Post-match: Your Call #2

Discussion in 'Referee' started by goliath74, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIa4D4WS7aU"]Full Speed[/ame]

    Dynamo Kyiv - Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (March 18 2012), Ukrainian Premier League. Players involved: Danilo Silva (Dynamo, white), Ivan Strinich (Dnipro, blue/dark blue)

    What verdict was warranted by this episode?

    Slowed down: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogpEq3oGsAw"]frame by frame[/ame]
     
  2. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the slow mo may hurt this more than help it but at first watch seems like a pretty easy PK.
     
  3. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    I apologize. I have now added a full speed video.
     
  4. uniqueconstraint

    Jul 17, 2009
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh why not, I'll weigh in...

    The video is REALLY slow, while I didn't see this match I'd bet at game speed a PK was awarded - at least, I could see myself awarding a PK for this. The ball isn't anywhere near the defender and while at slo-mo you can tell the forward is making not just a meal but a buffet out of this, at game speed I bet it's nearly impossible to tell.

    Not sure who coined the phrase but I've read it from andymoss more than most, and it applies here: the player put himself in position to have a foul called on him. By going to ground the defender does just this. It's also not ideal - the forward is heading toward the sideline and you have support. Stay on your feet and force him away from goal.

    Would love to see this at game speed.
     
  5. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    BTW, I should have provided the outcome of the situation - nothing. I was of two minds - if this is a foul, it should be a PK. If not - there should be a yellow for simulation.

    A huge storm in the media after the game with the deciding factor being Collina (yes, THAT Collina) who is UPL's head of the referees, announcing that the referee did right by NOT calling a PK.
     
  6. uniqueconstraint

    Jul 17, 2009
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    WOW, thanks for providing the full speed video.

    I was wrong about my guess re:what it would look like at full speed - at full speed that looks like something that is borderline USB/simulation, at least getting the "I can't believe you tried that" look from the referee. :rolleyes:

    Wonder if Collina also said, "and I would've stared at him, and he would've melted before me!"
     
  7. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    Every ref's worst nightmare: the actual foul followed by the histrionic fall.

    The forward is his own worst enemy by not putting down his left foot in a natural way. The contact to his right foot was/is enough to get the call. No ref wants to be duped, so this one elects not to make the call.

    IMO: In a perfect world, this is a PK. In a world full of bad actors, no call is understandable.
     
  8. GoDawgsGo

    GoDawgsGo Member+

    Nov 11, 2010
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Tough to tell if there is contact there, so I'm not sure. But I would agree that it's one of those two outcomes. If you don't call the PK I think you have to caution for UB.
     
  9. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Exactly.
    My only objection from a referee stand point is that the non-call comes from two different views.

    First, the ref doesn't see contact and sees only the exaggerated fall.
    or
    Second, the ref sees the contact but feels the exaggerated fall nullifies it.

    I have no objection to the former but plenty of objections to the latter.

    If a foul occurs, the foul must be called regardless of the theatrics of the victim. If you want to caution the victim for the theatrics, do it. But it never negates the foul.
     
  10. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    Does that mean you refuse to allow for this line of thinking?
    1) I'm certain that I'm not certain it's a foul, so I can't (won't) call a PK.
    2) I'm pretty sure the attacker exaggerates. But I don't think that necessarily graduates to the simulation standard.

    ???

    (As an aside, the follow-on histrionics from both sides are more black and white YCs to my eyes. All things being equal, I would just like the ball back in play asap.)
     
  11. GoDawgsGo

    GoDawgsGo Member+

    Nov 11, 2010
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Do we restart with a drop ball when we aren't sure who last touched on a bang-bang out of touch for throw? No.

    Make up your mind and go with it.

    Either way I disagree with your #2. If he got contact, it's a foul and PK, regardless if he exaggerates.
     
  12. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    Yes. But if your mind is that you honestly don't see a foul, does the NECESSITATE simulation? That's the point I was trying to get to.

    Just because you are CERTAIN that there is not enough to call a foul, why do you feel you MUST call simulation?

    It's not a LOTG thing, right? Are you saying it's required for game management? Are are you saying it's required for logical consistency?
     
  13. soccerman771

    soccerman771 Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    Dallas, Texas area
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Had this type of situation happen in an O30 game a couple of weeks ago. There was contact, but not enough for a foul. Player goes down looking for a call and acting like someone just performed open heart surgery on him without anesthetic. That's what got him the simulation booking at the next stoppage of play.
     
  14. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    I think the assumption was (not a certainty, mind you) that the ref did see the episode fairly well. He certainly was not too far from the place of the supposed infraction. However, his angle may not have been best (the sliding Silva may have blocked the actual position of both players' feet).
     
  15. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    This is a foul and pk. Even in super(duper) slo mo, the defender catches the attacker not with the lead tackling leg, which he pulls out with, but with the tucked left leg.

    As for the philosophical question of no foul = simulation, I think we have a pretty good but of room for wiggling. On the foul side, a foul can be trifling and not called. On the simulation side, the UB is simulation, not falling with easy contact. To me, simulation means means falling with no contact, or feigning injury when there is none.

    Add that all up, and yes, it is not illogical to have trifling contact, an impressive fall, and the result be no call.

    I don't think that's what happened here, though. I think the play as shown is a foul and pk.
     
  16. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    Couldn't let this go without comment.
    All I can say is yes. More every year, dammit.
    :D

    Oh, I agree with the rest, too. ;)
     
  17. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Mar 30, 2011
    I think it's a bit much to say that the fouled player embellished.

    When you are falling forward like that at some point the brain knows you are going down because there is not enough time to bend the trailing leg back so that you can pull it through the decreasing space between the hips and the ground and then, once forward, extend the knee to finish the stride, and so the reflex is to brace for impact.
     
  18. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    On the slightly (possibly) related subject: in basketball a shooting player may actually initiate contact with a defending player and produce a foul in his favor. I know it is not the same in football - you can not go looking for a contact and expect the foul called every time. Does this apply here? It seems the ball and the attacking player go on different trajectories right BEFORE the foul suggesting to me that the attacking player is fishing for contact with the leg of the defender rather than the defending player causing it.

    Do these considerations ever enter the thought process of a football referee? I am not a referee nor had I ever been one, so I have no idea.
     
  19. hornetbiz

    hornetbiz Member

    Oct 3, 2005
    Boston, MA
    I agree goliath. If you look at the attacker's path he touches the ball toward the goalline and then veers into the sliding defender to try and pick up a pk. Also it looks to me like the attacker is already starting to go down before there is any contact. He tries to use that "dead leg" move where he just lets both of his legs collapse and he initiates that tactic before there is any contact.

    In my mind the contact is minimal and I have a goal kick and a withering look at the attacker basically saying "knock off the bull--it!"
     
  20. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006

    He may step towards the sliding defender, but you don't know why.

    May good attackers take that step to shield the ball.
    They can't guarantee to defender won't get a touch on the ball, so they shield it.
    It's perfectly legal.
     
  21. goliath74

    goliath74 Member

    May 24, 2006
    Hollywood, FL, United States
    Club:
    FC Dynamo Kyiv
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    We're not arguing that point. The point I am wondering about is who truly caused the contact if the attacking player advanced towards the defender's leg. I truly do not know the answer. What I do know is it can give you an unjust advantage - just like at the WC2006 UKR - TUN match where Shevchenko gets a PK call while he initiated the contact with a Tunisian player's foot. I am afraid I do not have enough refereeing know-how to judge these sorts of situations.
     
  22. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    Not sure if this helps or just makes it worse, but I'll take a stab at it....

    The precise LOTG decision the ref needs to make here is: "Did the defender CARELESSLY TRIP the attacker".

    So, even if you are 100% sure the attacker tripped, that's not enough. To be a violation of law 12, it must be the the defender carelessly tripped him.

    Classic examples include:
    a) If my foot is stationary on the ground, and you trip over it, I have not carelessly tripped you. You have simply tripped yourself.
    b) If I am playing the ball legally, and subsequenlty trip you, tough. It's part of the game. Careful, not careless (if you will).

    In this case, where the defender is sliding and does not ever get to the ball, it is unlikely that either of those ideas can easily be applied. However, something along those lines could come into play if the ref feels the attacker is trying to turn nothing into something.

    Bottom line, it's going to be a judgement call. Is it really a "careless trip".

    Also (as mentioned earlier) it could even be that the ref decides that a violation has occurred, but it is trifling. In other words, yes, there was a bit of a careless trip, but at this level, the attacker should have been able to deal with it. It had no real effect on the play.
     
  23. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    I understand.
    But my point is, the attacker has a right to shield the ball.
    The defender has a right to play the ball.

    If they can both do that without being careless, great.
    This situation happens all the time and we simply deem it incidental contact and play on. But in most of those cases, the defender is still up right.

    Once he goes into a tackle, the burden is on the defender to get it right.

    It would be very difficult to argue that the attacker was careless in his successful shielding of the ball.
     
  24. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    No foul. That contact is next to nothing. Goal Kick.
     

Share This Page