A&H

Euros

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justylove said:
3) Ref did a great job of ensuring the Danish wall was the right distance from the England wall in the set up for the freekick, however before the ball is struck, they definitely shuffled much closer. Arguement could be that it should have been an IFK to England, but that would have caused uproar I'm sure!
Click to expand...
If you watch the sequence (and someone else mentioned part of this), the Danish players stay on the penalty area line and shuffle to their right, but the English players in the wall shuffle forward, making that distance less than the 1m... but are also encroaching on the distance set at the same time...

Alex Rush-Fear said:
There was a shout for one early on - didn't think it was at the time and haven't seen any replays of it!
Click to expand...

Potential pass to the GK:
streamable.com

Watch 2bnlh6 | Streamable

Watch this video on Streamable.
streamable.com
 
The Referee Store
one said:
It does if the referee gives a penalty. If you look at the definition of simulation in the book, this is it.

Of course if you say it was a pen, then it's not simulation. But from what I read here some agree it's not a penalty and the rest (almost) say it wasn't a clear and obvious error. So calling this simulation is fairly accurate. Contact = no simulation is a myth.
Click to expand...

Earlier in the game (normal time I think), Sterling cuts in from the right in to the penalty area, pushes the ball past Vestergaard (I think), then runs into him, goes down and appeals for a penalty.

Vestergaard stands his ground and Sterling literally bounces off him.

In this case, Sterling has "pretended to be fouled" he's literally run into the defender in the attempt to win a penalty.

Should he have been cautioned for simulation in this instance, if not, why?
 
Justylove said:
Earlier in the game (normal time I think), Sterling cuts in from the right in to the penalty area, pushes the ball past Vestergaard (I think), then runs into him, goes down and appeals for a penalty.

Vestergaard stands his ground and Sterling literally bounces off him.

In this case, Sterling has "pretended to be fouled" he's literally run into the defender in the attempt to win a penalty.

Should he have been cautioned for simulation in this instance, if not, why?
Click to expand...
Your description is correct. Your conclusion isn't. He didn't pretend to have been fouled in this instance. He appealed to have been fouled. The actions before it wasn't manufactured to justify his appeal or to deceive the referee to get a decision. They were part of his normal playing movement. Unlike the one he got a penalty for.

So no caution for simulation there.
 
Justylove said:
Earlier in the game (normal time I think), Sterling cuts in from the right in to the penalty area, pushes the ball past Vestergaard (I think), then runs into him, goes down and appeals for a penalty.

Vestergaard stands his ground and Sterling literally bounces off him.

In this case, Sterling has "pretended to be fouled" he's literally run into the defender in the attempt to win a penalty.

Should he have been cautioned for simulation in this instance, if not, why?
Click to expand...
Not all contact is a foul. What you're describing here is contact that should not be penalised at all.

And the appeal? Given the above, what you're essentially doing is advocating for bookings for any appeal - a very slippery slope!
 
GraemeS said:
Not all contact is a foul. What you're describing here is contact that should not be penalised at all.

And the appeal? Given the above, what you're essentially doing is advocating for bookings for any appeal - a very slippery slope!
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating at all. I'm asking a question as I'm struggling to understand in the context of the penalty award how it is possible to justify a caution for simulation.

I get that it's a contentious penalty and it's divided opinion as to whether it should or shouldn't be awarded, and I respect those that have a different view on it to me (that's the joy of football).

But to put it into context - the example I used above - Sterling is running in a straight-line, pushes the ball past the defender and then runs into him as the defender has stood his ground. He's clearly either expecting the defender to move, or is trying to 'win' a penalty.

Contrast that with the penalty award - Sterling is running at speed inside the box and is changing direction, it's in the 103rd minute of a high energy game, he's in a very tight space and has one defender each side of him and one in front. When he goes down and it's more of a sprawl that is indicative of a fall as opposed to a dive and there is contact on him.

For me:

1) No way I can countenance a caution for simulation here, based on the sequence of events I've described.
2) I stick by the fact that the defender has to be smarter, by placing his leg across Sterling to attempt to challenge, he's opened Pandoras box. For some the level of contact is insufficient to warrant the award of a foul, for others (including the referee on the day) it does. What annoys me is that there is always blame for the attacker or the referee in these circumstances, never once a question about what the defender has done, if the defender doesn't put his leg across Sterling, then there is no contact and no penalty.
3) This is one of the many incidents we've seen at this tournament, where VAR is not getting involved in 're-refereeing' games. VAR has been criticized heavily for doing this, especially on these marginal decisions. This was one of those decisions that 'In the Opinion Of The Referee' was a penalty, but had it been another referee he could have equally decided it wasn't.
 
Does this change the inevitable appointment of Kuipers to the final? How does UEFA want to deal with the Italian media going on about another Dutch ref? Will van Boekel be the VAR as he always is with Kuipers?

We will find out soon.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Why not? He has taken complete control of the ball and literally pushed/passed the ball to the keeper who then dives on it. He was not under a challenge/pressure.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can be sure he intended that to go to the keeper, he sort of pushes it diagonally. I'd need to be a lot mire certain to give an IKF there.
 
cwyeary said:
Does this change the inevitable appointment of Kuipers to the final? How does UEFA want to deal with the Italian media going on about another Dutch ref? Will van Boekel be the VAR as he always is with Kuipers?

We will find out soon.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I thought Kuipers was Already confirmed.

What's wrong with a Dutch ref???
 
es1 said:
Clear as day for me
Click to expand...

Not for me, it was just a toepoke from a slightly outstretched leg which just happened to make its way to the keeper, don't think it was in anyway a deliberate back pass to the keeper.

Regarding the VAR then it's a grey area because if the ref said he saw contact and the replays back him up, then VAR can't overrule that. That said, Sterling made the most of it and got rewarded so unless the bar is raised higher somewhat for a penelty compared to a normal free kick then these kind of incidents won't go away but I guess raising the bar would no doubt cause its own issues also.
 
Paul_10 said:
Not for me, it was just a toepoke from a slightly outstretched leg which just happened to make its way to the keeper, don't think it was in anyway a deliberate back pass to the keeper.

Regarding the VAR then it's a grey area because if the ref said he saw contact and the replays back him up, then VAR can't overrule that. That said, Sterling made the most of it and got rewarded so unless the bar is raised higher somewhat for a penelty compared to a normal free kick then these kind of incidents won't go away but I guess raising the bar would no doubt cause its own issues also.
Click to expand...
I think the bar has been raised.
I think Rossetti is quoted as saying something along the lines of wanting nailed on penalties and not for minimal contacts so this seems in opposition to those comments
 
JamesL said:
I think the bar has been raised.
I think Rossetti is quoted as saying something along the lines of wanting nailed on penalties and not for minimal contacts so this seems in opposition to those comments
Click to expand...
But there's a distinction between the VAR getting involved to give penalties based on minimal contacts vs the VAR getting involved to overrule penalties that have been given based on a minimal contact.

It's a constant pattern with these things - widen the "grey area" constantly until a referee gets blamed for not getting involved when it was "obvious", then reset to a very low ceiling and start the gradual widening process over again.

One of the many reasons I don't like the decision on when VAR is/isn't used to be placed on the referees and VAR. That becomes a whole other level of problem to worry about, wheras if a challenge system took that decision away from them, they can get back to being referees with a camera and just give decisions as they have for their entire careers.
 
AlexF said:
If you watch the sequence (and someone else mentioned part of this), the Danish players stay on the penalty area line and shuffle to their right, but the English players in the wall shuffle forward, making that distance less than the 1m... but are also encroaching on the distance set at the same time...



Potential pass to the GK:
streamable.com

Watch 2bnlh6 | Streamable

Watch this video on Streamable.
streamable.com
Click to expand...

There's enough doubt there to say that it was an interception rather than pass.
 
cwyeary said:
Also hearing that it's not a Dutch VAR.
Click to expand...
Nope

ITALY - ENGLAND
Referee: Björn Kuipers (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: Sander van Roekel (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: Erwin E. J. Zeinstra (NED)
Fourth Official: Carlos del Cerro Grande (ESP)
Fifth Official: Juan Carlos Yuste Jiménez (ESP)
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1:pol van Boekel (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Christian Gittelmann (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Marco Fritz (GER)
 
So van Boekel is the VAR for the semi because Blom screwed up the handball in the first match of the tournament and now he doesn't get to be the main VAR on the final because he got put into a position because he couldn't have Makkelie overturn that PK because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. Brutal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top