MD7: Fiorentina - Juventus 7/10/07 - Page 2 - TalkSoccer

skeeta · 08-10-2007, 05:51 PM

The Viola were clearly showing the signs of the match against Groningen. One of their worst performances of the year without question.

I think that there was also the very strong sense that the Viola would have won by a nice margin had it not been for the unsurprisingly dodgy referee (even Ranieri admitted that their goal shouldn't have been given).

Legrottaglie came back this season (after being loaned out to Bologna and Siena), and has actually been more than decent so far (though one has to keep in mind that he is essentially replacing Boumsong, so expectations are not very high). He did do an excellent job with the petulant "how dare you call a penalty against Juve" protest after bringing the ball down with his arm.

There has actually been some talk of him getting back in the national team, though that is more an indictment of the current dearth of qualified defenders than anything else.

barracuda · 08-10-2007, 06:49 PM

I'm watching the media clip of the Juve goal and can't see anything wrong. What am I missing?

**Jager** · 08-10-2007, 06:51 PM

I'm confused? Which goal shouldn't been given? I thought they were both legit.

TalkSoccer Media Player

**azzurri** · 08-10-2007, 09:27 PM

Draw away to Fiorentina is good, but its frustrating considering we were a few minutes away from 3 pts. Legro played well, but what a stupid thing to do. It was clearly intentional, and totally unneccessary. I thought the defense played well overall. Gyrgera was solid, Molinaro was ok and Chiellini was a wall. Id rather see him at lb though, if it means more support down the flanks.

Nocerino needs to improve his passing. If he can do that, and maintain everything else he is already doing, he will be a very good player for us. Almiron, average, he needs to do more than just make passes to open players. Brazzo works hard at both ends of the pitch, but doesn't have the flair or crossing Camo/Marchionni offer. Nedved was average in the 1st half, but in the 2nd, where he played in a more central AM position, I thought he did very well, and we started to have more scoring chances.

Ranieri, I thought his decision to sub Nedved was a poor 1, and it showed since we didn't threaten them for the rest of match. Although Palladino did a decent job coming in late in the game, I would have left Nedved on and played Palladino upfront.

Iaquinta played well. He works hard for every ball, and once we started to play balls to him into space, he opened the Viola defence with is pace. Trezeguet, hard to critique him since he know the nature of his game. He had 2 decent chances though.

Im still not convinced in our ability, and I think we have been extremely lucky so far this season, considering the injuries and average performances. Once Camo and Marchionni are back, Im sure we will start to create more scoring chances, instead of playing counter attacking football for 90 minutes.

**D-Kin** · 08-10-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jager

I'm confused? Which goal shouldn't been given? I thought they were both legit.

YouTube - Fiorentina - Juventus 1-1 7 Ott. 2007

Trezeguet was in an offside position when the shot was made.

You could argue that he blocked Frey's view of the ball.

**azzurri** · 08-10-2007, 10:39 PM

He didn't make contact with the ball or Frey, so I dont see the problem.

**D-Kin** · 08-10-2007, 10:40 PM

But if he's blocking Frey's view of the ball that's considered interferring with play.

I wouldn't have complained had it been disallowed.

**azzurri** · 08-10-2007, 10:55 PM

So now were suppose to ensure the opposition goalie has a clear view of the ball? Trez didn't do anything wrong, and if such a rule existed, just about every goal scored off a corner would be illegal.

Also:

Quote:

Slow motion replays also indicate that Trezeguet arrived in front of Frey after the ball had passed him and therefore couldn't have blocked Frey illegally.

channel4.com - Football Italia

**D-Kin** · 08-10-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

So now were suppose to ensure the opposition goalie has a clear view of the ball? Trez didn't do anything wrong, and if such a rule existed, just about every goal scored off a corner would be illegal.

No, because Trezeguet was in an offside position (ie. that's why it doesn't occur on corners).

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

Also:

channel4.com - Football Italia

I know, in general people are split on whether he did block his view or not. It's not entirely clear.

**azzurri** · 09-10-2007, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel

No, because Trezeguet was in an offside position (ie. that's why it doesn't occur on corners).

My point was that on corners, the goalie always has opposition players parked infront trying to disturb him. The fact Trez may have obstructed his view (contary to replays) is irrelevant.

He didn't make contact with the player or the ball, so whether it was obstruction or whether it is offside are equally irrelevant.

**Jager** · 09-10-2007, 01:25 AM

So that is why Claudio Ranieri agreed that it shouldn't of counted.

**D-Kin** · 09-10-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

My point was that on corners, the goalie always has opposition players parked infront trying to disturb him. The fact Trez may have obstructed his view (contary to replays) is irrelevant.

He didn't make contact with the player or the ball, so whether it was obstruction or whether it is offside are equally irrelevant.

Let me put it this way:

If Trezeguet had been standing an inch in front of Frey (not touching him, but completely blocking his view of the ball) would you have allowed the goal?

Of course not.

You don't have to touch the ball or an opposition player to be interferring with play, a player's presence is enough.

You can't compare the situation to corners because in that instance you can't be offside. Had Trezeguet been onside when the shot was made then there would have been no complaints. The key is that he was in a position he wasn't supposed to have been in (an illegal position if you like) and it may have effected the goalkeepers judgment of the situation.

**Jager** · 09-10-2007, 02:06 AM

Agreed, you can't interfere with the keeper at all, and running in front of him is a distraction, regardless if he blinded him or not.

**azzurri** · 09-10-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel

Let me put it this way:

If Trezeguet had been standing an inch in front of Frey (not touching him, but completely blocking his view of the ball) would you have allowed the goal?

Yes I would.

Also, according to replays, Gamberini was obstructing his view more than Trez, so the obstruction issue is a mute point, coupled with the fact Trez arrived infront of Frey after the ball had passed Frey.

Quote:

You don't have to touch the ball or an opposition player to be interferring with play, a player's presence is enough.

Lol, since when? Give me an example, other than not giving enough room for a freekick, throw in, etc. The only situation I can think of is if an offside striker dummied the ball while infront of the goalie.

Quote:

You can't compare the situation to corners because in that instance you can't be offside. Had Trezeguet been onside when the shot was made then there would have been no complaints. The key is that he was in a position he wasn't supposed to have been in (an illegal position if you like) and it may have effected the goalkeepers judgment of the situation.

There was nothing illegal about his position. He made no contact with the ball or goalie, and his movement had no bearing on whether Iaquinta would have scored. As for my point about the corner, whether he was offside or not is irrelevant. Goalies get obstructed on corners all the time, and nothing is called. In those situations, its an actual play to obstruct the goalies view, hence y most teams always park a striker infront of him.

**D-Kin** · 09-10-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

Also, according to replays, Gamberini was obstructing his view more than Trez, so the obstruction issue is a mute point, coupled with the fact Trez arrived infront of Frey after the ball had passed Frey.

I know all that, I'm just making the point that it can be an offense if he had obstructed the keepers view or given the keeper the impression he could or would have touched the ball.

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

Lol, since when? Give me an example, other than not giving enough room for a freekick, throw in, etc. The only situation I can think of is if an offside striker dummied the ball while infront of the goalie.

That's it, you basically answered your own question there. The bottom line is that if a player is in an offside position even if he doesn't touch the ball he can be flagged. Why? Because is effects the opposition players judgement on the situation - is he going to touch the ball? Is he blocking the keepers view of the ball? Will he dummy the ball? They are all factors.

For example, Frey could have felt that on the goal he couldn't react to the shot until the ball had past Trezeguet as he may or may not touch the ball (this is just an example, I'm not saying this is what actually happened). It's basically giving the opposition something to think about, when it shouldn't because he's in an illegal position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by azzurri

There was nothing illegal about his position. He made no contact with the ball or goalie, and his movement had no bearing on whether Iaquinta would have scored. As for my point about the corner, whether he was offside or not is irrelevant. Goalies get obstructed on corners all the time, and nothing is called. In those situations, its an actual play to obstruct the goalies view, hence y most teams always park a striker infront of him.

I think you're getting a little confused about the corners. The issue isn't the fact that he could be blocking his view, the issue is that he could be blocking his view in an offside position.