I note that everyone is avoiding answering this question about another - very similar - hypothetical scenario.
Well, would the referee award a goal or not?
El Classico X 4 (1st: Draw, 2nd: Real win, 3rd: Messi wins, 4th: Barca win)
- Thread starter Baby Faced Assassin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Well, would the referee award a goal or not?
That's irrelevant to this discussion. If Ronaldo had tripped over his own legs, then that rule would be relevant and the decision would have been correct.
But you can't escape causality. As long as you accept that Pique fouled Ronaldo, then the entire chain of events was caused by Pique, no matter what happened after that.
Ironically, the rule that you have referenced in some way applies to Pique, because he obviously didn't mean for his act to also impede Mascherano. But Pique is just as culpable as Ronaldo would have been if he had tripped over his own legs and then fouled Mascherano.
Causality has to mean something in the context of football, otherwise, there are no grounds upon which to argue that any of the rules are fair or just.
As I've already said, I could understand if the referee had brought the play back for the freekick to Ronaldo, but there is absolutely no justification for a freekick to Barcelona, as long as you accept that Ronaldo was originally fouled and the momentum of his fall was a result of that foul.
I'm surprised Mascher is not in the emergency room after that. he looked like he'd had a limb amputated. I also think Mascher would have had the ball had he not felt the contact and thrown himself to the ground.Watch it again, Pique made absolutely zero attempt to play the ball, it was a classic body check (even using the full length of the arm in front of Ronaldo), and that is a foul!
If you think otherwise, then you're a divvy!
We aren't making it complicated - it's trying to understand how you figure one player being pushed down into another player is in anyway a foul by the player being pushed down.
It's not even like there was another phase, he got pushed down, while falling down goes into Masch.
I just can't see your point at all that Ronaldo did foul Mascherano.
Edit: The only way this is a foul is that ref clearly doesn't deem the initial contact by Pique as not being a foul. If that is the point, the body check isn't a foul then yeah make sense. However, if it is that ref played advantage, then he would have given the FK to Real as no advantage came of it.
It's not even like there was another phase, he got pushed down, while falling down goes into Masch.
I just can't see your point at all that Ronaldo did foul Mascherano.
Edit: The only way this is a foul is that ref clearly doesn't deem the initial contact by Pique as not being a foul. If that is the point, the body check isn't a foul then yeah make sense. However, if it is that ref played advantage, then he would have given the FK to Real as no advantage came of it.
Pogue, I think it's odd that you're giving Mascherano the benefit of the doubt and not Ronaldo. (Maybe you've addressed this elsewhere in this thread, but it's too long for me to read through all of it.) It's obvious that Pique had no interest in playing the ball, but Ronaldo probably went down easily. However, when you see a close up of Mascerhano, what he did was exactly the same as Ron. He threw himself to the ground at the slightest contact, look how his left leg stops functioning despite it being the right, if any, that is touched. Either it's a free kick to Ron, or it's a free kick against him for diving, or it's a free kick to none of them and the goal stands. I think free kick for touching Mascherano would be the worst decision of those four possibilities.
The free kick to Puyol robbing RM of a huge opportunity was probably an even worse decision. Two huge calls against RM. Barcelona were the better team, but had lots of luck as well.
Oh wait, I just saw this:
The free kick to Puyol robbing RM of a huge opportunity was probably an even worse decision. Two huge calls against RM. Barcelona were the better team, but had lots of luck as well.
Surely this is obvious? You'd be mental to argue that you can give a free kick against someone who is fouled because they in turn land on someone else? Surely the thing argued is that because Ron dived of his own free will, it can be a free kick against him for landing on Mascherano?
Oh wait, I just saw this:
Do you honestly mean it's a foul whether or not Ron dived? Or do you mean "it's a foul cause he dived". The latter is sane, the former insane.
We could agree to disagree here. I fully believe that Ronaldo KNEW what he was doing when he fell exactly on Mascherano's ankle. Look at Ronaldo's face before he fell down, he was even looking at Mascherano's foot before falling down on it..
One more thing, IF you are claiming that Pique held him with his arm, then Ronaldo will have to fall backwards, or AT LEAST slow down! How the hell can he get THAT FAR forwards (to reach Mascherano's ankle, "inadvertently"!) if he was being held back by Pique??!
Cristiano Ronaldo and Jose Mourinho may face charges over 'theft' gestures
Real Madrid duo Critiano Ronaldo and Jose Mourinho have been embroiled in another controversy after their 1-1 draw in Barcelona - seemingly accusing UEFA officials of ‘robbing’ them.
Real Madrid duo Critiano Ronaldo and Jose Mourinho have been embroiled in another controversy after their 1-1 draw in Barcelona - seemingly accusing UEFA officials of ‘robbing’ them.
I don't think that he would, the ball was going faster than he was, and if Ronaldo hadn't been fouled would have also provided another option for the return ball.
It's technically a foul, but it really shouldn't be. The Laws of the Game say that if you trip an opponent it is a foul, it doesn't matter if it's intentional, and Ronaldo did trip Mascherano. I don't think it was intentional, and morally it should have been a goal, but technically the referee made the correct decision in relation to Mascherano going down and the goal not being given. Saying that, I reckon it should have been a free kick to Madrid for the foul on Ronaldo in the first place once it was clear that Real Madrid weren't going to get an advantage.
Which is obviously what happened. Piquet seems to obstruct Ronaldo in my opinion, but obstructions are amongst the most common and dubious situations in football, I think it's perfectly reasonable that the referee thought it wasn't, specially considering Ronaldo's body language at the moment. An obstruction isn't the kind of situation that should lead to dozens of pages of discussion, after watching 100 replays I think the majority here agree that it probably was a foul by Piquet, but that decision itself can never be considered an inexcusable mistake. He had worse mistakes than that, namely allowing Ricardo Carvalho to finish the game, or the offensive foul he called on Di María in an dangerous Real Madrid's attack.
Overall, and considering the game, I think the referee was quite good. People are nitpicking on an obstruction because it was followed by a goal. Perhaps it was a bit unfair to Real, but more than unfair or predetermined, it seems unlucky to me.
So I cannot address your points then because numerous people have already said they make no sense or show a bias?
You asked me to address it so i really have to make similar comments.
I did read the thread and kept from commenting because you keep making the same points. I had to in the end though as it's kinda the point of a forum.
How about you stop repeating yourself to everyone that thinks your point is invalid and I will not address it either?
Spot on. Just disagree with the morality, tripping always has to be a foul, no one would accept a striker being denied a chance at goal by a defender falling over him, even if the defender didn't mean it.
YouTube - Barcelona vs. Real Madrid (5/3/2011) - Disallowed goal
Sorry don't no how to embed but can anyone watch this clip and tell me Roanldo was not blocked and clearly fouled?
Following that Ronaldo has the slightest clip on masch, clearly not sending him to ground as the argie tumbles on his own accord a few frames later by deliberately not planting his foot down so he falls. (Clear Dive to me).
I am baffled this even has a counter argument. Please watch the clip. (anyone embed for me it would be appreciated).
Sorry don't no how to embed but can anyone watch this clip and tell me Roanldo was not blocked and clearly fouled?
Following that Ronaldo has the slightest clip on masch, clearly not sending him to ground as the argie tumbles on his own accord a few frames later by deliberately not planting his foot down so he falls. (Clear Dive to me).
I am baffled this even has a counter argument. Please watch the clip. (anyone embed for me it would be appreciated).
It's a foul, whether or not he dived. Intent is not required for it to be a foul (fairly sure this has been mentioned before?).
If you accept it's a foul when he dived, then you have to accept it's also a foul if he tripped over.
Finally, another voice of reason.
This whole discussion is getting surreal, people are being so damn obtuse.
So even if we say that Pique did foul Ronaldo, is this whole "UNFAIR!" "SCANDALOUS!" "BIASED!" refereeing in yesterday's game all about a freekick that Madrid may or may not have deserved??
Thanks for the clip. After watching the clip it was clear that Ronaldo was the one who pushed Pique, not the other way around. Watch it again at the moment of contact between Pique and Ronaldo.
Pretty much.So even if we say that Pique did foul Ronaldo, is this whole "UNFAIR!" "SCANDALOUS!" "BIASED!" refereeing in yesterday's game all about a freekick that Madrid may or may not have deserved??
About 30 yards out and slightly left of centre.
Handed Barca the game, by all accounts.
I'll embed it for you.
The foul on Mascherano is absolutely crystal clear.
If a defender made that much contact on the trailing leg of a United player in the box - and the referee didn't give a penalty - this place would be in fecking uproar.
The point is, Ronaldo didn't foul anyone, he simply fell over after being fouled, he had zero control over the events. The cause of Mascherano going over was Pique.
Which matters not a jot.
I agree that the Di Maria call was much worse than the disallowed 'dominoes' goal.
I think that Pique/Ronaldo/Mascherano chain reaction situation is a genuinely hard call to make given the laws of the game (even though I'm inclined to agree with Joga), but what I don't understand at all is the line of reasoning which maintains Ronaldo isn't fouled while Mascherano clearly is.
i'm wasting my time WUM....
Even though he only made the foul because someone else tripped him? I think that's wrong - if a defender denied a striker a chance by falling over, then you're right, that wouldn't be accepted, but that's because its usually down to a defender's carelessness and there's often a question mark over whether it's actually accidental. If we accept that no Real Madrid player intentionally committed a foul then they've been denied a goal because of the effects o a foul by a Barcelona player. I can't accept that as being right.
I reckon that constitutes a trip, he certainly impeded Mascherano.
I can understand the sentiment that it should have been a goal. No Real Madrid player deliberately contravened the rules, or even behaved carelessly, and they still had a goal chalked off, Mascherhano probably wouldn't have reached the ball even if he hadn't been tripped. Barcelona effectively prevented a goal by committing a foul, it's very harsh on Real Madrid even if it is technically correct.
Of course it does! If one player picks up Messi, which I would expect would be quite easy to do, and threw him at the head of team mate, Messi would be responsible for a foul would he? Total nonsense!
Now that is a poor bit of refereeing.I agree that the Di Maria call was much worse than the disallowed 'dominoes' goal.
No because if the ref saw it as a foul he would have played the advantage and let the goal stand. Deciding that what Pique did was not a foul even though prior to that he'd given fouls against Madrid for the slightest of touches against Barca players, for what could have been a significant moment of the the match.So even if we say that Pique did foul Ronaldo, is this whole "UNFAIR!" "SCANDALOUS!" "BIASED!" refereeing in yesterday's game all about a freekick that Madrid may or may not have deserved??
This doesn't take into account where he calls fouls against Puyol when Real were in promising positions as well.
Thanks, you don't think that Masch dived though?
Looks clear to me he carries on after the faintest of touches then decides to leave his leg and dive. That means its not a foul for me. Football is not a non contact sport, a brush against does not mean a foul if there is no impediment, we know players are taught to go down but you run the risk of the ref thinking it was a dive (which it was).
What I don't get is how some people are arguing Ronaldo did not get fouled but masch did. Ridiculous.
I agree, this was a bad decision, clearly. But it was MORE than balanced by the clear mistake not send Carvalho off in the first half.
Ronaldo's contact with Mascherano was more than Pique's contact with Ronaldo.
Second, Mascherano didn't take ANY step with the clipped foot.
Whether Pique fouled Ronaldo is irrelevant as far as the goal being disallowed is concerned, what is relevant is whether Ronaldo tripped Mascherhano, irrespective of intent. I really do not like the decision, but ultimately it was correct and the referee made a very brave call.
And got it totally wrong by giving Barcelona a free kick? GTFO!
The brave call was to disallow the goal, it should have been a Real Madrid free kick.
I think Mascherano felt himself getting tripped and went to ground in an incredibly exagerrated manner to make sure the referee was aware of this fact.
He possibly could have kept on his feet and stumbled forward (although he still might have hit the deck eventually) but this might have led the referee to over-look the role of Ronaldo in events. He basically did exactly what most strikers would do if they felt similar contact in the box (only a bit more theatrical than uual)
I didn't watch the first half which I assume that happened in. He called that a foul on Puyol?
Yep. If play was allowed to continue, it would have been 2 against 1 baring down on goal. Awful decision.I didn't watch the first half which I assume that happened in. He called that a foul on Puyol?
It should have been a goal in my opinion. Pique pushed Ronaldo into Mascherano, it should have been a foul to Madrid, with advantage played to allow the goal.
It would essentially be the same as Pique fouling Mascherano, which of course would not be a foul. Giving a foul to Barcelona was absurd.
It would essentially be the same as Pique fouling Mascherano, which of course would not be a foul. Giving a foul to Barcelona was absurd.
Yes. Lovely bit of reffing.I didn't watch the first half which I assume that happened in. He called that a foul on Puyol?
Regarding this whole dominoes situation, I think the main problem is that intentionality isn't taken into account for a foul to be called, just like Pogue et al are maintaining. If Ronaldo had slipped of his own accord and fallen into Mascherano, that would have been a foul, regardless of Ronaldo's lack of intention.
What happens here is that Pique causes Ronaldo to fall, which makes it a difficult call to make. What I think happened is that the ref didn't see the foul by Pique, and treated Ronaldo's fall as if he'd just stumbled (in which case the call would have been correct). That's the part the ref got wrong, in my opinion.
I do agree with Joga and Weaste that if the ref saw that Pique caused Ronaldo to fall, the fact that the causal chain starts with Pique should be taken into account.
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.
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!