Law 13.2, Procedure for taking a free kick: the player taking the kick deliberately kicks it at an opponent in order to be able to play it again, play continues, but it can't be careless or reckless or using excessive force.
I thought at the time it was close to being excessive force and that Coleman was perhaps a tiny bit fortunate it was only a yellow. On the other hand, I reckon many would have seen a red as harsh. More of an 'orange' perhaps? I didn't see anything about the opponent initially going down as simulation. The ball was virtually touching his ankles when Coleman kicked it - the ball and Coleman's follow through pretty much swept his feet out from under him. Although he did milk it a bit in the aftermath.
Sounds like excessive force from that description, a caution each way makes the foul worth it there.
Exactly my thoughts on the matter.
And? 2 wrongs and all that...
The law is fairly clear that if the reason is to be able to play the ball, play continues. That implies if the reason is something else, it does not, so someone must have done something to require stopping play. Unless the defender is otherwise being penalised, in which case this entire point is moot, the attacker must be, and the only thing they've done is kick the ball at an opponent.
This is a common misunderstanding of the negation logic. A simple analogy makes this clear. If I assert "If a man is from France, he is European" then you can not say that implies "If a man is not from France, he is not European".
