> "Diabolik" escreveu:
>>> "Diabolik" escreveu:
>>>>> Mind you, the Sirigu/Sanchez penalty call was correct, IMO. But
>>>>> made no attempt to stay on the play.
>>>> If a player starts falling before contact, and contact is a consequence
>>>> of the fall, do you think it's still a penalty?
>>> Oh, c'mon, this isn't really a question, is it? =))
>> Of course it is, that's the whole point of the debate.
> What I meant was, if the question already implies that there wasn't a
> foul, then there's only one possible answer to it.
>> Totti got penaised for the same reason in 2002, even though it was more
>> noticable. He fell before contact, even though there was contact later.
> That Totti's fall was more noticeably a dive, that it happened more
> distinctly earlier than the contact,
Yes, but it was the same situation.
> and the kind of contact that was made
> against him, all these things make it a very different situation.
I think it's much the same, the player dives before contact, doesn't matter
if it happens sooner or later, or if it's more noticeable.
> Both concerning the correctness of the call and the ability of the referee
> to make the right call.
Yes, Sanchez situation was harder to evaluate, but the abilty of the ref to
make the right call is a diferent matter.
>>> I don't think there's reason to overthink this.
>>> Paraphrasing the rules of the game, it is a foul if a player, in a
>>> careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force, trips or tries to
>>> trip an opponent, among other things.
>> That's fine, it was a foul by the keeper, but would it have been a foul
>> Sanchez wouldn't have started falling before the trip?
> Of course! It would be a foul even if Sanchez had jumped over his arms to
> stay on the play. The rules say "trips or attempts to trip".
The rules also say don't deceive (dive).
>>> On the other hand, if a player's fall is caused exclusively by diving or
>>> losing balance without any influence from others, then the player was
>>> tripped, by definition.
>> But Sanchez *was* falling before, he dived before the keeper tripped him.
>> If the keeper hadn't touched him, he was looking like falliing to ground
> If the keeper hadn't touched him, and Sanchez still fell, he would have
> looked like an ass and got an yellow for simulation.
> As it happened, he was clearly fouled by Sirigu, who didn't make the
> smartest play of his career.
It's asking a bit much from a keeper to evaluate in realtime if a player is
diving, and let him go.
Sanchez still should have received a yellow card for diving, because that
was the intent. And I think in these situations, it's no penalty because of
the initial intent of the player to deceive and dive. I think the play
should be stopped there, regardless of what happens later (trip). That's
IMO, regardless of the rules.
How else are you going to stamp out diving, if a player knows he can dive
and still get a penalty if he makes contact?