Danny1982
Sectarian Hipster
I wonder why nobody is talking about Carvalho's deserved red in the FIRST half.. ummm.
With the greatest of respectaying you disagree with it is like saying you disagree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - I'm not telling you my viewpoint, I'm telling you what the rules are. That hypothetical you outline not be a red card - players are sent off for elbowing their opponents because that's violent conduct, violence implies intent.Well then we disagree completely. Going back to hypothetical, Pique pushes Ronaldo and as he is falling down he elbows Mascherano in the head - Ronaldo get a red for being pushed into another player and a stray elbow catching that player? Common sense says no to me.
Same thing applies if it is deemed that Pique is fouling Ronaldo by pushing him down, it is not Ronaldo's actions that are a foul, it is the result of Pique's actions, so not a foul on Ronaldo.
If the case is that Ronaldo dived then yes it's a foul or as he goes down, he through actions under his own control deliberately falls into Masch, then it's a foul on him.
Seeing it over and over - to me it looks like Pique's action of body checking Ronaldo into the ground is why Ronaldo ends up clipping Masch. Even if it Pique's action wasn't a foul, then all it's only incidental contact and not a foul on Masch.
The first half he was rightfully shown a yellow, he just got it for the wrong challenge, the fact he was given a yellow for the first challenge meant it would always seem that he should have gone that half.I wonder why nobody is talking about Carvalho's deserved red in the FIRST half.. ummm.
Cheers for taking the time to post that. Like I said upthread, if Ronaldo just stumbles and falls into Mascherano a foul should be called regardless of the lack of intention on Ronaldo's part. That's how I think the ref interpreted the situation, hence the free kick to Barcelona.Law 12
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
impedes the progress of an opponent
No mention of intent.
In discussions like this it really is amazing how few people know the rules, including some of the pundits paid to talk about the game!
His first yellow was him paying for the previous 3 fouls by Real players that were all borderline. Referee was clearly trying to control the game without too much booking.The first half he was rightfully shown a yellow, he just got it for the wrong challenge, the fact he was given a yellow for the first challenge meant it would always seem that he should have gone that half.
Over the course of the game he should probably seen red, not the first half though.
Actually intent can be a factor, but it's not relevant in this case (you're still right).This is a completely different scenario to falling over and knocking someone on the opposing team over as a result, which is a free-kick, whether or not you mean to trip them up.
Law 12
No mention of intent.An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
impedes the progress of an opponent
In discussions like this it really is amazing how few people know the rules, including some of the pundits paid to talk about the game!
The rules on a foul are not as clear as you state they are. They are left to the referee's interpretation. You are stating it as a fact, like the rules clearly delineate for a situation like this - show me where. Referees make decisions on incidental contact not being fouls throughout most games, at worst that is all that it was - unless you subscribe to Ronaldo knew what he was doing.With the greatest of respectaying you disagree with it is like saying you disagree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - I'm not telling you my viewpoint, I'm telling you what the rules are. That hypothetical you outline not be a red card - players are sent off for elbowing their opponents because that's violent conduct, violence implies intent.
The question for the referee with regard to the goal is very simple - did Ronaldo trip Mascherano, not 'Did Ronaldo intentionally trip Mascherano?', 'Was Ronaldo at fault?' or 'Did Pique knock Ronaldo over?' it's 'Did Ronaldo trip Mascherano?', if he concludes that he did, then he must award a free kick to Barcelona, or call the play back for the initial foul on Ronaldo. In either case it can't be a goal, because both teams have committed infringements.
i still find it hilarious when people say Ronaldo fouled MascheranoI don't agree - they are sequential but discrete. If Ronaldo was fouled it was a free kick (and nothing that happens after is of consequence), if advantage was played he fouled Mascherano.
Do you also find it hilarious when people say two plus two equals four?i still find it hilarious when people say Ronaldo fouled Mascherano
Yes, that's true. It's not part of the laws of the game but it's always been the way they're interpreted.Actually intent can be a factor, but it's not relevant in this case (you're still right).
There's another rule, if I can find it, basically stating that a player has a right to his position on the pitch. If he impedes progress by standing his ground (maybe with no intent to stop the attacker), it shouldn't be given as a foul.
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
no it isn'tCheers for taking the time to post that. Like I said upthread, if Ronaldo just stumbles and falls into Mascherano a foul should be called regardless of the lack of intention on Ronaldo's part. That's how I think the ref interpreted the situation, hence the free kick to Barcelona.
What makes this case more complicated is that Ronaldo is caused to fall by the contact made by Pique. There is no clear cut way to determine how to interpret such a situation. I find it strange just treating it as a stumble by Ronaldo when the cause of the movement is Pique's action. The lack of intention is immaterial as per the laws of the game, but what if you're not even the cause of the movement (as in Ronaldo's case)?
It's a hard one to call.
you can't be serious?Do you also find it hilarious when people say two plus two equals four?
Interesting you state the rules but, ignore them.Not just common sense, the rules.
A red card for elbowing someone in the head has to be due to "serious foul play" or "violent conduct", neither or which applies when you accidentally catch someone with your elbow after being knocked off balance.
This is a completely different scenario to falling over and knocking someone on the opposing team over as a result, which is a free-kick, whether or not you mean to trip them up.
Law 12
No mention of intent.
In discussions like this it really is amazing how few people know the rules, including some of the pundits paid to talk about the game!
I think there could be a reasonable argument made for Pique having either pushed, charged or tripped Ronaldo.Yes, that's true. It's not part of the laws of the game but it's always been the way they're interpreted.
FWIW if Ronaldo did get a free-kick, it would probably have been indirect as Pique didn't do any of the following:
Yup, while he was on a yellow I thunk he committed 2 more yellow cars challenges.I wonder why nobody is talking about Carvalho's deserved red in the FIRST half.. ummm.
I remember that, he was shit-scared of being sent off.Yup, while he was on a yellow I thunk he committed 2 more yellow cars challenges.
I think at one point he was desperately trying to tell Messi to get up because he thought he was in trouble.
I even said ffs as I thought Real were about to be reduced to 10 again but the ref was very lenient, apart from the controversial decision regarding Higuain I thought he had a solid game.
You'd have to also argue it was careless, reckless or using excessive force.I think there could be a reasonable argument made for Pique having either pushed, charged or tripped Ronaldo.
I think you need to re-read the post you quoted.Interesting you state the rules but, ignore them.
For it to be a red, it needs to be a foul in the first place. By your statements, Law 12 says intent is irrelevant, so it would be a foul and then the fact that it is a violent action, it would be a red under the rules. But, common sense says, ref isn't going to call it a red because the player didn't go in and hurt the player through their own actions and was a result of being pushed.
Most days refs aren't going to call a foul on a player for tumbling into another player after they've been shoved down but, for some reason this ref did.
what i don't understand is this, if the play had happened in Real Madrid box, it would have been a penalty for barcelona?
call fergie ASAP!
Well it was excessive enough to make Ronaldo fall over, so I don't think that would be too difficult. It was also pretty 'careless' to run into Ronaldo like that.You'd have to also argue it was careless, reckless or using excessive force.
So you're saying that in the box for a corner a players pushes an opponent into one of his teammates then its a foul against the pushed player?With the greatest of respectaying you disagree with it is like saying you disagree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - I'm not telling you my viewpoint, I'm telling you what the rules are. That hypothetical you outline not be a red card - players are sent off for elbowing their opponents because that's violent conduct, violence implies intent.
The question for the referee with regard to the goal is very simple - did Ronaldo trip Mascherano, not 'Did Ronaldo intentionally trip Mascherano?', 'Was Ronaldo at fault?' or 'Did Pique knock Ronaldo over?' it's 'Did Ronaldo trip Mascherano?', if he concludes that he did, then he must award a free kick to Barcelona, or call the play back for the initial foul on Ronaldo. In either case it can't be a goal, because both teams have committed infringements.
You don't need excessive anything to make Ronaldo hit the deck.Well it was excessive enough to make Ronaldo fall over, so I don't think that would be too difficult. It was also pretty 'careless' to run into Ronaldo like that.
Re the question in the first para, of course not. It would be a free-kick for the push. We've covered this.So you're saying that in the box for a corner a players pushes an opponent into one of his teammates then its a foul against the pushed player?
No way, the Pique foul is an important factor in this whatever you say, and you are not quoting the rules because the rules are general and do not go into this kind of detail, unless you are, then please show me.
Ok, this is the second time I've quote my own post and you cnuts keep avoiding the question.No. It's exactly the same.
Imagine the whole incident happened just outside the box and Valdes is rushing out to gather the ball.
Ronaldo goes flying into Valdes a split second after he's picked the ball up. The keeper gets clattered, drops the ball and Ronaldo jumps to his feet and rolls it into an empty net.
Is that a goal?
That is not the relevant question, because it requires you to completely ignore the sequence of events, as if each incident happened in a vacuum. But that is blatantly not the case. The only person with any blame for what happened is Pique, and that has to supercede everything else, otherwise causality and blame means nothing in the context of football.The question for the referee with regard to the goal is very simple - did Ronaldo trip Mascherano, not 'Did Ronaldo intentionally trip Mascherano?', 'Was Ronaldo at fault?' or 'Did Pique knock Ronaldo over?' it's 'Did Ronaldo trip Mascherano?', if he concludes that he did, then he must award a free kick to Barcelona, or call the play back for the initial foul on Ronaldo. In either case it can't be a goal, because both teams have committed infringements.
It's simple and has been said umpteen times - free kick to RM since no advantage accrued.I don't even care about this incident in context of that game, and nor do I really care what the referee thought that he saw. My interest is related to what should have happened had the referee agreed that Ronaldo was fouled and had no control over his fall.
Indeed.The entire idea that Ronaldo fouled Mascherano is preposterous.
I realised a couple of months back I was arguing with people who hadn't actually watched the game they were banging on about, now we have people who seem never to have read this....Second last paragraph demonstrates a fairly profound ignorance of the laws of the game.
So what about Ronaldo's supposed foul on Mascherano could be argued as being the things you mention above? He used excessive force with his back so clip Mascherano? He was reckless in falling over and making contact with Mascherano, whereas Piqué wasn't reckless in stepping into Ronaldo's path? Or was he careless to tumble to the ground under Piqué's challenge?You'd have to also argue it was careless, reckless or using excessive force.
Funny that you say that considering Mascherano was the worst offender in terms of diving in that situation - and the game as a wholeYou don't need excessive anything to make Ronaldo hit the deck.
Piqué impeded Ronaldo's progress more than Ronaldo impeded Mascherano's, which is proven by the fact that Mascherano keeps running before deciding to drop his legs to the ground.Ronaldo impeded Mascherano's progress. Clearly.
I'd say there was more contact on Mascherano but meh.Piqué impeded Ronaldo's progress more than Ronaldo impeded Mascherano's, which is proven by the fact that Mascherano keeps running before deciding to drop his legs to the ground.
And you were the one who said "You'd have to also argue it was careless, reckless or using excessive force."