|
Post by time2retire on Feb 28, 2015 19:51:19 GMT -6
So two referees, both chosen for the final, both see a foul in the penalty area from two different angles and they're both wrong?
This is a great time to bring up Esse Baharmast and the 98WC penalty decision against Brazil I believe. I'll link it.
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Feb 28, 2015 19:54:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 28, 2015 20:05:09 GMT -6
So two referees, both chosen for the final, both see a foul in the penalty area from two different angles and they're both wrong? This is a great time to bring up Esse Baharmast and the 98WC penalty decision against Brazil I believe. I'll link it. Yes. They are both wrong, based on the video. Maybe they had a bad angle. I could see the AR making the mistake.
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Feb 28, 2015 20:09:33 GMT -6
And you still haven't read that article
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 28, 2015 20:32:36 GMT -6
I did read it and I don't understand your point. So some ref got a call wrong and was chased off the field by the fans in fear of his life. What does that have to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Feb 28, 2015 20:33:58 GMT -6
I did read it and I don't understand your point. So some ref got a call wrong and was chased off the field by the fans in fear of his life. What does that have to do with this? You failed your assignment. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Feb 28, 2015 20:39:22 GMT -6
Ok. So the ref survived but decided to retire and come back as a player. I still don't see why you think that article is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Mar 1, 2015 0:28:19 GMT -6
Ok. So the ref survived but decided to retire and come back as a player. I still don't see why you think that article is relevant. 16 cameras got it wrong. Everyone had already crucified Baharmast until one singular camera proved him right. That's the relevance to your complaint. I personally cannot say 100% what it was because I was in the press box. But what I can vouch for is the referee and AR's credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Mar 1, 2015 11:44:11 GMT -6
Ok. So the ref survived but decided to retire and come back as a player. I still don't see why you think that article is relevant. 16 cameras got it wrong. Everyone had already crucified Baharmast until one singular camera proved him right. That's the relevance to your complaint. I personally cannot say 100% what it was because I was in the press box. But what I can vouch for is the referee and AR's credibility. Ok I see your point. The AR is like Baharmist in that he will likely retire after this last game and go back to high school in disguise ( a la Never Been Kissed), join the STL soccer team, and foul as many players as he can in the box to seek vengeance on all those that criticized him.
|
|
|
Post by Slippin' Stevie G on Mar 1, 2015 21:03:57 GMT -6
SLC won the game... Does it really matter? (please don't answer me... it's a rhetorical question)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Mar 1, 2015 22:21:39 GMT -6
Just watched the video of the call for the pk for nlc. What a questionable call by the ref. First, the NLC player passes the ball off and runs into the defender and falls down. Second, this all happens after the pass and had no effect on the pass itself, which was deflected away by other defenders. How as a ref in a STATE CHAMPIONSHIP game can you call a call resulting in the other team's goal over a non-foul like that? For those that weren't at the game, see for yourself. m.kplctv.com/kplctv/db/348492/content/CRRSdCTZ/galleryTo use your analogy, since it had no impact.if the player punched him would it be okay, since no impact on the pass.or pulled his jersey? Or wrapped him in a bear hug? Having no impact on the pass is not a deciding factor, referee simply needs to see if a foul was careless, reckless, or having excessive force in determine to call. Intent doesn't factor in, neither does amount of impact. In one of the threads in the referee forum, about a call in the Mt. Carmel vs. Dominican game, you had this to say; No scoring opportunity, I wouldn't award a PK on this.that's just me.others might So which is it? I respect that your code of ethics requires you to refrain from criticizing other referees. But I think you've managed to contradict yourself here. In one situation, ref says no penalty and you agree because you thought the attacker had no chance to score. In another situation, ref calls a penalty and you say it doesn't matter that there was no scoring chance.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 1, 2015 22:31:02 GMT -6
Two different scenarios. In the first, the ball is played away and player has not chance to get it. In this one, we don't know if his run would have allowed him to challenge for the ball, as he was laying on the ground
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Mar 1, 2015 23:01:48 GMT -6
Two different scenarios. In the first, the ball is played away and player has not chance to get it. In this one, we don't know if his run would have allowed him to challenge for the ball, as he was laying on the ground Sorry, not buying that. The Northlake attacker is continuing his run straight toward goal, probably looking for the ball to be passed right back to him. His pass is intercepted and foul or not, there was no way for him to stop quickly enough and get back to the ball before the crowd of St. Louis defenders clear the ball. But honestly, I'd rather look at the larger picture, and my more general question is this: what are the criteria for deciding that contact in the penalty area should be overlooked and a penalty not given? I try to read as much as I can about the Laws of the Game. The ATR on Law 14 says that direction of play and the likelihood of a goal being scored should not matter. (At the same time, the ATR on Law 5 says that it is not necessary to stop play unless an offense "had an impact on the game.") I realize that there may not be much specific, official guidance, but are than any articles with rules of thumb or suggestions for when to whistle for a penalty kick and when to refrain from calling for one (in a situation where the letter of the Laws has been broken)?
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Mar 2, 2015 9:52:52 GMT -6
The parameters for a foul don't change inside the penalty area. What is a foul at midfield is a foul anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by newosoccerfan on Mar 2, 2015 10:11:23 GMT -6
The parameters for a foul don't change inside the penalty area. What is a foul at midfield is a foul anywhere. About to write this. In the midfield, absent another rule being involved, is this a foul? Yes, because it is a rash challenge. And yes, because the NLC player was taken out of the play, and you never know how he could have factored into it. So why is it not a foul inside the 18 yard box? Also, why are people still arguing it shouldn't be a foul? It merely made the game closer. It didn't change the result. NewO
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Mar 2, 2015 10:49:45 GMT -6
Kevin, the Law 5 ATR reference, in its full context, addresses fouls which are trifling or doubtful. Because Laws cover from backyard kiddie ball to world cup, the definition and expectation of trifling varies greatly depending on age, experience, even culturally.
We are almost starting a new discussion here so I invite those interested in further discussion to the Referee Forum.
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Mar 2, 2015 12:07:03 GMT -6
The parameters for a foul don't change inside the penalty area. What is a foul at midfield is a foul anywhere. I agree that is technically true but that rarely seems to be the case. It generally seems to take a lot more to be called a foul in the box.
|
|
|
Post by time2retire on Mar 2, 2015 12:22:12 GMT -6
The parameters for a foul don't change inside the penalty area. What is a foul at midfield is a foul anywhere. I agree that is technically true but that rarely seems to be the case. It generally seems to take a lot more to be called a foul in the box. The impact on the game is exponentially greater when fouls result in a PK. Referees want the game to be decided by the players, unfortunately this is sometime interpreted as a higher threshhold to award a PK. Those decisions don't come lightly, what I find a lot of people don't understand is that the referee saw something, he was 100%sure, it was in the box, the PK is awarded. It doesn't have to be murder or glaringly obvious to anyone except the referee. And as previously referenced with Baharmast at 98WC, there may be something only he saw.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 2, 2015 12:57:44 GMT -6
Two different scenarios. In the first, the ball is played away and player has not chance to get it. In this one, we don't know if his run would have allowed him to challenge for the ball, as he was laying on the ground Sorry, not buying that. The Northlake attacker is continuing his run straight toward goal, probably looking for the ball to be passed right back to him. His pass is intercepted and foul or not, there was no way for him to stop quickly enough and get back to the ball before the crowd of St. Louis defenders clear the ball. But honestly, I'd rather look at the larger picture, and my more general question is this: what are the criteria for deciding that contact in the penalty area should be overlooked and a penalty not given? I try to read as much as I can about the Laws of the Game. The ATR on Law 14 says that direction of play and the likelihood of a goal being scored should not matter. (At the same time, the ATR on Law 5 says that it is not necessary to stop play unless an offense "had an impact on the game.") I realize that there may not be much specific, official guidance, but are than any articles with rules of thumb or suggestions for when to whistle for a penalty kick and when to refrain from calling for one (in a situation where the letter of the Laws has been broken)? Well, if you're not buying it then there is no need to further discuss
|
|
|
Post by uhscubs1 on Mar 2, 2015 17:16:28 GMT -6
I agree that is technically true but that rarely seems to be the case. It generally seems to take a lot more to be called a foul in the box. The impact on the game is exponentially greater when fouls result in a PK. Referees want the game to be decided by the players, unfortunately this is sometime interpreted as a higher threshhold to award a PK. Those decisions don't come lightly, what I find a lot of people don't understand is that the referee saw something, he was 100%sure, it was in the box, the PK is awarded. It doesn't have to be murder or glaringly obvious to anyone except the referee. And as previously referenced with Baharmast at 98WC, there may be something only he saw. Agree about the impact and there should be a little higher threshhold inthe box.
|
|