Well, people complained about the DVR issue on the last US game so don't think you'd be speaking for everyone. And we always said we'd have separate threads for controversial games (this match already has 150 dedicated posts). Is it really that hard to find for you?
Based on what has gone on in many previous Olympics, Clattenburg looks a lock for either the bronze or gold. A home country referee has appeared in the gold or bronze medal match (as referee or linesman in the days before referee teams) in no fewer than 7 years since 1968. The exceptions were in 84, 88, 96 and 08. In those years the games were played in countries with minor soccer programs, which contributed to the decision, although (as has already been mentioned) in 84 and 96 the home country got a ref in the semis. So if Irmatov is one of FIFAs golden boys, (pun intended), he gets the gold medal match and Clattenburg gets the bronze. PH
I think it was a joke, MassRef. You know, that you had someone named Dawn on you and you had to move her off...
Interesting. I do think Irmatov is there for a Brazil : Mexico encounter, unfortunately. Things change, and Clattenburg becomes the favorite, I think, in the other situations. Though a CONMEBOL referee hasn't had the final since 1992, so Roldan might be under serious consideration if Brazil loses. There are some potential long-term implications to the Gold Medal assignment. Other than after 2004, when Vassaras got injured, the referee has gone on to the next World Cup in every tournament since and including 1992 (it makes sense as it stands to reason that the guy who does your biggest non-World Cup match in the intervening four years is good enough to go to the World Cup). If Clattenburg were to work the Gold Medal match and Webb does not retire from international duty, England would appear to be on the fast track to getting two trios at World Cup 2014. I wonder if such implications are weighed at all during times like these.
Very interesting non-penalty decision in the Brazil : Korea Republic match just now. Right around the 14th minute. High boot, studs showing, gets mostly ball but also gets part of the Korean's head. In a vacuum, it's definitely a foul. Wonder if Kralovec didn't give it because he opted it wasn't penalty-worthy, or if because he got so deep that he got shielded. Also, as peculiar as it might seem, if there's a foul there it's probably DOGSO. It's an empty net from within 6 yards and no one else back.
Agreed. I hadn't thought of DOGSO until the announcers mentioned it but it does fit. However, I thought initially and upon replay that the Brazilian did not make contact with the Korean. Therefore, IFK, but still DOGSO. Admittedly, I have only seen one replay, so maybe there is another showing contact.
I thought I saw contact. But there's no way the center could see. If the AR was too far away, it explains how it went missed. This perhaps another argument for officials on the goal line.
36th minute, turning into some ugly stuff for both teams. Kralovec needs to find where he left his cards.
That has got to be a penalty for South Korea in the 49th minute, no? Sure looked like a clear trip to me. Referee was right there to see it. And now the announcers are talking about the 6 second rule.
Offside in the 53rd against the Koreans. Did he become involved in play? He was behind one defender and in front of the other, but the forward defender headed it away. Is he presence there involvement?
Just got to see this without the video skipping around and I have no idea why there wasn't a penalty.
Obviously this Czech referee doesn't want to point to the spot. He had great positioning on both incidents that should have led to a spot kick for Korea. What a contrast to the Columbian referee who had no qualms pointing to the spot twice in four minutes against the same team.
Korea has got to feel hard done in now with Brazil scoring to make it 2-0. A penalty there would have put SK right back in the thick of it. Unfortunate.
Calling 6 seconds on a goal keeper would be a more reasonable decision than a red card and IFK. Either PK red card or nothing. It would just be prepostorous to give an IFK there.
Why? If you have dangerous play without contact it's IFK. That doesn't mean you can't send off for DOGSO, does it? Again, I'm making the assumption that there was no contact. If there was contact then there is no doubt it must be a PK. If you have a dangerous play in the box by the defenders, no contact made, what do you give?
Thanks for posting this. That's a better angle than what I saw, although you'll have to forgive me for not being able to look at a still and conclude much. I can't tell if that's a bump on the arm or a grab, and I certainly can't see if there's a trip. Real-time, what I saw was a Korean player getting trapped in pressure with the ball stuck under his feet and then falling to ground pretty softly. Did the defender on his back do enough to be called for a foul? Quite likely, but as someone else said, at this level, under those circumstances, referees tend to let a lot of contact go.
His point is that you don't have dangerous play, I think. In this school of thinking, you've got two options if there was truly no contact. Either the play wasn't dangerous, because you allow a certain level of desperation in a case like this, and you call nothing (which, per the ATR--yes I know is not in force here, but humor me--is actually legitimate, because the Korean player did not seem to be disadvantaged or pull out of the header at all). Or there was an "attempt to kick" foul because it was so close to the head and you've got a PK. Of course, I think there was contact so the point would be moot.
In light of the mistakes we've seen by referees at this tournament can we please agree that referees from all over the globe make mistakes, not just refs in the MLS or EPL, or whatever your favorite league is. All we hear during the season is how bad your refs are and that they should bring up the youngins. In light of the games yesterday (U.S. vs. Canada) and today (Brazil vs. Korea) it should be clear that refs from all over struggle from time to time. Your refs probably aren't that bad, you just want perfection.