CRC v USA (R)

[colins1993]

For those of you who saw the game last night:

Someone want to explain to me how Mr. Brizan could justify showing a yellow to Bradley in the 2nd half (54 min)?

This was a completely innocuous challenge and wasn't even a foul IMO.

Mysterious to say the least.

[o5iiawah]

Didn't they also change shirts at halftime??

[Claymore]

Didn't they also change shirts at halftime??

Yup. When I saw them come out of the tunnel to start the game, my first reaction was "wrong shirt".

Pretty good game overall, although I thought he gave a little too much credit to Altidore's falls.

[IASocFan]

...
Someone want to explain to me how Mr. Brizan could justify showing a yellow to Bradley in the 2nd half (54 min)? ...

I'm not sure I want to re-watch it, but, as I remember it, Bradley went into the legs of the Tico. We definitely did not get the best view of the play.


Didn't they also change shirts at halftime??

YES, I was amazed that the referees would wear Red with the home side wearing Red. That should have been part of the pre-game information they are given.

[vetshak]

From the TV views we saw, I thought most of the four cautions were not really fouls worthy of yellow cards. But in contrast, I saw numerous other challenges that were deserving of cautions that did not get one.

The lack of a caution on the CRC player on the first foul at midfield after the 1st goal, on Torres, when the CRC player kicked out with his left leg and chopped his knee well after the ball had been played away, flabbergasted me. I thought Bocanegra committed at least two clear tactical fouls that weren't called either.

The shirt snafu amazed me. I can only hope somebody gave the crew the wrong information in pregame.

Take it for what it's worth, but Brizan was the referee that sent off an El Salvador player for a second yellow 4 years ago in a WC qualifier against the US for wearing a necklace. He failed to notice the necklace when he gave the player his first caution. Claudio Reyna pointed out the necklace to have Brizan make the player remove it, and he flipped him a red card instead. The El Salvador coach was dismissed for inappropriate touchline behavior after it happened as well. The US players and Bruce Arena all expressed disappointment in the decision after the match.

[Tarheel Ref]

Didn't they also change shirts at halftime??

I noted this a few minutes in but dismissed it as an effect of television colors...but apparently that wasn't the case. Fortunately the shock of seeing the ref's actually change jerseys at halftime distracted me from being so disappointed in the play of our USMNT.

Also couldn't believe that foul on Torres after the 1st goal...as pointed out by vetshak...didn't draw plastic....I chalked that one up to home field advantage, though that shouldn't happen, ever. Clearly a late and deliberate foul that went unpunished, IMHO.

[refmedic]

The Bradley tackle, and the Klejstian (sp) tackle were both cautions, IMO, because they were late AND came in at the back foot of their opponent. I think the "back foot" part is what earned them plastic.

I was surprised about the red shirts by the referee crew, but I'm glad that they noticed the conflict and rectified it. I think it's unfortunate that they started in red, but once they were out there, what are you going to do. I remember that the referees changed at half time in an MLS match that I attended in foxboro in one of the first seasons. I also remember a match that I watched on TV once, and I can't remember what competition or country, where the CR changed due to conflict in the first 10 minutes of the match leaving his AR's in the original color. The entire crew came out in the new color aftrer the half.

I'm more interested in the appearance of conflict of interest (someone noted this on a different thread) about the fact that this referee was from Trinidad & Tobago, and Costa Rica's next qualifier is against.........T&T on Saturday. I found that to be an interesting assignment. I don't think the referee did anything that could be considered unfair or boased in any way, but it surprises me that CONCACAF would make an assignment that could lead to that conversation.

One thing that I noticed that is interesting in a WC Qualifier is the absence of a headset to communicate with his crew. The CR had that big, hulking beeper flag receiver on his arm, but I didn't see any type of earpiece/mic. That's surprising for a match that is this important. I wonder if it would have been helpful to properly sanction the VC that happened right in front of the near-side AR.

It will also be interesting to see if anything happens to Davies after his kick to the groin that was unnoticed by the referee crew in the 83rd minute. Davies is serving a 5 match suspension for an elbowing incident in Sweden. For him to come into a game and kick someone in the groin within 5 minutes of coming on is appaling. We don't need thugs like that on our national team. His incident in Sweden, IMO, is evidence that his groin kick wasn't an isolated incident.

[vetshak]

It looked to me like Davies started to kick #17, then thought better of it and pulled up. It did not look like he made contact with #17, though #17 sold it for all it was worth. And, of course, the reason Davies turned to do it was because #17 tried to sweep Davies with a high boot to he back of his knees while he was laying on the ground. Doesn't justify Davies gaining his own vengeance, but all parties should be punished equally for their sins...:D

[onefineesq]

Didn't think the Bradley challenge was a yellow. Looked like little more than a tangling of feet. He didn't run through the guy and he didn't swing his leg at the guy. But big freakin' deal. The referee in no way affected this game. I don't even know if we should have bothered to start a ref thread for this one.

[Spaceball]

I was surprised about the red shirts by the referee crew, but I'm glad that they noticed the conflict and rectified it. I think it's unfortunate that they started in red, but once they were out there, what are you going to do.

The Adidas shirt is more orange than red, but certainly not the best choice. At that level, they are usually assigned the color to wear by the match commissioner who receives teams and GK kits in advance and provides that information to each team and the referee crew days ahead of time. He also lists the color the referee is expected to wear.


I also remember a match that I watched on TV once, and I can't remember what competition or country, where the CR changed due to conflict in the first 10 minutes of the match leaving his AR's in the original color. The entire crew came out in the new color aftrer the half.

I am guessing you are talking about a US World Cup match in 1994 in the US. At the time the referees had the old fuschia style in Gold, Fuschia, and Silver along with matching shorts (the pockets had the matching pattern on the insides). The US had those awful light denim jerseys with stars and stripes. The referees wore the silver jerseys which, on paper, seemed different than the blue denim of the US. However, it was clear from the outset that the light blue and silver looked very similar from a distance. A US player actually passed a ball to the referee. After a couple of minutes, the crew sent someone to the locker room to get a different jersey and he changed at the next dead ball...and then the crew did the complete change at half time.


One thing that I noticed that is interesting in a WC Qualifier is the absence of a headset to communicate with his crew. The CR had that big, hulking beeper flag receiver on his arm, but I didn't see any type of earpiece/mic. That's surprising for a match that is this important. I wonder if it would have been helpful to properly sanction the VC that happened right in front of the near-side AR.

That would be a CONCACAF decision...apparently they don't want to spend the money on it for WCQ's. I am guessing the US Crews wear their MLS sets in the matches, but I am not sure on that...I could see CONCACAF not allowing it because they did not issue it, but having not watched the US crews work since they don't referee the US team, I am just guessing here.


It will also be interesting to see if anything happens to Davies after his kick to the groin that was unnoticed by the referee crew in the 83rd minute. Davies is serving a 5 match suspension for an elbowing incident in Sweden. For him to come into a game and kick someone in the groin within 5 minutes of coming on is appaling. We don't need thugs like that on our national team. His incident in Sweden, IMO, is evidence that his groin kick wasn't an isolated incident.

I am surprised no one has brought this up yet. For me it was shocking to see that knowing he is on a 5 game suspension domestically. By no means was it the most severe kick I have ever seen, but it ranks up there with the stupidest. The Costa Rican definitely overplayed it a bit, but there is no doubt Davies kicked at him. I hope as he matures he gets that out of his game, because he looks like he could be special based on the limited action I have seen of him. Plus, we already have Bradley who seems to be capable of a red card in any given match.

[colins1993]

Didn't think the Bradley challenge was a yellow. Looked like little more than a tangling of feet. He didn't run through the guy and he didn't swing his leg at the guy. But big freakin' deal. The referee in no way affected this game. I don't even know if we should have bothered to start a ref thread for this one.

That's how I saw it as well.

I'm in no way suggesting the ref had anything to do with the result btw.

[Claymore]

psssh. The referee was the least of our problems.

[MassachusettsRef]

I associate myself with everything Spaceball said--right down to the WC94 match being the one where they changed jerseys mid-game (it was the Colombia match, in fact).

I'd only add that I fear Davies is--if anything--regressing, rather than progressing. I reffed him a lot when he played youth in Mass., including a few State Cup finals. He was never a disciplinary problem and I don't think he had any issues at prep school or with BC. Last night's move surprised me, as it seemed out of character (at least the character I knew a few years ago). I haven't followed him in Sweden so I can't really say for sure, but I hope it was just one small moment of madness--and I call it that because, even though the Costa Rican provoked him AND embellished, the kick/stamp alone could still have been worthy of a red. Apparently the 5-game suspension was for an elbow in an aerial challenge, so it's hard to say if this is a pattern of dirty play or just two odd incidents that happened to occur close to each other.

[bluedevils]

The Bradley tackle, and the Klejstian (sp) tackle were both cautions, IMO, because they were late AND came in at the back foot of their opponent. I think the "back foot" part is what earned them plastic.


You make an astute observation. I agree about the Bradley foul. My impression, Bradley is a sneaky fouler. This is a good skill, but it gets him into trouble sometimes. Live, his foul didn't look like much but the replay showed to me that he stuck his foot into the back of the player's back foot and he shouldn't have. There's no way to win the ball cleanly like that, and I think the ref recognized this for what it was. Not a lot of contact, and not likely to injure, but an intentional foul not really trying to play the ball but intended to look like an innocuous challenge. At least that's how I saw it.

[andymoss]

I worked as liaison for the T&T team when they were here in Nashville and the team passport check and uniform inspection was the day before the match.

There should have been no issue here, so I'm pretty baffled as to how it happened unless someone brought the wrong shirts to the stadium and was sent to get the others from the hotel and didn't get back until after the kick-off?

[DWickham]

The SD Union had a great prematch article on the horrors that come with playing at that stadium. It puts what happened (other than jersey colors) in perspective.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/03/1s3socpage221525-surviving-house-horrors/?sports/soccer&zIndex=109987

[davidjd]

I am surprised no one has brought this up yet. For me it was shocking to see that knowing he is on a 5 game suspension domestically. By no means was it the most severe kick I have ever seen, but it ranks up there with the stupidest. The Costa Rican definitely overplayed it a bit, but there is no doubt Davies kicked at him. I hope as he matures he gets that out of his game, because he looks like he could be special based on the limited action I have seen of him. Plus, we already have Bradley who seems to be capable of a red card in any given match.

1. Costa Rican fouled Davies long after the whisle and possibly deserved a caution for it. (Given the crowd noise that the announcers kept mentioning it could have been looked at as just a foul and not after the whisle.)
2. Davies had a gut reaction, but pulled out of a full on groin kick. Contact was questionable and not much more than a fly if it existed. Caution?
3. Costa Rican waited a second, grabbed his inner thigh and then proceeded to roll around on the ground grabbing his groin AND FACE. Disgraceful and definate caution.

Of course, that's my view after several replays last night.....

- Davidjd

[MassachusettsRef]

1. Costa Rican fouled Davies long after the whisle and possibly deserved a caution for it. (Given the crowd noise that the announcers kept mentioning it could have been looked at as just a foul and not after the whisle.)
2. Davies had a gut reaction, but pulled out of a full on groin kick. Contact was questionable and not much more than a fly if it existed. Caution?
3. Costa Rican waited a second, grabbed his inner thigh and then proceeded to roll around on the ground grabbing his groin AND FACE. Disgraceful and definate caution.

Of course, that's my view after several replays last night.....

- DavidjdI don't disagree with your interpretation of events at all (in fact, I think you've almost got it perfectly, though it seems the initial foul was called on Davies and I also have a minor quibble with point 3 which I will outline below). Nonetheless, it doesn't excuse what Davies did and he was lucky to get off without sanction.

First, as to point #3. I think you (and JP and Harkes) are making too much of the grabbing of the face. Yes, the CR player embellished. But the face grab was more of the "oh, woe is me, my groin hurts!" It wasn't an attempt to deceive the referee into thinking he got kicked in the face (as was implied by the on-air reference to Rivaldo). That quibble out of the way...

Davies was baited. Davies reacted. Davies stepped/kicked either on or near a fallen opponent's groin. It normally wouldn't matter if he pulled out of the kick slightly or not. As has been clear from FIFA in recent years, retaliatory actions like this (think Beckham's kick in 98) are supposed to be deemed violent conduct. Honestly, on its merits alone--even without any force--Davies most certainly could have been sent off. Given the environment, I'm actually shocked he wasn't. Brizan kept pointing to his own eyes saying "I saw it myself" in response to protests that he go to his AR for consultation. I think we can be very lucky it happened that way. Had he gone to the AR, I think there was a decent chance Davies would see red.

Now, as to why Davies didn't see red. This is going to sound completely counter intuitive to those that don't ref, but, I truly think Davies didn't see red precisely because of the poor embellishment. As you said, it was a pretty disgraceful "dive"--the CR player essentially waited a full half of a second to react. The way things played out, it was all too clear that there was no real damage done and I think that (combined with the instigation) was why Brizan let Davies off without further sanction. 3-0 game, no real injury... no harm, no foul. On the other hand, had the reaction by the CR been "timely" (reacting immediately to the attempted kick/stamp), I think Brizan would have had no choice but to show red. The movement by Davies was clear and directed toward his opponent and it was when the ball was out of play. And that is the reason why it was "stupid" as Spaceball called it. It was a moment of madness that made it incredibly easy for the referee to show red--even if no damage was done. In environments like this--away WCQs in Central American--we can't have anyone, nevermind our attackers, being baited into retaliatory actions like this.

To be honest, I actually wish Davies did see red last night--the lesson would have been clearly learned in his first big game, even if the punishment was draconian. As it stands, I fear he got away with something he shouldn't have and that the US national team might pay for it in the future.

[vetshak]

I'm going to politely disagree with one of the concepts MassachusettesRef ref put forward with regards to Davies earning a red card. Yes, he raised his leg to kick out at #17, but he then pulled out of it and appeared to not make any contact. To be perfectly honest, the crumbled heap of #17's body on the ground likely impaired both the AR and Brizan from seeing any of this very cleanly, and it happened very quickly. But regardless, the replay fairly convincingly showed Davies did not make contact.

If a player loses his/her head briefly and then is capable of coming to his/her senses before they actually commit a heinous act, is a red card justice? I'm not so sure that we should be punishing people for having "impure" thoughts when they can also show they recognize what a grave error it would be to follow through on them.

Obviously, this will always be in the opinion of the referee working that game. I do believe certain situations do call for misconduct even when the player pulls out before doing something worse. I'm just not certain that a situation such as Davies' demands a red card every time.

[refmedic]

I'm going to politely disagree with one of the concepts MassachusettesRef ref put forward with regards to Davies earning a red card. Yes, he raised his leg to kick out at #17, but he then pulled out of it and appeared to not make any contact.

Kick's or attempts to kick an opponent.......


But regardless, the replay fairly convincingly showed Davies did not make contact.

Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent......


If a player loses his/her head briefly and then is capable of coming to his/her senses before they actually commit a heinous act, is a red card justice? I'm not so sure that we should be punishing people for having "impure" thoughts when they can also show they recognize what a grave error it would be to follow through on them.

Sometimes cautions and sending-offs are justice, and sometimes they are punishment. IMO, this one falls into the catrgory of being necessary to punish the player for his actions. We don't punish people for "impure" thoughts. When those "thoughts" rise to the level that you actually make a kicking motion, then you have now acted. Contact is irrelevant (C. Ronaldo's sending off for the thigh-high studs up lunge that wasn't even close to the opponent, for example). I'm also not convinced that there was NO contact made, only minimal.


Obviously, this will always be in the opinion of the referee working that game. I do believe certain situations do call for misconduct even when the player pulls out before doing something worse. I'm just not certain that a situation such as Davies' demands a red card every time.

I do agree with you that this referee was able to get by without a red, and it worked for him, but that is only because there was little match remaining, and he made sure that there couldn't be any retaliation. Had this happened earlier in the match, and the CR not dismissed Davies, it would have been a more interesting match for the USA in hostile territory. I think that this type of situation, a kick or an attempt to kick an opponent in the groin when the ball is out of play ALWAYS (I know, you should never say always, but.....) demands a red card for VC.