Wild World Cup Game

[system]

I suspect that after the tournament we’ll find out that Grosso was taking diving lessons from Henri  Henri’s theatrical performance that lead to the second French goal against Spain ranks right up there with Grosso’s dive. 

And back to Grosso’s dive - when I trip over something I sure don’t imitate an airplane trying to take off … and if something is lying on the ground in front of me I try to avoid it … it is only a foul if you can’t avoid it … and Grosso made no attempt to avoid Neill who was already lying on the ground and made no contact with Grosso.

[system]

In my opinion, if the play is over and no contact was made by the tackler, the play continues.

It may be your opinion, but it isn’t the rule.

The rule doesn’t specify who runs into whom.  It says clearly that a tackle that results in contact with a player before the ball is a foul.  The tackle resulted in contact with the player before the ball. 

So answer this one question:

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call? 

[system]

@MiG

It may be your opinion, but it isn’t the rule.

The rule doesn’t specify who runs into whom.  It says clearly that a tackle that results in contact with a player before the ball is a foul.  The tackle resulted in contact with the player before the ball. 

So answer this one question:

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call? 

Let’s see what wikipedia says about a tackle:

In soccer, a player tackles an opponent by taking control of the ball from them. This is achieved by using either leg to wrest possession from the opponent, or sliding in to knock the ball away. The target of the tackle must always be the ball, otherwise it may be deemed as illegal by the referee, especially if the player makes contact with his opponent before the ball, or makes unfair contact with the player after playing the ball. Tackling with both legs, or from behind is also illegal. If a tackle is deemed legal then play continues.

If a tackle is an attempt to take the ball away, how could Neill do this with his back? Neill’s target while sweeping his left leg was obviously the ball.  His tackle with the left leg didn’t work and there was no contact in that part of the play.  He missed (I granted that point already).  So the tackle is done and legal ( since his target was the ball).
  Grosso running over Neill’s back isn’t a tackle.  It’s not even an unfair contact from Neill.  All it is is a guy on the ground, who missed his tackle and probably wants to get back in play, and another running over him and diving instead of avoiding the fallen player.  The call was made when Grosso hit the ground.  The referee, who from what I read was actually very good the whole game, saw a fall where critics like me saw a dive.  You keep bringing this back to the contact but the referee didn’t call the foul at the contact.  He called it when Grosso was on the ground.
I still think that Grosso made a deceitful move which is unsporting behaviour and should have been the call.  Calling the penalty was a bad call.

[system]

So the way to stop a player who has an obvious chance at scoring a goal is to throw yourself in front of him and just lie there?

Also, check one:

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call?Â
] yes
] no

All it is is a guy on the ground, who missed his tackle and probably wants to get back in play.

If that’s the case, why is he moving his legs and his arm? His legs are still trying to get the ball, even when he’s on the ground. Why is he flailing around?

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call?Â
] yes
] no

[system]

@MiG

So the way to stop a player who has an obvious chance at scoring a goal is to throw yourself in front of him and just lie there?

Also, check one:

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call? 
] yes
] no

If that’s the case, why is he moving his legs and his arm?  His legs are still trying to get the ball, even when he’s on the ground.  Why is he flailing around?

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call? 
] yes
] no

Sorry MiG, this isn’t an inquiry.  You try to bring me into your point of view while avoiding mine totally.  Fair game but I won’t bite. 
My reasoning still stays the same:  The tackle was missed but the target was the ball so it was legal. The contact was initiated by Grosso, not by Neill.  The contact wasn’t part of the tackle.  Grosso dove (remember we agree on this).  The ref saw a fall and then called a penalty.  Bad call!

[system]

If Neill made contact with Grosso first, would it have been a good call? 
] yes
] no

[system]

Ok, let’s just end this, we’re at a stalemate.

Red cards for both of us, especially me.

BTW, the arm-chair ref thing was meant for me, not you. I’ve never ref’ed a game in my life, but I’m sure you have.

Let’s just agree that we see things differently, and wait until we get the askaref answer?

Meanwhile, let’s start another topic:

hackingthemainframe.com/smf/inde … 274.0.html

[system]

OK, let’s end it but I need another post that should have gone before your last one.  So you can edit and put it there if you want.

Did Neill try to hit the ball?
] yes
] no

Is a tackle legal if the target is the ball?
] yes
] no

Was Neill and Grosso’s contact unfair play from Neill’s part?
] yes
] no

Did Grosso dive?
] yes
] no

Is a dive a deceitful move?
] yes
] no

Is a dive an unsporting behaviour?
] yes
] no

Is unsporting behaviour an offence?
] yes
] no

Was it a bad call?
Yes!

[system]

Looks like some refs agree with you MiG:

http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer%20Rules/Question/13206/

I still think they are wrong for all the reasons expressed in earlier posts.  They can’t seem to separate the missed attempt at tackling with the fact that Neill is on the ground and that Grosso runs into him and dive.  Also, they might be more biased than you or I  because they might be reluctant to criticize a call by a world class ref.( I know,  Ad hom… but I’m not arguing with them!- )

Interestingly enough, another page on that site talks about a player on the ground.  Not exactly the same situation but the way I read it, an indirect free kick might have been a better call (other than calling the dive. )
http://www.asktheref.com/Soccer/Referee/Articles/1/

…Play is stopped for his own safety and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

And I am pretty sure that an indirect free kick type offence doesn’t produce a penalty in the box.
The thing is, there are not many laws in soccer and a ref knows them well but he/she has to use judgement and common sense during the game.  Interpreting the rules is generally well done at that level but errors are possible.  I think that ref made an error on that call.  It ended up changing the game. 
In today’s game, I think I saw something similar but the defender did a slide tackle and ended up touching the forward without touching the ball.  But the opposing player dove and the ref awarded the kick to the defender ( I’m not sure if the offence player got carded.)  You got Tivo, you will see it 

[system]

Here’s the thing, Bigthumb.  You pretty much had me convinced.  Seriously.  I was beginning to see your point of view.

Then I spoke with Illywhacker, and he swayed me back.  He basically said that Neill, even without the attempted tackle, threw himself in front of a player who had a direct chance at scoring.  He created an obstruction.

But that’s very different than what I was saying, as I always thought it was just a bad tackle.

This is the best answer on askaref, in my opinion:

[quote]What most forget is the players CHOOSE their actions and a referee decides if they are appropriate. In this case the referee thought not. Disappointing? Absolutely, as a fan rooting for Austraila I was crushed. People perception of events are coloured with their heart and understandably so.
Spectators sees what they think !
Players see what they feel!
Coaches see what they want!
Referees sees what they see![/quote]

Yes, Neill chose to tackle, when he should have stayed on his feet.

[system]

Also, that ref said “as a fan rooting for Australia”  heheh.

[system]

@MiG

Also, that ref said "as a fan rooting for Australia"Â heheh.

I’d love to root for Australia.

[system]

Snort.

[system]

@MiG

Here’s the thing, Bigthumb.  You pretty much had me convinced.  Seriously.  I was beginning to see your point of view.

Then I spoke with Illywhacker, and he swayed me back.  He basically said that Neill, even without the attempted tackle, threw himself in front of a player who had a direct chance at scoring.  He created an obstruction.

But that’s very different than what I was saying, as I always thought it was just a bad tackle.

This is the best answer on askaref, in my opinion:

Yes, Neill chose to tackle, when he should have stayed on his feet.

That’s what weird about  that line of thinking.  It seems that because Neill was down, he was wrong.  Imagine if Neill attempts to tackle ( not slide tackle), misses, stays up with his back to Grosso, then Grosso trips on Neill’s leg and fall.  Is that the same?  Is that a foul?  To me, it isn’t a foul and it is similar to what really happened.  To think the opposite is to think that a slide tackle is illegal and it’s not.  I always go back to why the ref called the play:  He saw Grosso fall.  I think ( amongst many) that it was a dive.
Now, as an attempt to end this debate, and since you admitted I had you almost convinced, which is a rare occurence, I will say this:  To me, looking at the replay, the ref made a bad call. Plain and simple.  BUT,  during the game, the call was probably adequate because the ref didn’t have the luxury of looking at the play over and over again.  He saw it once.  He made a call based on what he saw.  He didn’t see Grosso faking because at that moment, the ball was away and like most good ref, he probably followed the ball.  He probably thought that Grosso was tripped by Neill, not that he dove.  I can live with that because that’s the way the game goes.  But, when us nerds look at the replay in slow motion as many times as we do, I can not say that it was a good call.  To me it’s like Brett Hull’s 1999 Stanley Cup winning goal against Buffallo.  I will never think that it was a good goal but it stood.  So will Italy’s win.