Well, in truth, if the ball is out of play, it is not a foul. It can be a sanction - card for instance - but it cannot be a foul. At the same time, all careless tripping, hitting, charging etc. is not required to be called. It can be considered trifling in the judgement of the ref (why most shit tugs are not called, for instance. Untucking a shirt is not a game changing event. That said, I think Edu was very lucky not to get called there. That was a rash and unwise challenge poorly timed. It was always going to be ugly - even if legal - and always risked a call (btw, I do not think it was legal. It was certainly careless.)
If I were in charge of the rules, I would change the rule for penalties such that a penalty from the spot is called when a player is fouled in the box and denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. I'd come up with some other remedy for when a player is fouled in the box without a DOGSO. Until a rule change like that occurs, we'll continue to see ref nullification, where refs ignore the rules to preserve the integrity of the outcome. That doesn't trouble me.
In your new scenario, wouldn't the same ref nullification problem exist? Given the "out" of two different types of remedies, wouldn't we be likely to see refs give the minor non pk remedy more often than not for instances which DOGSO was present? Sort of like how when a foul occurs right inside or near the box, refs seem to almost always call them as outside the box.
Maybe, but I think refs have little problem calling a penalty when they think a true goal scoring opportunity was denied by a foul. Edit- I actually think your inside outside the box dilemma is related to the same problem I identified. They call it outside the box because the don't think the foul was a DOGSO.
And we do seem to get calls against Canada. But in the WC we get some terrible calls against and they never seem to even out.
Neither the Edu tackle nor the Bradley 'push' were lucky non-calls. Refs increasingly swallow the whistles in those types of scenarios. The defender is foolish to not take the chance. I'm watching the Bayern-Juventus. An attacker gets impeded in the area--and he gets called for the dive on what at worse should have been a non-call. Blatant hand balls. Slide tackles that collide into the attacker. Not too much else gets called in the box.
Both calls are in the opinion of the Ref. With regard to the Bradley call I don't see a penalty in any way. Originally, you were never allowed to put your palm on a player. Now, FIFA indicates that the use of hands in the game is natural. It becomes a direct kick if the play is reckless, etc. I just don't see any way that Bradley's little mini shove was reckless or that there was any advantage gained. The Edu call was much more on the borderline. I believe here everything has to do with the position you watch the play from. The referee was on Aquino's side of the play and probably was watching him kick the turf so from his vantage point it was just a player succumbing to the laws of physics. Apparently he also saw Edu block the ball, which was not the case. On Edu's side we see a bit of a risky play where Edu is too close to Aquino and may have impeded him. Was it a stone cold penalty? No. Was it a callable penalty? Yes. But, most of the evidence for this was hidden from the ref's vantage point. Would the ref have called a penalty if he had a better view? Maybe, maybe not. I think most ref's are loathe to call a penalty unless a semi decent scoring chance was denied.
They're all callable penalties. The trend is the refs don't call them, or they simply call a narrower range than what they once did.
Take for example the sliding tackle in the box that misses ball and impedes the attacker but doesn't collide into the attacker. That used to be a pk as in Italy vs Australia in '06. Now if the attacker goes down that ref whips out the yellow for diving. That pk against Gooch in '06? Now that Ghana player would get a yellow smacked upside his head.
Watching the RSL highlights...an RSL player gets tripped form behind in the box plain as day... yellow! diving! Titi, what have you wrought!
For what it's worth, I am not arguing that the ref could not have called it a pk. I think Edu got VERY lucky that the ref didn't. But I also see that it within the realm of possibilities that the ref saw something to indicate it was not a penalty, and was not merely swallowing the whistle on a blatant foul. In other words, I think the ref could have called it, but the fact that he did not is not totally egregious to me. FWIW.
I have no clue what youre on about. Here, learn something about the LOTG: A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: • kicks or attempts to kick an opponent • trips or attempts to trip an opponent • jumps at an opponent • charges an opponent • strikes or attempts to strike an opponent • pushes an opponent • tackles an opponent A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences: • holds an opponent • spits at an opponent • handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
Which the ref promptly made up by imagining an arm growing out of Berhalter's forehead. (Or, if you want to be more charitable, imagining that he headed the ball down onto his arm and this was somehow in instance of deliberately handling the ball.)
No, that was barely a touch at all, certainly not anything either careless or reckless. His leg is well to the inside of Aquino. The ref was perfectly positioned for this, which is why he got it right
From that angle one can't see particularly well if there was anything more than trifling contact. Aquino pitches forward on the muffed shot, it appears. Was there careless contact by Edu on a player already ptotching forward on his own? Maybe but the ref was better positioned than the camera
Not if they are diving. Kicking the ground to pitch forward is one method However as has been pointed out the laws aren't that any contact is a foul. I can't tell if or how much contact Edu makes with Aquino. It looks as much like Edu was lunging to the outside past Aquino to block the shot, and a quinoa back swing hits Edu's trailing leg enough to screw him up. If so Edu knew nothing about it and cannot be said to trip a player who kicks him rather than the other way around. As I've said, the ref had a better angle than any of the cameras
This analysis only makes sense if Edu's right leg made careless contact with Aquino. I don't think you can tell from this video. For all we know the ref saw Aquinos foot hit Edu and Aquino go down with no further involvement from Edu. Sure, if Edu actually lunged into Aquino, then it's a PK. Not sure that's what happened though. Getting the ball or not isn't relevant here, I'd agree
I was watching the Seattle/Santos game last night, and there was a play where Herculez Gomez had the ball toward the upper corner of the box, with a defender closing in on him from behind him fast. He got the shot off, and then the defender barreled into him. The shot went wide, and was actually out of play by the time the defender got him. No one even discussed whether it was a penalty. Gomez did not get up searching for one. The commentators never discussed it. But it was a very similar play to what happened at Azteca (although to be fair, Edu was closer to Aquino then the defender was to Gomez last night at the time of the shot).