There was also this tackle which happened a few minutes before in the same^ game: https://streamff.com/v/aad71b8c
PINHEIRO in Austria MARCINIAK in Scotland MAKKELIE in Wales ZWAYER lands on Spain v Türkiye. MASSA gets Kosovo v Switzerland and MARIANI on Sweden v Slovenia, likely as a replacement (for Siebert?).
Just pitiful. And I blame instruction over the actual referees on this. Mostly. You can deliberately hack through someone's knee from behind with all the force in the world and it's reckless. But if you come at a contested ball from the front and your studs hit above the ankle, it's red, even if the contact is brief. The results-based refereeing is maddening. The focus on it is creating more robots without common sense. In this game we see it with the referee on this call and with the VAR on the prior clip (as, I'm quite certain, the mere presence of contact compelled the VAR to say the decision was acceptable even though it was rewarding cheating).
Looking slightly ahead to the playoff draw now that most teams are confirmed... There will be four pots. Pot 4 is the teams going in via Nations League (Romania, Sweden, Northern Ireland and Wales/North Macedonia). Pots 1 through 3 are then determined by FIFA rankings that come out Wednesday. Pot 1 plays Pot 4, Pot 2 plays Pot 3. Pots 1 and 2 seeded. The final home site is a blind draw and assigned to the winner of a semifinal. So any of the four teams could host the final but we'll know the two options ahead of time. If Denmark qualifies directly and Wales finishes second, there are a variety of ways you can get a combination of Scotland-Ireland-Wales in the first round, any of which would be interesting. Italy v Sweden could happen again, which would be a pretty massive match despite Sweden's overall form. Ukraine's path will be something to watch, too.
A sequence of events occurred in Malta vs Poland game which makes me question something and I want a clarification on the VAR protocol. The tying goal for 2-2 resulted from a penalty kick. The penalty kick was given via VAR review which occurred after Poland had scored. As a result of this review, Poland's goal was pulled back and a penalty was given. There was a question of offside on the play that led to VAR review for the penalty, although it looks like it was just even. But this spurs me to ask the question to be sure I understand correctly: IF there was offside on that play, and the VAR determined that yes, a foul occurred, but it can't be given because it if offside... would this nullify the goal and give Poland and IDFK from that moment on since a foul occurred also? Or are we just forgetting this because of that offside and carrying on?
But of course it would. If the referee determines, with VAR help, that penalty for Team A was the proper outcome except for a prior offside infraction by Team A... you can't just pretend none of it happened and say "call stands, Goal to Team B." This is a somewhat convoluted scenario, but the answer is simple. The referee needs to make a final decision based on what he's presented at the monitor. The only way to get a goal for Team B in such a scenario is if the referee said "actually, this isn't a clear and obvious penalty." Because then the offside isn't subject to review AND the offside would inherently not be in the APP. So you get Team B goal there. The really tricky situation is in (most) competitions outside MLS, where the referee would KNOW when he goes to the monitor that the offside decision was already made (because they use the lines or SAOT). In that world, the referee would know that he's deciding between goal or no goal for Team B but adjudicating a penalty decision for Team A that is effectively hypothetical, as it is actually impossible to award. That one would play mind games on the best of us.
So Portugal is preparing to appeal the length of Ronaldo's suspension for VC. Before even getting into the article and why I posted, I have no doubt they'll win. But with that said: https://www.foxsports.com/stories/s...ile-dublin-environment-for-captains-dismissal There's a three-pronged argument being made. Stripped down, it's A) the crowd was hostile, B) there was mutual grappling and C) Ronaldo has been clean internationally. Obviously I haven't been involved in these sort of proceedings but those seem to be three terrible arguments (maybe argument C holds some sway, even if informally). I think there are two much better ways to go at this. One is that there is precedent for VC "light" to only be one or two games. Yes, there was a clear elbow, but point of contact wasn't that dangerous and he didn't destroy him. If FIFA gives out shorter bans for light headbutts (Mazic and Pepe), surely they can downgrade Ronaldo here under a similar principle. But I also think there is an equality issue. Ronaldo is set to miss the World Cup proper where the vast majority of other players in the exact same scenario would miss the playoffs or the next competitive qualifying match. He's harmed because of the timing and because Portugal qualified directly. Yes, I know, the rules were the rules and he and Portugal knew them. So you can reject the equality argument if you want. But it at least seems much better than the three they are going with. I could be swayed by an argument that Ronaldo missing Portugal's two warmup matches in the March window is fair. I mean, they're going to let him play anyway so why not just go that route?
Not sure I agree with the foul that disallowed Austria’s goal after OFR. It’s a bit soft for me. Fine if given on the field, but that’s totally within the realm of normal contact IMO, borderline foul at most.
The referee was right there. It's literally re-refereeing. Also, are you telling me a VAR is sending that down for a penalty? Never in a million years. I know this ship sailed years ago now, but VAR was basically brought in to so a team doesn't get screwed on a Hand of Frog incident to eliminate them from World Cup qualification. It wasn't brought in to disallow a goal on a maybe foul 60 yards away from goal. Gross.
Also, one other point of just how much influence VARs have in Europe. Basically, once a VAR initiates a review the decision will be overturned where in MLS the decision isn't final. Maybe it's by design, but it doesn't seem that referees are empowered at all to reject the review. Compared that to MLS where referees are basically told its your job to bail the VAR from a terrible recommendation.
Simultaneous penalty checks in the two big games Marciniak missed a clear tripping foul right at the corner of the Scotland penalty area. The camera on the 18 showed it was clearly “inside” of that line, but I haven’t seen an angle that convincingly shows whether or not it was inside the right-side line of the penalty area. Marciniak didn’t even look at those things, just saw the trip and left the monitor very quickly to give the penalty. I guess he just trusts the VAR a ton? Meanwhile in Vienna, the Bosnian goalkeeper punches the ball but also makes contact with his upper arm/elbow to the attacker’s head. Pinheiro is correct that the contact with the ball was first, but I still like this as a penalty.
Very interesting second yellow to Denmark; the defender does move into the attacker’s path and impedes his movement, however, the attacker lets himself fall very easily. It’s definitely SPA if it’s a foul, the only question is, is it a foul?
In UEFA, that's an objective decision. He is bound to trust the VAR on the boundary question. He's only at the monitor because the VAR has made the conclusion that the incident was inside the penalty area. I suppose, in theory, per the LOTG he could always try to verify/overrule. But he'd be going against UEFA instructions.
Just saw. That is always a foul. Miles of space. Deliberate movement. Nowhere near playing distance. Instead of turning the chase the ball he impedes, like you say. The intent of the action is clear. It's a foul. Attacker going down easy is pretty irrelevant for me. With one look I had an easy YC. That's the expectation. Shouldn't overthink it. Not producing the 2CT there would get more discussion than the alternative, I think.
3:08. Seems quite obvious to me, attacked puts touch into attacking third with plenty of space, defender deliberately runs into him/pushes him off his path to slow/stop him. Pretty simple SPA YC to me edit: reddit soccer thread is universally saying this isn’t even a foul, marciniak is incompetent and corrupt, etc. so I’m even more confident that this was a good yellow card
So follow-up question, do you think Marciniak calls this if the attacker stays on his feet and keeps running?
I was about to write "no, but we all know that, right?" And I think that's mostly the correct answer. But I'd add if the McGinn ran 4-5 yards with him and the defender's hands remained on him or there was a second push... I bet if McGinn then stops and throws up his arms in frustration, a referee like Marciniak does give it without the attacker going to ground. Just a hunch and can't be proven. And I'm limiting this call to a select type of referee. But just to give a full answer, I do think there's a chance here depending on exactly how it all unfolded. Either way, though, it takes some signal from the attacker to illustrate that he was actually impeded. So while it would be a difference in the level of theatrics, it would still require an action from the attacker to sell the call.
If the attacker wants to keep going and therefore his attack isn’t stopped or substantially interfered with, why the need for a card
The amount that the attacker was impeded by the contact is independent of whether he decides to independently throw himself to the ground afterwards.
I really don’t understand. The attacker gets a touch on the ball into open space and turns upfield and clearly will beat the defender to the ball if they continue forward in this manner because the attacker is already moving forward while the defender is still facing backwards, would need to backpedal just to get facing the ball. Rather than doing that, The defender turns and deliberately moves laterally into the path of the attacker instead of just running straight, in order to push him off the path of the ball to stop him from beating him. Should be a pretty clear foul and therefore YC to me.
Hey, you were the one who just said there’s “no need for a card” if the attacker “wants to keep going” instead of deliberately falling over. How do you square this comment, in which you argue that it’s a clear yellow card, with that last one?