He absolutely made no attempt to play the ball. His was desperately trying to keep his opponent from playing the ball by tackling him from behind.

So, you are saying that tackling from behind should go unpunished because the player was actually trying to play the ball. His opponent's legs just got in his way.
WOW! That would cause serious injuries to rapidly increase.

The "center" was simply a chicken.

Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!

JJxvi said:

---

The goal line is 12 yards away from the penalty spot, the rules aren't the same as every other free kick right now

---

Sure but on other free kicks the wall guys cannot use their hands and there are several of them......

That's like saying field goals and punts have different rules. Yeah for a reason.

We interpreted the play differently - I thought he made a failed attempt at winning the ball and so did the center and I guess the VAR crew did too. They applied the rule in accordance to what they (and I) saw. It's okay that you saw it differently.

Edit - and he was punished: with a yellow and conceding the penalty.

Why are you being so weird about this?

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

That's like saying field goals and punts have different rules. Yeah for a reason.

---

Exactly my point.

My response was to this...

Quote:

---

From restarts, every opponent has to be 10 yards away until the ball is played.
So, you want the rules changed to that opponents can run towards the ball when there is any movement by the kicker?

---

The rules don't need to be the same for pks and free kicks. They are in fact already different

Wow. Just got back from Futsal and watched the last 15 minutes of ET and the kicks. The minute I saw that play I knew everyone would be unhappy.

That's a yellow card. He made an attempt to play the ball. It wasn't much one one but the LOTG don't require that. Pushing, holding are the red card variants. The recent last year was based on videos taken during the national candidate sessions. The guidance was clear. In the area you have to think yellow first and if there is any attempt at the ball with the feet you go yellow. This qualifies. It's all about reducing the triple penalty of PK+loss of the player during the game+ loss of the player in the future. It's also designed to make it easier for refs to call a PK.

As for the GKs, the ref was consistent. He gave them both a good step. I would say that's not an unreasonable standard. Schmeichels first was probably the worst. Interestingly enough if he calls that it's not just a rekick but a mandatory card.

He didn't make an attempt to play the ball. Try again.

CashMoneyYo said:

---

He didn't make an attempt to play the ball. Try again.

---

In the eyes of the LOTG he did. A play with the feet is an attempt at the ball. It's yellow and it's not even close. Refs have had 2 years coming to grips with it.

CashMoneyYo said:

---

He didn't make an attempt to play the ball. Try again.

---

Seems like most of the articles I've seen agree with mathguy in that it was a deserved yellow card and not red

It was a yellow by the current rules. The problem is the rules are bad with respect to this one specific situation. It's a rule designed to make sure the penalty is not too harsh, but yet in this situation because the goalkeeper was beaten and the ball was 99.99999% already as good as in the back of the net, there is really no penalty to Denmark that could have been too harsh for that foul. That foul kept them alive, and they would have taken almost any punishment for it because without it they are eliminated. I think that situation needs to be addressed in the laws. It's one thing to get a yellow for a foul where the attacker still had to make a good shot on goal and still had to beat the keeper, a PK is closer to a fair outcome. A pk is not a fair outcome for a foul that prevent you from tapping into an open net and therefore the penalty to the defender should be harsher than a yellow, IMO.

Yeah, it's a question of letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

Letter says YC, but I think most of us that disagree feel that the tackle was made with the intent of stopping the argiably inevitable goal at all costs, up to and including getting sent off.

mathguy86 said:

---

CashMoneyYo said:

---

He didn't make an attempt to play the ball. Try again.

---

In the eyes of the LOTG he did. A play with the feet is an attempt at the ball. It's yellow and it's not even close. Refs have had 2 years coming to grips with it.

---

I think a lot of the hangup in the discussion is really more about, is that what the rule should actually be. It seems that the ref, and VAR, enforced the new version of the rule correctly.

I would say that if a rule exists that allows that play to just be a yellow card instead of a red, then it needs to be changed.

JJxvi said:

---

It was a yellow by the current rules. The problem is the rules are bad with respect to this one specific situation. It's a rule designed to make sure the penalty is not too harsh, but yet in this situation because the goalkeeper was beaten and the ball was 99.99999% already as good as in the back of the net, there is really no penalty to Denmark that could have been too harsh for that foul. That foul kept them alive, and they would have taken almost any punishment for it because without it they are eliminated. I think that situation needs to be addressed in the laws. It's one thing to get a yellow for a foul where the attacker still had to make a good shot on goal and still had to beat the keeper, a PK is closer to a fair outcome. A pk is not a fair outcome for a foul that prevent you from tapping into an open net and therefore the penalty to the defender should be harsher than a yellow, IMO.

---

Well put.

I think thw forwards lack of ability bailed him out of the red card

Had they won he is a national hero

Dude had minimal contact and stopped the open net tap in bc the forward sucks

Ain't no way a quality forward leaves that open
Very Concaff play

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Yeah, it's a question of letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

Letter says YC, but I think most of us that disagree feel that the tackle was made with the intent of stopping the argiably inevitable goal at all costs, up to and including getting sent off.

---

I don't disagree with this. But I would say that's what a DOGSO foulnis by definition. It is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. By any costs. Many referees I know would say they knew this was inevitable. Someone would end up committing a truly cynical foul like this and not get sent off. It just happened on the biggest stage. In a real sense the game expected and red card and send off and it didn't happen.

So my neighbors are getting a pool installed

guys worked extra hard this weekend we shall see if the Brazilians show up to work in the am

Question for the ones (solid majority) who support a YC instead of a RC, if the identical situation had occurred outside the penalty area, would you still say it should be a YC instead of a RC?

Go Brazil. BTHO Mexico.
Back spasms may prevent Real Madrid's Marcelo from playing against Mexico.

MidTnAg said:

---

Question for the ones (solid majority) who support a YC instead of a RC, if the identical situation had occurred outside the penalty area, would you still say it should be a YC instead of a RC?

Go Brazil. BTHO Mexico.
Back spasms may prevent Real Madrid's Marcelo from playing against Mexico.

---

Outside the penalty area this is still a possible red card subject to the DOGSO conditions (distance to ball, distance to And number of defenders, direction to goal). That's clearly stated in Law 12.

Rafa is starting.
Oh well, it's been fun guys

No Marcelo for Brazil.

No Layun for Mexico; Marquez starting.

MidTnAg said:

---

Question for the ones (solid majority) who support a YC instead of a RC, if the identical situation had occurred outside the penalty area, would you still say it should be a YC instead of a RC?

---

That seems like a question along the lines of "If my aunt was a man, would she be my uncle?"

I mean, yeah, I guess so, but I don't see how it affects the ruling in the actual situation.

Well this will be tough. I despise Neymar and his crybaby antics. So I'm not rooting for Brazil. And I damn sure am not pulling a Landon and rooting for Mexico.

Maybe I should wish that everyone ate at the same restaurant last night and there are 22 cases of dysentery on the pitch.

Sucks for Marcelo. He's a badass. Still think Brazil wins this fairly easily, but the way this WC's going, who knows?

mathguy86 said:

---

Wow. Just got back from Futsal and watched the last 15 minutes of ET and the kicks. The minute I saw that play I knew everyone would be unhappy.

That's a yellow card. He made an attempt to play the ball. It wasn't much one one but the LOTG don't require that. Pushing, holding are the red card variants. The recent last year was based on videos taken during the national candidate sessions. The guidance was clear. In the area you have to think yellow first and if there is any attempt at the ball with the feet you go yellow. This qualifies. It's all about reducing the triple penalty of PK+loss of the player during the game+ loss of the player in the future. It's also designed to make it easier for refs to call a PK.

As for the GKs, the ref was consistent. He game them both a good step. I would say that's not an unreasonable standard. Schmeichels first was probably the worst. Interestingly enough if he calls that it's not just a relics but a mandatory card.

---

Always appreciate your insight. Thanks!

Interesting. The temperature was 94 dF. Wonder if there will be water breaks?

Brazil 3-1

Brazil
Dos a Cero

Pleasantly surprised to not hear the voice of the "Boom goes the dynamite" guy.

Mexico looking good early

Mexico going with the "foul Neymar early" theory

Players that want that foul crack me up. Do you really want a kick deeper than a goal kick?

Mexico having a lot of success along their left.

Side note: Chicharito looks friggin ridiculous with that bleach job.

Yeah, but he definitely stands out.

Mexico is getting some penetration.