Chiellini

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

59 minutes ago, king canary said:

For me, absolutely not on the first part.

Saka was past Chellini, basically in behind the Italian defence with a great chance to create a goalscoring opportunity. The pullback denies that. There is no attempt to play the ball just a cynical stopping of what could have been an excellent chance for England. I don't see a 'don't do it again' punishment as being enough for that.

I certainly do, furthermore, by making it more than a yellow card, you render it disproportionately in favour of the attacker. All they basically have to do is pretend by doing even more of the simulation we all frown upon to make it look more dangerous. It would be a classic case of inadvertent consequences being far worse than the issue at hand, which is easily rectified by a yellow card anyway.

Essentially, the argument is "couldda, wouldda". As Dieter Eilts drily said once, if his grandma were a bus, she'd honk.

[king canary 7,606]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I certainly do, furthermore, by making it more than a yellow card, you render it disproportionately in favour of the attacker. All they basically have to do is pretend by doing even more of the simulation we all frown upon to make it look more dangerous. It would be a classic case of inadvertent consequences being far worse than the issue at hand, which is easily rectified by a yellow card anyway.

Essentially, the argument is "couldda, wouldda". As Dieter Eilts drily said once, if his grandma were a bus, she'd honk.

I think you're confusing the issue between fouls in general and these specific types of fouls. There is no simulation involved in the type of challenge Chellini makes, or the kind John Terry used to be fond of. Its the calculation between 'if I commit the foul now I'll only get a yellow but I'll prevent a potential goalscoring opportunity.' Those are the fouls that bother me and where I don't think a yellow really does enough.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think you're confusing the issue between fouls in general and these specific types of fouls. There is no simulation involved in the type of challenge Chellini makes, or the kind John Terry used to be fond of. Its the calculation between 'if I commit the foul now I'll only get a yellow but I'll prevent a potential goalscoring opportunity.' Those are the fouls that bother me and where I don't think a yellow really does enough.

Nope, I'm saying if you start punishing these fouls more severely, you will get more simulation / exaggeration as a side-effect as players will see there's a chance of getting an opponent removed for a few minutes (for a sin bin) or even sent off.

There definitely can be a degree of simulation in those fouls. All you do is exaggerate the effect of it, and we've all seen plenty of cases where an attacking player, upon being fouled, makes a big meal of it hoping to get the opponent yellow-carded or sent off. If Immobile can practically play dead when inadvertently getting his foot stood on, only to be magically healed when Italy score, then you'll definitely get plenty of that with shirt grabs pretending to be "whiplashed" harder than they really were.

Those cynical but relatively minor fouls are precisely what your yellow card, as a referee, is for. If they're silly enough to do it twice, they deserve to go as opposed to a fair few "double-yellows" which looked like they were for relatively minor offences that don't really add up to being taken off. This is where we are on opposite sides, you think a yellow doesn't really do enough and it bothers you whereas I maintain a yellow is sufficient - indeed arguably more than sufficient in some cases.

Regarding sinbins, my stance is this: it should only be used for dissent or cases where a referee thinks a player is at risk of losing his cool, or has committed an offence that betrays a temperament that is not calm.

Edited July 14, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[king canary 7,606]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Nope, I'm saying if you start punishing these fouls more severely, you will get more simulation / exaggeration as a side-effect as players will see there's a chance of getting an opponent removed for a few minutes (for a sin bin) or even sent off.

There definitely can be a degree of simulation in those fouls. All you do is exaggerate the effect of it, and we've all seen plenty of cases where an attacking player, upon being fouled, makes a big meal of it hoping to get the opponent yellow-carded or sent off. If Immobile can practically play dead when inadvertently getting his foot stood on, only to be magically healed when Italy score, then you'll definitely get plenty of that with shirt grabs pretending to be "whiplashed" harder than they really were.

Those cynical but relatively minor fouls are precisely what your yellow card, as a referee, is for. If they're silly enough to do it twice, they deserve to go as opposed to a fair few "double-yellows" which looked like they were for relatively minor offences that don't really add up to being taken off. This is where we are on opposite sides, you think a yellow doesn't really do enough and it bothers you whereas I maintain a yellow is sufficient - indeed arguably more than sufficient in some cases.

Regarding sinbins, my stance is this: it should only be used for dissent or cases where a referee thinks a player is at risk of losing his cool, or has committed an offence that betrays a temperament that is not calm.

Each to their own I guess. For me, the foul Chellini committed is just as bad/cynical as any dive I've seen. Its calculated, there is no attempt to actually win the ball, its purely designed to stop a goal scoring opportunity, just as a dive is designed to create one. Similarly I think referees need to do more about teams like Madrid, Man City and even Italy who use tactical fouling as a way to break up play and stop momentum. Personally I'd like to see more yellows given due to 'team fouling' regardless of the actual foul and player doing it- ie if the ref thinks a team is using persistent fouling to break up play they speak to the captain and tell them 'next person on your team who commits a foul gets a yellow, no debate.' 

Re simulation, I think refs in part need to be better at giving fouls when players do stay on their feet and actually apply the advantage law better to reduce the need for players to do it. For example in the Euro final an England player got fouled in a shooting position but the ball broke to and England player who then had a cross blocked. The advantage was minimal and England were essentially punished (not getting a freekick in a good shooting position) for trying to actually play on. This is where I'd take a leaf from Rugby- advantages there can run for quite a bit of time to see if the team actually does gain from it.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Each to their own I guess. For me, the foul Chellini committed is just as bad/cynical as any dive I've seen. Its calculated, there is no attempt to actually win the ball, its purely designed to stop a goal scoring opportunity, just as a dive is designed to create one. Similarly I think referees need to do more about teams like Madrid, Man City and even Italy who use tactical fouling as a way to break up play and stop momentum. Personally I'd like to see more yellows given due to 'team fouling' regardless of the actual foul and player doing it- ie if the ref thinks a team is using persistent fouling to break up play they speak to the captain and tell them 'next person on your team who commits a foul gets a yellow, no debate.' 

Re simulation, I think refs in part need to be better at giving fouls when players do stay on their feet and actually apply the advantage law better to reduce the need for players to do it. For example in the Euro final an England player got fouled in a shooting position but the ball broke to and England player who then had a cross blocked. The advantage was minimal and England were essentially punished (not getting a freekick in a good shooting position) for trying to actually play on. This is where I'd take a leaf from Rugby- advantages there can run for quite a bit of time to see if the team actually does gain from it.

 

That's where we fundamentally disagree. Football is a contact sport, so I expect a little bit of push and shove. I see diving as a far more cynical form of play, and also the notion of persistent infringement already applies to the situation you describe, it just isn't used all that much for it as what invariably happens is a comparison with other fouls that may have been a bit more severe, so the referee then becomes open to claims of being inconsistent again.

As the last thirty years or so have amply demonstrated with the emergence and now overwhelming prevalence of diving, clamping down too much on tackles means players will throw themselves to the ground and pretend to be hurt.

Ultimately, when so much is on the line, players and teams will try to game systems to put themselves at an advantage against their rivals. Pick your poison. I'll take the shirt-grab over the diver every single day of the week.

[Budapest Canary 152]

My son was doing Brazilian Jitsu for a coupe of years, which is a contact sport, where choking is among the things to do. Rest assured, a momentary grab of a shirt does not amount to choking by any definition in any sport. This is choking: