It seemed Panama coach Gary Stempel and the Canalero players were protesting too much after falling, 2-1, to the U.S. in the quarterfinals of the Gold Cup Saturday.
But they might have been justified in disputing Mexican referee Benito Archundia's awarding of a penalty kick to the U.S. late during extra time in the match in Philadelphia.
Defender Roman Torres did foul U.S. striker Kenny Cooper in the penalty area, but the foul itself was a high boot (dangerous play) which should result in an indirect free kick, no matter where it occurs on the field. If Torres was charged with serious foul play, or if he had been the last man and prevented a goal-scoring opportunity with a deliberate foul, he should have been red-carded; instead, Archundia cautioned Torres, indicating the foul was neither.
Were we watching the same game? That was a violent kick to the midsection, or lower. The defender left his feet and was out of control while flying through the air. It was anything but a high boot.
ReplyDeleteWhat constitutes "serious foul play"? I wonder if that's the interpretation the ref went went.
ReplyDeleteAnd Sidenetting, the play was clearly a high boot. Boot goes high, hits player...high boot. It's remarkable to describe it as "anything but" what it exactly was.
With all due respec you contradict yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou say "Torres did foul" Cooper, but then claim that "the foul itself was a high boot"
A high boot is not a foul. It's an infraction. Either you foul someone, which results in a DFK (or a PK if it's committed in the area) or you don't.
The fact that Torres was guilty of a high boot and consequently fouled Cooper does not alter the fact that Cooper was fouled.
There is no IFK for any foul. A foul is a foul is a foul, and they all result in DFK's.
The ref should have red-carded him, whether in the penalty area or not.
ReplyDeleteA "dangerous play" that makes contact becomes a violent foul. Panama actually got a break on the call - they had no complain.
To "not" call a PK there would have been one of the worst officiating decisions imaginable.
Frank, this infraction could fall easily under a couple of the fouls that result in a direct free kick according to the rules of the game posted freely on fifa.com. Below is a quote from the laws:
ReplyDelete"A direct kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless, or using excessive force:
* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges at an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent
* tackles an opponent
A direct kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the three following offences:
* holds an opponent
* spits at an opponent
* handles the ball deliberately"
Can you really not find any of these offences in that play? With carelessness, recklessnes and excessive force the Panamanian kicked, jumped at, charged at, struck, and essentially tackled Cooper (the opponent, in this case). The fact that he did it with his boot high is a secondary offence and wouldn't even make the list of charges the DA would choose to pursue, were it a court of law.
By your interpretation of the laws of the game, Frank, a player would receive an infraction (indirect free kick) for a flying ninja move wherein he kicks a man in the head?
You could actually debate whether the card should have been yellow or red (I lean to red), but there is no way to question the call as a foul and penalty kick.
You gotta love it when referees change the law to suit their feelings...
ReplyDelete