I think you’re wrong Mig. I’ve seen cases where the ref has called a dive on a tackle. In fact, I’ve seen it happen to Roma’s golden boy Totti. He even managed to get himself a second yellow for arguing that it should have been a penalty instead.
Speaking, of TIVO, maybe you should watch the clip again, cause I’ve seen it probably a hundred times now and I still contend that Grosso took a dive. He felt his back foot brush Neill and chose to go down. You are right that it was a situation where the ref had no choice but to make a call (by the laws of the game), I just think it was the wrong call.
I will however give you the point about the “attempted tackle outside the box”. You are totally right, in that it shouldn’t even be considered an attempted tackle.
Here’s a youtube clip that shows a bunch of replays from different angles.
To me, the only issue is whether it was an attempt at a tackle that resulted in contact with the player before the ball. If it is, then it’s a clear foul, and a non-discretionary one. Whether there was a dive or a karaoke contest after isn’t relevant.
The Australian made a huge mistake with his crappy tackle, and the Italians took advantage of it.
The ref made the right call. Read Law 12 and tell me how he could have done anything else?
There’s one person to blame, and that’s Neill. What was he thinking? Was he trying to tackle? Or obstruct? Either way, he’s the clear cause of the penalty.
How about this, what would the call have been if the Italian player hadn’t laid on the ground crying, but rather just picked himself up? Still a penalty.
Watch the video and you’ll see the penalty was called as he was getting up, way before he started crying like a baby.
Hey, also, I basically agree with you about everything else you’ve said – the diving, the cheapness, etc.
But here’s the relevant section from Law 12 – these are the offenses which aren’t discretionary (the ref MUST call them):
[quote]A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)[/quote]
If you watch the video above, it’s pretty clear that Neill attempted a tackle, and made contact with the Italian before touching the ball. Everything else is irrelevant here.Â
Yes it was a shitty ending, I agree. I would have been swearing in Italian at them. But it doesn’t change the fact that Neill touched the player before the ball during his third-rate tackle.Â
Surely you don’t dispute that?
Yes, and in that case, the tackle was a clean one – the ball was touched before the player.
I’m in total agreement with you on everything here, except that Neill touched Grosso before the ball.
Watching that reply makes it even more obvious to me that the ref did make the right call. There was a lot more than the Italian player feeling his leg brush the Aussie and then go down. You can see him trying to step around the Aussie with his right foot before catching him with his left.
That was a bad call. The reason I think it was a bad call is because the first part of the play wasn’t a tackle but an attempt to stop a shot. Watch the replay carefully and you can see that Neill extends the right leg in response to a fake from the Italian. It’s an almost automatic response for these athletes. So the right leg wasn’t attempting to tackle.
The second part of the play, the sweep from the left leg, was an attempted tackle for sure but, watch the video carefully and you cannot say for certain that Neill did or didn’t touch the ball. So how could the referee be sure?
Furthermore, the referee could have cautionned the italian player instead of awarding the penalty if he thought that he was diving. The following is from the FIFA laws website.
[quote]
A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
is guilty of unsporting behaviour [/quote]
And…
[quote]
Decision 5
Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour. [/quote]
So it is obvious that the referee was more sure that Neill didn’t touch the ball than that the italian player was, like MiG said, diving. So in his mind, he made the right call. But, with the magic of tv replays, the profane can clearly see that it was a bad call because the diving looked way more obvious than the possibility that Neill didn’t touch the ball.
But hey, that’s part of the game!
I guess we’re all seeing different things  I see Neill putting his leg out, in an attempt to stop a kick, but the resulting contact makes it a really bad tackle. Like you said, it’s an automatic move for defenders.Â
It all comes down to whether he touched the ball before the player or not. I think he touched the player first.
Neill doesn’t ever touch the ball. Here’s how you can tell – watch the ball, not the players, in the replay. It never changes direction or bumps or anything unless Grosso touches it. Even at the point when Neill could have touched it, there’s no change in its motion.
As for the “unsporting behaviour” call – it’s a discretionary call. A bad tackle isn’t a discretionary call. And it isn’t unsporting to fall when you’ve been fouled.
I think it all boils down to what I’ve been repeating over and over again: Neill touched Grosso, but never touched the ball.
My father sent me this “summary” of the Portugal-Netherlands game:
Ok, I’ve gone back to the TiVo and re-encoded a slow-motion clip of the replays.
Things to watch for:
The ref calls the penalty immediately after Grosso falls. His crying and pretending doesn’t influence his decision.
In all three clips it’s obvious Neill never manages to touch the ball. It’s especially clear in the last replay.
3. Watch Grosso on the ground, especially in the last replay – at no point is he feigning injury – in fact, he has his head up, looking at the ref.
So I still think it’s a good call. Gross was fouled in the penalty area, therefore it’s a penalty.
The clip is huge (129 seconds, about 20 megs) so be patient. It’s mpeg-4, use VLC or Quicktime to view it. You can step through it slowly and see that Neill doesn’t touch the ball.
I still maintain it was a bad call but, like I said, we have the luxury of the replay so we can’t blame the referee. A tackle is an attempt to take the ball away. So even if, as you are saying, the left foot of Neill missed the ball ( it could have brushed the bottom:-) that foot, which is doing the tackling motion, doesn’t touch Grosso. The contact is initiated not by Neill after that but by Grosso carrying his motion forward and touching the back of Neill. You can’t tell me that Neill wanted to take the ball away with his back. The tackling part of the play was done and the contact was incidental because Grosso was going forward. A world class athlete like him could have easily jump over and take a right foot shot. Grosso diving is a big part of this call: He deceived the referee and thus was showing unsporting behaviour ( just for the act of falling). But the referee thought otherwise and so be it. I am curious to see if that same play would have gotten a call in the midfield. Also, notice the first defender in the video, he has his hands all over Grosso and there is no call. To me, that was a more obvious foul than Neill’s.
As FIFA is trying to improve the game by reducing diving, I think this footage will be important for the governing body.
Neill attempted a tackle. Neill didn’t succeed and made contact with Grosso.
Therefore it’s a foul. You can’t argue that. You can’t blame this on anything other than Neill’s mistake. It’s not Grosso’s job to overcome Neill’s mistake. He doesn’t need to jump over him – he’s not responsible for Neill’s bad tackle. The rule doesn’t say that the contact has to come from the foot attempting a tackle (what the?). The rule is clear, it’s black and white, and it’s not something that’s discretionary.
In every post I’ve made, I’ve maintained that this is the crux of the matter – everybody’s tried to bring everything else into the decision, but that’s not what the referee was calling. Â
If Neill had touched the ball first, you’d all be right. He didn’t.Â
It’s not about diving, it’s not about the importance of the game, it’s not about whether he should have called the first defender, it’s not about the stage of the game (5 seconds left!), it’s not about sleeze or anything else. It all boils down to:
Neill attempted a tackle, didn’t touch the ball, and made contact. Convince me he didn’t, and you’ll be right. Ignore everything else and focus on that.Â
Think about why you guys who think it’s a bad call are bringing up everything else except that one point. Because it’s pretty black and white to me. Neill fouled him.
[quote=“BigThumb”]
 Grosso diving is a big part of this call: He deceived the referee and thus was showing unsporting behaviour ( just for the act of falling). [/quote]
What? Did you see how fast the referee made the call?
Falling is not unsporting behaviour. That’s really reaching.Â
He didn’t deceive the referee, Neill attempted a tackle and made contact. Focus on that one fact, and re-read Law 12.
Download the video above, step through it second by second. You’ll see the unavoidable fact that you’re all trying to divert attention away from:
Neill attempted a tackle and made contact with the player, not the ball.
First of all, I know I’m not going to convince you. I can only state my opinion.
Second, Neill didn’t make contact, Grosso did. You can’t convince me otherwise. So Grosso wasn’t fouled because he is the one who made the contact. Therefore, there wasn’t a foul.
Third, the referee made the call because Grosso fell. If Grosso would have succeeded in clearing Neill even if contact was made, the referee would not have called that. So the fall is instrumental in the referee’s call. And I maintain that the fall was a dive so, in summary, the referee sees a dive, but thinks its a fall and calls a foul. It all boils down to it being a fall or a dive. I say dive because I’ve seen this often enough in soccer. You said dive too in an earlier post. So if it was a dive, not a fall, then it was a bad call.
1. No question that the ref wasn’t influence by Grosso on the ground. However, he saw a foul where I, and most aussies, see a dive. A dive is unsporting behaviour and should have been the call.
2. Not obvious but very probable that there was no contact. I’ll grant you that point. But like I explained in the previous post, what happened after wasn’t a tackling attempt by Neill but a motion by Grosso so why is Neill being punished?
3. I don’t think it’s Grosso that is looking at the ref. I think Grosso has his head down the whole time.
I agree with everything else you’ve said (and T-Rav said). Â I really do. Â If there’s one person who doesn’t want Italy to win, it’s me. Â Italian guy I don’t even know in Tim Horton’s today said Portugal sucks (I was wearing the Portugal jersey). Italy is dead to me
So no need to argue sportsmanship, diving, or how fake the Italians are, I agree.
What we need to argue is if the following is true or not:
Did Neill attempt a tackle and make contact with the player and not the ball?
If so, good call.
If not, bad call.
Watch the video, make up your own mind, everything else is a side-issue.
[quote]
2. Not obvious but very probable that there was no contact. I’ll grant you that point. But like I explained in the previous post, what happened after wasn’t a tackling attempt by Neill but a motion by Grosso so why is Neill being punished?[/quote]
Neill is being punished for a bad tackle. Â So it’s ok to just lie on the ground in front of a player advancing on goal? Â You know that’s a foul too. Â No, it is Neill’s screwup.
You didn’t watch the video:
Grosso, on the ground, just as the ref is blowing his whistle (as the Australian defender clears the ball): Â Notice where he is looking? Â If you watch the video, the whistle is blown just before this.
I did watch the video. The player that is at right angle with the camera, looking up and then down again isn’t Grosso. Grosso is the player with the head down and we see the top of his head. A little bit earlier, you can even see him hit the ground with his hand and then put his head down. At the last replay, he looks at the ref to see if the call is made. That was just before he hits the ground with his hand.
He wasn’t fouled since he made the contact with Neill. And it was a dive.
[quote=“BigThumb”]
I did watch the video. The player that is at right angle with the camera, looking up and then down again isn’t Grosso. [/quote]
See the photo below. This is as the referee is blowing the whistle, and the ball is being cleared. You’re wrong, Grosso is looking up.
Well, we’ll have to disagree on this one. From my point of view, the rule is that a tackle that results in contact is a foul. The contact wouldn’t have happened if Neill hadn’t screwed up his foul.
So in your opinion it’s ok to jump on the ground in front of an advancing player? Just assume that because you’ve screwed up your tackle it’s the advancing player’s fault if he crashes into you?
I also think you’re confusing the timing. He didn’t put his head down until after the penalty was called. Look at the video and you’ll see I’m right.
Same event, two other angles, Grosso with his head up as the whistle is blown and penalty indicated.
So it’s pretty clear Grosso didn’t put his head down until after the Referee had indicated a penalty. Grosso didn’t cause the penalty by feigning pain, Neill cause the penalty by screwing up his tackle.
Ok, I live in fear of being given a red card (and being sent to the Wasteland by a certain HTMF ref), so let’s just say we have a fundamental disagreement, and start another soccer topic instead.
Meanwhile, keep this bookmarked and we’ll check their answers when they post them:
No, I’m not wrong. I explained to you that Gross is looking up right after the dive to see the referee’s reaction: ( sorry for quoting myself)
I have seen this quite often in soccer. I also haven’t said anything about him crying in any of my posts. Whatever he did after the dive is irrelevant to me. The dive was his doing, not Neill’s. He could have stayed up but he dove. A dive is a deceitful move to try to sway the referee in your favor and thus it’s unsporting behaviour. Soccer (and hockey) fans all over the world have seen this at least once.
In my opinion, if the play is over and no contact was** made by the tackler**, the play continues. Grosso dove. The referee didn’t call when the contact was made but when Grosso was on the ground so the dive triggered the call, not the contact. If Grosso would have stayed up, there would have been no call. Therefore the dive is the reason of the call. So I say dive=bad call. You should agree too because you said it was a dive:
[quote]Hey, also, I basically agree with you about everything else you’ve said – the diving, the cheapness, etc.
[/quote]
Also,
Getting dangerously close to ad hominem there
OK, we have a fundamental disagreement. Topic close?
 I see Neill putting his leg out, in an attempt to stop a kick, but the resulting contact makes it a really bad tackle. Like you said, it’s an automatic move for defenders.Â