I saw the play and the call.
It wasn't a penalty because it wasn't an intentional foul, but a dangerous play. And if you noticed the Morelia players didn't argue too much. One thing is sticking your head in the way of a clearance, it's another to raise your foot almost six feet off the ground to clear the ball off someone's head. There was no contact between the foot and the head, so the ref was correct in ordering an indirect free kick and not a penalty shot. Because the ball was closer thant 10 yards to the goal, the players on the defending team had to line up on the goal line itself. It also became quite obvious that Necaxa doesn't really practice these situations at all. It looked easier to try to elevate the ball over the defenders on the line away from the goalie, than to blast the ball through, which they tried and didn't succceed.
Cheers!
Robert.
PS: I'm glad we won anyway (long time Necaxa fan!!! ˇFuerza Rayos.!)
The
In a message dated 2/25/04 2:02:10 AM, hori_too@yahoo.com writes:
In the 2nd half of last weekend's Morelia v Necaxa
match, in the 51st min (approx) there was a call in
the box that resulted in an indirect freekick being
taken from the 6 yard box line.
The incident involved the Monarcas defender using a
high kick to clear the ball while at the same time the
the offensive player was trying to come in with a
header for a goal. The Defender's foot connected with
the side of the offensive player's head. It appeared
that there was no intent to hurt the offensive player,
just incidental contact.
#1> why was anything called in the first place?
#2> Under what circumstances can an indirect freekick
be taken from inside the box?
The whole thing just seemed very strange. Has this
happened before?