What would you call?

This is such a tough call that can really go either way. I think the right answer is PK and red card, but at the same time it's a game in South America and they don't like teeth showing. If this was anywhere else on the pitch it's probably a foul against Pato.

This is why we get paid the big bucks.

 

I'm going penalty and either yellow (reckless foul) or red (DOGSO). You can argue the merits of each but I don't think the attacker was getting the ball once he poked it past the keeper; therefore, penalty and yellow to the keeper.

 

The only way to argue that it's not dogso is if you say pato's touch was too long for him to get to it. That's pato- without the foul I'd bet a million bucks he gets to the ball. Dogso.

What I don't get is the caution- it's not reckless, it's just late: the usual motion and energy he would give to make the clearance.

 

Ball is there to be played by either player, so the contact is in my view is incidental. Painful for both, but goal kick.

If you are calling the keeper for the foul and PK, so be it, he is a fraction late. I believe the ball is well gone before the contact, so no DOGSO. Definately not a reckless challege, he is just kicking at the ball, so I don't understand the caution.

However, (may the flames begin) you could go the other way as well. Because the attacker left his feet (albeit briefly) and jumped at the keeper during the challenge with studs showing.... you could go DK coming out with a caution for reckless challenge.

 

PK and caution (reckless foul) from the camera angles shown.

Would Pato have gotten to the ball without the foul? Maybe, I'm not 100 percent sure. Since I'm not, I can't say that it's obvious, thus no red for denial, and it's certainly not serious foul play.

 

I have a tough time seeing anything but 50/50 here.
Just a hair late, maybe. (with the benefit of super slow mo)
But if you call PK here, then don't see how you can avoid DOGSO, unless the following logic applies...

Otherwise it's GK with unfortunate 50 50 injury.
There's a reason shin guards are mandatory.

 

This matches my first instinct. If anyone was guilty of a reckless challenge here, it was Pato.

 

My knee-jerk reaction was, how that can be anything other than a PK? And if it's a PK, how can it not be DOGSO?

I now see the arguments for maybe not either, but I think I still come down in the same place.

 

For the record, I am mystified by those who say it's not a foul, and even more mystified by those who suggest that pato is at fault.

Pato has picked the ball clean and has gone across the front of the keeper: but for the gk kick, pato would have not even been close to making any sort of contact with the keeper.

How is this incidental or 50/50? That would be saying that any defender can freely kick at a ball being carried by a faster attacker with no risk of being called for a foul if he is late.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "gone across in front of the keeper."

What I see is that while the keeper had his head down making an ordinary kicking motion, Pato extended the bottom of his foot directly in front of the keeper's swing, resulting in a mashed foot for the GK.

At this level, Pato can get away with that because he got the ball, but at lower levels, that's clearly a dangerous play. At this level, if Pato doesn't manage to get the ball first, there's a good chance he sees red.

 

Penalty and red card for me. Keeper makes the mistake and doesnt quite get there. I think there is an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Notice I didnt say he scores, but there is a reasonable chance he gets to the ball before it goes out for a gk.

 

Not everyone in the world buys into the South American belief that what the GK did there was an unforgivable sin.

Plenty of people would view it as 50/50 with both players putting themselves at risk for some temporary discomfort.

Neither view is incorrect. It is one of those irreconcilable differences.

It's an easy call (GK or PK) when you have two teams on the same wavelength. God help you when you don't - but that is the essence of the big city North American amateur game.

 

I mean that his path goes in front of, not into the keeper. Contact by pato on the keeper is not inevitable, as it is when we should consider a foul on a player who wins the ball.

someone kicked someone. That is the foul. Who did what?

ah, so pato's infraction would be PIADM, which is generally a non-contact infraction. I agree: if the gk makes the clearance, and pato is late and kicks the gk's legs with studs showing, it's going to be at least a yellow for me.

 

I don't understand why the keeper did not use his hands for that one.

 

April fools?

 

No PK.

Yellow card for both players.

Goal Kick.

Attacker comes in studs exposed (dangerous)
Keeper kicks incoming player going for the ball (reckless)

 

No emoticon indicates you may be serious. Touching with his hands after a pass by the foot from a teamamte results in an IFK.

The way I see this, almost 50/50. Nothing Wreckless or SFP, simple feet coming togather as opponents play for the ball. Keper was swinging for the ball, it was redirected before his swinging leg got there. Not much way you can stop that leg. By the same token, attacker was challengin hard and while he left his feet, as noted above, didn't jumop at the keeper but across him. The touch was too hard by the attacker for it to be playabl;e afterwards and no OGSO existed. Take aaway the dramatics of the falling players and you have a ball that flies over the GL. At full speed with 1 view, I may have gone YC for USB, as it appeared the GK looked back and then flopped. PK for the careless kick, careless simply because he didn't speed up when he could see the attacker closing and so he was late to the party.

We have the benefit of angles and slow mo, he didn't and I think he was as correct as he could be.

 

You'd never, ever, ever sell this in a professional game.

 

Ignoring the practicality of this decision for the moment, I don't believe this is supported by law. The ball was in play when both situations happened. Assuming that the attacker was playing in a dangerous manner, that happened first. Ergo, the restart for your scenario should be an indirect free kick coming out.

Now, with respect to the practicality of that decision, it comes off as very indecisive. If I were a player and the referee took this course of action, I would interpret this as a sign that the referee can't make big decisions.

For me, there are only two possible decisions. Option one: the attacker was playing in a dangerous manner, which means the restart should be an IDFK coming out and a caution for the recklessness of the challenge. Option two: the attacker's play on the ball was safe for this level of competition and the GK kicked him, denying him an obvious goal scoring opportunity (not a sure goal!), which means the GK should be sent off and play restarted with a PK. I personally lean more toward the latter for this level of competition.

 

I see IDFK or a PK as rewarding players for dangerous behavior, not indecisive.

Understand this is my opinion, nothing more nothing less. I am comfortable with what others have posted as their calls in this scenario.

 

Exactly right. This is not a simultaneous violation situation (sounds like a distant relative of the conjunction junction). Make a decision and go with it.

Restarting with a GK and two yellow cards will make for a long game.

 

No DOGSO at all. But keeper uses excessive force to attempt a play of the ball. Keeper starts his kicking motion early and has body language as though he is lining the attacker up. Follows through as hard as he can with no attempt to pull out of the kick. He could have but didn't.
Send off and PK.