AS Monaco (A) | CL | Post Match Thread

blue by birth said:
It was actually Dier who made contact with Nico's shin..so not a foul not a penalty.
Click to expand...
@Paladin bbb's sentiment above is an example of what my original post was getting at.

You have to start from the rule in law 11. You dont need contact to find a foul. A raised boot near a face is in of itself a foul.

So Nico was already in violation and his making contact made the action reviewable.
 
Dax777 said:
No, read the rules book. If you do an overhead kick or bicycle kick with no opponents close enough to be hit its legal

Any raised leg that contacts an opponent in the face is an automatic foul. Dont understand why so many are pretending not to know this.
Click to expand...
Pulling a shirt is an automatic foul, holding someone (let alone a bear hug) is an automatic foul, a goalkeeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds is an automatic foul - that’s just off the top of my head - I could probably go on if I thought about it.

We’re way past the point of “it’s the rule so you can’t question it”.
 
Dax777 said:
@Paladin bbb's sentiment above is an example of what my original post was getting at.

You have to start from the rule in law 11. You dont need contact to find a foul. A raised boot near a face is in of itself a foul.

So Nico was already in violation and his making contact made the action reviewable.
Click to expand...
So if an attacking player attempts a diving header and is approximately a foot off the ground and the defender attempts to clear the ball but doesn't make contact with the player but clears the ball then that's also a penalty.. because his foot is raised a foot off the ground..
 
Dax777 said:
Yes.


Correct. For the foul without contact.

Yes, which makes the point at issue " was there contact?"

Already we know Nico was in violation of the rules as shown in law 11 that you posted.


Ref missed it In real time. VAR checked and concluded there WAS contact. Hence why they called the ref to review. He then reviewed and reached the same conclusion. There was contact. Which takes a missed foul. ( The Raised boot) from an indirect kick ( non-penalty) to direck kick ( potential penalty) and thus, VAR reviewable.

If you saw contact, then there is only one conclusion.

I saw contact.

Again, my post was a spill over from the game thread. Whee many were arguing, " he got the ball first", "it was minimal contact", "Dier hit his shin with his knobby head", "cheating **** of a Ref" etc...


The rule as you've posted shows Nico's was a missed foul. Making contact, made it reviewable by VAR. Hence why each sequence in the decision making process was correct.
Click to expand...
You are missing the whole point. I've not referred to any incidents from yesterday's game. I am merely pointing out to you that your understanding of the Laws is incorrect.

You said this: "In soccer, a raised foot near the head is a foul called "playing in a dangerous manner" or, more colloquially, a "high boot". A referee can call this foul even if no contact is made."

I merely pointed out to you, by referencing the Laws of the Game, that your statement was incorrect.

You now seen to have partially recognised your error because you have said above: "Correct. For the foul without contact." So you now acknowledge the distinction between contact and no contact. You now just need to understand that there is no such thing as what you call "the foul without contact".
 
blue by birth said:
It was actually Dier who made contact with Nico's shin..so not a foul not a penalty.
Click to expand...
Was Nico's boot raised near the face of an opponent? Yes. Then according to law 11, Nico was committing a foul.

With his boot raised, was there contact with Diers face? Yes. According to law 12 Nico was committing a foul. Even if Dier's face is the one that makes contact.

The reason why Law 11 is important is that it highlights why your argument above fails . When your boot is raised around the head level and you make contact, you are automatically the offender.

You are free to disagree. But according to the rules outlined in the laws of the game.... You are probably wrong.
 
blue by birth said:
So if an attacking player attempts a diving header and is approximately a foot off the ground and the defender attempts to clear the ball but doesn't make contact with the player but clears the ball then that's also a penalty.. because his foot is raised a foot off the ground..
Click to expand...
I questioned this logic and was told I was boring.

The way to think about this is that if Dax disagrees with you on any topic, it’s near a mathematical proof that you are correct. Best contrary indicator around.
 
Dax777 said:
Was Nico's boot raised near the face of an opponent? Yes. Then according to law 11, Nico was committing a foul.

With his boot raised, was there contact with Diers face? Yes. According to law 12 Nico was committing a foul. Even if Dier's face is the one that makes contact.

The reason why Law 11 is important is that it highlights why your argument above fails . When your boot is raised around the head level and you make contact, you are automatically the offender.

You are free to disagree. But according to the rules outlined in the laws of the game.... You are probably wrong.
Click to expand...
I will disagree..fuck me you can quote laws all day long but in reality that wouldn't be given in the majority of games.
 
Dax777 said:
@Paladin bbb's sentiment above is an example of what my original post was getting at.

You have to start from the rule in law 11. You dont need contact to find a foul. A raised boot near a face is in of itself a foul.

So Nico was already in violation and his making contact made the action reviewable.
Click to expand...
Apologies. I may have inadvertently misled. Law 11 covers Offside. Law 12 covers Fouls and Misconduct.

Then we have Law 12 clause 1, titled Direct Free Kick. It says "If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."

This is followed by Law 12 clause 2, titled Indirect Free Kick. This clause states "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player plays in a dangerous manner."

Can you see the differences in the two clauses which make it clear that a direct free kick or penalty are the result of contact between two players, with the contact being interpreted by the referee as a foul?

You say above "You dont need contact to find a foul." This is patently false, in the context of a foul being an offence that leads to a direct free kick or a penalty kick.
 
Paladin said:
Apologies. I may have inadvertently misled. Law 11 covers Offside. Law 12 covers Fouls and Misconduct.

Then we have Law 12 clause 1, titled Direct Free Kick. It says "If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."

This is followed by Law 12 clause 2, titled Indirect Free Kick. This clause states "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player plays in a dangerous manner."

Can you see the differences in the two clauses which make it clear that a direct free kick or penalty are the result of contact between two players, with the contact being interpreted by the referee as a foul?

You say above "You dont need contact to find a foul." This is patently false, in the context of a foul being an offence that leads to a direct free kick or a penalty kick.
Click to expand...
Ah! i see you have spotted your own error and tried to hide it in the rewrite. :)
A 'foul' is an offense that can lead to a free kick. Both direct or indirect.

A raised boot " even without contact" is a foul. And can be called by a ref. Like i have said.

If you weren't referencing the game, then there is no confusion.
 
Last edited:
noseve said:
Nope - he's a foot off the ground - this is not photoshopped, it's a still grabbed from the video:

Dier definitely played the ref, but he shouldn't have been given the chance.

View attachment 171181
Click to expand...
In real time it looks nothing like that.

A still photograph of football is no way conclusive.

Not photoshopped?

You mean apart from the arm growing out of Nico's right thigh!
 
Dax777 said:
In soccer, a raised foot near the head is a foul called "playing in a dangerous manner" or, more colloquially, a "high boot". A referee can call this foul even if no contact is made, as the action itself is a threat to a player's safety.


For those confused by the rules
Click to expand...
Soccer?!

End of thread
 
Dax777 said:
Ah! i see you have spotted your own error and tried to hide it in the rewrite. :)
A 'foul' is an offense that can lead to a free kick. Both direct or indirect.

A raised boot " even without contact" is a foul. And can be called by a ref. Like i have said.

If you weren't referencing the game, then there is no confusion.
Click to expand...
I am not hiding anything. My error was in confusing the numbering of the laws, not in the meaning of the content of the laws.

The laws talk about fouls and misconduct. One of the seventeen laws actually has Fouls and Misconduct as its title (Law 12). If you read the laws, you will agree with me that when they mention fouls, they mean offences involving physical contact by one player against another. Other law contraventions that do not involve physical contact between two players generally fall under the Misconduct category of offences.

It seems to me that you have a different interpretation of the word "foul" - one which includes non-contact offences as fouls, when they should be referred to as misconduct.

Your arguments are incompatible with the laws as highlighted below. Using quotes from the Laws of the Game, please show me where it says or implies that "a raised boot, even without contact, is a foul".

1000035358.jpg
 
Dax777 said:
Was Nico's boot raised near the face of an opponent? Yes. Then according to law 11, Nico was committing a foul.

With his boot raised, was there contact with Diers face? Yes. According to law 12 Nico was committing a foul. Even if Dier's face is the one that makes contact.

The reason why Law 11 is important is that it highlights why your argument above fails . When your boot is raised around the head level and you make contact, you are automatically the offender.

You are free to disagree. But according to the rules outlined in the laws of the game.... You are probably wrong.
Click to expand...
Don't pretend you know the Laws of the Game, when you haven't even looked at them. If you had, you would know that Law 11 is about Offside.

1000035360.jpg
 
Paladin said:
I am not hiding anything. My error was in confusing the numbering of the laws, not in the meaning of the content of the laws.
Click to expand...
Nice try. That's not what i was referencing when i said you hid your answer in the rewrite. I highlighted what i wass talking about. You pretending 'fouls' only involved direct kicks.
Paladin said:
The laws talk about fouls and misconduct. One of the seventeen laws actually has Fouls and Misconduct as its title (Law 12). If you read the laws, you will agree with me that when they mention fouls, they mean offences involving physical contact by one player against another. Other law contraventions that do not involve physical contact between two players generally fall under the Misconduct category of offences.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Intuitively this is obvious. A handball for example doesn't involve contact with another player. Yet its a foul. And a direct kick for that matter.

Let me clear things up for you..

A foul (foul play) occurs when one team gains an advantage by breaking one of the rules of the game. A foul play can only occur when the ball is in play. Can only be committed by a player in the game. and against a player from the opposing team. Except for ball handling, which is deemed to be committed against the opposing team as a whole. And a foul can only take place on the field of play.

Fouls are divided into 2 categories: Those for which Direct kicks are awarded and those for which indirect kicks are awarded.


Misconduct:
A misconduct is ANY action which brings the game into disrepute.

There are 2 categories :
The first category are fouls which through the violent or unsporting nature of them, a free kick is not sufficient as discipline (i.e a yellow or red card Is required as a second punishment for the misconduct). The second, are unsporting actions that do not fit the criteria of being a foul.(i.e. Bernardo mouthing off to the ref and getting a yellow is a 'non foul' misconduct.)

Conclusion, some fouls are also misconducts, but not all misconducts are fouls. Fouls are about advantage gaining illegal actions that occur during play. Misconduct are about actions that bring the game into disrepute. Whether in play or not.

Hopefully that helps your understanding.


Paladin said:
It seems to me that you have a different interpretation of the word "foul" - one which includes non-contact offences as fouls, when they should be referred to as misconduct.
Click to expand...
Not a different interpretation, a more complete understanding.
Paladin said:
Your arguments are incompatible with the laws as highlighted below. Using quotes from the Laws of the Game, please show me where it says or implies that "a raised boot, even without contact, is a foul".

View attachment 171202
Click to expand...
Lol. Easy. The foul of playing in a dangerous manner punishable by an indirect free kick.

Again

"Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play."

The bolded is from the beginning section of the Law you've been quoting from. Hopefully, this clears it up for you.
 
Last edited:
Ajm1985 said:
Dier was Gvardiol's man

View attachment 171190
Click to expand...

I went back to look at the footage, and Dier was very much both Gonzalez and Gvardiol's man. Before the kick is taken, Dias looks over his shoulder to Gonzalez and clearly points right at Dier behind him.

Gonzalez looks at Dier and then tracks Dier pretty well into the penalty area, Gvardiol is on the goal side of Dier too but not tightly.

Remarkably, Dier holds of Gvardiol at arms length with one arm and completely puts off Gonzalez with some typical centre half 'craft' with the other (i.e. arms all over everyone). No wonder he demanded to take the penalty, he's done very well there, really strong.

But a combination of weak marking from Gvardiol and a fairly strange decision from Nico to use his foot that high in the area after falling out of position has forced the officials to make a decision one way or the other. I really think it was very poor defending from City.

(Also, word about Dias who completely lost his man and just stopped tracking him completely, a bit worrying in the 90th min)


1759478517714.png
 
Paladin said:
Don't pretend you know the Laws of the Game, when you haven't even looked at them. If you had, you would know that Law 11 is about Offside.

View attachment 171203
Click to expand...
Correct. I relied on your numbering. That's my error. I hadn't actually googled it to confirm whether your numbering was right or wrong.

My understanding comes from actually having been a ref. Reffing games, and reading a Referee's manual. Granted, I haven't done any actual refereeing since before the pandemic. I am quite intuitively familiar with the laws and their interpretations. Which goes above and beyond just the statement of laws that you have up there. to include all other aspects of refereeing including Laws, definitions, interpretation, game management, communication etc

But that's neither here nor there. It was wrong of me to trust your writing when a basic Google search to ascertain the right rule number would have sufficed. I' promise to do better next time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top