Soccer

[rattler]

Gentlemen, I'm a licensed referee myself... I've officiated plenty of intramural, middle school, and AYSO games of all types. The thing it comes down to in my book is consistency.-snip-

You might be right there or not, but this was not the line of your argument in the before posts, it went:

- player was "going for the ball"
- attack came "from the front, not side nor rear"
- so, "no red card" should have applied.

All I pointed out was that these comments and perceptions had nothing to do with the rules (anymore, FIFA) and were no valid arguments aginst a red.

For your consolation and peace of mind: I (in the replays) clearly see an intent to *withdraw* the foot from the tackle (players *do know* the rules), so I would have personally sanctioned Yellow had I seen it like this in the act. OTOH I would have signalled penalty had I seen the go on Xavi in the act.

I was and still am challening your claim that the red was not conform with the rules, as it clearly was from my POV.

Rattler

 

[A Can of Man]

Hence why I think per the laws of the game it was valid but it does seem like a poor call.
Refereeing is hard.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I'd would have given a yellow. I agree with that. But the referee needs to think... This card is forcing him out of the final of the FIFA Confederation Cup... Did that challenge deserve that punishment?


The FIFA rules are not "be all end all". They are subject to the referee's discretion. Referee's that stick to the rules no matter what often find themselves in situations that they are unable to handle, because not every situation goes "by the book" all the time.

 

[Rob Henderson]

And it will be Brazil against the United States for the Confederation Cup Final this Sunday at 2PM Eastern Time!!!

 

[Chukpike]

I'd would have given a yellow. I agree with that. But the referee needs to think... This card is forcing him out of the final of the FIFA Confederation Cup... Did that challenge deserve that punishment?

Sounds like kind of a weird statement coming from someone that is a licensed referee. I would think your training would empahsize fair and impartial.

It is not the referees job to concern himself with what round of a tournament to give what kind of foul. To remain unbiased and make calls consistently is his duty. He must call him as he sees them.

Maybe he should carefully note that a player already has one yellow least he give another and eliminate a player for the next round or game?

 

[Rob Henderson]

A referee is not a machine. He or she is able to use his or her judgement to make calls he or she deems FAIR. The punishment must fit the crime. We do not have laws that are cold and fast no matter what... There is room for interpretation because NOT EVERY SCENARIO IS THE SAME. As I stated before. Jesus, I thought I was rid of this crap when I stopped really posting in the Political Forums.

If a foul warrants being yellowed, then it is the players own fault for receiving the FIRST yellow. But when you go straight to red, you and only you are the person responsible for sending that player off the pitch.

Bottom line, it is the referee's duty to see that a player breaking the rules is punished accordingly, and in this case, realizing that a straight-to-red booking means taking this tournament away from one man.

 

[rattler]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
I'd would have given a yellow. I agree with that. But the referee needs to think... This card is forcing him out of the final of the FIFA Confederation Cup... Did that challenge deserve that punishment?

Sounds like kind of a weird statement coming from someone that is a licensed referee. I would think your training would empahsize fair and impartial.

It is not the referees job to concern himself with what round of a tournament to give what kind of foul. To remain unbiased and make calls consistently is his duty. He must call him as he sees them.

Maybe he should carefully note that a player already has one yellow least he give another and eliminate a player for the next round or game?

Actually (and reluctantly) I have to give something here to Rob:

Referees err (for the reasons I explained earlier), and they get aware of it e.g. in half time break or even during the game by their assitants.

The "normal" way is to compensate for errors by a) focusing a little more the attention on the team that got favorized by the error, or b) giving a little more leeway to the team that got penalized by the error when in doubt (leaving impartiality to a certain extent, but with the goal of achieveing simmilar conditions for both teams, i.e. *true* impartiality; I know this is a thin line you must be walking, and you must be sure to be free of emperor complex or partiality to one style/team/player/coach... Good refs can wear all these different hats to perfection in one match).

And, Chupike, indeed sometimes you do not show the 2nd yellow though it would be correct, just because maybe you gave the first to "control the match", i.e. to establish your reign on the field and show players they could not get away with stuff (and hence looked for the first halfway justificable foul to present it and hence stop the spiral of fouls becoming harder). The 2nd one is then the first one from ref POV, so to say.

On another angle, and this is something Rob does *not* take into account, the referees prepare for the matches by looking at other matches of the same teams/players and drawing conlusions up to LL´s from them that they then apply:

Let´s say a player is known for notoriously diving trying to fool the ref, you will rather give him a yellow instad of a penalty in is favor next time you are in doubt in the area, and you might this time just be wrong (works a bit the way one officer once told me when I got sanctioned for something I had not done and complained to him: "Son, maybe you did not do anything this time and the sanction is injust. But, I am dead sure, you before sometimes got away with other stuff that never got sanctioned, so consider it late justice for these cases, I did not hear you complain then..." .

Or, a player is known for habitually tackling harshly, then, even if you do not see it *exactly* he probably is prone to lose the benefit of the doubt, i.e. might get sanctioned though the foul was not as harsh as it seemed.

As someone already said, soccer ref is one of the difficult jobs, you cannot go w/o errors (but I am strictly against camera angles and replays in the stadium to solve questions, it would change the game to a kind of hockey with more breaks than play), and audience, coaches, players and you yourself as ref have to live with it as it is part of the fun and the excitement this sport provokes.

It is not a surprise that there are only very few *really good* refs, names form the past: Colina (ITA) (one of, if not *the* best ever), Frisk (SUE) (who ended his career far too soon for soccer because of assination threats), Dr. Markus Merk (GER), Galan Nieto (ESP), etc. ...

(as an aside interesting anecdote, Britain, the place where soccer stems from, apparently is unable to produce neither good goalies nor good refs in the last decades: The guys that were valued as such turned out to be no match at all for the task in intl level matches, e.g. Howard Webb or Graham Poll).

What soccer really needs are fully professional 24/7 refs teams that get paid amounts that come close to the players wages (and where the bad teams get dropped instantly), who are intelligent, psychologically stable and physically as fit as the players, wonder if the clubs/nations ever can agree on that?

Rattler

 

[A Can of Man]

Rattler knows his stuff alright.
It's precisely why Francesco Totti was sent off with a 2nd yellow card in the 2002 World cup 2nd round match against South Korea. It looked rather 50/50. Totti seemed to have gone down easy and the South Korean player (Song Jung-guk) got the ball first. The contact was heavy but Totti made a meal of it. Totti (and the Italians) had a long standing reputation of being divers and cheaters.
As a referee you can't think of the next match, the current one you are in is what is important.
According to that line of thought, you won't send off someone for doing a two footed malicious back tackle in the 10th minute because it'd kill off the game. If it's bad enough, it warrants a sending off.

Professional Referees are LONG overdue

 

[Chukpike]

A referee is not a machine. He or she is able to use his or her judgment to make calls he or she deems FAIR. The punishment must fit the crime. We do not have laws that are cold and fast no matter what... There is room for interpretation because NOT EVERY SCENARIO IS THE SAME.

Agreed and exactly what the referee did.
Your questioning the call is what biased fans and sportcasters do after the call. You did not even question that a foul occurred, you just judged it lighter than what was given so the player could play in the final. The referee does not have that luxury.

In short you based your decision as a fan, if you were refereeing the game you could have made a different call, but it would not have been based on whether you wanted the player available for the final match

If a foul warrants being yellowed, then it is the players own fault for receiving the FIRST yellow. But when you go straight to red, you and only you are the person responsible for sending that player off the pitch.

You know this is wrong, the players are fully aware of what could happen in a game. The players are also responsible for their actions.

Bottom line, it is the referee's duty to see that a player breaking the rules is punished accordingly, and in this case, realizing that a straight-to-red booking means taking this tournament away from one man.

Again you are speaking as a fan and not a referee.
The referee gives the penalty based on the play, not with any consideration of the next game.

Actually (and reluctantly) I have to give something here to Rob:

Referees err (for the reasons I explained earlier), and they get aware of it e.g. in half time break or even during the game by their assistants.

The "normal" way is to compensate for errors by a) focusing a little more the attention on the team that got favorized by the error, or b) giving a little more leeway to the team that got penalized by the error when in doubt (leaving impartiality to a certain extent, but with the goal of achieveing similar conditions for both teams, i.e. *true* impartiality; I know this is a thin line you must be walking, and you must be sure to be free of emperor complex or partiality to one style/team/player/coach... Good refs can wear all these different hats to perfection in one match).

And, Chukpike, indeed sometimes you do not show the 2nd yellow though it would be correct, just because maybe you gave the first to "control the match", i.e. to establish your reign on the field and show players they could not get away with stuff (and hence looked for the first halfway justificable foul to present it and hence stop the spiral of fouls becoming harder). The 2nd one is then the first one from ref POV, so to say.

On another angle, and this is something Rob does *not* take into account, the referees prepare for the matches by looking at other matches of the same teams/players and drawing conlusions up to LL´s from them that they then apply:

Let´s say a player is known for notoriously diving trying to fool the ref, you will rather give him a yellow instad of a penalty in is favor next time you are in doubt in the area, and you might this time just be wrong (works a bit the way one officer once told me when I got sanctioned for something I had not done and complained to him: "Son, maybe you did not do anything this time and the sanction is injust. But, I am dead sure, you before sometimes got away with other stuff that never got sanctioned, so consider it late justice for these cases, I did not hear you complain then..." .

Or, a player is known for habitually tackling harshly, then, even if you do not see it *exactly* he probably is prone to lose the benefit of the doubt, i.e. might get sanctioned though the foul was not as harsh as it seemed.

All of this is perceived notions of what referees do. Basically crap.

That's like saying the referees sit around at half time comparing penalties and determining how they call the second half.

"Hey Fernando you should not have given that red card."
"Oh you are right, OK if it happens in the second half I will ignore it."
"Be careful Fernando you may have to give a yellow if some player kills another."
"You are right, but I also can't give Reynoldo a penalty or the fans will kill me."
(The last comment does merit serious consideration)

As someone already said, soccer ref is one of the difficult jobs, you cannot go w/o errors (but I am strictly against camera angles and replays in the stadium to solve questions, it would change the game to a kind of hockey with more breaks than play), and audience, coaches, players and you yourself as ref have to live with it as it is part of the fun and the excitement this sport provokes.

Exactly right.

What soccer really needs are fully professional 24/7 refs teams that get paid amounts that come close to the players wages (and where the bad teams get dropped instantly), who are intelligent, psychologically stable and physically as fit as the players, wonder if the clubs/nations ever can agree on that?

Rattler

That would be fine if it does not take out:
" audience, coaches, players and you yourself as ref have to live with it as it is part of the fun and the excitement this sport provokes."

Of course if they were professionals getting paid as much as the players, we could start complaining that they are a bunch of overpaid, pampered idiots.

Or would we reserve that just for the players?;-)

 

[rattler]

-snip- ...the referees sit around at half time comparing penalties and determining how they call the second half.

"Hey Fernando you should not have given that red card."
"Oh you are right, OK if it happens in the second half I will ignore it."
"Be careful Fernando you may have to give a yellow if some player kills another."
"You are right, but I also can't give Reynoldo a penalty or the fans will kill me."
(The last comment does merit serious consideration)

Chupike, wont comment on this in depth, just as a quicky: You are probably closer to reality than you think with the dialogue above, just that this is not a *conscious* (hence, fraudulent) take, but goes on in the subconscious...

Rattler (all said from my POV, so: "out")

 

[Rob Henderson]

Agreed and exactly what the referee did.
Your questioning the call is what biased fans and sportcasters do after the call. You did not even question that a foul occurred, you just judged it lighter than what was given so the player could play in the final. The referee does not have that luxury.

I judged it lighter because I believed that foul did NOT warrant the penalty given. It just so happens that the penalty also barred the player from the final. If it had been a foul that I didn't believe deserved a yellow card and one was given, I would have been just as upset about that. The point is not that I am basing my decision on the next match, but I am basing my decision on the fact that IN MY OPINION, the foul was not worthy of a red card.

In short you based your decision as a fan, if you were refereeing the game you could have made a different call, but it would not have been based on whether you wanted the player available for the final match

No, I based my decision as a referee.

You know this is wrong, the players are fully aware of what could happen in a game. The players are also responsible for their actions.

You honestly think that if he could have known that he would have gotten a red card for that tackle that he still would have made it? HARDLY.

All of this is perceived notions of what referees do. Basically crap.

Have you been reading the previous posts? We ARE referees... It is not "perceived" at all... It is first hand information.


Chukpike... Why dost thou torment me so with thy constant nagging? Go back to the Political Forums.

 

[Chukpike]

Have you been reading the previous posts? We ARE referees... It is not "perceived" at all... It is first hand information.

I have read the posts. And no you are not referees from that game. You drew your conclusions from television. You were not there.

As you stated:
"But the referee needs to think... This card is forcing him out of the final of the FIFA Confederation Cup... Did that challenge deserve that punishment?"

That is a completely invalid excuse to make a call in a game.

And would justify rattlers statement:
"What soccer really needs are fully professional 24/7 refs teams that get paid amounts that come close to the players wages (and where the bad teams get dropped instantly), who are intelligent, psychologically stable and physically as fit as the players, wonder if the clubs/nations ever can agree on that?"

Not amateurs.

 

[The Other Guy]

Come on, guys.

What about the final against Brazil? Will it be business as usual, or will the US win their first ever FIFA tournament?

 

[Del Boy]

Great result for USA in the semis. Now I would like to see them win the final. They have long deserved a place at the top table, if only for the speed of their progress; one good championship would provide the motivation and encouragement they need to recognise how well they compete in such high company. Believe it - do it!:cheers:

 

[indian_sukhoi]

Iam 24 x 7 football freak and a Gunner for life!!!

Any Arsenal FC fans around??.

Has a Spain supporter, i thought they would win easily. Hard to believe that Spain had lost against USA.

Anyway,I support US rather than Brazil. After beating Spain, they can repeat that against the Samba boys.


Cheers to Football,:drink:

 

[rattler]

Iam 24 x 7 football freak and a Gunner for life!!!

Any Arsenal FC fans around??.

As a Spain supporter, I thought they would win easily. Hard to believe that Spain lost against USA.

Anyway, I support US rather than Brazil. After beating Spain, they can repeat that against the Samba boys.


Cheers to Football,:drink:

-snip- Now I would like to see them win the final. They have long deserved a place at the top table, if only for the speed of their progress; one good championship would provide the motivation and encouragement they need to recognise how well they compete in such high company. Believe it - do it!:cheers:

Second both, US go!

Brasil so far has ot shown wonders, they are over confident (but dangerous any moment). Still, one can hope...

Rattler

P.S.: And just FDR: I am with Chupike in his last post, a ref should *never* base decisions on the *next match, even if he has to compensate for an error... R.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I have read the posts. And no you are not referees from that game. You drew your conclusions from television. You were not there.

You need to be more specific then. You didn't make it clear that you were speaking about those particular referees. That's not my fault.

As you stated:
"But the referee needs to think... This card is forcing him out of the final of the FIFA Confederation Cup... Did that challenge deserve that punishment?"

That is a completely invalid excuse to make a call in a game.

Again, the referee can use his own discretion. You may not think of it as "fair" but some do. Believe it or not, circumstances change referee's calls A LOT. If a foul looks to be more brutal than it is, the referee might wait and see before handing out a card. If a foul seems to be inconsequential to the play (called playing the advantage) then a referee might let a tackle go that he would have called, had the tackler's team gained possession from the tackle.

And would justify rattlers statement:
"What soccer really needs are fully professional 24/7 refs teams that get paid amounts that come close to the players wages (and where the bad teams get dropped instantly), who are intelligent, psychologically stable and physically as fit as the players, wonder if the clubs/nations ever can agree on that?"

Not amateurs.

Well, seeing as we do have professional referees in large tournament games like these, not "amateurs" like you say.......

 

[rattler]

Your replies draw me into this again, seems you are changing theme focus all the time...

-snip- If a foul looks to be more brutal than it is, the referee might wait and see before handing out a card.

No. A straightforward "No".

Point is that (if no advantage situation) you *must* decide.

Instantly, no waiting. Either you saw it, or not, but nothing inbetween.

Rightly or wrongly, but you *have to* use your whistle, else players do no know what is "fact".

Waiting is a real big NoNo.

If a foul seems to be inconsequential to the play (called playing the advantage) then a referee might let a tackle go that he would have called, had the tackler's team gained possession from the tackle.

No.

Advantage does not mean the foul does not get sanctioned, just that the ref does not interrupt game flow because it was inconsequential for the current match phase and for the moment for the team that suffered the foul.

You will often see a ref (and *those* are the good ones) signalling "advantage", let the match go on until the next "natural" break (ball out of field, e.g.), and *then*, maybe even a few minutes later, sanction the foul (incl. handing out cards). Colina was the best in this respect.

"Advantage" rule means that "fouling team may not gain advantage", not, as you suggest, that the fact that no consequence arose *immidiately* should be treated as "advantage" for the victim team.

A good (US) example can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy87afbtTRM and studied in depth here: http://ussoccer.com/laws/papers.jsp.html

Ref in this case lets advantage rule, then, when the fouled team does not score, signals penalty (as sanction for the anterior foul), 100% correct and making him a good ref.

The official interpretation (FIFA):

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica]...gives the Referee the discretion to allow play to continue even after a foul has been committed if stopping play would unfairly punish the fouled team (e.g., if the fouled team had a breakaway & might score even after having been fouled). The idea is that the team which committed the foul should not gain an advantage as a result of the foul.[/FONT]

This obviously does not exclude sanctioning afterwards when play is interrupted for other reasons (as ref you should know that).

Well, seeing as we do have professional referees in large tournament games like these, not "amateurs" like you say.......

Intl refs have been professional since a few years, but not under the conditions I mentioned: Their fitness is not comparable to the athletes, they earn around 3.000 Euros monthly plus expenses (4k $), nothing to do with players wages...

Rattler

P.S.: Are you really a "licensed" soccer referee? PM will do. R.

 

[A Can of Man]

A good example of a referee "making up" for the previous match in the following match is probably South Korea vs Germany in the 2002 World Cup.
It's true, the refereeing in South Korea vs Spain was utter rubbish and Spain being the better team by far on the day really got the bad end of the stick. The only reason why I don't think the ref was really bribed or anything was the first ten or fifteen minutes of the match when South Korea was doing rather well and the calls were going badly against South Korea to the point I thought that maybe the referee was being pressured by FIFA to get Korea out for the 2nd Round Korea vs Italy match. Turned out I was wrong and after 120 minutes of total BS, South Korea won the penalty shootout.
Korea vs Germany, the referee was obviously thinking more about what had happened in the previous match than the match at hand.
Didn't complain much since the quarter finals was where the journey should have ended for South Korea, but still the refereeing was obviously political that day and made for match that was hardly worth watching.

Remember, Michael Ballack was also suspended from that final by getting a yellow card in the semi final match against South Korea as well. If the referee was thinking about the next round, Ballack might as well could have been playing rugby while on defense. A bit like how Switzerland played in the 2006 World Cup in Germany! 11 goalkeepers!!! OMFG!!!

 

[rattler]

That WC really got bent by this caos, if soccer was just final should have been Spain/Brasil (and I am sayin that as a German!).

As far as the ref goes, he was a year later caught "with the hands in the pot" in Philipines for accepting a bribe to bend a game and got sentenced to jail,

Makes it more than plausible this had been the case in the South Corea vs. Spain match also (though, to be fair, Spain had it´s chance in the penalties).

Rattler