I know that the ref is on firm ground for deciding to award a red for an intentional elbow, but do the referee's on the forum feel like that play required a red card? It is essentially an elimination game in a major tournament, and the elbow itself was not particularly egregious (to the head/throat and/or with a lot of force). It seems to me that a yellow card could have addressed the situation, where a 3rd minute red card is just a death sentence for a team. Its a question more to the notion that in big games, the refs try to avoid affecting the outcome of the game unnecessarily. The attitude can be a problem when they refuse to enforce the laws of the game, but at the same time there needs to be some consideration for the referee unnecessarily affecting the outcome. Or, to put a finer point on it, does a Collina make that call in a champions league final? Should they?
i personally think a yellow would have been good. i understand that stark has firm ground to stand on by showing the red, however i believe a yellow in the third minute would have set the tempo, and calmed everybody down.
The determination for a red card when using the elbow has been where it it directed and to what degree of force is used. Red Card if the hand or elbow is swung in a way that will cause injury. This usually means into the neck or head and with significant force. Yellow Card if it is an elbow but is not targeting the head or neck but is directed at the player. When the elbow is thrown into the player's body, this is usually the call. Foul if it is contact initiated by the offender but is not a swinging or elbow leading type of movement. No Call if the contact is incidental and especially if the person who is hit made the move into the arm. Orozco may have swung his arm, but in no universe was he going to injure the Nigerian player. Send a message yes, injure no. Yellow is the right call. To make matters worse, on the ensuing free kick, McBride gets hit in the face with a forearm and there is no call. Not even a foul. If the ref was looking to put his stamp on the game he did it with Orozco and then wimped out with the no call with McBride. McBride incident at 4:20 on the game clock with the red right before it in the 4th minute. http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/player.html?assetid=1147968&channelcode=sportfb
Not sure this is the correct decision but it might be. Camera angle does not give a view of the actual contact since you are looking from behind the Nigerian player and you really have to guess as to what Stark saw. Stark's decision may be vindicated based on seeing a different view of this incident but right now this seems like a harsh red card where a yellow card might have been given. Not sure Stark's position is the best either since he's not real close and looking straight on and has no side angle view of the contact. One thing I did notice is that he did not hesitate at all when he gave the card. Have not had a chance to watch the whole game to see if this call is consistent with other calls he made during the game.
Either way (call or no call), the referee is affecting the game in a huge way, if FIFA expects the call to be made. FIFA seems to be clear (although I am not sure where) that they want these types of fouls red carded, spelled out clearly in the US ATR. I don't see cheap shot behavior in other sports very often, perhaps this really is what is needed to get rid of it completely in soccer. I have been slow to pick up on this, but the Orozco Rule makes it pretty clear. Any "aggressive behavior" that does not directly relate to playing the ball is to be red carded. FIFA doesn't seem to care at all if games are affected. Perhaps that is what it takes. The referee's name is Wolfgang Starg.
Wrong spelling, the match officials were: Referee: STARK Wolfgang (GER) Assistant Referee 1: WEZEL Volker (GER) Assistant Referee 2: SALVER Jan-Hendrik (GER) Fourth official: AL GHAMDI Khalil (KSA)
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the players then think "I should throw an early elbow, because there is no way the ref will show me a red card this early in the game."
My biggest problem with the early red card wasn't necessarily the red card, it was what came after. To go from showing a red card for that incident to showing only two yellows (one of which was for a quite weak case of dissent) for the rest of the game is what I have an issue with. KD
I thought the red was harsh - I can't recall any similar situations that have met with a send-off. And the restart? Why did USA take the free kick? Ball was in play; play was stopped for the foul (I suppose the RC was for violent conduct), so why a USA restart? Interesting observation on McBride getting whacked w/o any call (I suppose that would have been a PK...).
all good comments on that game! Another point i want to bring up is the netherlands PK. Is that really a PK a referee wants to give at that point of a crucial game?
I didn't see the game, but I saw the highlight and it is a red card. Violent conduct. I new that as soon as I saw the incident that many on this forum would be lamenting about how the referee affected the game. Why are we as referees supposed to protect players from themselves? If it was such a big game, maybe the US player should have been extra cautious and not put himself in such a situation to force the referee to make such a decision. But he didn't, he lost his head for a moment and acted impulsively and those are the consequences.
FYP I haven't had a chance to watch the whole game, just parts of it, but I'm not sure that would have been a foul in the midfield let alone a PK. The thought is if you are going to call it in the PA, make sure you call it in the rest of the field. Babel made a meal of it and the ref took a big old bite and swallowed it whole. The contact was in the middle of his chest and when the medics come out to take him off the field he is holding his neck. When he was being carried off, he has his head up looking to see who is going to be taking the PK. Not something that someone with an injured neck would be able to do.
No, thats not really what Im questioning. If a foul requires a red card to properly address the action, I think it should be given. My question specifically is how a referee should handle a situation where a red card may be justifiable, but not strictly nescessary to address the situation. Or in other words, how much game management and situational awareness should a referee use, vs. strict adherence to the laws of the game. Which is the extreme letter of the law view. However ultimately does the letter of the law really foster competition? What purpose does it serve? Why must the player be ejected in that circumstance? From a competitive standpoint, is the referee helping the game, or ruining it? The question for me isnt whether or not the referee should try to avoid issuing red's, but whether or not a referee can adequately address the situation without issuing a red card. If they can, such that they maintain control of the game, player safety is not endangered, what would be the point of issuing a red card other than to strongly influence the outcome? Edit: I should add that while I believe that the elbow thrown meets the literal definition of violent conduct, it was hardly a violent or serious blow. It was much more equivilent to the occaisional grabbing, sitting on, or clutching that you will see occur between players after a contentious tackle. COnfrotational and annoying, but not what I would call violent.
Based on the angle from the video I saw he did throw the elbow, the ball was already gone so it was STUPID. However he did throw it with force, so it it a legit red card for VC, possibly retaliation. You can argue that at that point it could be downgraded to yellow and a chewing out, and you'd probably get away with it. I don't see how the USA got the free kick though? As for McBride, I only watched it once but it looked to me like he reacted like he was shot to loosing a header, I didn't even see foul there. Based on what little I saw aside from that, I could see Nigeria clearly doesn't know 10 yards and they made a meal out of delaying restarts towards the end. The "injured" guy just outside the PA, give me a break.
Can those who saw the play comment as to the red card nature of the offense? And what is it about US teams and red cards? Is the US playing a style that is not appreciated around the globe? Or is it a one off? R
It seems to be that the Nigerian player went down as if shot by a 44 magnum. I was surprised he went down that way. I didn't think the contact was that hard or that violent. I know an elbowwill hurt particularly if the player has bony appendages, but in the middle of the chest? Guys get elbowed in the chest all the time in the NBA and they don't go down like that. I think it was embellished and Orazco was stupid doing it. This is an in the opinion of the referee. Perhaps I am showing my bias, but I thought a yellow card was the correct decision.
Unfortunately, it's just one of those decisions. When it happens to your team, you hope for the referee to show some leniency, and especially when it's in an important game. However, the referee has a set of laws to apply, and perhaps more importantly nowadays, instructions from FIFA pre-tournaments, and they can't make allowances for that. Elbows being swung is one of FIFA's main grievances at the moment, and therefore, any referee not seen doing something about it will be severely punished, by way of poor appointments or even elimination. And besides, on this incident, I don't see any reason for the American to swing the arm. It's not like he's trying to hold the Nigerian off. The Nigerian was tapping away at his ankles, and it looks like the American had enough, and lost his temper. Ok, it wasn't particularly damaging, and there's no doubt in my mind that the Nigerian made the most of it, but I'd expect a red card for such a deliberate swing of the elbow 95% of the time. And especially from a German referee.
It really could go either way in my opinion. The force was not as great as I have seen and it was to the body, not the head. But, put yourself in the shoes of the referee and not as a fan. FIFA has been adamant that elbows must be eliminated and that they must be dealt with. While Orozco's elbow was not thrown with maximum force, he did cock it and throw it. Stark is an up and coming referee trying to earn future assignments including the WC. If he shows a yellow and an inspector asks why and he says "the game didn't need it," he will be grilled. With elbows, FIFA wants officials to error more severely and Stark had to be thinking about that when he sees a player cock his elbow and throw it...I think it is impossible to blame Stark for erring on the side of red, as I would have done the same thing on that stage. Whether it was needed or not is impossible to say. Sure, the game went fine after that with no additional real malice. But, who knows what would have happened if Stark did not make that call. Would the game have descended in to another NED-Port from the WC where early on there was a send off that was not given (maybe because the ref felt it was early and the game did not need it) and the game went to hell after that. To say the game did not need it is just not a valid argument because it was so early and there is no way to know how players would have responded. I think the teaching point from this incident is something that has not been talked about yet. If Stark would have given the foul immediately rather than playing a fruitless advantage early in the match at midfield, perhaps this would not have happened. He clearly recognized Orozco was being held as he gave the free kick to the US, but did not make that call until a couple seconds later when he was forced to deal with the elbow. In this case, if he blows that whistle immediately, Orozco may have not felt the need to lash out as he realized the referee had seen it. Just a thought.
Ok so let me get this straight - a player, while the ball is not in play, can use his elbow to strike an opponent, and when the ref issues a red card to that player he is being "extreme" or as you said following the "extreme letter of the law."? You claim that the game did not need a red card at that time and that the referee could have maintained control without it. How do you know this? Don't we run the risk of players feeling like they are not being protected. They can think "Hey if throwing an elbow only gets a yellow card and chewing out, what else can I get away with." Also there seems to be this prevailing idea that if the strike was not to vital area (neck,face) or it was without force, that somehow it is not violent conduct. The laws clearly state that striking or ATTEMPTING to strike is misconduct punishable by a send off. Why? Because we as referees should not have to be put in the position of determining the severity of such an action when the mere action itself has been deemed serious enough to have no place in this or anyother sport (except hockey and boxing ) Finally, if this was a match where you were getting assessed and your explanation was "well, this is such a big game and it wasn't really that strong of a hit. I didn't want to effect the outcome of the game." Goodbye upgrade or maintanence!
Maybe not, but even if there was no whistle, and Orozco got mugged, did Orozco have a need to lash out at his attacker? No. Just a thought.
And a good thought, at that. Now look at this through the prism of USSF's "risk-taking" campaign. Did Stark take a risk that Orozco would play through the contact? Of course. And what resulted? A third minute red card. USSF has recently said, when congratulating several referees for risk-taking, that: Effectively, USSF is quick to point out that, through their risk-taking, referees are "contributing to the entertainment value of the game" when the risk-taking is successful. So what about when it's not? Is the referee now to blame for detracting from the entertainment value of the game? I don't like calling trifling or too many simple fouls. The people that have seen me ref know I'd rather have 25 fouls with 4-5 cards than a 50-foul whistle fest with no flow. I actually think that, ideologically, I'm completely in line with what USSF is trying to accomplish. But the way they are pushing it is troubling to me. Look at the above quote. USSF emphasizes that we can't avoid "disciplining challenges that are 100 percent misconduct." Well, that's great. But what about the 80% ones? Or the 50% ones? Or even the ones that are clearly not misconduct but might lead to a retaliation like Orozco's? USSF is clearly implying that in those circumstances we should effectively "roll the dice" and let play flow. There are instances where referees need to interrupt the flow of play--even without giving a card--for the betterment of the match as a whole. It seems to me like USSF is ignoring that right now. We've seen a lot of applauding in MLS this year for risk-taking that is successful and we've seen a lot of criticism of referees who didn't use the opportunity to take risks. I wonder when we're going to see the first official raked over the coals because a situation like what happened in the USA/NGA game happens in MLS.
For someone who loves to reassess everything, you are missing what I am trying to say...that as a referee you have to evaluate yourself and ask what you could have done differently. In this case, Stark has to ask himself would this have been prevented if he blew the whistle for the foul. I have given many red cards where I was partly the cause because I failed in some aspect prior to the situation. In this case, I think that is true for Stark. Can you blame him for the send off? Absolutely not...that is 100% Orozco being stupid when he didn't need to be. Because Stark didn't call the foul immediately does Orozco have the right to lash out? No...which is why I said I would have given the send off...but I would have thought long and hard after the match about my role in it. The referee is not to blame, but at the higher levels self evaluation is a key part of assessments and if Stark failed to recognize his part in this send off I would be disappointed in him.
I can't see Stark or "risk-taking" (as much as I hate the whole concept) taking any part of the blame for this. In fact I can't see Stark calling a foul at all unless Orozco forces him to call it one way or the other with his aggression. The tugging "foul" by Okoronko was extremely minor, and Orozco successfully played the ball to Kljestan, who promptly panicked and sent the ball long, although he had time and space. I wonder went through Stark's mind. Did he consider the foul by Okoronko to be triflng, but since he had to stop play anyway, awarded the DFK to the Americans for the trifling foul? Or was he actually "playing advantage" for what he considered to be a non-trifling foul?
