Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:27 AM
203 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Official Soccer Thread
onifre
Member (Idle past 813 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 31 of 45 (698744)
05-09-2013 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by dwise1
04-05-2013 7:10 AM


Though, mind you, actual football is much more interesting than that American nonsense.

You can't mean that seriously. American football is far more complex a game, with many more "oh shit" moments than a regular soccer game.

A single soccer match is, I hate to say, boring as a ll hell. The tournament however is what's the exciting part. Watching teams win and drop and keeping up with who's won how many games and who needs to win or will be eliminated, etc.

That's what I like, the tournament set up of the game, where it's a quick few weeks to a championship. Plus I'll admit there's a little nationalsim to it.

I'm all Barcelona if anyone is asking.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2013 7:10 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 05-10-2013 4:38 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 32 of 45 (698844)
05-10-2013 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by CoolBeans
05-08-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Alex Ferguson retires.
Do you think the new guy will be as successful as Fergie?

Fergie won the title 13 times. In the current Premiership, there's only one other manager who's been at the same club more than 13 years. The average Premiership manager spends less than four seasons at a club. I find it hard to believe that anyone will ever be as successful as Fergie again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by CoolBeans, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM CoolBeans has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 33 of 45 (698845)
05-10-2013 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by onifre
05-09-2013 9:23 AM


That's what I like, the tournament set up of the game, where it's a quick few weeks to a championship. Plus I'll admit there's a little nationalsim to it.

I guess you're thinking of the World Cup. Proper football tournaments take almost a year.

On the boring aspect, if you want to watch football played better than you see it in international tournaments, you should watch things like the Champions League. Sure, you can still sometimes get boring games, but it's generally much more exciting that a World Cup (excluding all the festival atmosphere you get around a big international tournament).

The top clubs in Europe are picked from the best players in the world and, more importantly, they're a bunch of players who play together and train together all year round, under the same coach. An international team, by contrast, if a bunch of players hobbled together who only meet to train sporadically, and who (outside the big tournaments), only play an average of about one game a month.

Barcelona-Bayern Munich is almost always going to be a better game than Spain-Germany.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 05-09-2013 9:23 AM onifre has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 45 (698959)
05-11-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by CoolBeans
05-08-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Alex Ferguson retires.
CB writes:

Do you think the new guy will be as successful as Fergie?

It took Fergie about 7 years in charge to win his first title with Manchester United. It took about 3 years to win any trophy at all with them.

Of course we now know how it ended. Pretty darn well. But I doubt any manager of such a high profile team would be given such leeway to these days.

I doubt we will see any single manager be so successful with one team again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by CoolBeans, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM CoolBeans has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 35 of 45 (698965)
05-11-2013 6:25 PM


I take it from all this Fergie fella talk that in the game of succer the word "manager" is some strange disambulation of what would in more enlightened sports properly be called a "head coach". And I take it that this Sir Fergie fella was considered a somewhat successful head manager coach guy.

I assume then, given as how this succer game is played, that this Fir Sergie head manager coach guy somehow motivated his teams to "not score" more points more often than other head manage coach guys? I can see where, with all that running around, it might take some considerable coaching skill to keep the scoring to as few accidental goals as possible.

I guess then the next head manager coach guy won't be so skilled and his team will score more goals. What a pitty.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 05-13-2013 4:55 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 36 of 45 (699002)
05-13-2013 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
05-11-2013 6:25 PM


I take it from all this Fergie fella talk that in the game of succer the word "manager" is some strange disambulation of what would in more enlightened sports properly be called a "head coach". And I take it that this Sir Fergie fella was considered a somewhat successful head manager coach guy.

Football's done a bit differently to most American sports. The manager is something of an autocrat - he handles training, decides the team's tactics, picks the players and is in charge of buying and selling players (though the amount of leeway a manager gets can vary depending on who owns the club).

The rest of your post is slightly confusing, but Fergie's side have, sadly enough, been either the highest or second-highest scoring team in the Premiership every year for the last eight seasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2013 6:25 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 37 of 45 (837112)
07-26-2018 8:17 PM


Tactics and Rules Questions
This goal is from the Uruguay/Russia game in group play during the recent World Cup. Russia is in white, Uruguay in blue Uruguay has a free kick from just outside the box, and there is a line of players between the ball and the goal, all Russian except for two Uruguayans near the right end. The Russian player on the right side of the line grabs the two Uruguayan players and pushes them aside to the left allowing the Uruguayan player making the free kick to kick the ball cleanly into the goal. Here's the video:

Hmmm, I see clicking the play button causes the message, "This video contains content from FIFA, who has blocked it from display on this website or application." So here's the YouTube link: Watch on YouTube

Why were Uruguayans allowed in the line?

How many offensive players are allowed in the line?

Where are offensive players allowed to be in the line?

Why was the pushing by the Russian legal? How much pushing is legal anyway?

Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?

Also, during the World Cup I saw a heck of a lot of jersey grabbing, much of it forceful and blatant, and very few fouls called. I don't understand why so much jersey grabbing is permitted.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2018 9:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2018 5:45 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10870
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 38 of 45 (837116)
07-26-2018 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
07-26-2018 8:17 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?

I am puzzled by most of these questions, but not by this one. You have indeed identified the competing interests, and I agree with your implied assessment that leaving the line wider was the better option.

The Russian made a poor decision and thought that a clear view was the better option and acted on that poor decision.

I simply don't know enough about soccer to answer the other questions. I would not have thought that such pushing was allowed in a soccer game, but I don't know the rules well enough to say.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-26-2018 8:17 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 39 of 45 (837119)
07-27-2018 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
07-26-2018 8:17 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Why were Uruguayans allowed in the line?

Because every player has the right to his place on the pitch (to quote the official rules). Meaning that a Uruguayan player has every right to go and stand where the Russians want to place their line; and there's nothing the Russians can do about it. It's standard for attacking players to try and occupy space that would be useful for a defensive line to make holes in it; or to block the keeper's line of sight.

The only restriction on where players can stand during a free kick is that no Russian is allowed to stand within 10 yards of the spot the freekick is being taken from (nowadays referees often use the spray foam to mark a ten yard line). And of course if a Uruguayan is standing in an offside position it would be not be possible to pass the ball to them

How many offensive players are allowed in the line?

All of them, if they felt like (minus the one actually taking the free kick).

Where are offensive players allowed to be in the line?

Anywhere at least ten yards from the ball (see above).

Why was the pushing by the Russian legal? How much pushing is legal anway?

Ah - now the difficult question.

The laws of football do not explicitly forbid pushing an opponent. They do mention that pushing an opponent to prevent a clear goal-scoring opportunity is an immediate red card offense. They also say that pushing an opponent in a manner considered to be careless, reckless or using excessive force is an offence. 'Careless', 'reckless' and 'using excessive force' are all explicitly defined in the rules, but in such a way that it is in no sense easy to distinguish between them.

So there is considerable room for interpretation on this point, and different referees come to different conclusions. There is a school of thought that no pushing at all should be allowed. After all, as mentioned above 'every play has the right to his position on the pitch'; which clearly implies to me that it's not permissible to forcibly move a player from where they're standing, as the Russian defender does in this clip. It's also an offence to impede the movement of a player with contact. To my mind the above two rules would make it clearly illegal to push players, but this is not commonly enforced so strictly.

Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?

You've answered your own question. The keeper couldn't see where the ball was coming from. The defender tried to clear his line of sight before the shot (clear foul, in my opinion, but irrelevant in this case since it was a goal).

Also, during the World Cup I saw a heck of a lot of jersey grabbing, much of it forceful and blatant, and very few fouls called. I don't understand why so much jersey grabbing is permitted.

Unlike a bit of pushing, where there is room for interpretation, pulling is always a clear and unequivocal foul. It frustrates me enormously that it is so weakly enforced.

quote:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
(...)
holds an opponent

I don't see what lack of clarity there is there. Are referees taking the view that holding someone's shirt is not the same as holding an opponent?

This is not the only rule that is inconsistently or never enforced. How many times in the world cup did you see players surrounding the referee, shouting at him and arguing? Let's look how the rules define 'dissent' - which by the rules is always a yellow card offence:

quote:
Public disagreement (verbal and/or physical) with a match official’s decision

Shouting at the referee that he's got it wrong is a yellow card offence - no ifs or buts, no leeway or room for interpretation. It strikes me that if the rules were actually followed most of the players at the last world cup would have been sent off.

Incidentally - the enforcement of rules is not the same at all levels of football. Referees often seem to be laxest on things like dissent at the highest levels; while different leagues and countries tend to develop very different interpretations of things like 'excessive force'. When it comes to events like the World Cup I think referees are directed from on high to be lax - the big money sponsors don't want the guy they signed a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal with to miss half the tournament thanks to being sanctioned for something petty like dissent. Personally I think it ruins the game, and makes football a bit of a laughing stock among people who only tune in every four years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 07-26-2018 8:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 8:44 AM caffeine has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 45 (837124)
07-27-2018 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by caffeine
07-27-2018 5:45 AM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Thanks to you and NoNukes for the answers. I guess I still have a few questions about where players stand in the line.

carreine writes:

Where are offensive players allowed to be in the line?

Anywhere at least ten yards from the ball (see above).

I understand the reason behind defensive players having to be ten yards from the ball, but why the offensive players since the closer they are to the ball the further they are from the goalie? Can I assume this only applies to offensive players who are in front of the ball, that as many offensive players as like can stand close behind the ball?

It would make sense for the rules to say that defensive players can't be within ten yards of the ball, whether in back or in front, because otherwise they could stand directly in back of the ball and make it impossible to kick. Since you never see this I assume the rules cover it.

Since every player has a right to his place on the pitch, in a set play, especially a free kick like this one where the defense really needs to create a line of its own players, how do opposing players settle who gets a place they both want?

Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?

You've answered your own question. The keeper couldn't see where the ball was coming from. The defender tried to clear his line of sight before the shot (clear foul, in my opinion, but irrelevant in this case since it was a goal).

Had they not been pushed, what were the Uruguayans planning to do? Step aside to create a clearer shot? If so, then why did the Russian help them step to the side by pushing them since that's what the Uruguayans wanted anyway? Plus the Russian vacated his own spot in the line, which would have been occupied had he done nothing (not that it mattered since the ball passed through the line where the Uruguayans had been).

You seem to feel that if the free kick attempt had not ended up as a goal that the referee would have been justified calling a foul on the Russian player. Since the foul would have been in the box wouldn't that have been a penalty kick? If so, why would the Russian risk it? Was he actually risking nothing since the ref knew the Uruguayans wanted to move to the side anyway, and so wouldn't call a foul?

And would it be correct to say that whether Russians get called for a foul for pushing Uruguayans that it would depend upon the refs interpretation of Uruguayan intent?

quote:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
(...)
holds an opponent

I don't see what lack of clarity there is there. Are referees taking the view that holding someone's shirt is not the same as holding an opponent?

Some of the holding I saw in the box that wasn't called was extreme, sometimes very much like a bear hug. Do refs tend to ignore fouls when there's no harm (in the run of play) or injury?

One of the reasons Americans find boring baseball so intriguing is because the interplay of the rules causes so many interesting situations. It's beginning to seem to me that the same is true of soccer, though there's a more interpretational aspect to it. I watch our home team Revolution in MLS soccer, but the nature of the play is different. Tactics are more primitive, the game isn't so physical, and there seems to be more play acting after fairly minor contact.

Not that some of the play acting at the World Cup wasn't pretty bad, too. Wide receivers in American Football wear very little padding (because it slows them down and makes them less agile), and they usually pop up from violent contact time and again. Soccer players go down (first launching themselves into the air to make the fall more spectacular is common) and roll around in supposed great pain on the slightest pretext. I've been hit hard occasionally during athletics, and rolling around in pain isn't the response. The period after the shock of impact usually involves gong to ground but also a cessation of most motion while one assesses how much pain is coming (it doesn't happen immediately) and whether there is any injury. The refs have seen it all before countless times and seem to mostly ignore it or at least wait a considerable time with the player not rising before calling a stoppage in play, except for head injuries. In fact, head injuries seem almost the only ones where soccer players react genuinely. Two players go up to head a ball, their heads knock, there's a delay before the players realize they've been struck in the head, and they go down and stay there stationary. That's what genuine injury looks like, not rolling around writhing in pain. I once had the equivalent of spikes rake across my calf (I ran into the end of a fence) - rolling around on the ground writing in pain was not the reaction.

Sorry, I went on too long about that. I just don't like to see aspects of the fakery of pro wrestling on the soccer field.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2018 5:45 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 5:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 07-30-2018 1:33 PM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 41 of 45 (837144)
07-27-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
07-27-2018 8:44 AM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Percy writes:

Since every player has a right to his place on the pitch, in a set play, especially a free kick like this one where the defense really needs to create a line of its own players, how do opposing players settle who gets a place they both want?

It's a gentlemen's agreement where the defense gets to set up their wall and the offense can fill in around it.

Some of the holding I saw in the box that wasn't called was extreme, sometimes very much like a bear hug. Do refs tend to ignore fouls when there's no harm (in the run of play) or injury?

Excessive holding that prevents a scoring chance will be penalized while holding away from the play will not. The penalty awarded to Kane was a perfect example where the ball was kicked in his direction.

Most of all, referees really don't want to call a penalty shot because they don't want to be the difference makers in the match. All the players know that they can get away with murder as long as it is away from the ball.

Not that some of the play acting at the World Cup wasn't pretty bad, too. Wide receivers in American Football wear very little padding (because it slows them down and makes them less agile), and they usually pop up from violent contact time and again. Soccer players go down (first launching themselves into the air to make the fall more spectacular is common) and roll around in supposed great pain on the slightest pretext. I've been hit hard occasionally during athletics, and rolling around in pain isn't the response.

There is a part of me that wishes football (i.e. soccer) players would suddenly find themselves in a rugby match. Those dudes are some of the toughest athletes I have ever seen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 8:44 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 42 of 45 (837336)
07-30-2018 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
07-27-2018 8:44 AM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
I understand the reason behind defensive players having to be ten yards from the ball, but why the offensive players since the closer they are to the ball the further they are from the goalie?

Sorry - I was muddling myself. Offensive players can stand wherever they like.

Since every player has a right to his place on the pitch, in a set play, especially a free kick like this one where the defense really needs to create a line of its own players, how do opposing players settle who gets a place they both want?

They push and shove each other (against the rules) as you have observed.

Had they not been pushed, what were the Uruguayans planning to do? Step aside to create a clearer shot? If so, then why did the Russian help them step to the side by pushing them since that's what the Uruguayans wanted anyway? Plus the Russian vacated his own spot in the line, which would have been occupied had he done nothing (not that it mattered since the ball passed through the line where the Uruguayans had been).

They would most likely have run to the side, yes; but could also have jumped in case they had agreed in advance that Suarez would play the ball along the ground. Risky if timed poorly, though.

You seem to feel that if the free kick attempt had not ended up as a goal that the referee would have been justified calling a foul on the Russian player. Since the foul would have been in the box wouldn't that have been a penalty kick? If so, why would the Russian risk it? Was he actually risking nothing since the ref knew the Uruguayans wanted to move to the side anyway, and so wouldn't call a foul?

And would it be correct to say that whether Russians get called for a foul for pushing Uruguayans that it would depend upon the refs interpretation of Uruguayan intent?

I don't know the exact thought processes of the defender - but as you have observed referees do not often penalise this type of play, so it becomes normalised (and players start screaming and shouting when they are penalised).

I'm not sure I follow why Uruguayan intent is relevant.

Some of the holding I saw in the box that wasn't called was extreme, sometimes very much like a bear hug. Do refs tend to ignore fouls when there's no harm (in the run of play) or injury?

I think referees are counselled to let a bit of pushing and pulling slide during set pieces. Back in 2016 they started trying to enforce the rules more strictly on this in the Premiership, and there was a lot of negative criticism.

Interestingly - I downloaded a copy of the most recent rules to check I'm getting things right, and I have just been reading the 'guidelines' section. These are not technically part of the rules, but are advice to referees on how to interpret them from the official rule-making body. The official guidelines clearly do not encourage lenience in these cases. To clarify the meaning of the below, 'caution' does not mean 'warn' - it means give a yellow card.

quote:
3. Holding an opponent
Referees are reminded to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with holding offences, especially inside the penalty area at corner kicks and free kicks. To deal with these situations:
• the referee must warn any player holding an opponent before the ball is in play
• caution the player if the holding continues before the ball is in play
• award a direct free kick or penalty kick and caution the player if it happens once the ball is in play

One of the reasons Americans find boring baseball so intriguing is because the interplay of the rules causes so many interesting situations. It's beginning to seem to me that the same is true of soccer, though there's a more interpretational aspect to it.

The main problem with the rules of football is that a lot of it comes down to interpretation. They introduced goal-line technology to avoid referee mistakes over whether the ball had crossed the line; since that's a physical fact that requires to be determined - not interpreted.

But there's no technology that can determine the correct decision most of the time. Take the concept of 'denial of an goal-scoring opportunity'. Whether a foul prevents an obvious goal-scoring opportunity matters to decide the correct sanction to apply; but the rules do not actually define 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity', and it strikes me as a very subjective concept. At school we always used the rule of thumb that a foul by the 'last man' (meaning there are no defensive players between the one commiting the foul and the goal - except the keeper) was always DOGSO; but is that really the case if you're out wide and very close to the goal line?

Even more difficult is that a lot of the rules require to referee to determine a player's intent. It's only an offence to handle the ball, for example, if you do so intentionally. Another rule of thumb used here is the concept of 'ball to hand' - if the ball moves towards the hand instead of the hand towards the ball it's not a foul (so you can't intentionally force a penalty by kicking the ball at a defender's arm). But it's not that simple; since in practice there are 'ball to hand' situations that are clear handballs. If a defender stands on the goal line with arms outstretched before the shot comes in, and the ball hits them, that's an obvious handball since they had clearly placed their hands in such a position in the hope that it might block a shot - the intent was to handball. But often it's not so obvious; and the rules nowhere mention whether a player should be making active effort to ensure that their arms do not contact the ball (often they do when defending free kicks and the like - if the arms are held directly in front of the torso while you're standing in a wall then you can't reasonably call handball).

Sorry, I went on too long about that. I just don't like to see aspects of the fakery of pro wrestling on the soccer field.

To be honest, I don't really understand it. Going down easy makes sense - the intent is to call the referee's attention to the fact that you've been fouled and don't see an advantage to playing on or, more cynically, to give the impression you've been fouled when you haven't. But the overacting and rolling around on the floor is a mystery. What matters from the point of view of the referee is what the player committing the foul actually did, not whether or not it hurt. Why feign pain? Do players think referee's will overlook them falling over without the histrionics? Do they think referees actually believe their childishly poor play-acting?

And I think it can backfire - once a player has developed enough of a reputation for obvious fakery it seems to me that referees give their opponents the benefit of the doubt. This happened to Arjen Robben later in his career - I saw many actual fouls which were clear sat at home with the slow-motion replay; but which the ref ignored because he just saw Robben rolling on the floor when he lost the ball in the final third again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-27-2018 8:44 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-30-2018 2:58 PM caffeine has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17584
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 45 (837345)
07-30-2018 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by caffeine
07-30-2018 1:33 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Thanks for all the info. About hand balls, all of what you said made sense to me, but it reminded me of one of the World Cup games where an offensive and a defensive player both leapt up to head a ball in the box, the offensive player behind the defensive player and all their arms akimbo. The offensive player leapt higher and headed the ball down into the defensive players arm. The ref called nothing, but there was a VAR review, after which a hand ball was called. The penalty kick was successful and the game ended in a tie when it seemed like it should have been a win for the other team. I can only guess that the ref thought he detected that the defensive player had positioned his arm purposefully.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by caffeine, posted 07-30-2018 1:33 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 07-30-2018 3:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 07-30-2018 3:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 44 of 45 (837346)
07-30-2018 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-30-2018 2:58 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Percy writes:

I can only guess that the ref thought he detected that the defensive player had positioned his arm purposefully.

I think a better way to put it is that the defensive player positioned his arm incorrectly. The correct position is the arms close to the body instead of near the head or out to the side. If the arms are far out from the body then you can be called for a hand ball penalty if the ball strikes your arm. For better or worse, there has been an attempt to take subjectivity out of the call, such as trying to interpret the intention of the potential offender. By focusing on the position of the arm it takes intention out of the equation. I have seen situations where the offensive player jumped for a header with his hands close to his head, and was then called for a hand ball after the ball deflected and hit his own hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-30-2018 2:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1456
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 45 of 45 (837348)
07-30-2018 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
07-30-2018 2:58 PM


Re: Tactics and Rules Questions
Thanks for all the info. About hand balls, all of what you said made sense to me, but it reminded me of one of the World Cup games where an offensive and a defensive player both leapt up to head a ball in the box, the offensive player behind the defensive player and all their arms akimbo. The offensive player leapt higher and headed the ball down into the defensive players arm. The ref called nothing, but there was a VAR review, after which a hand ball was called. The penalty kick was successful and the game ended in a tie when it seemed like it should have been a win for the other team. I can only guess that the ref thought he detected that the defensive player had positioned his arm purposefully.

Funnily enough, one of the things I was just reading in the latest edition of the rules was the guidance for using the VAR. When using the video to assess questions of fact (ie. was the foul just inside the penalty area or just outside it?) officials are directed to watch the replay in slow motion. When using it to judge questions of intent, however (ie. was the handball deliberate) they should watch the replays at full speed, so they're accurately taking into account how much time players had to consciously react to a situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 07-30-2018 2:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018