Match 62: CRO : ENG - CAKIR (TUR)

Discussion in 'World Cup 2018: Refereeing' started by balu, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. Ghastly Officiating

    Tottenham Hotspur
    United States
    Oct 12, 2017
    Walker went for it with his head and was beaten to the ball. The height of the other players boot did not stop him from making the challenge so, per the LotG, it was not dangerous play.
     
    grasskamper repped this.
  2. oxwof

    oxwof Member

    Sep 6, 2014
    Ohio
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Dangerous play is only an infraction when the danger prevents an opponent from playing the ball. So in this case, the defender would have needed to see the boot coming and decide not to attempt the header. But since he wasn't scared off the ball, there's no infraction. It's not that the kick near the head wasn't dangerous per se, it's that it wasn't against the rules because the danger didn't prevent the defender from playing the ball.
     
    tomek75 and TitoTata repped this.
  3. El Rayo Californiano

    Feb 3, 2014
    Dangerous play by the defender. IFK coming in!
     
    Ghastly Officiating repped this.
  4. Ickshter

    Ickshter Member

    Manchester City
    Mar 14, 2014
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Because it didn't PREVENT Walker from heading the ball, by what you can see because Walker tried to head it. At this level this is not called. Also, Walker was going for a Header, but it was a LOW header, you could say that Walker's low header was PIADM. The best thing to do was call neither. Which is what happened. Correctly.
     
    DefRef repped this.
  5. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    Just shows how we all see things differently.. in the above photo it looks like a pretty normal height header , maybe 6" lower but the guys foot is clearly ridiculously high .. he nearly did himself a mischief.. then factor in the other guy is going for a header - simply dangerous imho
     
  6. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    Which is why it's stupid to make judgments based on a still...especially when you're showing his follow through, and not the moment he played the ball.
     
  7. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Ha ha - OK :rolleyes:
     
  8. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    The heights of both are clearly visible... you can't suggest that his foot wasn't high in normal time :)
     
  9. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    And a FIFA ref concluded it was not a foul under the LOTG. Another FIFA ref in the VR booth concluded that decision was not clearly erroneous. And several people on here have already explained to you why it is not a foul under the LOTG--though it may be considered one under a looser standard applied to youth games.
     
    GoDawgsGo, TitoTata and akindc repped this.
  10. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I didn't like how he gave a free pass to Croatia wasting time in stoppage time in the 2nd ET. That, IMO, is a big inconsistency that I see in matches. Many refs are stringent about adding an extra 30 seconds or 45 seconds or even a minute if one team pulls shenanigans in stoppage time. Some refs are so lax that they won't add anything like 30 seconds even for a substitution in stoppage time. (I'm not talking about 2 goal or 3 goal games, I'm talking about ties or 1 goal deficits.)

    England should have had another 30 seconds or so.
     
  11. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    I can't view your attachment. But you've just explained why this is NOT PIADM.
    PIADM analysis is two fold.
    First, it requires that a player must be doing something dangerous to himself or an opponent
    Second, it requires that that action unfairly affects play by an opponent.

    You're clear the second doesn't apply as you admit the defender (Walker) attempted to play the ball. Nothing about the placement of the boot affected Walker's attempt to play the ball. He did as he should and went right for it. As such, this CANNOT be PIADM.

    But let's review the first step - was it dangerous. No. It wasn't. There is a good 6" between the foot playing the ball and the head of the defender.

    Additionally, and probably more importantly, the referee has a fantastic view of it.

    Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 1.26.04 PM.png


    Also, here is the video. If you watch at the :50 mark of the video, you'll see that the head and boot are on different planes and never going to connect.


    So in short, it's not dangerous and even if it were, the defender did not alter his play because of it. As such, it cannot be PIADM.
     
  12. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    That :30 would have been used up by Croatia as they were on a break in the other direction at the time the final whistle blew. If England were still in possession, the CR may have given an additional :15-:30
     
    MetroFever repped this.
  13. TitoTata

    TitoTata Member+

    Jun 26, 2014
    Well thanks for taking the time to reply .. I'd better just leave it .. although even in your photo his foot looks dreadfully high given that when two players go for a ball and one is knee high its always given as a foul ( high boot ) but it's not regarded as dangerous in this case where his boot is about 3 foot higher and he's going in against a HEAD ?!?!
     
  14. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Nope. Unless there is a real chance that the two will connect, the position of the boot is irrelevant. If they aren't in a path to connect, it is not dangerous.

    And again, since the Defender didn't alter his attempt to play the ball, it's not PIADM
     
    TitoTata repped this.
  15. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I thought of that at the time. I guess it comes down to whether you think the match should have been extended :15, in which case it was correct to end the match, or if you think it should have been extended another :30-40, in which case it was incorrect. My belief is the latter.
     
  16. Ickshter

    Ickshter Member

    Manchester City
    Mar 14, 2014
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Could be, but it has seemed to be the theme of this WC as well. I think France was worse at the end of their match yesterday. The Antics of Mbappe and Matuidi were pretty appalling and yet the 6 minutes of added time still ended the match at 96:13. Not the hill to die on IMO.
     
  17. Ickshter

    Ickshter Member

    Manchester City
    Mar 14, 2014
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you are hung up on high boot.. there is no law against where the height of the boot is. It is a fallacy that unfortunately has made it's way into the soccer fans psyche. If that was true, one of the greatest plays of all (the bicycle kick) would be a foul. It wasn't dangerous enough (at THIS level) to be called a foul.
     
  18. CTRef

    CTRef Member

    Jun 2, 2006

    Maybe "dangerous", but clearly does not violate the rules as defined in the LOTG.
     
  19. CTRef

    CTRef Member

    Jun 2, 2006

    The height of the boot is really irrelevant unless it either causes the defender to alter his play or else if it actually makes contact with the defender.
     
  20. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This to the detriment of getting the decisions right and punishing players for misconduct. It was a waste of a good system.
     
    MrPerfectNot repped this.
  21. djmtxref

    djmtxref Member

    Apr 8, 2013
    And ordinary fans were blaming the refs for not going to VAR, since it was obvious that if there had been a review, VAR would have caught that misconduct. It doesn’t matter that that is not how VAR is supposed to work.
     
  22. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    About the high boot....I think there might be a question on my HS recert test from last year where the player who goes low to head is knocked out by the attacker, but the PIADM is on the defender!! But, I may have gotten it wrong! Then again, it’s HIGH School, so I may have gotten it right.
     
  23. sulfur

    sulfur Member

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    Note that in this instance, the defender didn't go that low -- the attacker's boot is actually well over waist-height when contact was made.
     
  24. GoDawgsGo

    GoDawgsGo Member+

    Nov 11, 2010
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Christ why are we even talking about this.

    I guess some of you would have pulled out Ronaldo's bicycle goal at Juventus in leg 1 of CL even though 70k Juve fans were applauding. That one even fit the definition of PIADM. The defender wussed out on the header because he didn't want to get kicked in the head. You see him complaining to the ref? No.
     
  25. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Again, totally irrelevant.
     

Share This Page