Will the USA go out early? - Part II

[Caesar]

Ok, I'm going against what I just said about not hijacking the thread any further, but here goes.....

I'll accept your statement about Hugh Dallas' biases...I have no idea what he's like as a ref other than that one game (I may have seen him in other games and just not remembered....I don't usually remember the refs)...and I accept that you're reading the rule correctly and that he is within the rules in making the call the way he did.

What I don't accept is that "that's precisely how it works in the real world." No, in the real world.....meaning most of the time in most games as called by most refs....that would be called as a handball and a penalty awarded despite how the rule book is worded. Whether correct or not, most refs do call that as a penalty most of the time. And, the only controversies arise when they don't.
Not sure what your point is here. Taking what your blanket statements on refereeing at face value (and I strenuously disagree) you're essentially saying "the vast majority of referees do not enforce the law correctly, so therefore Dallas shouldn't have enforced the law either".

You're criticising a guy for performing his job correctly. What gives?

[Caesar]

Most refs do call it as a handball whether intentional or not if it's in the box or near the box.
I don't know how else to say this, but you're wrong. Honestly.

If a referee had this mentality you're talking about, he wouldn't last very long at the top levels. Intention with regards to handball is a fundamental precept of refereeing. I only referee at a semi-pro level - and if I called an unintentional handball as a penalty, I've instantly failed my assessment. One of these guys does it in a World Cup, they're home on the next plane.

[dsp87260]

Not sure what your point is here. Taking what your blanket statements on refereeing at face value (and I strenuously disagree) you're essentially saying "the vast majority of referees do not enforce the law correctly, so therefore Dallas shouldn't have enforced the law either".

You're criticising a guy for performing his job correctly. What gives?

Yeah, you got my point......I just don't think it's fair that the rule isn't consistently enforced. And one of the only times it is called that way, it's against us.

Either everyone call it correctly (uniformly) or change the rule.

[dsp87260]

I don't know how else to say this, but you're wrong. Honestly.

If a referee had this mentality you're talking about, he wouldn't last very long at the top levels. Intention with regards to handball is a fundamental precept of refereeing. I only referee at a semi-pro level - and if I called an unintentional handball as a penalty, I've instantly failed my assessment. One of these guys does it in a World Cup, they're home on the next plane.

I've only been watching soccer for 12 years, but in that 12 years this is what I've seen.

Call me cynical, but there's a lot of politics that goes on at that higher level of reffing.

[Ricardinho10]

I personally think the USA will go early but anything is possible in 90 minutes, if they don't get a result against czech republic they'll be finished as Italy will prove to be too strong imo.

Ghana can't be under estimated i have seen them play and they take no prisoners,they have some big powerful players who have tons of ability and skill.

The USA will have to up there game if they want to progress, time will tell.

[RepoMann]

Just some quick predictions:

USA1 Czech Republic 1
USA 3 Italy 0
USA 0 Ghana 0

USA advances

[schmuckatelli]

To a greater extent, the USA's chances depend on their success limiting or managing Pavel Nedved in the Czech Republic match. If, as has been supposed, Nedved is retiring, there is little question that Baros and Koller will suffer from lack of service. They may be technical, but the Czechs are a much more "ordinary" side without Nedved. If he is in the side, there is still an opportunity that the USA can limit Nedved's effectiveness, as they did in the case of Luis Figo in WC02. Tony Sanneh severely limited Figo's chances to influence the match, which as it turns out, doomed Portugal. If the USA has proven anything, it is that they can beat an ordinary side. USA 1 - 0 CZE.

What worries me is the Italians. Some have said the Italians never win by a large margin in the World Cup, but their recent form would suggest otherwise. Think of the Germany match as an example. In other words, Calcio Italia no longer means they will play for a 0-0 draw, and perhaps scratch out an opportunistic goal. The USA would be lucky to get a point off the eventual group winners, but I don't see it. ITA 2 - 1 USA.

Ghana, for me, is a great unknown. I've never seen them play. Except for one or two players, I know nothing about their team. Other African nations have come into the World Cup and startled their opponents with their physical play, and fast attacking style. Some have crashed out when their discipline does not match their athletic intensity. I would like to see the USA make the most of their chances, because I think there will be some in this match. USA 2 - 2 GHA.

The US go through on goal difference, tied with the Czech Republic on points. They will be cannon fodder for a heavily favored Brazil in the second round.

[MJ-inBRITAIN]

I personally think the USA will go early but anything is possible in 90 minutes, if they don't get a result against czech republic they'll be finished as Italy will prove to be too strong imo.

Ghana can't be under estimated i have seen them play and they take no prisoners,they have some big powerful players who have tons of ability and skill.

The USA will have to up there game if they want to progress, time will tell.

unfortunately i think you're right. i don't like the ghana usa match-up because we are slightly built (except gooch) and could get out muscled. usually we have speed on our side but may not against them. I've seen ghana a few times in the african nations cup and I would say however that we've got more skill, especially in front of goal.

[scarshins]

I don't know how else to say this, but you're wrong. Honestly.

If a referee had this mentality you're talking about, he wouldn't last very long at the top levels. Intention with regards to handball is a fundamental precept of refereeing. I only referee at a semi-pro level - and if I called an unintentional handball as a penalty, I've instantly failed my assessment. One of these guys does it in a World Cup, they're home on the next plane.

You're being stubborn. All of us who have watched lots of pro soccer have seen unintentional handballs called, and unintentional fouls awarded penalty kicks. That it stopped the ball from crossing the line- and THAT HIS ARM WASN"T NEXT TO HIS BODY BUT STICKING OUT SIDEWAYS (that alone has been interpreted as intent, I've seen it many times) means that was a blown call.
Take Collina, best ref in the world. He "interprets" the Laws ALL THE DAMN TIME. In fact, that's part of why he's so good. He does that very well.
Most German fans seem to think it was a poor non-call.

[Jay510]

this thread is starting to irritate me. The next person that predicts a multiple goal win over Czech or Italy should be kicked off Big Soccer. The USA has its hands full..they've got youth, injuries, and form issues right now. The Italians and Czechs are supreme favorites at this point, even with Italy dealing with the Totti issue.

Im cheering for the USA as hard as anyone, and i hope they surprise me, but at this point, to get out of our group would be a huge achievement

[scarshins]

yes, they looked poor against Germany and not much better against Poland

[Caesar]

All of us who have watched lots of pro soccer have seen unintentional handballs called, and unintentional fouls awarded penalty kicks.
Normal fouls don't require intent. Handball offences do.

Your interpretation of intentional handled ball is obviously different to most top-flight referees and the inspectors that grade them on their performances.

That it stopped the ball from crossing the line- and THAT HIS ARM WASN"T NEXT TO HIS BODY BUT STICKING OUT SIDEWAYS (that alone has been interpreted as intent, I've seen it many times) means that was a blown call.
Well, there's a million different things to consider here, and it's not as simple as "oh his arm was sticking out, must have been intentional". Reaction times, predictability of deflection, movement before and after the ball was deflected... I'm not going to debate it. It comes down to intent, in the opinion of the referee. You're never going to have consensus, but I agree with Dallas' opinion, and I would say going from discussing the incident at the time with colleagues probably a majority of decent referees would agree as well. Certainly there is no real basis for saying he blew the call - he made no error in law, and the facts are quite supportive of the decision he made.

Whether he stopped the ball crossing the line or not is irrelevant to the correctness of the decision.

Take Collina, best ref in the world. He "interprets" the Laws ALL THE DAMN TIME. In fact, that's part of why he's so good. He does that very well.
Most German fans seem to think it was a poor non-call.
Calling an unintentional arm contact as handball isn't interpretation, it's misapplication.

[scarshins]

Unintentional arm contact? You make it sound like it went speedily into his bicep, whereas what actually happened is it went less speedily into his hand/wrist. A good foot, foot and a half, away from his body. So on that I guess we just disagree- but I'm not really complaining, I can see your points and how there is a case the non-call was correct.

Do you think Collina applies the law as written, or his interpretation, when he referees?

[schmuckatelli]

The next person that predicts a multiple goal win over Czech or Italy should be kicked off Big Soccer. The USA has its hands full...
Although such a ban would be harsh, I would tend to agree. The guy who said USA 3-0 ITA has drunk a little too much of the Kool-Aid, I think.

[Caesar]

Do you think Collina applies the law as written, or his interpretation, when he referees? He applies the law as written. What with the laws, the decisions of the IFAB, FIFA's Questions and Answers on the Laws, regular interpretation directives from FIFA and other official documents aimed at ensuring consistency in officiating means that there is not really any room to be creative in what a law actually means.

One advantage of the laws of football, however, is that they're exceptionally consise compared to the rules for a lot of other sports (pick up a copy and compare the size of the book to the American Football rules, for example). This means that in many areas there is a fair bit of room to apply the unwritten "Law 18" as it's colloquially referred to - common sense. For example, dissent is a cautionable offence - that's clear and succinct. However a referee is free to decide how much disagreement and arguing he's willing to let the players get away with before he starts showing cards, depending on the mood and tempo of the match and the mentality of the players. In a volatile match perhaps there is a need to clamp down firmly from the outset to keep things under control, in a more relaxed game being overly harsh may just provoke players.

It is why referees who have exceptional man-management styles tend to shine. In reality Collina probably made no fewer mistakes than most of the top referees, who all have a very similar level of technical ability. But his exceptional ability to control a match with his personality, and carry things off when he did make a mistake, gave him an aura of near-perfection that less likable referees (such as the flamboyant Anders Frisk) never obtained.

[scarshins]

In reality Collina probably made no fewer mistakes than most of the top referees, who all have a very similar level of technical ability. But his exceptional ability to control a match with his personality, and carry things off when he did make a mistake, gave him an aura of near-perfection that less likable referees (such as the flamboyant Anders Frisk) never obtained.

good point and well written too


He applies the law as written.

I completely disagree.

[Caesar]

I completely disagree. I'm not sure what you mean here.

I'm not saying referees do nothing but rigidly enforce words on a page. The use of commonsense where allowed for is what distinguishes good from great referees. But nonetheless the laws as written lay out some very clear restrictions - such as a handball offence must be intentional - that are non-negotiable. The only possible scope for difference here is how a referee will react to a set of facts to be convinced that the arm-ball contact as intentional or otherwise. As with all matters of opinion there will seldom be concensus on borderline calls, but there is more uniformity that you would think.

The general reaction in the refereeing community to the specific incident in question was that, even if they as an individual wouldn't have made the same decision personally regarding the intent, it was still a perfectly legitimate judgement given the facts. And after all, you have the best referees in the world at these tournaments precisely because they are deemed the best in the world at making these sorts of judgements.

[scarshins]

I also think it was a legitimate call. Could have gone either way though. Just a weird situation, it's not often- ever, actually- you see an unintentional hand stopping a goal-bound ball AT the goal line.

[chi11y]

Well, there's a million different things to consider here, and it's not as simple as "oh his arm was sticking out, must have been intentional". Reaction times, predictability of deflection, movement before and after the ball was deflected... I'm not going to debate it. It comes down to intent, in the opinion of the referee. You're never going to have consensus, but I agree with Dallas' opinion, and I would say going from discussing the incident at the time with colleagues probably a majority of decent referees would agree as well. Certainly there is no real basis for saying he blew the call - he made no error in law, and the facts are quite supportive of the decision he made.

Whether he stopped the ball crossing the line or not is irrelevant to the correctness of the decision.


Calling an unintentional arm contact as handball isn't interpretation, it's misapplication.

there are no decent refs thinking that was a good call.

bottom line.
man on post gaurding the line with arm stuck out. his arm is not out because of ballance (check his other arm holding on to post). and the ball strikes his arm.

anytime your in the box and you put your hand/arm out when guarding your goal and the ball hits it; its a penalty and your lucky if you stay on.

by your standards players could jump before a players hits a shot and stick out their arms like they're guarding in basketball and block shots down with their arms because they "didn't mean to play the ball...the ball played my arm". the good thing is that the good refs know this and are calling hand balls for such play. we just got the short straw that day.

[King-James]

If Hugh Dallas wasn't convinced that there was intention, then there is an element of doubt about whether or not there was an offence. If you aren't certain if an infraction has occured then you can't penalise it. It's that simple, and that's precisely how it works in the real world.


No, it isn't. I don't know if you watch football each week but penalties are routinely called in cases where it's debatable at best as to whether the defender intended to hand the ball.

I sincerely beg to differ. Any referee who fails to correctly apply the laws at that level gets very, very short shrift by their match assessor.

So, every time they let a player stand within 5 yards of a free kick, to try to delay the opponent from restarting play quickly, the refs get a short shrift for it? Or when they stand within 10 yards of the ball on a free kick? It happens many times per match, and it's clearly against the rules. How about when players run into the box before the ball is kicked on a penalty? That happens over 90% of the time and it's called less than 10% of the time that the penalty is missed.

I don't know how else to say this, but you're wrong. Honestly.

If a referee had this mentality you're talking about, he wouldn't last very long at the top levels. Intention with regards to handball is a fundamental precept of refereeing. I only referee at a semi-pro level - and if I called an unintentional handball as a penalty, I've instantly failed my assessment. One of these guys does it in a World Cup, they're home on the next plane.

So, why wasn't Günter Benkö punished for giving a penalty for France in the Euro 2000 Semifinal? It was the same situation as happened with Germany-USA.


It is why referees who have exceptional man-management styles tend to shine. In reality Collina probably made no fewer mistakes than most of the top referees, who all have a very similar level of technical ability.

I don't know about that. Collina tends to see everything, in ways that I haven't witnessed any other ref do.