Zidane/Materazzi aftermath

[DerbyRam54]

FIFA's disciplinary committee has handed out suspensions and fines to both players: 3 matches for Zidane, 2 for Materazzi.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5198796.stm

[nsa]

FIFA's disciplinary committee has handed out suspensions and fines to both players: 3 matches for Zidane, 2 for Materazzi.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5198796.stmWhat?!? No replay of the final! ;)

[MassachusettsRef]

1) Zidane's "punishment" is too light, compared to past discipline for similar acts. He's retiring anyway, so it really wouldn't have been a problem to send a symbolic message against violence by metting out an 6-8 game ban.

2) Although I have absolutely no doubt that Zidane was provoked, FIFA's decision on Materazzi raises a few issues of concern:

A. One, the notion that insulting language is nearly as bad as blatant violence. Granted, both are technically red card offences, but we also know that referees aren't expected to be vigorous language police and seek out side conversations to monitor and punish. This 2-game ban sends the message that, in the World Cup Final, a player should have been sent off for insulting an opponent.

B. As I just stated, this sends the message that Materazzi should have been sent off. In a World Cup Final, that just bothers me. Would the final 10 minutes have been different if it was 10 v 10 instead of 11 v 10? Would FIFA have backed Elizondo if he had used circumstantial evidence and sent both players? Where is the line drawn? I know that, practically, Materazzi was only punished because this involved Zidane and was so high-profile but, ultimately, it's opening up FIFA and other governing bodies (and referees) to wide-ranging and potentially accurate claims of inconsistency. The post-game cry of "but I was provoked!" is going to be much, much more prevalent around the world in the morning papers now.

Take it from another perspective...what if Elizondo had been near the play, heard the insult AND sent off Materazzi BEFORE Zidane reacted? Would FIFA have backed that?!?! Would the world have accepted a red card for language in the World Cup Final? I think we know the answer and that Elizondo would have been hung out to dry...but, basically what FIFA is saying is that it would have been a case of preventative refereeing.

[Ref Flunkie]

B. As I just stated, this sends the message that Materazzi should have been sent off. In a World Cup Final, that just bothers me. Would the final 10 minutes have been different if it was 10 v 10 instead of 11 v 10? Would FIFA have backed Elizondo if he had used circumstantial evidence and sent both players? Where is the line drawn? I know that, practically, Materazzi was only punished because this involved Zidane and was so high-profile but, ultimately, it's opening up FIFA and other governing bodies (and referees) to wide-ranging and potentially accurate claims of inconsistency. The post-game cry of "but I was provoked!" is going to be much, much more prevalent around the world in the morning papers now.

Take it from another perspective...what if Elizondo had been near the play, heard the insult AND sent off Materazzi BEFORE Zidane reacted? Would FIFA have backed that?!?! Would the world have accepted a red card for language in the World Cup Final? I think we know the answer and that Elizondo would have been hung out to dry...but, basically what FIFA is saying is that it would have been a case of preventative refereeing.

Not sure I agree, but you know more then I do regarding world soccer and refereeing. Perhaps something came out in the discussions with the two players that gave rise to the 2-game ban. Perhaps it was more then just a standard "insult". Remember, FIFA is trying to crack down on racism, and if that is what happened in this case, then FIFA is just trying to back up its agenda. I think if Elizondo HAD heard something bad enough to red card, and explained what it was after the fact, that the world would have accepted it (other then Italian fans). I just don't buy the whole "It was a small insult that is said all the time on the pitch". That does not make someone go off like that. The reaction should show us that whatever was said was probably a red card in 99.99% of the matches out there. Just my opinion.

[MassachusettsRef]

BBC reporting straight from the FIFA press release:

A Fifa statement said: "Both players stressed Materazzi's comments had been defamatory but not of a racist nature." Granted, there's an admission of guilt here, so that goes a long way. But, still, I think my general point is still valid: With all the yellow and red cards in this tournament and all the complaining, would FIFA have ever backed a referee that sent a player off solely for an insult?

[Ref Flunkie]

BBC reporting straight from the FIFA press release:

Granted, there's an admission of guilt here, so that goes a long way. But, still, I think my general point is still valid: With all the yellow and red cards in this tournament and all the complaining, would FIFA have ever backed a referee that sent a player off solely for an insult?

Ok, then I'll say I agree with you that he would have been hung out to dry if the insult was something standard and heard all the time without typically being sanctioned.

[B Rock]

BBC reporting straight from the FIFA press release:

Granted, there's an admission of guilt here, so that goes a long way. But, still, I think my general point is still valid: With all the yellow and red cards in this tournament and all the complaining, would FIFA have ever backed a referee that sent a player off solely for an insult?

Of course you're right; but this whole "investigation" has been a PR stunt to lessen the blow to Zidane's legacy and establish joint culpability in the form of Materazzi.

Does Materazzi deserve a ban? Absolutley not. They are punishing the ends rather than the means in this case. Talking trash occurs in almost every game, and this incident would have never been reported had Zidane not lost his head.

I don't think this decision really matters. I think everyone knows the truth: Zidane lost his head. That in itself doesn't overshadow a brilliant career regardless of the stage of his implosion. However, many seem to take the opposite view, demonizing Zidane, and this decision was an attempt to lessen their ability to do so.

[dlm_Fire]

Does Materazzi deserve a ban? Absolutley not.


That's an awfully definitive declarative statement.


Sending-Off Offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. receives a second caution in the same match.

And given that disciplinary review after the fact to catch things the referee missed is a thing that occurs in every 1st division league I am aware of as well as FIFA sanctioned events...

do you maybe wanna try again?

If you missed it, it's #6.

[NHRef]

when you compare the penalties for Zidane to the penalities for Derossi, it almost matches. DeRossi v McBride and Zidane v Materazzi, 4 game v 3 game suspension, $8K v $6K suspension. It seems almost equitable.

As for Materazzi, I don't think we can say whether he deserved the suspension or not, we don't know what he said and all insults are not created equal. Zidane said he insulted his mother and sister, Materazzi said he never insulted his mother, so it is probably safe to assume it had to do with Zidane's sister. In my mind this takes it WAY beyond trash talk and depending on what was said, he might have deserved the suspension and possibly a red card, however a yellow would have diffused it had the CR been there.

The only comparisons you can make are to other disciplinary actions in this WC, by this disciplinary committee.

[Li mu bei]

I'm supremely amused that Zidane's HEADBUT received the same punishment as Mastroeni's tackle.

LOL.

[RichP]

OFFINABUS is send off offense, plain and simple. I was sure it happened first time I saw the replay. I agree the punishment for both should not be too similar, probably 1 game Materazzi would be better.

[Statesman]

There are so many intangible factors influencing the outcome of this scenario that it simply cannot be used as a template for other situations.

The players have gone at it all game long, we're in the dying minutes of the WORLD CUP FINAL; the most watched television event in the world; Materazzi is making personal family insults towards the guy who is going to win the Golden Ball, driving him to a level of rage that translates in a serious case of violent conduct, and the post-match circus keeps the story in the headlines for weeks after the incident.

Materazzi absolutely needs to be disciplined for his part! You can't just say, "well, all he did was insult the guy and that goes on all the time, so he should get off scot free." He was the chief instigator in an incident that put a black-eye on the Final, and on the career of Zidane.

NOT punishing Materazzi sends the message that it is OK to taunt players and insult their familes to the level they react with blind rage and commit a serious offense. Is that what we want?

[refmike]

There is no excuse for Zidane's actions but I also heard that his mother was in the hospital at the time so there may be some understanding of how he was triggered. Can anyone confirm this?

[MassachusettsRef]

when you compare the penalties for Zidane to the penalities for Derossi, it almost matches. DeRossi v McBride and Zidane v Materazzi, 4 game v 3 game suspension, $8K v $6K suspension. It seems almost equitable.At least with De Rossi there was violence in a situation where there was a challenge for the ball. Zidane's violence was totally away from the ball. I don't think they're that comparable, but that's also just my opinion.


And, so no one thinks that I'm A) just criticizing without offering a solution or B) defending Materazzi, I personally, knowing what I know and given the situation, would have issued the following:

Zidane - 6 match symbolic ban - $25,000 fine (he's not going to play anyway, so fine should be larger)
Materazzi - no ban - $10,000 fine

In my mind, there's 2 problems with FIFA's punishment: Zidane gets off light and I don't like the idea of suspending someone after the fact for language; I just think it opens up too many cans of worms.

[Shackleton]

1) Zidane's "punishment" is too light, compared to past discipline for similar acts. He's retiring anyway, so it really wouldn't have been a problem to send a symbolic message against violence by metting out an 6-8 game ban.

Seems to me that Zidane's punishment (three games, $6,000) is about right, when compared to De Rossi's punishment (four games, $8,000).

De Rossi got the minimum. "Article 47 Physical injury--1. A player who deliberately assaults someone physically or damages his
health will be suspended for at least four matches."

Zidane got one more than the minimum. "Article 48 Violence--1. A player who deliberately assaults someone, but without harming
him physically or damaging his health, will be suspended for at least
two matches."

FIFA indicated that De Rossi's prompt apology caused them to reduce his match ban by one game. But for De Rossi's apology, both players got the minimum plus one.

Also, FIFA's Disciplinary Code makes no distinction between violence away from the ball and from the flow of play. It does distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate assaults and between injury and non-injury-causing assaults. See Articles 47 and 48 of http://www.fifa.com/documents/static...ry_code_EN.pdf.

In case anyone is interested, here's the thread in the FIFA WC Forum on this issue. http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=384693 I feel beseiged by angry Italians over there. :cool:

[MassachusettsRef]

Good info.

I still personally believe that violence off the ball vs. on the ball should be more of a determining factor that whether there is an injury or not. Same two plays could happen and McBride could come up without blood and Materazzi could crack his sternum. Punishing the result over the act has never made sense to me.

But, at least there's documentation and FIFA has seemed to have followed it. Again, good post.

[lmorin]

......
Zidane - 6 match symbolic ban - $25,000 fine (he's not going to play anyway, so fine should be larger)
Materazzi - no ban - $10,000 fine

In my mind, there's 2 problems with FIFA's punishment: Zidane gets off light and I don't like the idea of suspending someone after the fact for language; I just think it opens up too many cans of worms.
I agree with your Zidane penalty, but not with the Materazzi fine-only penalty. I'd give him 3 games and $10,000. Perhaps it's much stronger than past penalties, but it would send a message that is stronger than the 2 game ban he received. Hopefully, the FIFA message is something to the effect that it will not tolerate unsporting behavior of any kind and that greater severity of punishment is going to rain down in the future. What is most important here is that FIFA did a major post hoc evaluation of the situation. It did not rely solely on the Referee's game report. The Laws of the Game are irrelevant, as the game is over. But, does this action really indicate the way FIFA will go in the future on similar or related (e.g., diving) issues? Does anyone have a clue?

[blech]

Good info.

I still personally believe that violence off the ball vs. on the ball should be more of a determining factor that whether there is an injury or not. Same two plays could happen and McBride could come up without blood and Materazzi could crack his sternum. Punishing the result over the act has never made sense to me.

But, at least there's documentation and FIFA has seemed to have followed it. Again, good post.

I don't know if it the result over the act, but giving consideration to the result in addition to the act. I also think it's human nature to take into account the result, especially seeing blood like we did with McBride. And, personally, whether by fortuity or not, I can at least understand taking into account the result and holding the wrongdoer responsible. The correlation isn't always one-to-one, but not over the top to see a greater penalty connected to a more serious injury.

As for the on the ball vs off the ball issue, I understand in principle why you're saying off the ball is more serious, but I think it ends up varying greatly from case to case. And, the reality is that many of the "on the ball" moments actually end up being "off the ball" moments in the determination of the ref who shows the card. For example, if you believe de Rossi wasn't playing the ball and deliberately elbowed McBride while McBride was trying to do so, it actually seems worse to me in many respects because he was somewhat blindsided. Or, take Rooney's stomp to the groin. The proximity of the ball may allow some room for an argument that it wasn't deliberate, but once you've made a conclusion that it was, what's the difference and in some ways couldn't it be worse given it's unexpected nature?

[superdave]

Not to beat a dead horse, but it's morbidly funny that Pablo's foul and ZZ's foul are considered equally heinous. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Li mu bei, I guess great minds thing alike.

Not sure I agree, but you know more then I do regarding world soccer and refereeing. Perhaps something came out in the discussions with the two players that gave rise to the 2-game ban. Perhaps it was more then just a standard "insult". Remember, FIFA is trying to crack down on racism, and if that is what happened in this case, then FIFA is just trying to back up its agenda.
If it was racist, then 2 games is far too little. If it was taunting, 2 games is too much.

[B Rock]

That's an awfully definitive declarative statement.




And given that disciplinary review after the fact to catch things the referee missed is a thing that occurs in every 1st division league I am aware of as well as FIFA sanctioned events...

do you maybe wanna try again?

If you missed it, it's #6.

You wanna try to be realistic? How often do you see players suspended after the fact for language towards another player out of the official's hearing? This decision is a joke.

People who interpret the rules like this bother me. The key is consistency, not sticking to the letter of the law. You can't pick and choose the times to deliver the ends on the same means. If you pick this suspension, I expect to see investigations and likely suspensions for every time players exchange words in a heated manner.

The fact is that the ONLY reason Materazzi was suspended or ANYONE ever heard about this was because Zidane lost his cool. If he wouldn't have would you still be suggesting a suspension is in order?

Or are you one of the people who judges the means by the ends? Should we send off a player for a slightly mistimed challenge if it breaks someone's leg? Similarly should we not redcard someone for a cynical challenge from behind if the other player pop right back up?

Zidane's reaction needs to be COMPLETLEY factored out of any decision involving Materazzi, and when you do that it becomes abundently clear that its a simple case of trash talking that happens thousands of times every season in leagues all over the world with no recourse.