PDA

View Full Version : An Incomplete Review of Referee Calls Made During World Cup 2006


PVancouver
24 Jul 2006, 02:40 PM
An Incomplete Review of Referee Calls Made During World Cup 2006

Of the 64 matches playing in Germany during World Cup 2006, I have 51 on tape. For each of the 51, I reviewed all of the yellow and red card issued, all of the goals, all of the goals scored but called back for offside (hopefully), and all of the penalty kicks. I did not attempt to measure calls that should have been made but were not.

A total of 147 goals were scored in the 64 games of the FIFA World Cup which works out at an average of 2.29 goals per game. The other two 64-game tournaments produced 171 goals (2.61 average) in 1998 and 161 (2.52 average) in 2002.


2 Goals Scored Were Offside

With video review, at least 2 of the 147 goals scored in the tournament would probably have been overturned for offside.

In match 44, Harry KEWELL's goal in the 79', tying the match with Croatia 2-2, was clearly offside. The tie allowed Australia to advance to the second round in place of Croatia in Group F.

In match 55, ADRIANO's goal in the 46'+, giving Brazil a 2-0 lead over Ghana, was clearly offside. Brazil went on to win the round of 16 match 3-0.


2 Goals Disallowed Were Onside

With video review, 2 of the 12 (minimum) goals called back for offside might have been allowed to stand assuming the rules were changed to allow for such a possibility and defenses played no better knowing a goal might count. However, both offside calls were very close and a video review probably was NOT clear enough to overturn the offside calls and allow the goals.

In match 21, Hernan CRESPO's goal in the 35', if counted, would have put Argentina ahead of Serbia & Montenegro 3-0. The score ended 6-0, Group A standings were not affected.

In match 25, Gennaro GATTUSO's goal in the 36', would have put Italy ahead of the US 2-1. The score remained tied 1-1, but Group E standings were not affected.


Penalty Kicks

Of the 17 penalty kicks awarded and 15 reviewed, 9 were properly given and 6 were harsh, with 2 of the harsh calls resulting from dives.

13 of the 17 PKs were converted, affecting the results of 9 games (or potentially affecting depending on the results of elimination round ties).

However, only one of nine PKs affected the group stage, as a PK awarded to Australia allowed Australia to advance over Croatia in Group F. While the PK was properly given, it would not have been given under the new rule proposed below.

Three of four converted PKs affected elimination round games: Italy-Australia, Portugal-France, and Italy-France, with France benefiting twice. None of the three PKs would have been awarded under the proposed rule.


Penalty Kicks If Law 15 Were Changed

Of the 17 penalty kicks awarded and 15 reviewed, 9 were properly given and 6 were harsh, with 2 of the harsh calls resulting from dives.

It is my belief that the current penalty kick law is too harsh. PKs should not be awarded for careless fouls in the box that do not deny obvious goal scoring opportunities.

Current Law: A penalty kick is awarded against a team which commits one of the ten offences for which a direct free kick is awarded, inside its own penalty area and while the ball is in play.

Proposed Law: A penalty kick is awarded against a team which commits one of the ten offences for which a direct free kick is awarded, inside its own penalty area and while the ball is in play, and a player on the team is cautioned or sent-off for the offence.

Only 4 of the 17 penalty kicks would have been awarded under the new law. One penalty kick would not have been awarded although a player who should have been yellow carded but was not (MARQUEZ- MEX), while one penalty kick would have been awarded although a yellow card should not have been issued (MIYAMOTO-JPN).


Red Cards

19 of the 28 red cards issued were for a second yellow. Of the 9 remaining cards, I consider 4 of them to be proper, 4 harsh, and 1 unknown (I don't have it on tape). Three of the four red cards deserved only yellows, while Ukraine's Vladyslav VASHCHUK was sent off for a DOGSO against Spain that he simply did not commit.

Fortunately, none of the direct red cards were issued because of a dive from the opponent.
Three of the reds were issued for denying and obviously goal-scoring opportunity. I believe that the rule requiring a red card for all DOGSO's is too harsh. If an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied, I would prefer to see careless fouls upgraded to yellow and what would otherwise be a yellow upgraded to red.

With this line of reasoning, Tomas UJFALUSI would have only received a yellow for his foul on AMOAH in the 65' of match 26, Czech Republic v Ghana. The upgrade to a yellow card for the DOGSO would also require that a penalty be given even if my proposed new rule for penalties was put into effect. However, Czech Republic would have been spared the loss of a player.

In match 63, Italy v. Australia, Marco MATERAZZI was sent off for his trip of BRESCIANO in the 50', presumably for a DOGSO as the trip itself was not that violent. Although calling the foul a DOGSO was harsh, since another defender was very close to the play, MATERAZZI would still have been sent off even under my proposed DOGSO rule since he certainly committed an offense worthy of a yellow card (a late tackle), and the referee apparently considered it as DOGSO.

Of the 19 red cards issued for second yellows, I considered 4 of them proper send-offs, 11 harsh, 4 unknown (unrecorded) and 1 unclear. I generally concluded that a send-off was harsh if I felt the second yellow card of the day was harsh, but in some cases I ruled the red card harsh even if the yellow card itself was proper. That is, the offense may have been cardable, but I would have shown a bit more leniency considering the card would result in a send-off. The relative merit of the first card was not considered, as a referee presumably does not take this into account when choosing to award a second.

In short, the number of red cards issued could easily have been halved had a bit more leniency been shown.


Yellow Cards

Of the 346 yellow cards issued (5.4 per game), I concluded that 156 were proper, 95 were harsh, 25 were unclear, and 70 were unrecorded.

Of those I could make a determination, I concluded that 62% were proper and 38% (more than a third) were harsh.

Of the 267 yellow cards I was able to categorize (notwithstanding that cards for dissent may have ranged from 7 to 13), 74 were issued for tripping, 46 for delaying a restart or failing to respect the required distance, 41 for tackling, 34 for professional fouls, 14 for striking, 11 for intentional handball, 10 for charging, 10 for holding/pushing, 7 to 13 for dissent, 7 for dangerous play, 7 for diving, 4 for unsporting behavior, and 1 for persistent infringement.

I did not conclude that any of the yellow cards issued were too lenient, i.e., should have been red but were not.


YELLOW CARD INFRINGEMENTS
tripping------------------------------------ 74 28%
delaying restart / fail. to respect dist.--- 46 17%
tackling------------------------------------ 41 15%
professional foul--------------------------- 34 13%
striking------------------------------------ 14 5%
intentional handball------------------------ 11 4%
charging------------------------------------ 10 4%
holding/pushing----------------------------- 10 4%
dissent------------------------------------- 9 3%
dangerous play------------------------------ 7 3%
diving-------------------------------------- 7 3%
unsporting behavior (NEC)------------------- 3 1%
persistent infringement*-------------------- 1 0%
YELLOW CARDS CATEGORIZED-------------------- 267 77%
YELLOW CARDS ISSUED------------------------- 346
*It is clearly possible that more than one card was issued for PI, and it is likely that such yellow cards would unknowingly have been judged as harsh.


Unquestionably the 46 yellow cards for delaying restarts / failing to respect required distance were the most controversial of the World Cup. Hardly any of these cards would have been issued by Major League Soccer referees.

Even with the strict rules in place and espoused by FIFA prior to the World Cup, I deemed 10 (22%) of these yellow cards as too harsh and another 11 (24%) unclear. The latter were mostly for delays by the offensive team to restart occurring off camera.

One of the reasons that so many yellow cards for delay were difficult for the television viewer to accept is because replays were often being shown while the alleged delay to restart was taking place. It was nearly impossible for the television viewer to make a judgment about whether or not an unreasonable delay had taken place.

In some cases players were carded for kicking the ball away after the referee had made a decision to halt play but before or nearly simultaneous with his whistle (although due to sound delay, the whistle might have occurred appreciably earlier).

While approximately 7 yellow cards were issued for diving (1 unjustly so and 1 unclear), 16 yellow cards were unjustly issued as a result of well executed dives. Not that all of these dives should have been carded (in the strict sense of FIFA, they certainly could be), because in most cases contact was made, but then significantly enhanced by the dive.

That only about one professional foul was carded for every two World Cup games, and the rare cards issued for persistent infringement and unsporting behavior is a testament to the high degree of fair play employed by the participating teams, contrary to many reports.

The tournament would be remarkably cleaner without one player, the Netherlands’ Mark VAN BOMMEL, who earned the one card clearly issued for persistent infringement and successfully drew 4 yellows largely on his diving ability.


Yellow Card Accumulation

34 of the issued yellow cards were the player's second in either the group round or the elimination round and had the potential to force the guilty player to sit out his next match.

Of the 34 such cards issued (0.5 per game), I concluded that 16 were proper, 11 were harsh, 1 was unclear, and 6 were unrecorded. Clearly little concern or leniency was shown to those players who were in jeopardy of having to sit out a World Cup match due to yellow card accumulation.

While I would not suggest that players on a yellow card be given free reign, I would like to see a little bit of extra caution taken (ignore the pun) if a player already has a yellow from a previous match, which itself may have been harshly issued.

Ditto for second yellow cards earned in the same game. If there is doubt or leeway, the doubt should benefit the offending player. In my opinion, too many players were barred from play, in some cases, greatly affecting or potentially affecting World Cup results.

In fact, I believe only 8 of the 23 players (35%) who received two yellows over two matches, and I could make a determination concerning both yellows, truly deserved both yellows. And two of those players received yellows for delaying restarts.


Referees

21 center referees worked the World Cup with 2 referees getting only one match and 2 referees getting 5 matches.

The referees with the best ratios of proper to harsh calls (red cards, yellow cards, and PKs considered) were: Massimo BUSACCA (SUI), Mark SHIELD (AUS), and Carlos AMARILLA (PAR).

The referees with the worst ratios of proper to harsh calls were: Valentin IVANOV (RUS), Lubos MICHEL (SVK)., and Luis MEDINA CANTALEJO (SPN).

Fittingly enough, both Lubos MICHEL and Luis MEDINA CANTALEJO were rewarded with extra games, and Valentin IVANOV probably would have been too had he not issued 16 yellow cards and 4 reds in one game.

None of what I would consider the best performing referees were rewarded with extra games, in fact SHIIELD only did 2 matches.

Of course, this evaluation only considers cards and PKs, it does not consider any of the other fouls or non-calls made during World Cup play.

MassachusettsRef
24 Jul 2006, 03:05 PM
So, if the laws were radically changed and you were the sole arbiter, things would have been different? That's, um, helpful...

In match 63, Italy v. Australia, Marco MATERAZZI was sent off for his trip of BRESCIANO in the 50', presumably for a DOGSO as the trip itself was not that violent. It was for SFP, not DOGSO.

I did not conclude that any of the yellow cards issued were too lenient, i.e., should have been red but were not.Unless you didn't watch the NED:POR game (which it seems clear that you did), you lose any credibility you had on this matter right here. Bouhlarouz's first yellow for his foul on Ronaldo? Or Deco's first yellow card? I have other examples, too (Valencia for Ecuador--can't remember the match; John's first yellow for Trinidad in the Sweden game; possibly Puyol for Spain--also can't remember which match), but the NED:POR examples should be most vivid and most obvious.

USSF REF
24 Jul 2006, 03:59 PM
Law 14 = The Penalty Kick
Law 15 = The Throw-In

usatowin
24 Jul 2006, 04:14 PM
Law 14 = The Penalty Kick
Law 15 = The Throw-In

Why go after him for that when you can hit him for using personal opinion to determine harsh/should have been given cards and PKs?

Craig P
24 Jul 2006, 06:01 PM
Three of four converted PKs affected elimination round games: Italy-Australia, Portugal-France, and Italy-France, with France benefiting twice. None of the three PKs would have been awarded under the proposed rule.
I'm not sure if the Italy-Australia penalty situation would fit the book definition of DOGSO (I'm guessing it would fail one of direction or number of defenders), but if you accept that it is a foul, I can't condone a rule change that would prevent it being a penalty kick -- if not an "obvious" goal-scoring chance, it clearly was a "dangerous" situation, and Neill acted in desperation because he recognized that danger. IMO, there was a significant chance that Italy would have scored a goal had Grosso not been impeded.

USSF REF
24 Jul 2006, 06:26 PM
Why go after him for that when you can hit him for using personal opinion to determine harsh/should have been given cards and PKs?

It seems easier to argue facts than opinions. This thread is a lot of personal opinion trying to be passed off as fact by using other irellevant facts to "prove" non-factual statements. :cool: I especially like the use of tables, it's a interesting way to try and give false credibility to fake facts.

aevange8
24 Jul 2006, 10:59 PM
I dont agree with everything you have to say, but I do have to say you put a lot of time and effort into this.

david58
25 Jul 2006, 12:39 AM
Having only a U-14 championship or two under my belt, I can't begin to imagine the pressure cooker of a match in the WC finals - any one of the 64 of them.

nylaw5
25 Jul 2006, 03:33 AM
Thank You for taking the time to do the research and share your results with us.

Even putting aside your "judgements" the numbers are very interesting to look at, not many of us would have had the patience.

NYfutbolfan
25 Jul 2006, 09:35 AM
Ah, the line between careless and reckless. As if refs don't have enough to be chastised for in a game, along comes disaster in the making. Today, we have to determine if a penal foul occurred in the PA and there is enough gnashing of teeth over that call (see Italy/Aus). If all PK's became a result of ITOOTR as to whether it was careless as opposed to reckless, the beautiful game will become a sham.

I appreciate your analysis, but what this WC showed me, was that FIFA is still not serious about removing diving from the game. Just about any game had at least a dozen dives, of which at least 25% should've been obvious to the CR as a caution. Using the #'s 64 games x 12 = 768 dives, maybe they caution 25%, which would = 192 cautions. When they only caution 7, or a mere 3% of the 25%, you know that FIFA is not serious. The LOTG are terrific. The direction that FIFA is giving the refs to implement them, is the problem.

mw26
24 Oct 2006, 02:42 AM
i think we're missing the important point here.

where'd u get tape of 51 WC matches?