Saw something today that I didn't really understand. In the box, away from the ball, a CAN CB football tackles a US FWD and basically lays her out. Then ball goes out of play over the end line. After a slight pause, a yellow card is issued to the CAN CB - no penalty. Play resumes with goal kick for CAN. What call is being made? If it is some sort of foul that merits cautioning, how is a penalty not given? Just confused and hoping some refs can shed light on this. Thanks.
I did not see the game, but it sounds as though the officials felt the ball was already over the goal line at the time of the foul. A free kick or penalty kick cannot be given for an offense which happens when the ball is out of play. The referee can caution or send off the guilty player, but the restart must be for the original reason play was stopped. In this case, that would be a goal kick.
That's no what happened at all. The ball was most certainly in play when the incident in question occurred; it probably took another 3 full seconds to go out, if not more. Replays showed there was a pretty strong case for a penalty. It was off-the-ball, so somewhat understandable that the officials missed it (Seitz wouldn't have been looking at it and though it was in the JAR's view, given the sun and the fact she was also watching offside would have made it a very tough catch). All of this made the call in question that much more perplexing. Dissent is one plausible answer, but it seems to be a very bad choice... Wambach visually and vocally dissented for not getting the call--would seem very peculiar to find a way to caution the Canadian then. I honestly have no answer to how Seitz cautioned the Canadian without giving a penalty--no clue at all. Seitz, on the whole, seemed to be a step off. Not sure if she expected it to be a little less intense because it was a friendly or something, but she had some perplexing/weak calls beside this. I'll say that she got through the match fine, but it seemed to be more on her reputation and what she's banked with all these players than on her actual decision-making. If she puts in a performance like this at the Olympics, I don't think it will be received too well. So let's just hope it was a bit of a hiccup.
Seitz has been average the last few times I saw her. We have several better officials including the lady who served as the 4th.
the incident happens at the 27:38 mark. It is a little grainy but still very clear of what happened. Seitz has a clear view of it but it seems that she is focused on the ball right in front of her AR
Really? No clue at all? Wambach did not have any right to run into the defender, which is what she did. Sure, she was looking at the ball, and not the defender, but technically this is a foul on Wambach. The defender had position, and Wambach bundled right into her. The defender took the opportunity to use her advantageous position to charge into Wambach as she approached, knocking her down. Clearly a foul by the defender, and unsporting behavior. One could make a strong case that a dropped ball should have been given, but double fouls are always handled today with no call at all. One could make a strong a case that the game was better served in the way that Seitz handled it--by simply letting play continue.
Watch 5 sec. before Wombat gets cross-checked. Abby gives a 2-handed shove to Chapman 10 yds. outside the PA. Seitz definitely burned some rep points to get away with the caution, but she also knows the history of these players. Truth be told - it was my wife who picked up on the earlier shove. Reminds me of my wife's old t-shirt - "I don't get mad; I get even."
Really. No clue at all. Your explanation doesn't make any sense to me. First, just from a practical standpoint, a FIFA referee is not going to call some "double foul" in the penalty area and then book one of the culprits because her foul was worse. You don't ignore a cautionable offence in the penalty area when there is no advantage. Either it's a penalty kick or... Second, you say (or claim) that Wambach ran into the defender first. That's the foul, then. The foul is coming out. Anything after by the Canadian is misconduct. I want to stress that I do not believe for a second that that is what actually occurred, but if it's your working theory (that Wambach fouled too), then the free kick would have had to go against Wambach, which it didn't. Thirdly, there was a significant amount of time elapsed between the ball going out for the goal kick and Seitz giving the yellow. And she showed no visual or demonstrative movement to indicate what she was calling (which you might expect if she was booking for the physical interaction). The only thing she did was go over to Wambach and try to explain things to her.
When the ball goes out Seitz immediately goes to see to Wombat and then walks off towards the AR. (Announcer then says Wombat "is not a play actor". ) That's the last we see of Seitz until the card is shown 50 sec. later. The camera is on Wombat fixing her headband for the intervening time. 10 sec. later Seitz is near Wombat who can be seen saying "should've been a foul" and Seitz smiling and pointing to the field.
Good point. But if the AR gave information, doesn't that make it all the more confusing? If my AR calls me over and says there was a cautionable offence on the defender during dynamic play in the penalty area, my first question is going to be "so we have a penalty kick?" When the answer--apparently--is "no," I'm going to let him or her know that we're eating the card then. Or, conversely, if she said "yes, PK," and Seitz says "sorry, we're just not going back to that--can't sell it," then I think Seitz needs to eat the card (legally). Can't see justification for giving the card but not the penalty if the card was a result of the physical contact during dynamic play.
These two events occurred simulaneously: Wambach running/charging into Chapman, Chapman charging/holding Wambach. How can you say one occurred before the other? "Try to explain?" How do you know she didn't succeed in explaining? Wambach didn't seem upset at all with her explanation. "No visual or demonstrative movement to indicate what she was calling..." What type of visual or demonstrative movement would you expect her to make?
My take was that the CR allowed a promising attack to continue w/o a bold announcement of "play on" and the advantage signal (it all happened too fast for that to be done or to be meaningful), the play continued, and then at the next stoppage after a 'did you see what I saw' chat with the AR the card was given. Odd but correct in that scenario.
Well, first of all, I'm only entertaining the notion of two fouls because it's your working theory. I don't see Wambach committing a foul here, but since you do... Let's say there are two simultaneous fouls. How is one cautionable and not the other? And if one is cautionable, isn't it the more serious offence? Moreover, from a practical standpoint, when do you ever see this called (simultaneous fouls ignored, then one cautioned) anywhere on the field, nevermind in the penalty area? Finally, as nsa points out, the AR is used to make this call. Isn't it much more likely, then, that Seitz just didn't see the incident? Why would she need or use the AR to award a caution? Er, not sure why you're jumping on the semantics here. She tried to explain. Maybe she was successful and Wambach accepted it. Maybe Wambach didn't buy it at all and she just let things go because the match was almost over or it wasn't worth arguing it further in a friendly. Neither of us knows. But I don't see why saying Seitz "tried" to explain is objectionable. Plenty of elite-level referees know when and how to sell confusing calls. Toledo did it incredibly well the other night when he indicated that a player was being booked for coming back on the field once he was off the field and injured. There's no standard mechanic for incidents like this, but that's the point. Top level referees recognize when there is an incredibly confusing call and identify the need to help people understand. Of course, in this situation, my fear is the decision was unlawful and there was no real way to explain it. Dissent, to me, does seem like the only logical justification (but then why consult the AR?). And even that seems like quite the stretch.
Well, I'd say that's lawful, but not correct. The ball was outside the penalty area and you have an off-the-ball foul in the penalty area. The call would have been a penalty kick. Applying advantage would be practically wrong.
dude- are you going to take a stand on this line of thinking? i think very few would see this as you do.
absolutely. but, of the choices, i think it makes the most "sense," as it at least has an arguable basis. no way to paint this other than S.N.A.F.U by seitz. match critical, and wrong.
The "more serious offense" issue does not apply when offenses committed by two different teams. The LOTG actually say that the offenses must be committed by the same player: "[the referee] punishes the more serious offence when a player commits more than one offence at the same time". The ATR says "If the referee stops play because two players have simultaneously committed fouls against each other, the correct restart in this limited and rare event should be a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped*." The nature of the simultaneous fouls is not relevant. About as often as I see dropped balls given for simultaneous fouls, inside or outside the penalty area, card issued or not. But this isn't the point. Maybe the AR made the call, maybe she didn't. We know she was consulted. We also know that she did not raise her flag, and that the CR did not signal advantage. Suppose an AR sees a foul that the CR doesn't, but for whatever reason decides not to signal (CR probably saw it, CR might be playing advantage, AR might think's it's a bit too far away to be considered under her purview, cold feet, whatever). Play continues. At the next stoppage of play, the CR consults with the AR, and concludes that the original foul should have been called (it wasn't trifling, there was no advantage). Can the CR now go back and call the original foul? I hardly think so. Can a card be given for the misconduct? Surely. So the awarding of the card despite no foul call is appropriate but is also an admission of guilt by the referee team that a penalty should have been given for the original foul (unless Seitz really did play advantage or really did see the original contact as simultaneous fouls).
I go back to my original post where I describe the tit-for-tat retaliation. Not completely kosher, but Seitz might have viewed the challenge on Wombat as retaliation worthy of a caution yet Wombat's "shot from the grassy knoll" collapse as an excessive reaction, not worthy of a call given the earlier shove not called.
If it was worthy of a caution on the Canadian then it must have been a foul also. If it was a foul then it should have been a PK. To me, it has to be either nothing at all or a card and a PK.
1) On the topic of RefTalk (did they even have it?)- Not sure if anyone else caught it, but at about 50:58 of the video (89:22 on NBC's clock), Seitz puts her hand up toward the throw-in taker to signal "stop", gives several short "tweets" and turns to the 4th official by hand to indicate that there is 4 minutes of stoppage time. With her back turned, the match continues but I don't hear a second whistle indicating a restart. Am I seeing things? 2) On the Wambaugh foul, Seitz probably "sells" the play by saying significant time went by after the incident to give the PK, while the caution can always be given at the next stoppage. Overall, I think the heat got to both the players and officiating crew.
Glad this one made this forum as we were sitting as close as possible to the incident as one can. When the center official came to the sideline to speak with her assistant, I was sure we were going to see either a free kick just outside the box, a penalty. Or simply a goal kick from Canada. When the official issued the card to the canadian player and still allowed a Canada goal kick, I was sure the center official had screwed up bad. .
This is why I wish that we, as referees and at least trade-craft-wise "colleagues" of the referees on teevee had a means of confidentially or at least privately asking and finding out what our fellow referee do in their games. Often the best I can hope for is that something I saw can be covered at the monthly in-service training and one of the pro-div refs in our SRA happens to be there and explain things. I think all of us can accept the "oops I f-d up" response as much as we can a correct call explanation, even when it might be weird.On the three occasions where I actually got to ask a guy, the reason for his call/non-call was clear given the differences from teevee camera AOV vs. Referee AOV, etc. The upside is, I got to learn something, had a greater appreciation of how my colleague did something and put that into my own toolkit. The Seitz call here confounds me and the more erudite explanations here in the thread don't make things any clearer because really the only source of explanation HAS to come from Seitz. But the Wall ensures we'll never really know, fans and parents and coaches have made up their minds and the next girls match where some stupid crap happens, it's our butts in the sling before we have the chance to take any action. It frustrates me. A lot.
