Good read on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/11/10/short-corners-may-be-widely-despised-but-they-are-helping-teams/

Seems apropos that the goal is a deflection.

very cool, thx

and we still only have one 0-0 game in this whole world cup

EFF YOU FRENCHIES

Tournament MVP, Own Goal!







Not quite but basically...

mathguy86 said:

---

Seems apropos that the goal is a deflection.

---

Was gonna be an easy save although it was hit with pace.

If points were given for deflecting balls off the other team for a corner the red team would be ahead by 20.

mathguy86 said:

---

nomad2007 said:

---

How was that a yellow card on the Behrami foul? Seemed rather mild.

---

It was persistent infringement.

---

I understand. I guess I disagree that it was an obvious enough foul to say that that specific foul was the straw that broke the camels back.

Well, at least Mexico only lost to top 8 teams...

nomad2007 said:

---

mathguy86 said:

---

nomad2007 said:

---

How was that a yellow card on the Behrami foul? Seemed rather mild.

---

It was persistent infringement.

---

I understand. I guess I disagree that it was an obvious enough foul to say that that specific foul was the straw that broke the camels back.

---

Well, it's called a straw for a reason.

jeffk said:

---

nomad2007 said:

---

mathguy86 said:

---

nomad2007 said:

---

How was that a yellow card on the Behrami foul? Seemed rather mild.

---

It was persistent infringement.

---

I understand. I guess I disagree that it was an obvious enough foul to say that that specific foul was the straw that broke the camels back.

---

Well, it's called a straw for a reason.

---

Touche

That's a red. Clear push. That's the difference between today and the other day. And it looks outside the area anyway.

mathguy86 said:

---

That's a red. Clear push. That's the difference between today and the other day. And it looks outside the area anyway.

---

So Red, but no PK, right?

This was a push when the goalie was still between he and the goal. Yesterday was a tackle from behind after the goalie had been beaten. Yesterday was FAR more deserving a red.

boogieman said:

---

mathguy86 said:

---

That's a red. Clear push. That's the difference between today and the other day. And it looks outside the area anyway.

---

So Red, but no PK, right?

---

Yes. And it would be red if it were inside. A push, pull or hold is red DOGSO in the area.

Both should have been reds.

VAR

I didn't think Sweden would pull this off.

No, the current thinking is that a penalty and a red card is too harsh unless the foul is clearly reckless or dangerous.

If yesterday's foul was outside the penalty box it would've been a red card, but the ref got it right according to how FIFA is instructing them these days.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Well, at least Mexico only lost to top 8 teams...

---

Well I know you're an Ag, celebrating losses to average good teams and all...

It's not FIFA instructing referees. It's how the Law was written. From The IFAB:

"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. A player, sent off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders"

Uncle Boo Boo said:

---

No, the current thinking is that a penalty and a red card is too harsh unless the foul is clearly reckless or dangerous.

If yesterday's foul was outside the penalty box it would've been a red card, but the ref got it right according to how FIFA is instructing them these days.

---

Except today, the ref gave a red AND initially called a penalty on a less harsh foul. VAR had to reverse the penalty.

mathguy86 said:

---

It's not FIFA instructing referees. It's how the Law was written. From The IFAB:

"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. A player, sent off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders"

---

This makes sense RE today's vs yesterday's, however I disagree with the rule/logic. Slide tackle from behind is far more dangerous but could (and was) be seen as "making a play for the ball"

Unthought Known said:

---

I confuse Belgium with the Netherlands. I can not remembe who is Dutch.

---

that's strange - thats my problem with Denmark and The Netherlands.

I mean people from Belgium are Belgians.

But The Dutch ?? - is that Denmark or Netherlands - I have to consciously think out Denmark is The Danes. I mean Dutch and Denmark starts with same letter.

Side note:

There was a local restaurant that for a long time I refused to eat there on Sunday's because their brunch menu listed:

Belgium Waffles

drove me insane - they finally fixed it after about 3 years.

If the referee deems the tackle from behind to be excessive he can always upgrade the card to red for Serious Foul Play.

That tackle Sunday was a yellow card tackle anywhere in the field. And that's the idea with the change in the Law. It's still a yellow card foul and the equalizing piece of the puzzle is the PK. The combination of red (loss of player plus PK) on the field plus suspension later was deemed to be too much punishment for a foul of that type in the area. That's the triple punishment everyone talks about. Outside the area, there is no PK, so the yellow card isn't equal to the act. Therefore the card is upgraded to red.

Edit: this is again from the IFAB (organization writing the Laws) in the FAQ section of Law 12. It explains why the changes were made.

"Q9: Why was the 'triple punishment' for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) offences changed for offences in the penalty area?
The main reason is that the award of a penalty kick effectively 'restores' the obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied by the foul. It was felt that a penalty, red card and suspension (the three/triple punishment) was too strong so the red card has become a caution (YC) but only for DOGSO offences which are an attempt to play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball.

Q10: Is every DOGSO offence in the penalty area now only a caution (YC)?
NO the Law has only changed for those DOGSO offences in the penalty area where the offender makes an attempt to play the ball or challenge an opponent for the ball. The sending-off (RC) remains for:
handball
holding, pulling and pushing (as these offences are not an attempt to play the ball)
making no attempt to play the ball e.g. a deliberate trip
an offence when there was no chance/possibility of the ball being played

Q11: Can a DOGSO offence outside the penalty area be punished with a caution (YC)?
NO unlike a penalty kick, a free kick is not an obvious chance to score a goal so it does not 'restore' the obvious goal-scoring opportunity that was denied by the offence - the disciplinary sanction for all DOGSO offences outside the penalty area remains a sending-off (RC).

Q12: If a player commits a DOGSO offence punished by an indirect free kick (IDFK) in the penalty area what is the disciplinary sanction?
The change relating to DOGSO offences is only when the referee awards a penalty kick. This is because the penalty kick effectively restores the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As an IDFK does not restore the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the sanction for any DOGSO offence resulting in an IDFK is a sending-off (RC)."

hurleyag said:

---

Both should have been reds.

---

That means you don't understand the rules.

The first was an attempt at the ball. PK and yellow.

The second was not an attempt at the ball.

The laws of the game have changed. In the past, both were reds.

Mark Geiger has the whistle for the England v Colombia match next. That's very unusual as native English speakers are almost never allowed to work England in international matches.

Geiger has had two very good matches so far and if he gets through this unscathed he's in the running for a semi final or the final. That would be a massive accomplishment.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

Unthought Known said:

---

I confuse Belgium with the Netherlands. I can not remembe who is Dutch.

---

that's strange - thats my problem with Denmark and The Netherlands.

I mean people from Belgium are Belgians.

But The Dutch ?? - is that Denmark or Netherlands - I have to consciously think out Denmark is The Danes. I mean Dutch and Denmark starts with same letter.

Side note:

There was a local restaurant that for a long time I refused to eat there on Sunday's because their brunch menu listed:

Belgium Waffles

drove me insane - they finally fixed it after about 3 years.

---

Maybe I'm just confused with all of them.

well remember, about 60% of Belgians are Flemish who are closer to dutch, so you are too far off after all....

No Rodriguez for Columbia

been down this road before, not worth

England is off to a blazing start, really need to put one in during this spell of pressure

free piggy back rides

Close for Kane

Ospina was beat if Kane gets that down.