Right... there was a foul on this challenge. Considering the speed and breakaway nature of the play, I think the AR needs to give input here. Clattenburg may have had a hard time seeing if and how much contact there was. Also of interest... I only watched the replay on the live feed, but on Mexico's 4th, I'm pretty sure the Senegalese GK was out of the penalty area on the initial deflection. As advantage would have been played and the goal scored, this still would necessitate a caution to the keeper. And, not a coincidence, this is the same AR who would have had to help Clattenburg on the orange challenge on the GK in regular time.
In my opinion English referees have a conspicuous aversion to sending off players even when it is deserved. And the foul that occured was kicking not jumping at and it totally exceeded the necessary force.
Yes he was out of the box. But you really think this "necessitates" a caution? I know it is lawful, but I just don't see the point.
We agree. If you believe he kicked him, he's gone--no questions asked. Again, just trying to reason how Clattenburg would arrive at a yellow instead. And there is a distinction between jumping at someone and hitting them with your foot vs. kicking them. It's a fine line, but it certainly could determine how a referee assesses and sanctions misconduct.
All I can say is that these are extremely athletic people capable of doing things with their bodies that most of us never could. The Senegal player never snuck a peek at the Mexican player before he kicked him. Looking at elements of SIAPOA, I(ntent) does not appear to be present... at least in my opinion. As MassRef pointed out, a player jumps that high, his studs are going to be at head level, and he's probably going to kick his legs in an attempt to get more oomph on the header. That decreases the A(ggressive) nature of the challenge, P(osition) is incidental due to where the ball was, he clearly has an O(pportunity) to play the ball, and the game A(tmosphere) was not really one that needed a send-off. S(peed) of the challenge is pretty much negligible with the ball up high. Sorry, I can talk this down to a yellow. That doesn't mean it's always a yellow. For me, match atmosphere has a lot to do with the color of the card. U16 boys that have been beating each other all game and are crabby, 2-3 goal difference, 4 yellows for UB challenges to that point... yes, I think red would be more reasonable. But this game... Olympic semi, 2-2 with 15 minutes left, and it's only the second yellow of the match, I see no issue with that being yellow.
Somebody else pointed it out... DOGSO-H. But if the ball goes into the goal, the DOGSO infraction should still be cautioned for UB.
Anybody else notice how often Clattenburg gave the "no more" speech to players? I didn't count how many but it seemed like a lot.
I agree with all that. I was just wondering if you thought it was a "must", "should have" or "could have"???
I need to rephrase... could have. Pg. 126 of LOTG/I&G. "If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sen off by he may still be cautioned." The play we are discussing probably didn't need a caution, but consider if the ball doesn't go into the goal... it HAS to be red. I know, we could argue whether the touch would have actually ended up in the goal, but it seems anytime a keeper handles outside the PA on a breakaway, it is generally accepted to be a send-off. That makes the GK's action on this play at least UB. Do we need it (because only the AR would have known)? Probably not. But we should at least be aware of it and not simply shrug it off either.
vetshak: talk it down all you want. When a player jumps up and kicks an opponent with studs in the face he has endangered the safety of the opponent and exceed necessary force to play the ball. No reason to over analyze this, it's quite straightforward.
GT, I understand your comment and your position. But if you take a black and white approach to this, you're going to hit a wall with the level of game that you can work. Talk to some nationals and pro fellas and ask them for their opinion. I'm not saying it's not red. I'm saying it depends.
I understand that a majority of soccer is grey with many nuance. However, somethings are quite simple and as referees we should be wary of over thinking them. This is one of those.
A German referee, on a match like this--particularly where Honduras took the lead--is going to get interesting. And I mean that as a compliment to Brych. A lot of referees in this hemisphere and many around the rest of the world would put up with the inevitable fouling and gamesmanship that's going to come. Brych, I suspect, isn't going to bat an eye. The longer this stays 1-0, the tougher this is going to get.
Crisanto doesnt give Brych any chance to be lenient. Gets the first yellow, shows clear dissent that is ignored. Not a minute later he goes hard for Neymar's shin after the ball had left. Well deserved 2YC red.
Any comments on Brych's foul recognition and calling? Some handling calls were borderline, and he seems to be calling many fouls that others would have deemed trifling.
Honestly, I think he's let a few things go that might otherwise needed to be called. There were a few clear shirt grabs that he's had players try to play through. It's a tricky balance for him. He had to know what was going to come from Honduras, after watching the game vs. Spain. So he knows he has to keep a lid on things. But if he calls every single foul, he's going to encourage more embellishment and gamesmanship. Not an easy position for a referee and, I really think it should be noted, not an easy position for a UEFA Elite referee from Germany, who really doesn't see this type of encounter that often.
On a hypothetical note in regards to the red card, had this game been an MLS game/game in the US, I think that there wouldn't have been a 2nd yellow there. You just cautioned him and it just felt "right" for him to get another chance (deserved or not). I'm just saying that it wouldn't hurt in a domestic game to keep him around. However, since this is an international tournament, referees have far less room to use cautions as a tool and must use it in a more "by the book" fashion. Where we (the US) would read "may be cautioned" even though the book says "requires a caution", all the referees in international tournaments must read "requires a caution" and act on that.