I wonder why nobody is talking about Carvalho's deserved red in the FIRST half.. ummm.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I 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.
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.
After that one he made two yellow-worthy fouls in the first half, in the last of which he even seems to get scared and puts his hands to his head fearing he would be sent off.
So yeah, whilst he may have been a bit unlucky with the first yellow it doesn't mean he wasn't lucky to play the 90 minutes.
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.
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.
He could have concluded it wasn't a foul but, he chose not to. That was a poor call.
i still find it hilarious when people say Ronaldo fouled Mascherano
Do you also find it hilarious when people say two plus two equals four?
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:
no it isn't
Ronaldo was fouled and as a result he touched/ clipped ( i don't think he fouled) Mascherano. how is that a free-kick for Barca? the goal should have stood, imo majority of refs would've made such decision.
I don't think Real could ever be given a free kick there. If the referee looked at it like Piquet fouling Ronaldo he had to give advantage on that spot. The only issue is that he didn't considered it at foul.
So the whole "not even a free kick to Real was given" thing doesn't make much sense, at that spot it's either a goal for Real or a free kick for Barça.
So the whole "not even a free kick to Real was given" thing doesn't make much sense, at that spot it's either a goal for Real or a free kick for Barça.
you can't be serious?
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.
I think there could be a reasonable argument made for Pique having either pushed, charged or tripped Ronaldo.
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.
I remember that, he was shit-scared of being sent off.
It gives me immense joy every time a Jose team and Madrid are robbed off decisions. Maybe it's payback for all those decisions in 2004 and over the years with Chelsea 
You'd have to also argue it was careless, reckless or using excessive force.
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!
call fergie ASAP!
I think you need to re-read the post you quoted.
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.
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.
The entire idea that Ronaldo fouled Mascherano is preposterous.
You don't need excessive anything to make Ronaldo hit the deck.
Re the question in the first para, of course not. It would be a free-kick for the push. We've covered this.
The issue here is that the referee obviously didn't think Pique fouled Ronaldo.
Ok, this is the second time I've quote my own post and you cnuts keep avoiding the question.
In the scenario above, would the referee award 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.
I agree that it would not have been surprising if the referee had called the play back to award the free-kick to Ronaldo, but that is only because the situation was so unusual that I could not blame the referee for making the 'safe' decision. If the referee believed that Ronaldo had not been fouled, then and only then, would it have been reasonable to award a free-kick to Barcelona, because it would have meant that Ronaldo was responsible for Mascherano being impeded.
The most important point is not just who is responsible, whether intentional or not, but also who isn't. There can be no justification -- either logically or ethically -- for punishing anyone, no matter how serious the consequences, if they are not in any way responsible for that act. This is admittedly complicated by situations where someone does not intend for their actions to cause an outcome, but that is why there is the concept of diminished responsibility, and that would have applied if Ronaldo had simply slipped (and which results in the same outcome -- a freekick -- because there is no mechanism for differentiating between intent or accident, beyond the card system, obviously).
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.
Second last paragraph demonstrates a fairly profound ignorance of the laws of the game.
For the nth fecking time, a referee can (and frequently does) penalise a player who commits a foul completely by accident. The concept of "diminished responsibility" doesn't come into it.
For the nth fecking time, a referee can (and frequently does) penalise a player who commits a foul completely by accident. The concept of "diminished responsibility" doesn't come into it.
To add my 2 cents, I think most posters are missing the major issue. The issue, IMO, is whether or not Pique pushed Ron & not whether or not Ron fouled Cunterano.
I'll explain as follows - it is clear that there WAS contact between Ron and Masch. Whether it was enough to bring him to go down is partially irrelevant because:
a) he WENT down (like the sack of shit he is) "made the most of it" &
b) the ref judged it to be a foul. (whether he dived or not - he still sold it to the ref)
So did Pique push Ron? That might have been the incorrect decision, but either way, it wasn't a goal. It might have been a very soft foul/dive but I've seen thousands of softer penalties given for less contact.
Justice and logic would tell me that if Pique pushed Ron into Masch, play on and award the goal. But those aren't the rules.
I can tell you if Pedro made that contact with Vidic, this wouldn't even be a debate.
I'll explain as follows - it is clear that there WAS contact between Ron and Masch. Whether it was enough to bring him to go down is partially irrelevant because:
a) he WENT down (like the sack of shit he is) "made the most of it" &
b) the ref judged it to be a foul. (whether he dived or not - he still sold it to the ref)
So did Pique push Ron? That might have been the incorrect decision, but either way, it wasn't a goal. It might have been a very soft foul/dive but I've seen thousands of softer penalties given for less contact.
Justice and logic would tell me that if Pique pushed Ron into Masch, play on and award the goal. But those aren't the rules.
I can tell you if Pedro made that contact with Vidic, this wouldn't even be a debate.
It's simple and has been said umpteen times - free kick to RM since no advantage accrued.
Indeed.
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....
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf
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?
Funny that you say that considering Mascherano was the worst offender in terms of diving in that situation - and the game as a whole
Ronaldo impeded Mascherano's progress. Clearly.
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."
I'd say there was more contact on Mascherano but meh.
If one player impedes another's progress the issue of carelessness etc is irrelevant. They only get an indirect FK though. Which was the point I was making.
PS linked to the laws of the game above. It's all in there.
Looks to me like Ronaldo took a look at Mascherano's foot, and then took a quick roll to hit it with his back. The momentum would have kept him going but gradually he should have slowed down, when you can see clearly that he accelerated a bit with his roll when he got near Mascherano foot.
