Germany Ukr - Martin won't want to see the first again

[santa sangria]

Looked like a great tackle by the Ukranian. But Atkinson saw a foul. Free kick. One-nil to the Germans.
I wonder if he'll see it at half time and atone in the second half...?

 

[Kes]

Looked like a great tackle by the Ukranian. But Atkinson saw a foul. Free kick. One-nil to the Germans.
I wonder if he'll see it at half time and atone in the second half...?

I doubt it.
I still look back to his performance during the Newcastle v Sunderland match weeks ago and shake my head. I really don't rate the guy....

 

[Peter Grove]

Looked like a great tackle by the Ukranian. But Atkinson saw a foul. Free kick. One-nil to the Germans.
I wonder if he'll see it at half time and atone in the second half...?

As I saw it, the defender touched the ball first but tripped the opponent on the follow through. For me, that's a good call. The commentators may have said it was a great tackle but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Refs cannot compete with technology. At slow motion and freeze frame we can see a slight touch on the ball. No so in real time. This will have looked like a foul as a trip. Also as PG states the subsequent action can also be a foul after playing the ball. Anyway that is all that it is, a minor foul. Ukraine defends the free kick better and it is a non issue.
MA is a highly respected ref and has got to FIFA standard and the Euros on merit. That only happens to refs that score highly and that are rated highly by observers. There is a full package to be taken account off. Obviously he is doing many things right. If all we can point to is one questionable free kick in a game then that is a high score. For me MA and crew did well in the game.

 

[McTavish]

I'd be interested on views on another incident in this game. On 87 minutes Neuer came out to a long ball, Mustafi didn't see him and headed back over him. The Ukrainian striker, Seleznyov, was running through on the loose ball and Neuer blocked him off. Does anyone think there is a case for a penalty for holding or charging?

You can see it here. Best replay is at 88:15.

 

[GraemeS]

I'd be interested on views on another incident in this game. On 87 minutes Neuer came out to a long ball, Mustafi didn't see him and headed back over him. The Ukrainian striker, Seleznyov, was running through on the loose ball and Neuer blocked him off. Does anyone think there is a case for a penalty for holding or charging?

You can see i here. Best replay is at 88:15.

Yeah, that did stand out in my mind as well, although the TV commentators didn't seem to highlight it at all. I think it would have been totally justifiable - Neuer makes no attempt to play the ball and is clearly looking directly at the opposing striker as he steps across and shoulder barges/charges him. Would have been a big call given that there wasn't even much of an appeal though.

 

[santa sangria]

As I saw it, the defender touched the ball first but tripped the opponent on the follow through. For me, that's a good call. The commentators may have said it was a great tackle but that doesn't make it so.

My commentators did not question it and the reply was shown only once. It wasn't shown at half time or in any of the repeat plays of the goal. Looked good in real time as well as reply to me in this case. Gutted for the Romanian - he also took the cracking low free kick that Neuer turned round the post

 

[Charlie Jones]

My commentators did not question it and the reply was shown only once. It wasn't shown at half time or in any of the repeat plays of the goal. Looked good in real time as well as reply to me in this case. Gutted for the Romanian - he also took the cracking low free kick that Neuer turned round the post

Ukranian?

 

[santa sangria]

Ukranian?

Ouch!

 

[GazzaJAnimal]

As I saw it, the defender touched the ball first but tripped the opponent on the follow through. For me, that's a good call. The commentators may have said it was a great tackle but that doesn't make it so.

They way I see it is the IFAB/FIFA are asking players to suspend the laws of physics to appease the men in black. They are in effect saying that you have to stop dead when you have touched the ball. This is not possible as your momentum takes you on. Sometimes a player has no choice in following through on a tackle and going through their opponent. It's called momentum. Refs should know this and take it into account.

 

[AlexF]

Sometimes a player has no choice in following through on a tackle and going through their opponent. It's called momentum. Refs should know this and take it into account.

Then the player shouldn't be making that tackle.

There's a difference between getting the ball and an opponent tripping over you vs getting the ball and then going through the opponent.

One is acceptable and happens to be safer than the other. Significantly so.

 

[Peter Grove]

They way I see it is the IFAB/FIFA are asking players to suspend the laws of physics to appease the men in black. They are in effect saying that you have to stop dead when you have touched the ball. This is not possible as your momentum takes you on. Sometimes a player has no choice in following through on a tackle and going through their opponent. It's called momentum. Refs should know this and take it into account.

I think perhaps you're looking at this from the wrong angle. A player has a choice (or actually a number of them) when making a tackle. In the first instance, the player can choose whether to make a tackle or not. Then he can choose the amount of speed, force and the manner of the tackle - all of which contribute to the momentum he ends up with.

While you are right that a player cannot suspend the laws of physics, he is not entitled to disregard them either. When a player initiates a tackle, one of the things he has to take into account, is the effect that his momentum will have. If he has imparted too much force and speed into his tackle so that he is not in control of his momentum and ends up committing a foul (potentially with a risk of injury to an opponent) he has to take responsibility for the consequences of his choices.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if the fact that the laws of physics prevent him from stopping dead after contacting the ball were an excuse for following through into an opponent then a player could just launch himself in the air with studs showing at an opponent's knees or waist and after seriously injuring said opponent, claim that he had done nothing wrong, because it was not his fault, it was the fault of his momentum.

 

[Stephen]

I think perhaps you're looking at this from the wrong angle. A player has a choice (or actually a number of them) when making a tackle. In the first instance, the player can choose whether to make a tackle or not. Then he can choose the amount of speed, force and the manner of the tackle - all of which contribute to the momentum he ends up with.

While you are right that a player cannot suspend the laws of physics, he is not entitled to disregard them either. When a player initiates a tackle, one of the things he has to take into account, is the effect that his momentum will have. If he has imparted too much force and speed into his tackle so that he is not in control of his momentum and ends up committing a foul (potentially with a risk of injury to an opponent) he has to take responsibility for the consequences of his choices.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if the fact that the laws of physics prevent him from stopping dead after contacting the ball were an excuse for following through into an opponent then a player could just launch himself in the air with studs showing at an opponent's knees or waist and after seriously injuring said opponent, claim that he had done nothing wrong, because it was not his fault, it was the fault of his momentum.

Great comment and I agree.

 

[RefJef]

Help me get my head around this, as I'm never too sure if my interpretation is good.

Player A has the ball
Player X is the tackler

Player X player X plays the ball, but then makes sufficient physical contact (tripping/barging etc.) to prevent player A from having the opportunity to win it back then that is a foul.

Player X wins the ball. Player A's momentum ( now without the ball) carries him(A) into player X (I.e A now trips over X - A contacts X, not vice versa) no foul?

Am I right?

Genuine question - trying to learn & improve.

J

 

[AlexF]

@RefJef Pretty much.

You see the second most often in the penalty area when a GK wins the ball and takes possession with the hands and the opposing player falls over the goalkeeper.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Looked like a great tackle by the Ukranian. But Atkinson saw a foul. Free kick. One-nil to the Germans.
I wonder if he'll see it at half time and atone in the second half...?

Yeah that's right, FIFA referees often look to even things up /sarcasm

As I saw it, the defender touched the ball first but tripped the opponent on the follow through. For me, that's a good call. The commentators may have said it was a great tackle but that doesn't make it so.

This along with Peter's other post about the choices players make when challenging for the ball show the difference between someone thinking as a player/manager/spectator and thinking as a referee/observer.

Hi
Refs cannot compete with technology. At slow motion and freeze frame we can see a slight touch on the ball. No so in real time. This will have looked like a foul as a trip. Also as PG states the subsequent action can also be a foul after playing the ball. Anyway that is all that it is, a minor foul. Ukraine defends the free kick better and it is a non issue.
MA is a highly respected ref and has got to FIFA standard and the Euros on merit. That only happens to refs that score highly and that are rated highly by observers. There is a full package to be taken account off. Obviously he is doing many things right. If all we can point to is one questionable free kick in a game then that is a high score. For me MA and crew did well in the game.

Martin is a personal friend and I thought he had a good game. If I had one criticism and to be honest it's not a criticism, I thought he looked a little stiff legged in the early stages. Once the game got going, his anticipation of changes in direction in play and the judicious use of short sprints meant he was in the right place at the right time.

They way I see it is the IFAB/FIFA are asking players to suspend the laws of physics to appease the men in black. They are in effect saying that you have to stop dead when you have touched the ball. This is not possible as your momentum takes you on. Sometimes a player has no choice in following through on a tackle and going through their opponent. It's called momentum. Refs should know this and take it into account.

I disagree and refer you to Peter Grove's post above.

The Laws were revised a few years ago to include reference to a careless tackle and the definitions of careless, reckless and excessive force were made clearer. I genuinely believe that the way to stop players breaching the new laws is to provide proper education for them, not leave it up to the media to cascade the information, often simplifying it and distorting it.

A few presentations to leagues would make life so much easier for referees when they begin applying law to the new criteria (yes I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).

 

[santa sangria]

I still think it was a great tackle as I did at the time. I don't think it was careless. I thought it was a brilliant bit of football.