MOre than incidental contact, that is with misjudged strength or force. The LOTG don't call for calling every contact. This is a quote from the USSF Advice to Referees A lot depends on whether from the referee's vantage point, he saw Edu's lunging right leg making contact with Aquino. If he planted his leg well to the right of Aquino and didn't "take out" Aquino's right leg, then there's not much foul to call. Aquino tangled his foot with Edu's trailing leg, kicked the ground and pitched over. If that's what the referee saw, then the non-call is the correct one. Like everyone else, I think Edu was courting disaster here, and like some, I do not feel I have a good enough view to know what the referee actually saw from his (excellent) vantage point.
I don't have the time to reply right now, but I will say quoting from a USSF Advice to Referees document is completely irrelevant to this case, as the referee in casu had nothing to do with USSF. (Would explain a lot though if he was a USSF ref )
Well, it's a much more authoritative source for interpreting the LOTG than the random musings of non-referees who don't have a sense of how they are applied. FIFA's materials aren't that different: Again, it requires more than incidental contact, but that the action be taken in a way that evince a lack of caution or attention. DOesn't change the analysis: if Edu's leg was sufficiently to the outside of Aquino and Aquino bumped into Edu's trailing leg on his backswing, that's not a careless challenge, but rather incidental contact.
Good, so you've finally found FIFA's Interpretation of the LOTG. You're saying a sliding tackle from behind with the trailing leg hitting and then taking down the opponent with both the trailing leg and the tackling leg, is "incidental contact" and there's no 'lack of of attention or consideration'? Edu's sliding tackle is not only a prime example of being 'Careless', it's an example of a 'Reckless' play as well. So not only did this referee from his "excellent vantage point" incorrectly observe Edu playing the ball, he also completely disregarded FIFA's official Interpretation of the LOTG. Not to mention the fact that this could just as well serve as an example of DOGSO (sending-off). But this would be debatable. About the only thing that's debatable in this whole play. All of the other decisions by this referee in this play were huge mistakes. And for the guy who's claiming stuff like this: 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 The "careless" part means that any type of the above actions judged to be 'carelessly' executed by a player is an offense and should be awarded with a direct free-kick (penalty kick in casu Bradley). That is: pushing an opponent over (in your own box) is obviously an act showing a lack of attention/consideration. It does not have to be "reckless"; whether "any advantage was gained" or if it's "mini" doesn't matter according to the LOTG. This is not my interpretation - as you seem to think; this is simply applying the LOTG and FIFA's Interpretation of the LOTG. This is why I am posting the LOTG: most of you simply make up your own rules. Of course if you want to claim that Bradley was not pushing his opponent, now that's a whole another debate. But that's as stupid as claiming that Edu did in fact touch the ball when he tried to stop Aquino.
Oh boy! Advantage had everything to do with Bradley's push. From Interpretation of the Laws of the Game - Law 12 In no way is a careless play a serious foul. The ref was correct in waiting to see if Mexico maintained advantage in the play. Which they did since Gio was teeing up a shot at that moment. Even the rebound from the shot was in Mexican possession two seconds later.
Boy, when you get stuff wrong, you don't mess around. Ultimately this post really marks you out as more of a troll and fundamentally unserious, I'm afraid. If there'd been a sliding tackle from behind in which the defender hit the attacker with the tackling and trailing lef, you'd have a case. Since that didn't happen (Edu did not in fact leave his feet), well, you don't. But don't stop there! Oh no! I mean, I'm a little surprised you don't advocate for the death penalty for the shiv Edu slipped into Aquino's ribs, as long as we're imaging all sorts of things that didn't seem to happen. Well, of course, since there were four defenders and the keeper between Aquino and the goal, it seems like you need to refresh your memory on "obvious goal scoring opportunity" to boot. Oh, and reckless is the standard for a yellow, not a red. That's "excessive force." what does Bradley have to do with this at all? Nothing, but that's o.k. I think that was someone else. That wasn't a PK, either, but whatevs. Umm, since you are imagining contact that neither you nor the ref saw, yep, you are pretty much making up your own interpretations. I'm not claiming that Edu got the ball at all. I'm claiming that it appears that there was likely nowhere near enough contact to constitute a careless foul (oh, and if you knew the laws of the game, you'd understand why getting the ball or not doesn't much matter here, too), which is entirely different. The issue has been always that from the video and the subsequent call from a well positioned referee that it is not at all clear that Edu made any contact with the tackling leg but rather that Aquino hit the turf after kicking Edu's trailing leg as Edu made an otherwise clean attempt to block the shot.
I went I found a video of the first fifteen minutes of the game. The play starts at the 11:50 mark. I can't find any clue on the ref's thinking at all. He may have forgotten to call advantage, he may have not noticed the foul because he was looking at Gio. At the 12:01 mark he raises his hands as if calling to an advantage for Mexico which makes no sense since at that moment the ball is still being fought for. Maybe he had only just finished processing the previous play? I did make one mistake though, the ball was in Mexican possession five seconds after the rebound. Oops!
1) Open Interpretation of the Laws of the Game - Law 12. (Hey it's a fifa.com link! Huzza!) 2) Search for "serious foul". 3) Notice that you are immediately taken to a whole page discussing serious fouls. 4) Review the part on when to apply advantage 5) Do penance
This is nowhere in the LOTG. I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say here. So you're actually saying that Edu's tackle had possibly nothing to do with Aquino falling over and missing a very good opportunity to score??!
You're confused. A 'serious foul' is a sending off offence for use of excessive force or brutality. Michael Bradley's push is not this.
Well, at least you get it by the third try. Yes, I said one clear possibility is that the referee, who was closer than you and had a better angle saw 1) Aquino's backswing hit Edu and subsequently went into the ground pitching him forward and 2) a tackle to Aquino's right *that actually did not make contact with Aquino* and concluded from those two facts that there was no foul. You entire theory is predicated on a contact that we precisely cannot see from the angles we have. Did Edu's right leg contact Aquino and cause him to fall or was it cleanly past Aquino and Aquino subsequently fell into him? The first is a PK, the second is not. If we had an angle from the far corner, we would have a better sense In other words, the video is equivocal on a key point: did Edu's right leg hit Aquino? If not, the call is good. Oh, and go read the LOTG again. You need a refresher
No SPA2TACU5 you are confused. You are also not admitting everything you got wrong. You said that advantage is not something taken into account in fouls. It is. As mentioned in the Interpretation of LOTG advantage is not taken into account in serious fouls only. Finally, you also said that there is no such thing as serious fouls. Listen the point is that Bradley's push is not something that should be called if Mexico keep advantage.
This is too dumb to waste more time on. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Referee_Mark_Geiger_advantage.jpg Bye.
There's your interpretation man. You said the Bradley push was a penalty. You said that "any advantage was gained" doesn't matter. You said that careless or reckless doesn't matter. In reality, advantage is taken into consideration unless it's a serious foul. The ref did not call on the Bradley push since it was not a serious foul and Mexico kept advantage.