GWT: Champions League Final: Real Madrid vs. Atletico Madrid

[hatterson]

This is a very poor argument. If the decision to put a red card should only depends about where the fault was done on the field, well that's fantastic because you could basically murder the opponent goalie, since hey, that was not done in your surface either.

Uhhh, no, it doesn't depend only on the location, but if you're talking about a goal scoring opportunity then it absolutely matters.

If you spit at someone, are guilty of violent conduct or use offensive slurs, then a straight red doesn't depend on location. The other types of reds (goal scoring opportunity) absolutely do depend on location because of the definition of goal scoring opportunity.

FIFA even includes it in several guidelines.

Criteria for deciding when to penalise for denying an
obvious goal-scoring opportunity:
 The direction of the play.
 The location of the foul.
 The proximity of the player to the ball.
 The probability of controlling the ball.
 The location and number of opponents.
 The opportunity for the attempt on goal

I don't recall the last time I saw a DOGSO foul given, at mid-field, when it was a last man back situation. IIRC US soccer even had the absolute, explicit requirement of being the last man back for a long while. That obviously isn't relevant to the ruling here since it's not US soccer, but it goes to show the how those fouls are generally viewed.

If that foul was going to be a red, it would have been because of the violence of it, not because of the goal scoring opportunity. If you want to argue it was violent enough for a straight red, sure I can understand that. I don't agree, but I don't think it's insane to call it like that. However you can't really expect that to be called a DOGSO in the way that it's been commonly interpreted and called.

 

[mmk786]

That's really cool, but you were wrong. The red card is just as obvious as the penalty actually.

Just look at the replay I've put previously. If Ramos didn't cut Carrasco legs here, that's a 3 on 1 at the very last minute, and probably the end of the game. Ramos was beaten, he didn't even try to play the ball, he just went all-in to violently cut Carrasco before he could play the ball for what should have been a decisive goal. It's not like it was a little fault either, that was a violent tackle from behind because basically, that's all Ramos could do to stop the goal.

Rule book : if a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity playing in a dangerous manner the referee should send off the player.

Obvious goal-scoring opportunity, 3 on 1 and probably the game winner. Check.
Obvious dangerous manner, extremely violent tackle from behind. Check.

This should not even be a discussion. Ramos should have been taken out by the referee.

You need to read the rule book to find out what actually is considered an "obvious goal scoring opportunity". 4 D's must be present for that to happen.

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present:

Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul

Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity

Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball

Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed

If any element is missing, there can be no send off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Further, the presence of each of these elements must be "obvious" in order for the send off to be appropriate under this provision of Law 12.

http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/13/23/obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-denied-the-4-ds

In this case the second 'D', distance to goal is not obviously present, the foul occured near the halfway line. There is no way that passage of play can be considered an 'obvious goal scoring opportunity" per FIFA rules. You are free to make up your own rules ofcourse.

 

[Sykie]

Sorry mmk786, I didn't notice that was the final of US championship, not sure why but I thought it was european soccer.

Hatterson gave the european soccer rules. It is basically up to the referee to decide if that was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, using the rules described. It doesn't mean that if the fault was done far from the goal it should not be seen as a goal-scoring opportunity, it just mean you have to take everything into account to decide if that was a real scoring opportunity.

Now if you tell me 3 guys rushing against one defensman was not a goal-scoring opportunity, then I guess we'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 

[mmk786]

Sorry mmk786, I didn't notice that was the final of US championship, not sure why but I thought it was european soccer.

Hatterson gave the european soccer rules. It is basically up to the referee to decide if that was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, using the rules described. It doesn't mean that if the fault was done far from the goal it should not be seen as a goal-scoring opportunity, it just mean you have to take everything into account to decide if that was a real scoring opportunity.

Now if you tell me 3 guys rushing against one defensman was not a goal-scoring opportunity, then I guess we'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Both of us quoted the same FIFA rule and the referee made the absolute correct decision based on FIFA rules not "european soccer rules". You are free to disagree ofcourse just like you can disagree that the earth is round. Thats your prerogative ofcourse.

 

[Sykie]

Expect that on this round earth, and unlike what you imply, there is absolutly no rule stating that the fault *must* be done close to the surface to be considered a goal-scoring opportunity. The distance from the goal is only one of the criterias, among others, to judge if that was a obvious goal-scoring opportunity, just like the position of the attackers, the defenders, or the direction of the attacking player.

And besides, the position is not only judged on the raw distance from the goal, it is also judged on the axis of the fault, which was absolutly perfect here. The bottom line is that the referee had to take all those elements into account to decide if yes or not, that was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. And if you look one second at the replay, the direction of the game and the perfect positions of the three attacking players, the answer should be an obvious yes.

But then, again, if you tell me three guys rushing one defensman for the game winner is not a obvious goal-scoring opportunity, then I'm pretty much arguing a lost cause so let's just leave it at that I guess.

 

[hatterson]

No, a rush like that isn't an "obvious goal scoring opportunity" as has been typically interpreted and called.

Generally speaking "obvious goal scoring opportunity" only has been applied when it's a virtual guaranteed goal, not just when it's a good scoring chance.

Yes, it was a dangerous chance, and a foul in that situation is virtually always going to be a caution even if it's a tiny technical foul in attempt of the ball. In addition, even if there was no breakout, it was aggressive enough to be worthy of a yellow. However two reasons to give a yellow on the same foul does not upgrade it to a red.

Edit: as I said earlier, you *could* argue that it was violent enough to be worthy of a straight red, regardless of the breakout, but personally I disagree with that. Based on what I see, it was from the side, he didn't go high/over the ball, didn't go studs up and wasn't late after a pass.

 

[Sykie]

No, a rush like that isn't an "obvious goal scoring opportunity" as has been typically interpreted and called.

Well that is only your interpretation, mainly based on the fact you didn't see such case in the past judging by your argumentation. But the fact it is totally exceptional to see such a 3 on 1 stopped by such a blatant fault doesn't mean it should not be called properly, and here is your mistake and failure to properly understand the rules as they should be called.

Also, just one last remark. This is exactly why we have several criterias in the rules, you know. If the judgement was only depending of the position of the fault, then the rules would not even bother to describe other criterias, like position and number of players and direction of the game. Yes, it was a bit far from the goal, but we also talk about three attacking players perfectly positioned against one defenseman with a very high probability of a goal. That is the bottom line, and in that context such a 3 on 1 should of course be judged as an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Just like one player rushing alone but stopped in the middle of the field should be seen also as an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Again, just because it is totally exceptional has nothing to do with how you should call it.

But let's just give up I guess. Ramos denied what was a huge probability of being the cup winning goal with a violent (and late) tackle without any intention to play the ball. For you it's yellow. Cool. Let's agree to disagree and move on, I suggest.

 

[Johnnywhite]

REAL Madrid footballer Pepe has been laid to rest following a fatal cheek-brushing in the Champions League final.

The deadly blow was struck by Atletico Madrid fullback Felipe Luis, who gently brushed Pepe on the side of the face and snapped his neck in half.

Pepe was born in agony in Brazil and played in excruciating pain for Maritimo and Porto, before moving in unbearable torment to Madrid in 2007. He made over 300 anguished appearances for Los Merengues, scoring 13 tortured goals.

Real manager Zinedine Zidane said: “No-one suffered more than Pepe. A lesser man would have given up after being repeatedly shot by invisible snipers over the course of his career, but Pepe kept going, even though we could all see how much he was suffering.

“Before our next game, we will observe a minute’s rolling around on the floor.â€

Mourners at Pepe’s funeral watched a video montage of his happiest moments, including his headbutt on Thomas Muller, his stamp on Lionel Messi, and his numerous flying assaults on Dani Alves.

Football fan Julian Cook said: “It’s a tragedy, because it means I won’t get to kill him myself.†~ The Daily Mash.

 

[Blender]

A good way to solve Pepe's disgusting antics would have been for Clattenberg to give him a yellow for the first bad one, and another yellow for the second bad one. Would have gotten him out of the game, put Real down to 10 men, and provided a huge opportunity for Atletico.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

A good way to solve Pepe's disgusting antics would have been for Clattenberg to give him a yellow for the first bad one, and another yellow for the second bad one. Would have gotten him out of the game, put Real down to 10 men, and provided a huge opportunity for Atletico.

Real should just sell him for 10 bucks to an Ethiopian club.

#freevarane

(I know he was hurt for the finals)

 

[les Habs]

What's that you say Sepp? Warm balls? Roma? Wolfsburg? City? No way.

 

[Power Man]

What's that you say Sepp? Warm balls? Roma? Wolfsburg? City? No way.

 

[Evilo]

He's right though.

Though I wouldn't be surprise that a few big teams including Barca were treated the same way.

Or that it's a bunch of lies by Blatter to bury Platini further.

 

[les Habs]

He's right though.

Though I wouldn't be surprise that a few big teams including Barca were treated the same way.

Or that it's a bunch of lies by Blatter to bury Platini further.

"Treated the same way" isn't the right way to say it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are indeed "warm balls" being used that we're getting them as well. However it would then obviously work in an entirely different fashion unless of course you consider Arsenal, Atleti, City, PSG, Bayern, City, Atleti, Milan, PSG, Bayern, etc easy draws as those have been all of our knockout stage draws going back to 2012-13. I didn't bother to go further, but I'd say that's pretty clear that we're not getting the same sort of treatment assuming it's happening. However if you want to say we're getting the same treatment assuming this is happening then go right ahead.

 

[YNWA14]

Barcelona are quite hard done by indeed.

 

[gary69]

Blatter wasn't talking about recent years, though. At least not in the ESPN article I saw.

Maybe he doen't name any persons still alive for fear of being sued, but he only names a former UEFA president.

"There was only one person who had that power in Europe," Blatter told La Nacion. "[Former UEFA president from 1973-83] Artemio Franchi used to do that for the club tournament draws.

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/fifa/243/post/2892866/sepp-blatter-claims-european-football-draws-were-rigged-by-manipulating-balls

 

[hatterson]

Keep in mind this is also the same Blatter still insistent that he did absolutely nothing wrong. I'm not sure I'd put much faith in his "tell all" schemes when he's still holding onto that claim.