LaLiga 2023-2024 (First Division)

Domestic league and cup football
Lorric
Senior Member
Posts: 40748
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 16:45
Location: England

Post by Lorric »

An injury time winner by Bellingham to win El Clasico. It doesn't get much more glorious than that! :D 8)
User avatar
offside
Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2020 13:16
Location: offside

Post by offside »

La Liga
AlanK wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 13:472100 Real Madrid 3, Barça 2 Full time.
Real Madrid is leading by 11 points over Barcelona with only 6 matches to go: it is done for the title, congrats! :clapping:

Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Girona, will qualify for the next CLGS, with the last spot to be awarded between Atletico Madrid and Athletic Bilbao, who will face eachother in the next Jornada.
Bulgarian
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 21:02

Post by Bulgarian »

Controversial first penalty for Real yesterday i must say other than that its always nice to beat on barka no matter in what shape this dog club is.
User avatar
Polak
Senior Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 17:47

Post by Polak »

You said it. The penalty was an absurd decision. Vasquez clearly just dived into and over the defender's leg. In general from the highlights I saw though probably a draw would have been a fair result.
Sagy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 01:27
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by Sagy »

Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 16:07 You said it. The penalty was an absurd decision. Vasquez clearly just dived into and over the defender's leg. In general from the highlights I saw though probably a draw would have been a fair result.
It wasn’t an “absurd decision”, the defender leg was in his path and he has no obligation to avoid it.
Could the CR gone with a no call? Possibly
Would VAR have alerted him in that case? Probably
Would the CR changed his mind after looking at VAR? Likely

Remember, in the case the defender didn’t get the ball, he stretched his leg in the path the attacker was going, the fact that the attacker didn’t try to avoid contact (in this case it’s possible that he could have) is not enough to call it a “dive” (clearly there was contact), most CR will not even qualify this as “attacker initiated contact”.
User avatar
Polak
Senior Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 17:47

Post by Polak »

How are you supposed to defend if you can't stretch your leg out in the direction the attacker is heading? It was an obvious dive. I don't know why VAR didn't alert the referee to take a look for himself. He probably would have changed his decision if he did.
rpo.castro
Senior Member
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 17:39
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by rpo.castro »

Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 16:34
Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 16:07 You said it. The penalty was an absurd decision. Vasquez clearly just dived into and over the defender's leg. In general from the highlights I saw though probably a draw would have been a fair result.
It wasn’t an “absurd decision”, the defender leg was in his path and he has no obligation to avoid it.
Could the CR gone with a no call? Possibly
Would VAR have alerted him in that case? Probably
Would the CR changed his mind after looking at VAR? Likely

Remember, in the case the defender didn’t get the ball, he stretched his leg in the path the attacker was going, the fact that the attacker didn’t try to avoid contact (in this case it’s possible that he could have) is not enough to call it a “dive” (clearly there was contact), most CR will not even qualify this as “attacker initiated contact”.
The attacker moves his leg slightly in direction to defenders leg so make sure there is contact.
For me it wasn't just a situation of taking advantage of a situation, it was clearly making the contact that wouldn't happen if didn't promoted it.
No penalty for me, although on real time it looked legit (so not so much to blame on the ref OMO) but VAR should have correct. At least alert the referee and ie he wants, look at the play on tv.
Bulgarian
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 21:02

Post by Bulgarian »

“Attacker initiated contact” @Sagy gave the best description on the situation.
Sagy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 01:27
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by Sagy »

Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 17:56 How are you supposed to defend if you can't stretch your leg out in the direction the attacker is heading? It was an obvious dive. I don't know why VAR didn't alert the referee to take a look for himself. He probably would have changed his decision if he did.
If the defender stretched the leg and touched the ball, he is “safe”. Otherwise the stretch of the leg is putting the defender at “risk”. An attacker in possession of ball has no obligation to change directions in order to ovoid contact with a stretched leg. Even if the defender is “just standing” and doesn’t attempt to play the ball (the CR views it as an attempt to block the player without playing the ball) a PK might be called.

VAR, didn’t alert the CR, because the rules as written and interpreted do not give it any reason to alert the CR.
User avatar
Polak
Senior Member
Posts: 3587
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 17:47

Post by Polak »

'The stretch of the leg is putting the defender at risk.' Really? So if Vasquez had tried to pass the ball rather than continuing his run it's ok for the defender to stretch out his leg but because he continued his run and fell over his leg it's a foul? By that rationale if a defender dives to the ground a few feet in front of an attacking player to try and block a shot, but the attacker fakes a shot and continues dribbling and then falls over the defender's outstretched leg, it's a foul. For me it's only a foul if a player takes out another, not if an opposing player runs into him while he is on the ground. Also in this case the replays showed Vasquez was clearly looking for it. He effectively put his foot into the defender's (I can't remember who the defender was).
Sagy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 01:27
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by Sagy »

Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 20:20 'The stretch of the leg is putting the defender at risk.' Really? So if Vasquez had tried to pass the ball rather than continuing his run it's ok for the defender to stretch out his leg but because he continued his run and fell over his leg it's a foul? By that rationale if a defender dives to the ground a few feet in front of an attacking player to try and block a shot, but the attacker fakes a shot and continues dribbling and then falls over the defender's outstretched leg, it's a foul. For me it's only a foul if a player takes out another, not if an opposing player runs into him while he is on the ground. Also in this case the replays showed Vasquez was clearly looking for it. He effectively put his foot into the defender's (I can't remember who the defender was).
The key is the path of an attacker in possession of the ball (if an attacker “just” passed or shot the ball, they are considered in possession). if the defender stretched his leg 10m ahead of the attacker (let’s say to block a shot) clearly by the time the attacker gets there he is no longer in possession (possible to also argue that the defender is no longer in the path). On the other hand, if an attacker passed the ball and his leg hit the defender on the follow through with enough force to fall, the result in the box would be a PK (the attacker is still in possession and the defender is in the path).

You have the right to your opinion. You need to realize that in this case it’s not consistent with how the game is being officiated based on the laws, interpretations, and instructions to referees.
rpo.castro
Senior Member
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 17:39
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by rpo.castro »

Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 21:40
Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 20:20 'The stretch of the leg is putting the defender at risk.' Really? So if Vasquez had tried to pass the ball rather than continuing his run it's ok for the defender to stretch out his leg but because he continued his run and fell over his leg it's a foul? By that rationale if a defender dives to the ground a few feet in front of an attacking player to try and block a shot, but the attacker fakes a shot and continues dribbling and then falls over the defender's outstretched leg, it's a foul. For me it's only a foul if a player takes out another, not if an opposing player runs into him while he is on the ground. Also in this case the replays showed Vasquez was clearly looking for it. He effectively put his foot into the defender's (I can't remember who the defender was).
The key is the path of an attacker in possession of the ball (if an attacker “just” passed or shot the ball, they are considered in possession). if the defender stretched his leg 10m ahead of the attacker (let’s say to block a shot) clearly by the time the attacker gets there he is no longer in possession (possible to also argue that the defender is no longer in the path). On the other hand, if an attacker passed the ball and his leg hit the defender on the follow through with enough force to fall, the result in the box would be a PK (the attacker is still in possession and the defender is in the path).

You have the right to your opinion. You need to realize that in this case it’s not consistent with how the game is being officiated based on the laws, interpretations, and instructions to referees.
All right except in this case Vasquez moves his right leg to the right to make contact with defender leg. Its not a natural path. If he kept his natural path he could or not have missed the leg, but since he moved his leg in a unnatural way, fault shouldn't be given.
Sagy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 01:27
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by Sagy »

rpo.castro wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 22:56
Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 21:40
Polak wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 20:20 'The stretch of the leg is putting the defender at risk.' Really? So if Vasquez had tried to pass the ball rather than continuing his run it's ok for the defender to stretch out his leg but because he continued his run and fell over his leg it's a foul? By that rationale if a defender dives to the ground a few feet in front of an attacking player to try and block a shot, but the attacker fakes a shot and continues dribbling and then falls over the defender's outstretched leg, it's a foul. For me it's only a foul if a player takes out another, not if an opposing player runs into him while he is on the ground. Also in this case the replays showed Vasquez was clearly looking for it. He effectively put his foot into the defender's (I can't remember who the defender was).
The key is the path of an attacker in possession of the ball (if an attacker “just” passed or shot the ball, they are considered in possession). if the defender stretched his leg 10m ahead of the attacker (let’s say to block a shot) clearly by the time the attacker gets there he is no longer in possession (possible to also argue that the defender is no longer in the path). On the other hand, if an attacker passed the ball and his leg hit the defender on the follow through with enough force to fall, the result in the box would be a PK (the attacker is still in possession and the defender is in the path).

You have the right to your opinion. You need to realize that in this case it’s not consistent with how the game is being officiated based on the laws, interpretations, and instructions to referees.
All right except in this case Vasquez moves his right leg to the right to make contact with defender leg. Its not a natural path. If he kept his natural path he could or not have missed the leg, but since he moved his leg in a unnatural way, fault shouldn't be given.
Agreed, some CRs would not have called it a PK. I even stated “Could the CR gone with a no call? Possibly”. I think that the majority of CR would call a PK in such a case, but for sure some wouldn’t, it’s all ITOOTR.

My objection was to “absurd decision” and “dive”, neither of these is true in this case.
rpo.castro
Senior Member
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 17:39
Location: Braga, Portugal

Post by rpo.castro »

Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 23:39
rpo.castro wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 22:56
Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 21:40
The key is the path of an attacker in possession of the ball (if an attacker “just” passed or shot the ball, they are considered in possession). if the defender stretched his leg 10m ahead of the attacker (let’s say to block a shot) clearly by the time the attacker gets there he is no longer in possession (possible to also argue that the defender is no longer in the path). On the other hand, if an attacker passed the ball and his leg hit the defender on the follow through with enough force to fall, the result in the box would be a PK (the attacker is still in possession and the defender is in the path).

You have the right to your opinion. You need to realize that in this case it’s not consistent with how the game is being officiated based on the laws, interpretations, and instructions to referees.
All right except in this case Vasquez moves his right leg to the right to make contact with defender leg. Its not a natural path. If he kept his natural path he could or not have missed the leg, but since he moved his leg in a unnatural way, fault shouldn't be given.
Agreed, some CRs would not have called it a PK. I even stated “Could the CR gone with a no call? Possibly”. I think that the majority of CR would call a PK in such a case, but for sure some wouldn’t, it’s all ITOOTR.

My objection was to “absurd decision” and “dive”, neither of these is true in this case.
As I said previously, in real time it looked a clear penalty for me so I can understand why the ref and most refs would call it penalty. Watching the images, I have no doubt that the referee (or CR) should be alerted to revert or at least watch the images. It would be better for the game and for the referees themselves.
Sagy
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2021 01:27
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Contact:

Post by Sagy »

rpo.castro wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:37
Sagy wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 23:39
rpo.castro wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 22:56
All right except in this case Vasquez moves his right leg to the right to make contact with defender leg. Its not a natural path. If he kept his natural path he could or not have missed the leg, but since he moved his leg in a unnatural way, fault shouldn't be given.
Agreed, some CRs would not have called it a PK. I even stated “Could the CR gone with a no call? Possibly”. I think that the majority of CR would call a PK in such a case, but for sure some wouldn’t, it’s all ITOOTR.

My objection was to “absurd decision” and “dive”, neither of these is true in this case.
As I said previously, in real time it looked a clear penalty for me so I can understand why the ref and most refs would call it penalty. Watching the images, I have no doubt that the referee (or CR) should be alerted to revert or at least watch the images. It would be better for the game and for the referees themselves.
The standard is “clear and obvious error”, you said “or at least watch the images” this leaves room that it wasn’t an error, for sure short of “clear and obvious”. Again while I agree that some CRs might not call it a PK, the majority would call it a PK even after watching the video in slow motion. To make it clear, the purpose of VAR is not to replace “ITOOTR”, the purpose of VAR is to correct “clear and obvious errors”.
Post Reply