I haven't decided what I think yet, but I think you're all misunderstanding what Andy is saying. He's saying that what Tillman did was reckless and would have been a foul if he had brought madueke down, but madueke wasn't forced down by Tillman, instead he looked for contact and put himself down. In other words, Andy Is politely accusing Madueke of diving despite there being, in Andy's mind, some (minimal) contact. To be fair to that view, I read an article (can't find it now) where Madueke was quoted as saying that he "felt contact and went down" which could be interpreted as being fouled but also could be interpreted as doing exactly what Andy is alleging.
Oh, I get what he's saying. It's just maddening that such analysis never takes into account how the players got there and almost never why the player opted to go down. It's just "well, that foul wasn't actually going to naturally take him down" while completely glossing over the word "foul" (actually, typically refusing to use it) and ignoring literally everything else relative to the overall incident. I'm stipulating he went down easily and, ultimately, perhaps unnaturally. But prior to that point, he played the sport better than his opponent, created a great attacking opportunity, and received contact from his opponent that didn't get the ball and negatively affected said attacking opportunity. I take that in totality and say "obvious penalty." Some people--too many, I think--just focus on the fall and say things like "never a penalty." There are situations where attackers go down easily under minimal and trifling contact because they (the attacker) have misplayed the ball or screwed up. This isn't one of them. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
I guess I disagree with you that one is entitled to a penalty because someone out-skilled a defender in a way where there was trifling contact. I think the attacker still has the burden of trying to play soccer, and when he stops playing soccer in the absence of a foul, we shouldn't reward it by upgrading something that isn't a foul to a foul. To be clear, that doesn't answer the question of whether this is a foul (although your stipulation gets pretty close). And I don't believe that an attacker has a duty to actively avoid a foul (although I do believe he has a duty not to go out of his way to get fouled). One other edit - you say that the slide tackled negatively affected madueke, and I'm not sure did, and Andy seems to think it didn't, and that might be where the actual difference of opinion might be.
I mean, those sentences contradict each other. The second sentence means that the referee himself cares about Madueke's dive. And not in a "I'm gonna whip out a YC for simulation" way, but in a "nice dive, that makes it a penalty I wouldn't otherwise give" way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the soccer public (lots of referees and non-referees alike) feel uncomfortable about that. I do see the argument you're making about the impact the contact might have had on the attacker's ability to control the ball. But the ball is still at his feet, and if he really has to sell it so badly to draw the call, I'm much more comfortable calling this contact trifling than I am rewarding an attacker for a dive that's almost blatant enough to warrant a simulation YC on its own merit.
But I didn't say that. I never said the contact was trifling (in fact, I said it was "clear and significant"). Nor was being skillful a stand-alone component I cited. And, to really drill down, I didn't say "entitled"; in fact, I think the use of that work shows exactly where some of the unfortunate biases are when plays like this get analyzed. Again, if you're being responsive to me directly you're stealing a base (admittedly, your next paragraph is ambivalent about it being a foul or not, so maybe you're not saying I think it's not a foul, though the use of "trifling" above suggests you are). Regardless, I am saying it's a foul. I'm not saying we're upgrading a non-foul. I think it's a clear foul. It's like definitionally a foul at this level. A defender is beat, goes to ground out of desperation, misses the ball, and disavantages his opponent with contact. It's a careless trip. Okay, maybe if everything happened naturally, the attacker would stumble rather than trip. But he'd still lose the ball and cede his dangerous attacking opportunity. Because he doesn't naturally trip and fall all the way to ground, the defender gets a get-out-of-jail free card? Again, I truly don't understand the philosophy that wants the defender's action to go unpunished here. Maybe. But I don't see how anyone who has played or been around the game can truly say that action from a defender in that situation doesn't seriously disadavantage the attacker. Unless they're a card-carrying member of the defenders' union.
No they don't. They only do if you ignore the word "unnaturally" and, well, strip out the context of what I'm saying. It matters if he goes down or not. That's the point. If he doesn't go down, he doesn't get the penalty he's rightfully earned/won, etc. My point is who cares if he goes down unnaturally if the conditions for a foul are satisfied and clear. No, it doesn't. It makes it a foul in a "thanks for going to ground to sell this penalty that I should be giving regardless, but we all know most referees are scared to do that." The very use of the word "dive" is perjorative as it is interchangeable with simulation in our vernacular. I want to meet the referee who is uncomfortable with this. Because this decades-old phenomenon is the result of referees not doing their jobs. I truly don't get it. I'm sorry. I'm with @soccerref69420 here. How people look at this play, see the totality of all of it, and want to find ways to excuse what the defender did here (I mean, he absolutely failed at all components of this play and then made contact with an attacker from behind when going to ground) is beyond me. But I also realize a lot of people hold this view. I just think it's unfortunate.
The man difference in our perspectives, I think, is how much we are weighing the actions of the defender against those of the attacker. I totally get your point about the real impact of the contact created by the defender. That is one compelling argument for awarding the penalty kick. However. The actions of the attacker are a much more compelling argument for not awarding the penalty. By your own admission, Meler, or any referee, would not have awarded a penalty if the attacker didn’t go down, didn’t embellish contact to try to draw a penalty. To award a penalty kick is to explicitly reward an attacker for diving! Or embellishment, or whatever word you prefer to use for it. This is a very compelling reason to not award a penalty kick! It does a disservice to the Game to reward (and therefore encourage) the attacker’s behavior, more so than allowing the defender to get away with a small but perhaps technically unfair contact in a genuine attempt to play the ball.
I'll say it again, because I've been consistent from the jump here. While it's not the reason to give a penalty, I just don't understand ignoring everything that happened to get to the point of contact. It's not just about the contact and the nature of the subsequent fall. I guess I'm imploring everyone to work on seeing the big picture in situations like this. Look at what the attacker did to get into that position, with the ball, after beating two players. He's passed his opponents with speed, entered the penalty area and is in a dangerous attacking opportunity with his marking opponent in a situation where he has to desperately go to ground. And that tackle doesn't get the ball. Anyone who starts analyzing this from the contact is only looking at a small portion of the story. Sure, if an attacker embellishes trifling or dubious contact when they have screwed up and are about to lose the ball or run into a defensive cul-de-sac, tell them to get up and wave play on. But that's not what this is. We should want to reward skillful attacking play and not make excuses for lazy defensive play. I just fundamentally and completely agree with the thinking that goes into this statement: 100% diameterically opposed to this. It does a disservice to not punish the unfair contact on a genuine attempt to play the ball that fails in a situation like this because the genuine nature of it shouldn't matter one lick. He's in a bad spot, with no options, because he got roasted and his opponent played the sport better than him. Tough luck that he misses the ball even though he tried. That's what a careless foul is and this is why they happen at this level (one player out-dueling the other). He's failed to play the ball and he made unfair contact that disadvantaged his opponent in a vital spot. This is way more of a deserving penalty than like 93.7% of handball penalties that we now say are stonewall. This restores an attacking opportunity that was created through skill and hard work.
I swear some of these incidents feel like I’m being gaslit. I mean some I can understand, but ones like this where the entire public seems to be against what I (and a few of us) think, I truly feel gaslit. Defender gets beat. Lunges hopefully at the ball from behind. Makes no contact with it and completely hits the attackers foot. This is a careless challenge trying to carelessly lunge and poke for the ball hoping to hit it. And because the attacker took a second to land his foot and go down, it means he’s diving… Also I don’t know if any of you follow referee channel on YouTube, the Swedish semipro ref, he has a lot of shorts going over his opinion of pro calls and did one on this. I like the stuff he posts and also his games he does he posts all his card he gives. He thinks the initial lunging contact is not a penalty, but that the second contact of the defender sliding into the foot IS penalty worthy. So I gotta say I disagree that the first contact isn't PK worthy on its own. https://youtube.com/shorts/yaxfweNodJE?si=UVDDqJ54-CdSdd_T
Yeah, I always look for his short videos on controversial decisions, as I think they're usually pretty insightful.
Right. And watching his game recordings he does of himself and making videos of every single card he gives is why my game card count went way up, whoops
Ideally, someone from each state office should do a one month webinar on plays of the month that were of interest from various pro matches, in ADDITION to the webinars they might do for "Offside", "Foul Recognition", etc. I admit it takes time and effort to put it together (and passion) and that's why it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. It would be more helpful than a Grassroots Referee hearing "that wasn't a foul" from Jamie Carragher in a post-match show.
https://streamff.com/v/87f99133 Really, letexier giving a SPA YC instead of DOGSO for this PK? Come on man
Elanga was pulled down either in or just outside the box literally 2 minutes before that (the referee deemed that the contact was too soft, though at that speed I'm not sure I agree), and there was no call. So from the referees original mind, both of them were originally too minimal a contact to call, and he was brought to var for only one of them. Not sure that plays into the decision - it shouldn't as a formal matter - but I can see that on the mind of the referee.
I can make the argument that there is doubt about controlling the ball on that cross such that it becomes SPA instead of DOGSO. But this is the kind of cynical foul DOGSO was created for. Sometimes we lose the Forrest for the trees. I’d really like to see instruction that in applying the considerations in Law 12, referees should also consider the cynical nature of a foul. (We sorta kinda got some of that with there not being DOGSO relief for holding fouls—but still it seems that refs work hard to justify yellow instead of red for any foul resulting in a PK.)
while the match is completely over, the referee just wiped out a 5th Liverpool goal for apparently no reason. Goalkeeper missed cross while under a very limited challenge. The call is rather baffling, is anyone else watching?
Look it's DOGSO and it should be DOGSO, but, for whatever reason, everyone just decided that being pulled down or dragged down while attempting to get reach a cross is not a red card. That's the explanation. I can't explain it or understand, but it's just reality. It's same reason why no one ever got a red card for handling a cross or corner kick in the as an attacker is about to head it into an empty goal.
Look, I think this is the answer and I'd go as far as to say that it should be the answer. Letexier, of all referees, isn't exactly the kind of guy to shirk from duty or avoid a controversial decisions by bending the rules beyond all recognition. If he looks at this and comes up with yellow, then there's something there for us to strongly consider. I mean, the attacker does fall three full yards away from where he would have needed to be to touch the ball (he's just outside the goal area; the ball is pretty much halfway between goal area and goal line). Three yards is a lot. Yes, you can make the argument that the hold was so strong and prolonged that it prevented him from moving three yards in the second it takes that ball to across the goal. It's not an unreasonable conclusion. But at this level, referees are now tasked with getting things 100% correct. If there's any serious doubt about controlling/possessing the ball, then yellow is the answer. You put a gun to my head on this and I would say the attacker either misses the ball or gets a flick of a touch on it (which may or may not go in the net, of course). Maybe that's still an OGSO for most, given proximity to goal, but the doubt over any touch is there and I think that's enough to say yellow.
I disagree a bit. I don’t disagree that the yellow is really what is expected, and I would have been very, very surprised if a red had been given. But I do feel that DOGSO has drifted too far from the original intent of stopping professional fouls. This was a deliberate, cynical hold by a defender who clearly knows he doing it in the PA. I’d submit the defender held the attacker because he thought it was an OGSO and this was the only way to stop the goal (and probably also because he thought he could get away with the hold).
Yes, but... the original quintessential OGSO foul (aside from handling) was always about fouling a player in possession of the ball on a "breakaway." Your submission is absolutely correct. But for whatever reason, as @RedStar91 alludes to, getting on the end of a cross was never really something that was contemplated when DOGSO was introduced. I actually think the mere fact that red cards for crossing situations like this are now contemplated means the drift has gone in the right direction, for whatever that's worth. I have a distinct memory of being at a USL-equiivalent match (I think it was "D3Pro" at the time) when an attacker with a wide open header on the back post received a two handed shove in the back clear as day. The referee was either already working semi-regularly in MLS or was about to be. Anyway, penalty was given but no red card. For obvious reasons, I asked about the lack of a red card. I got some some specific answers (can't be sure he'll get his head on it, goalkeeper might get across) but the gist was "we don't give red cards on crosses." Now, I've never actually heard that instruction anywhere. But the sentiment has been out there for some time.
Semifinal playoff assignments: Path A Italy : Northern Ireland - MAKKELIE (NED) Wales : Bosnia-Herzegovina - KOVACS (ROU) Path B Ukraine : Sweden - PINHEIRO (POR) Poland : Albania - TAYLOR (ENG) Path C Turkiye : Romania - LETEXIER (FRA) Slovakia : Kosovo - ESKAS (NOR) Path D Denmark : North Macedonia - ZWAYER (GER) Czechia : Republic of Ireland - NYBERG (SWE) So for the finals, it seems like you have Oliver, Vincic and Turpin as close to guarantees for three of the finals. And then either Mariani or one of the Spaniards on the last one. This all presumes Marciniak is out due to injury. Oliver almost has to be Path C. Wales/Northern Ireland rules out Path A. Ireland likely rules out Path D? And would you put both English referees on Path B? Oh and so far I'm 2 for 8... success, @Mikael_Referee ! Also, if not for injury with Marciniak I might have got 3 out of 4 of the final referees (and pretty close on the fourth).
Scharer is actually the other possibility for a final, which would be something if he sneaks in over Mariani and a Spanish official.