The Angle that shows it was a clear foul on Fred

[Damunk]

That's beyond soft, if there was a mosquito on Fred's shoulder that "hit" wouldn't have killed it. Never a penalty.

What about the arm lock on the right, everybody is focusing on just the shoulder grab but he had both hands on fred and pulled him down.

Arm lock? My friend, behave!

[nanijoe]

This is the one I am surprised no one is talking about...there was a clear foul on the loss of possession before Oscar scored his goal..If that was not called, then the foul on Julio Cesar should not have been called

African Star...This is a CLEAR Foul on the Brazilian as well...right?


[/video]



Cheers, Mate

[Guv007]

The angle the media isn't showing

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2095 ... cup-opener

http://s3.amazonaws.com/br-cdn/temp_ima ... 1402608844

Even if na pesin papa be di ref...

Cell man, the guy used both hands and his right hand had Fred's right hand in a lock which is why Fred took a tumble, see the momentum of his fall was to the right. The ref was right in frnt of the play and saw it in real time and real strength.

My issue with the foul is that refs are not consistent is awarding such and tend to favour some teams in particular against other. Is it too much asking refs to be consistent and fair in their judgement?

[Damunk]

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

[nanijoe]

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the referee set out to help Brazil win..

The Penalty call was bogus
Ramirez committed a foul before Brazil scored the third goal
Neymar should have been sent off
Julio Cesar was not fouled, he never had control of the ball


Tell me this is not a red card..If a Croatian had done this, half the team would have been sent off with him

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

[grandverve]

If that penalty was what would have won the Eagles the World Cup, i'll take it every time. It was soft, but still a pen.

[fabio]

AS dont mind them. It was a clear penalty, nothing more nothing less.

Lately, you have been following the wrong crowd on CE. Supporting certain issues that you would not have supported a year ago.

What has happened to you.?

Don't worry, keep calm. If you decide to continue on this path, we would have no choice, other than for you to cool off CE for a while.

[maceo4]

If that penalty was what would have won the Eagles the World Cup, i'll take it every time. It was soft, but still a pen.

If it was called on Naija you would be crying blue murder, abeg lets knock it off...

[grandverve]

If that penalty was what would have won the Eagles the World Cup, i'll take it every time. It was soft, but still a pen.

If it was called on Naija you would be crying blue murder, abeg lets knock it off...

My point is whoever was on the wrong side of it would feel slighted whilst the beneficiary will take it all day everyday and twice on sunday.

[DMS]

Soft or hard.. penalty is penalty.. It's even worse when the intention slowed down a player in the box for your teammate to clear the ball off.... Could be luck at times if the ref failed to see it properly or chose to ignore it, but in this case it's bad for Croatia.. Besides, I used to see defenders block balls with their arms raised up or sideways behind the intruder with the ball those days.. how come that's not the style again? It's annoying really when you see lazy defenders behave this way and sell out their team.. The stick should be on that stupid defender and not Fred, nor the Ref...

[DMS]

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

Surprised you are saying this Damunk... Do you know the laws of the game at all? Are you aware of Goalkeeper protection in this kind of scenario? If a striker got a slight touch from the goalkeeper when he's rushing in with the ball, you give goalkeeper Red card and penalty against, if it's a defender in a last man position you red card him, so how come a goal keeper jumps for a ball and a striker run into him still a goalkeeper fault?

[metalalloy]

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

Surprised you are saying this Damunk... Do you know the laws of the game at all? Are you aware of Goalkeeper protection in this kind of scenario? If a striker got a slight touch from the goalkeeper when he's rushing in with the ball, you give goalkeeper Red card and penalty against, if it's a defender in a last man position you red card him, so how come a goal keeper jumps for a ball and a striker run into him still a goalkeeper fault?

Who got to the ball first? look at this clip especially the second angle and judge for yourself



https://vine.co/v/MjUJrAMTVFt

[amafolas]

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

That was so not a foul. The player didn't jump into the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper never had control of the ball

[theYemster]

Cell man, the guy used both hands and his right hand had Fred's right hand in a lock which is why Fred took a tumble, see the momentum of his fall was to the right. The ref was right in frnt of the play and saw it in real time and real strength.

Fred had already mis-controlled the ball and felt the hand on his shoulder so he decided to play for the pk. And as like punanijoe said, the Croatian disallowed goal should've stood. My theory is with the scandal presently rocking FIFA, along with the anti-hosting protests by Brazilians, the last thing FIFA wanted was for the hosts to eff up on the field.

It is what it is.

[phantomjournalist]

Fred bought a penalty, end of story.

He felt a hand on his shoulder and threw himself to the ground theatrically.

The ref was only so eager to oblige and award a penalty when Brazil so desperately needed it.

[mate]

The disallowed Croatian goal when the Brazilian keeper was said to have been fouled was another refereeing blunder. The keeper was not in control of the ball, lost it and was not fouled by the Croatian.
That goal should have stood.

That was so not a foul. The player didn't jump into the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper never had control of the ball

Exactly. The goalie is protected if an opponent horizontally moves into him...not if a goalie horizontally moves into an opponent jumping vertically with arms flat.

The pattern is self evident. This was absolutely bias for Brazil. The referee simply caved into pressure.

Cheers, Mate

[Robbynice]

I have another angle!

Damn!