an easy call for sure);
  14. Bolivianfuego

    Bolivianfuego Your favorite Bolivian

    Apr 12, 2004
    Fairfax, Va
    Bolivar La Paz
    Nat'l Team:
    I still don't see how edu caused him to miss the shot? He hit the ground (his foot) before Edu touched him! This is the reason why he missed the shot. Even if Edu didn't touch him, he still was going to kick the gruond and make a fool of himself lol
  15. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see a slight contact on top before he kicks the ground, but again this is slow and seeing it a bunch of times, so really it is really hard to call that.

    So the question is should there have been a foul after the player kicked the ground and Edu knocked him down or does the ref think it was the kicking of the ground that caused the fall.

    The ref saw #2 but awarded a corner kick because of the slight contact (or he was under the impression that Edu got part of the ball).
    Bolivianfuego repped this.
  16. Tony in Quakeland

    Jan 27, 2003
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Man, this is getting to be like a Rorschach test.

    I certainly thought live it was a penalty. The clip casts enough doubt that I can see why the ref went the other way, especially if he was looking at the shooting foot. It's a fair argument to make that the ball was on its way wide before Edu made contact. The issue is when the contact happened. When I look at it, I think the contact comes against Edu's thigh, which it means the shot was onits way already and he had no further chance to play the ball. You see contact earlier. And without an angle from straight on, we'll never be able to tell.

    But I think everyone can agree that:

    1. As US fans, we really couldn't complain if the call went against us. It was too close.
    2. The ref made a reasonable call on a bang-bang play
    3. The ref has brass cajones, since this was in Azteca.
    4. It was a risky, dangerous play by Edu

    There are probably more arguments to be made about 4 than anything else. Some would argue that Edu took a last ditch risk to break up what looked like a certain goal. But to me, Edu several times during the game stood flat footed when the action got behind him, covered no one and reacted late. I don't remember where he was on this specific play, but he had enough late arrivals during the game for me to think this was probably another one.
    Guinho, canchon, orcrist and 1 other person repped this.
  17. Ghosting

    Ghosting Member+

    Aug 20, 2004
    Pendleton, OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There is no way the first play was a PK. That would have been a bad call (but, obviously, calls like that do get made occassionally). So say that that one has a 10% chance of getting called.

    I'd say that the Edu play was just the opposite. It should have been called a PK and probably would be 90% of the time.

    That said... it wasn't a "horror" tackle, and I don't feel the least bit bad about the US getting that break. As others have said, it's all part of the game, and we've had plenty of those calls go against us.
  18. Gamecock14

    Gamecock14 Member+

    May 27, 2010
    Chicago Fire
    I think Edu did not really foul Aquino, but it will probably be called 8/10 times. I think the referee didnt make calls when the players exaggerated going down and that benefited the US.
    Guinho, Bolivianfuego and Ghosting repped this.
  19. Bajoro

    Bajoro Member+

    Sep 10, 2000
    The Inland Empire
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hypothetically, if I'm running behind my mark, then he inexplicably collapses in front of me, then I bowl over him, that may not be a foul on me. It's more like obstruction on him, but not really... It's a no-call, just as we saw. (Just hypothetically. I love being hypothetical when it benefits the US.)

  20. Chastaen

    Chastaen Member

    Jul 9, 2004
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Aston Villa FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was mulling the same thing over in my head. There were a few times a Mexican player went to the ground begging for the call, in this instance the player 'assumes the position' so instead of seeing a legitimate play the official is thinking it is yet another attempt to gain the call thru simulation.
  21. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United
    Aug 3, 2000
    Raleigh, NC
    Real Madrid
    This should have been a penalty, folks. There isn't any gray here. We got away with one. First, it's clear that the referee thought that Edu got the ball (he didn't). He called for a corner kick. Secondly, I don't think the referee saw that Edu took the player's right leg out. Things just happened really fast.

    Many people, though earnest in their views, don't understand the rules, and make up their own criteria for determining whether this was penalty, using reasons that are not in the rules. You simply cannot do what Edu did. The rules don't allow it. You cannot tackle a player from behind, taking out their supporting leg. If the referee saw the slo-mo replay, there is little doubt that he would have called for a penalty.

    Things that have no relevance in the decision making:
    (1) Aquino kicked the ground.
    (2) Aquino kicked the ball before he was fouled.
    (3) Edu's tackle had no impact on the play.
    (4) The ball had already gone away from the players.
    raza_rebel, Ghosting and SPA2TACU5 repped this.
  22. dban

    dban Member

    May 20, 2003
    PhillyBurbs - Delawareside
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But you know that the refs don't call the game strictly by the way the rules are written.

    I beleive the ref said to himself "Did Edu's challenge cause Aquino to miss". I think his answer was no, thus no penalty.
  23. SPA2TACU5

    SPA2TACU5 Member+

    Jul 27, 2001
    The ref didn't see Aquino miss. He saw Edu tackle the ball. Hence the corner kick.

    Even then it should've been a penalty kick.
    It was a bad call for a number of reasons.
    Ghosting repped this.
  24. pwoblo

    pwoblo Member

    Mar 6, 2006
    Jeez you guys are ruthless... I admit, I was wrong in saying "players at that level never miss by that much."

    What I meant to say is, in that particular situation, with the ball rolling slowly and the shooter fairly well balanced and not at top speed, I can't see a strong professional player just kicking the turf 2 feet in front of the ball like that without contact.

    To be fair, almost every one of those blooper misses in that video come from the ball hopping up at the last second, not someone kicking the ground. And yes... pros do kick the turf before the ball sometimes, but almost never when they're well balanced (and without contact).
  25. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    It's a little before my time, but it seems like I've heard/read that the prematurely shortened career of Van Basten is what prompted the change in the pov on tackles from behind.

Share This Page