- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Awarding a Penalty Kick
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:47 pm to tigerfan88
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:47 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
In that according to a strict interpretation of the law Van Persie's sending off was valid.
Ah. In the strictest sense it was. Your problem is assuming that referee's will always use common sense. Their subject to the same feelings as any other human, so their application of these gray areas is dependent. The biggest issue I had with that game is that no Barca player got a yellow in the same altercation that Van Persie got a yellow in. It might have been something that he said, but Barca players gave the ref plenty of reasons in that instance to get yellow cards, and none were given.
1
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:48 pm to crazy4lsu
Bingo
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:48 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
What me and my fellow anti-pk'ers are saying is that there is room for interpretation and refs can and often do interpret the rules as they see fit.
That room for interpretation doesn't imply consistency though.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:49 pm to tigerfan88
quote:
that's exactly my point. I don't think anyone's saying an argument can't be made for calling the pk. What me and my fellow anti-pk'ers are saying is that there is room for interpretation and refs can and often do interpret the rules as they see fit. And that in this case he shouldn't have awarded a pk
Yep. Just saw the penalties also, don't agree with either of them. Hopefully if there were any other corner kicks in that game, he called PKs on them because shirt grabbing happens on every single corner.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:49 pm to tigerfan88
any and all calls that benefit barca are inherently bad calls and should be immediately reviewed.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:50 pm to thenry712
quote:
Claiming it's all a big fix to help Barça, is naive and ignorant.
Oh, ok. And Qatar won the world cup bid on its own, too, I suppose.
Pretending soccer isn't controlled by politics is naive and ignorant.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:54 pm to gallagherkck
quote:
Pretending soccer isn't controlled by politics is naive and ignorant.
I'd say it was more homefield advantage than anything else. Of course Barca are going to get calls at home.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 3:56 pm to gallagherkck
Soccer is controlled by politics?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Barcelona is just better than everyone. Better teams get in better positions to score, and therefore score more goals (PKs and from the run of play).
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Barcelona is just better than everyone. Better teams get in better positions to score, and therefore score more goals (PKs and from the run of play).
Posted on 4/3/12 at 4:15 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
No, he had a handful of Busquets jersey. It wasn't simply touching.
I was watching the game in class and ESPN gamecast said it was Pique, my bad. I did rewatch it when I got to my apartment and I don't think that the initial contact, before the pick, was anywhere near enough to call a foul. It's tough to tell how much contact and jersey pulling there was after the pick because both players had their backs to the camera (at least the only angle that I've seen) and Puyol was blocking out Nesta and blocked the camera. Still, it doesn't matter what happened after the pick. The pick should've at the very least nullified the foul Nesta.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 4:46 pm to LSUtiger17
I understand what the rules say, but lets look at this from the view of precedence set by what is actually called not what is written down, because honestly that's cool that you can bring out the rule book and say "look what it says here!". But how rules are normally enforced should be the barometer, not what it says in the rulebook. Regardless of what you think, there is some room for interpretation(i.e. playing advantage).
An individual watching that play unfold would see this: Nesta grabs Busquets jersey before the whistle to begin the play is blown, the moment the whistle blows he is committing a foul by the rules, however at that point no person (THenry included) would blow the whistle and award a penalty. As Busquets takes a step forward to position himself his shirt is still held by Nesta, at this point I still think it's safe to assume 99% of the time no one would call or expect a foul to be called mainly because the ball hasn't even been kicked yet and a normal referee would give time for the play to develop.
Two steps into Busquets run, while the ball has still not been kicked, Puyol turns and begins to pushe/pick/whatever himself into Nesta, which by the rules is a foul. Again at this point no person would call a foul because first, Nesta was already fouling Busquets making it illogical to call a foul in favor of someone committing a foul, second while a foul may be written in the rules, they are never called unless the outcome of that foul actually hampers the activity of the person being fouled. For example: while Busquets was being fouled at the moment the whistle was blown to begin play no logical person would call a foul because the foul hadn't actually done anything to that point that negatively affected him or impeded his participation in the game.
As Puyol's foul begins to force Nesta to stumble, Puyol also begins to stumble himself, straight into the back of Busquets causing him to lose his balance. This action coupled with Nesta stumbling, from the foul Puyol committed, while holding on to the shirt of Busquets, causes Busquets to fall. This is the only point in time at which a foul would be called and based on the fact that both teams involved in the action had a player responsible for fouling the other team, the normal conclusion to arrive at (that coincides with the precedence set by calls historically made, considers the magnitude of the game, the location on the pitch the fouls occur, the significance the players would have had on the play itself, and the manner in which the fouls occurred) is that in this situation nothing should be called.
Short Version:
Looking at the play from the standpoint of what is normally called
1) Fouls are never called until something detrimental actually happens to the person being fouled, therefor it is illogical to conclude that Nesta should have been called for a foul before contact was made by Puyol as he hadn't hindered Busquets play yet.
2) As no foul would ever be called before Puyol fouls Nesta, why should a foul be called on Nesta after he is fouled by Puyol, especially since it would seem that Puyol was more at fault for Busquets fall then Nesta was.
3) If the other first two points are met the logical assumption from here would be to call nothing
An individual watching that play unfold would see this: Nesta grabs Busquets jersey before the whistle to begin the play is blown, the moment the whistle blows he is committing a foul by the rules, however at that point no person (THenry included) would blow the whistle and award a penalty. As Busquets takes a step forward to position himself his shirt is still held by Nesta, at this point I still think it's safe to assume 99% of the time no one would call or expect a foul to be called mainly because the ball hasn't even been kicked yet and a normal referee would give time for the play to develop.
Two steps into Busquets run, while the ball has still not been kicked, Puyol turns and begins to pushe/pick/whatever himself into Nesta, which by the rules is a foul. Again at this point no person would call a foul because first, Nesta was already fouling Busquets making it illogical to call a foul in favor of someone committing a foul, second while a foul may be written in the rules, they are never called unless the outcome of that foul actually hampers the activity of the person being fouled. For example: while Busquets was being fouled at the moment the whistle was blown to begin play no logical person would call a foul because the foul hadn't actually done anything to that point that negatively affected him or impeded his participation in the game.
As Puyol's foul begins to force Nesta to stumble, Puyol also begins to stumble himself, straight into the back of Busquets causing him to lose his balance. This action coupled with Nesta stumbling, from the foul Puyol committed, while holding on to the shirt of Busquets, causes Busquets to fall. This is the only point in time at which a foul would be called and based on the fact that both teams involved in the action had a player responsible for fouling the other team, the normal conclusion to arrive at (that coincides with the precedence set by calls historically made, considers the magnitude of the game, the location on the pitch the fouls occur, the significance the players would have had on the play itself, and the manner in which the fouls occurred) is that in this situation nothing should be called.
Short Version:
Looking at the play from the standpoint of what is normally called
1) Fouls are never called until something detrimental actually happens to the person being fouled, therefor it is illogical to conclude that Nesta should have been called for a foul before contact was made by Puyol as he hadn't hindered Busquets play yet.
2) As no foul would ever be called before Puyol fouls Nesta, why should a foul be called on Nesta after he is fouled by Puyol, especially since it would seem that Puyol was more at fault for Busquets fall then Nesta was.
3) If the other first two points are met the logical assumption from here would be to call nothing
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:07 pm to TigerTalker142
A major part of the problem was that the ball was put into play. Most of the time refs just breakup the pushing and shoving prior to the kick being taken. Had Xavi not kicked the ball, the ref could have separated the three players, and the corner could be taken.
Once again, because the ball was played, and because Nesta grabbed Busquets shirt first, a penalty was the correct call.
I understand the calls for consistency in refereeing physical play occurring in the box, but the ball being in play does play a major aspect in the ref's correct decision.
Once again, because the ball was played, and because Nesta grabbed Busquets shirt first, a penalty was the correct call.
I understand the calls for consistency in refereeing physical play occurring in the box, but the ball being in play does play a major aspect in the ref's correct decision.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:14 pm to TigerTalker142
quote:
But how rules are normally enforced should be the barometer, not what it says in the rulebook. Regardless of what you think, there is some room for interpretation(i.e. playing advantage).
Again, just because there is room for interpretation in the rules doesn't mean that there has to be consistency in the interpretation. The best refs are the ones who are consistent in their interpretation. The ref, in this one moment, could decide to award the foul in this instance, and not award a similar foul in a similar instance. In both the interpretation is up to the ref, but the consistency of the rulings will vary widely. But in general, physical play in European competitions will always be called harsher, whereas in domestic competition, physical play is allowed more often.
The ref isn't omnipotent. We have no idea what he saw. What if he only saw Nesta holding the jersey, and not Puyol setting the pick? That seems to be a reasonable assumption, assuming that he is at the top of the box, seeing Busquets go down, he might assume that Busquets used Puyol to try to gain separation, which Nesta wouldn't allow because of the shirt pulling. How can we assume what would be "normally" called when we cannot ascertain what the ref saw? I'm not trying to defend the ref, but rather I want to point out that the interpretation defense, as in what he should have done, is based on the assumption that he saw the whole play, when it is more likely to assume that he only saw the plan after Nesta and Busquets were on the ground, and people were already calling for the penalty. Perhaps this is a better example of how Barca influences refs, rather than a case of strict application of the rules.
This post was edited on 4/3/12 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:16 pm to TigerTalker142
the first penalty that should have been called was the push by puyol, because before that the shirt pull had no impact on busquets at all, he was just holding onto him.
it only became a pull after he got hit by puyol, knocking him down and pulling down busquets with him.
therefore the first foul was the puyol hit, not the pull down.
yes he was holding the shirt first, but he was having no impact on busquets
it only became a pull after he got hit by puyol, knocking him down and pulling down busquets with him.
therefore the first foul was the puyol hit, not the pull down.
yes he was holding the shirt first, but he was having no impact on busquets
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:20 pm to sgallo3
quote:
the first penalty that should have been called was the push by puyol, because before that the shirt pull had no impact on busquets at all, he was just holding onto him.
You can't hold the shirt. I've seen penalties called where the only contact between the players was holding the shirt. I've seen it called a couple times in recent years. Two have involved Walcott. One I think was against Aston Villa this year, and the other was against Leeds in the FA Cup in 2010. Then I saw Micah Richards called for it, when he held onto Louis Saha shirt in a Man City vs Everton game. The first foul was definitely holding the shirt, not the pick by Puyol.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:35 pm to thenry712
quote:
A major part of the problem was that the ball was put into play.
The ball was not put into play until after the fouls had occurred
Like I said before:
1) Fouls are never called until something detrimental actually happens to the person being fouled, therefor it is illogical to conclude that Nesta should have been called for a foul before contact was made by Puyol as he hadn't hindered Busquets play yet.
2) As no foul would have been called before Puyol fouls Nesta, why should a foul be called on Nesta after he is fouled by Puyol, especially since it would seem that Puyol was more at fault for Busquets fall then Nesta was.
3) With that being said and considering the fact that ball wasn't even in play until the Puyol foul nothing should have been called since both parties were at fault.
This post was edited on 4/3/12 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:37 pm to gallagherkck
quote:
UEFA wants an El Classico final. It's very evident.
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:47 pm to TigerTalker142
quote:
he hadn't hindered Busquets play yet
So, he would have hindered play had the corner fortuitously dropped upon the head of Busquets, either before or during his going to the ground?
GTFO. If he can't get to the ball due to holding, it is a judgement call on the ref's part.
Was it flagrant? Damn straight.
Was it meritorious of the whiste? Maybe, could go either way.
It was a home side call, and AC Milan doesn't do themselves favors in this aspect, as they, and nearly all Italian sides, are notorious for fouling, play acting and wasting time. This common knowledge does affect a ref's judgement.
Posted on 4/3/12 at 5:57 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
How can we assume what would be "normally" called when we cannot ascertain what the ref saw? I'm not trying to defend the ref, but rather I want to point out that the interpretation defense, as in what he should have done, is based on the assumption that he saw the whole play, when it is more likely to assume that he only saw the plan after Nesta and Busquets were on the ground, and people were already calling for the penalty.
I could care less about what was called on the field, I understand that we don't know what he saw and honestly don't care what decision he made since I'm not really a fan of either team. I'm responding purely to Thenry saying it definitely should have been called the way it was, after we are in possession of all the facts. What would normally be called has nothing to do with what the ref called on the field in this game. It has everything to do with if you present that situation to a ref the majority of the time the decision that would be made is a no call.
This post was edited on 4/3/12 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 4/3/12 at 6:04 pm to Dandy Lion
quote:
So, he would have hindered play had the corner fortuitously dropped upon the head of Busquets, either before or during his going to the ground?
I don't know what he would have done had the ball been even close to getting to Busquets, we aren't arguing over what didn't happen though
quote:
it is illogical to conclude that Nesta should have been called for a foul before contact was made by Puyol as he hadn't hindered Busquets play yet.
Until Puyol pushes Nesta, nothing he had done had prevented Busquets from getting to the ball. It was only after the Puyol's push that Busquets was actually affected by Nesta's hand on his shirt.
This post was edited on 4/3/12 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 4/3/12 at 6:43 pm to TigerTalker142
Of course Barca sympathizers will argue one way vehemently and AC MIlan the other. And of course the arguments would be just as heart felt for the opposite reasons had the penalty been awarded Milan.
I don't really like either team and I thought it was an extremely weak penalty. Give me a break with the "handful of jersey" unless you can show me any corner ever taken when any defender who has ever walked onto the pitch isn't doing it.
The ref called the penalty mainly because Busquets went down, period, and the reason he went down was because Puyol pushed Nesta over him. If it was because of the jersey pull then BOTH teams would've been awarded at least 3 or 4 PKs a piece.
It's no conspiracy just that the home team / bigger clubs usually have a tendency to get too many calls like this. Just like Mascheranno getting no ball and all Ibra foot just after half wasn't a penalty but Ambrosini doing it to Messi was.
Just the way it is but give me break with the "handful of jersey" BS. That's just never a penalty unless you actually pull the guy to the ground with no other players around as the ball comes right to him (and not often even then) and that obviously didn't happen here.
I don't really like either team and I thought it was an extremely weak penalty. Give me a break with the "handful of jersey" unless you can show me any corner ever taken when any defender who has ever walked onto the pitch isn't doing it.
The ref called the penalty mainly because Busquets went down, period, and the reason he went down was because Puyol pushed Nesta over him. If it was because of the jersey pull then BOTH teams would've been awarded at least 3 or 4 PKs a piece.
It's no conspiracy just that the home team / bigger clubs usually have a tendency to get too many calls like this. Just like Mascheranno getting no ball and all Ibra foot just after half wasn't a penalty but Ambrosini doing it to Messi was.
Just the way it is but give me break with the "handful of jersey" BS. That's just never a penalty unless you actually pull the guy to the ground with no other players around as the ball comes right to him (and not often even then) and that obviously didn't happen here.
This post was edited on 4/3/12 at 7:25 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News