Brazil player just received 2YC for simulation. What a stupid way to miss your team's quarter-final game.
Both cautions to that Brazilian were AWFUL. The first caution was at best careless and the second was not simulation. Not enough contact to sanction a PK but just enough to give the player the benefit of the doubt before you send him off; especially when you consider he has little to gain from simulation (3-0) and much to lose (rd card).
Sorry, I take the opposite approach here. What a stupid card to give. I'm usually all in favor of the crackdown on diving and think that, too often, referees wave play on when they should be booking dives and making a point. But the Brazilian definitely got stepped on there. Sure, he embellished some, but you don't book someone for trying to win a penalty when he gets stepped on. And you certainly don't do it when the outcome of the game is decided, he's the only player you've booked (on what seemed like a non-existent yellow to me--a foul, yes, but really just a clash of heads when two players try to head the ball), and his team is going through to the QFs. It showed absolutely no feel for the game or the larger context. Why send someone off for this in a 3-0 game (with a caveat that, if it was blatant cheating, you'd obviously have to)? The reaction of the New Zealand captain said it all to me, as he was openly laughing at the send off. Gassama has ignored a couple petulant/reckless kicks by the New Zealand side, yet sanctions a dubious simulation call that leads to a second yellow card. Again, it shows no feel for the game or the greater context. 3-0 game and everyone knows the result... worry about protecting players and finishing the final 20 minutes calmly, not about creating problems and controversies by sending someone off for something like this. I wonder how Geiger is handling the Brazilian bench right now.
I see. I didn't catch a replay as I was distracted by women's basketball, so I only saw it real-time. But if there was any amount of contact, and after a soft 1YC (which I also didn't see), then hopefully it shall be the referee who doesn't see any quarter-final action.
Mostly agree with what you said except for the red. I don't think that is something that should factor into the decision.
Well, if you want to get really technical, I don't think the fact that he's the only player you've booked should matter, either. But it's not about those points individually... it's about taking them collectively and weighing everything to arrive at a just and sensible decision. The fact that his team is going through to the QFs should not matter at all if it's 100% misconduct. But if it's dubious misconduct, as it is here, his team's progression matters a ton. Especially compared to a team that's already eliminated, where you might feel compelled to get rid of a growing problem more quickly on a dubious caution.
Agree to disagree, I guess. While this is perhaps not the best example to get at this issue since we agree the caution shouldn't have been given regardless of this factor, I do not believe the fact that the team is progressing should be a factor at all in the referee's evaluation. (The converse is to me a more interesting question -- where the game is decided, and where the suspension is irrelevant, I can see not working as hard to keep a player on the field.)
If you're willing to dump a player more quickly because his team is already eliminated, why wouldn't you also be willing to work a little harder to keep a player in the match if his team is progressing? There seems to be some disconnect there for me. I'm not saying you ignore 100% misconduct because a player is going to the knockout stages. But we use all sorts of subjective and nebulous criteria that don't have to do with the specific nature of the incident all the time to figure out whether or not to sanction borderline misconduct (time of match, prior incidents, overall game control, chance of retaliation, etc.). I can't see why the potential consequences of the suspension--which are the biggest deal of all to the affected player and team--shouldn't be one of those considerations.
If the game dictates the player should be sent off, IMO, he should be sent off. If the game doesn't dicate he should be sent off, then he shouldn't. All of your in game parentheticals above I can see as factors ni the right context. But I don't think referees should be looking outside of the game for leniency against a player who has earned his trip to the shower -- the player needs to be aware of the situation and not put the referee in that position. YMM[and obviously does]V. Is that inconsistant with tossng a problem-maker after the game is de facto over when his tournament is de facto over? Maybe. And I'm not sure I get there, either -- I just see it as a more interesting question. Game de facto over and problem maker continuing to be a problem has a short leash in any event, so I don't know that there is really going to be a disctinction there either. (I suppose to some degree I see this as a somewhat similar comparison to fouls in the PA and at midflield; it's not so much that we should let fouls go in the PA b/c the consequences are a PK, but hat in midfield we may call fouls we could let go in order to establish game control.
I guess we do have to agree to disagree then. I don't see why looking outside of the game for factors is looking too far out of context. Like I said before, some of the in-game stuff we consider when deciding to issue a caution has almost nothing to do with what the individual player actually did. Yet those factors might work against him. If we're talking about a second yellow card, I really don't see a problem (and think it's smart refereeing) to err on the side of keeping a player in the match if his team is progressing to the knockout stages and if it's a truly borderline scenario.
If it's a truly borderline scenario, seems to me I'm erring on the side of keeping him in the match without having to think about what the next match is. I suspect you are, too, which is why I'm ultimately dubious that you're going to encounter a scenario in which this factor is actually going to change the decision you would otherwise make.
Maybe. I guess our difference of opinion here is that I see it as a zero-sum game. If I can be more likely to send a player off because his team is not progressing, then that means I can be less likely to send someone off because they are progressing. You don't seem to approach it like that.
At the highest levels you hould take outside of the game factors in determing misconduct, but it's done at the highest levels all the time. You can't referee in a vacuum. Look in the Champions League, how many times do you see referees only add two or three minutes of addedd time at the end of the match in the first leg of a two legged tie when in reality there should have been more? Look at the Barca vs. Chelsea tie, Drogba spent half the game on the ground yet Brych only added three minutes at the end. If that was the second leg, there probably would have been five. I remember last season's Barca versus Arsenal match at the Emirates and Rizzoli only added two minutes, because the result suited both teams. If it was the second leg there would have been at least three. In the Madrid vs. Bayern semi-final, there was a Bayern player who was a caution away from missing the Final and he committed like 10 fouls before Kassai booked him for PI. If he wasn't a booking away from missing the Final, he would have cautioned him sooner. Notice in the Portugal vs. Spain Euro semi-final how much quicker with the cards Cakir was knowing that players wouldn't miss the Final due to the totting up process. Players knew that as well and didn't hold back.
Gotta use that. Next time I get a "handball" call from parents/coaches, I'll reply "nope, it's soccer/football, closest handball team is in XXXX" (Boston for me)
I watched the replay last night and I was stunned she only received a yellow card. Clearly DOGSO in my eyes.
Refs in GBR match changed shirts to blue for 2nd half. Due to Uruguay keeper in yellow. Refs prob should not have worn yellow in first half to begin with!
Can you elaborate at your shock? Is there an awful performance in her past that we should remember? Brazil : Japan - HEIKKINEN (FIN) Great Britain : Canada - YAMAGISHI (JPN) Possibilities were very limited for that Great Britain game, once Di Iorio was assigned. And they might be about to get even more limited in the next round. You'd expect to see Steinhaus and Palmqvist used in the latter stages, but if FIFA sticks to its guns on "you can't referee your own confederation," they are going to be in a bit of a bind if Great Britain wins. That would guarantee two UEFA teams against two non-UEFA teams and that would require two non-UEFA referees. And if the US wins, that eliminates Seitz from contention. If Japan wins, it eliminates the option of using an Asian referee on that match. You could draw up a very plausible scenario where Negeul has to do a USA-GBR match and Alvarado has to do a JPN-SWE/FRA game. They'd be the only real options (unless Chenard was re-used or Hong was allowed to do GBR again). Is it time to abandon this rule, yet?
In every other FIFA tournament competition they are told, so I wouldn't expect it to be different here. Of course, FIFA also tells the teams which kits and which goalkeeper kits they are supposed to use, so obviously there was some miscommunication here. Either FIFA mistakenly told the referees to wear yellow or the Uruguay keeper is wearing yellow when instructed otherwise. I'm surprised they switched to the blue. It works, but since they have the green option now, I would figure that would have been the most sensible switch.
Men's QF fixtures are set. Great Britain : Korea Republic Brazil : Honduras Mexico : Senegal Japan : Egypt Well, if Geiger is going to get used in the QFs, it looks like it will be Great Britain v Korea Republic. I think there's a good shot, because Nishimura and Irmatov can't go there, but Roldan would be another strong candidate and there are some longer shots like Jedidi. The big game that Geiger might be in contention for is the potential Great Britain v Brazil semifinal, though. FIFA has to hold a non-CONMEBOL/non-UEFA referee available for that game. Looking at the roster of officials, Geiger makes a ton of sense.