Jump to content

Mr Wallin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

197 "Just keep swimming"

About Mr Wallin

  • Rank
    Development Squad


  • Biography
    Winner of the Yul Brynner Memorial Geosense Cup

About Me

  • About Me
    Katrineholm, middle of everywhere, Sweden


  • Interests
    -35 degrees Farenheit and business as usual...

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    The Arsenal

Recent Profile Visitors

3,104 profile views
  1. As much as I'd like to join the FIFA bashing this isn't really on their head (not mainly at least). FIFA are epic crowd pleaser's. If fans (and pundits) ever came to agree on diving = bad and get some coherent idea about what is a dive then FIFA and the rest of the confeds would have new instructions for their referees out before the next set of matches. But for the majority of dives/simulation (and past the "my player/club" bias) you'll never find anything close to a majority to agree that a situation is a dive bad enough to deserve a caution.
  2. It actually pretty much is. It is not a hard/strict rule but the recommendation is that you determine facts (on/over the line, hand makes contact or not and so on) by looking at it in slow-mo or freeze frame and then decide on the judgement parts by looking at it at full speed. For the PK in the WC final he did both, first a few freeze/slow screens and then a forward/backward shot at fairly high speed at the end. Seemed like a good way to do it to me tbh. I'd say so yes.
  3. Diving isn't on the list of things that can be reviewed directly. So for most dives the VAR couldn't have gotten involved, regardless of cards being issued. But I agree that the referee instructions for this WC really didn't help making matches better (but then again neither did it in 2014 but FIFA still hailed that as great due to the low card count ).
  4. You'd still run into the same issues if you caution 5 minutes later or 10 minutes later or during half-time. IMO if you'd really want to combat diving (which there is not real will to do, not from fans, not from players, not from leagues nor from FIFA) then I'd allow referee to caution a player that dives but still give him the FK if he was fouled to and then encourage referees to be strict about diving. As long as the ones that issues instruction/guidelines to referees aren't bothered by diving neither will referees be.
  5. As I said above, there are a lot of issues with changing/adding decisions after play has been restarted. You could review and hand out fines/suspensions post-game though.
  6. That is a difficult one as it can't/won't be done in that way as you would have to wait until after the FK is taken to know if you can review it or not. And that would mean you'd have to breach one of the most sacred laws/principles of refereeing, that you can never change a decision after play has been restarted again. And that is something I don't expect will ever happen as that would open up for a whole truck load of problems. Which means you'd have to widen the scope a bit and either allow reviews of diving on all FK's close enough to goal to have a shot. But that might not solve all
  7. Along with bookings for delaying a restart or dissent or time wasting.
  8. That argument works both ways though and I'd wager quite a lot on the referee have spent a lot more hours playing football than what Keane have spent refereeing.
  9. The only thing that is obvious is that very few fans (or pundits) have any clue to how the handling law works. Don't get me wrong, I can accept that some won't think that it is handling but a lot of the arguments made have no basis in the laws. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have for a fan. For a referee however there is no basis in law to reason or call situations like that. Yes and no IMO. I see this situation as being very much like the Henry handball v Ireland a few years ago. Both players were moving in perfectly normal ways. Both players arm/h
  10. But that's not how it works... The time it took the referee to complete the OFR and the question of IF it was a clear error are not in any way related. If Pitana had called a corner (indicating he had seen a touch by the Croat) then I don't think that the VAR had sent up a review as not calling a PK from that contact wouldn't have been a clear error. But as Pitana called a goalkick (meaning he thought the last touch came of a French player) then the VAR, if he thought that the contact likely should be a PK, was free to send it up for review because not seeing the contact at all is easily
  11. No offence mate but you don't really know the rules for VAR do you??? The referee (Pitana) initially gave a goalkick (which would indicate he didn't see the contact by the Croat at all). The VAR had a look and though it was likely a foul (and penalty) and the difference between a goalkick and a penalty is a clear error and thus he sent it down to Pitana to have a look. Pitana then looked a several angles and decided to award the penalty. This is all just as the procedure is meant to work. The FK that was awarded to France ahead of the first goal was a simple foul outside the PA. Tha
  12. Oh believe me, most referees agrees with that. But there have been enough instructions through the years that referees almost never have trouble with the deliberate/intentional distinction but fans, coaches and players do and that creates problems for referees so a better wording would be welcomed. Not my fault the FA is too backwards to update the text. But it's bit strange because the rest of the text is updated just fine. No problem at all.
  13. @Razzler @m_fenton "deliberate" is the word in the laws. And while that might read a lot like "intentional" in a dictionary that is NOT the way that the laws are meant to be interpreted. You are working with some old laws there mate. Those two where broken out in the most recent changes of the laws and are now their own point (with an FK/PK restart).
  14. The movement of the hand/arm (up and then down) is normal movement for jumping and he couldn't really expect that the ball would come trough at all or at that angle. And those all count in favour for the defender. But right at the end there is a small adjustment and stiffening of the wrist/hand before the contact. So yes the defender didn't intentionally stick out an arm and block the ball like Suarez 8 years ago but he did make use of the happy coincidence that the ball came at the hand to direct it away. And that is still 100% a foul and a penalty. Possibly the most 100 % PK of the tou
  • Create New...