US U20 - Brazil -- Edson 62'

[LuckyNat]

During the US vs. Brazil U20 match on Friday night, Adu burns Edson just outside the top corner of the PA. Edson takes down Adu. Referee calls a foul, but shows no card. I was stunned that the ref didn't pull out the YC. However, I am a totally biased US supporter and not particularly well schooled in the nuances of the LOTG. Can I get an objective, educated opinion of that call? It was in the 62nd minute if you're looking at game tape.

Did Edson deserve a yellow card or not?

Did he not get an otherwise deserved card because he already had a YC, and the referee was aware of this? If so, is this proper refereeing behavior?

[Spaceball]

During the US vs. Brazil U20 match on Friday night, Adu burns Edson just outside the top corner of the PA. Edson takes down Adu. Referee calls a foul, but shows no card. I was stunned that the ref didn't pull out the YC. However, I am a totally biased US supporter and not particularly well schooled in the nuances of the LOTG. Can I get an objective, educated opinion of that call? It was in the 62nd minute if you're looking at game tape.

Did Edson deserve a yellow card or not?

Did he not get an otherwise deserved card because he already had a YC, and the referee was aware of this? If so, is this proper refereeing behavior?

This can be hard to answer for a number of reasons. I can tell you what I think went through the referee's head, but only he knows for certain what his thought process was. I will try to take you through how I would have processed the info and why I would not have issued a caution.

1. That's a foul so I need to blow whistle.
2. That could be a caution...who committed the foul.
3. It was Edson again. Great
4. Well, that foul was certainly tactical or professional though it was not hard and the caution would be for the tactics not the foul itself
5. What was Edson's first caution?
6. He tripped Adu about 25 yards out 10 minutes ago in another tactical foul
7. That was a relatively soft yellow...again not a hard foul just tactical and at best borderline yellow.
8. Do these 2 fouls warrant a send off?
9. While the 2nd foul was probably more worthy of a yellow, the first was at best borderline and I think the 2nd caution needs to be more than what just happened.
10. I need to remind Edson that he is now on eggshells as he has used up his chances to stick around.

Process all that in under a second.

I hope that makes sense. For me, the 2nd foul was worse than the first, but the first was so soft that the referee felt it unfair to send him off for it. As a referee I have given many borderline cautions as a game control means or to make a point...however, I realize that for that player they will get the benefit of the doubt on the next borderline play.

Throw all of this out if it is a nasty tackle that has to be dealt with...I am simply talking about those borderline tactical fouls...and only if a player already has a caution. If it is any other player, I guess they get a caution for this foul...or if Edson's first caution had been a hard or cynical challenge that was a clear cut, no choice but a yellow card type foul.

I know others will disagree, but I am ust giving you my guess as to the thought process of the referee...in the end, he did not feel as though the two fouls together were worthy of a yellow.

[blech]

Interesting analysis by Spaceball to be taking into account the two incidents to consider whether to issue the second card. For me, I thought the second incident was an obvious card and I believe I would have issued it. Had I given the first card, my thinking is that the player is the one who is responsible for adjusting his play when he is carrying a card, even if the card was on the softer side, and this represented a clear failure to do so. Similarly, I do believe that not giving the card to Edson, and then giving the card in minute 93 to Igwe for a very similar tactical foul undermines my credibility.

That said, it is human nature to think about the consequences and I know that I have at least thought about the fact that a player is carrying a card in making these decisions (much in the way that many refs require a slightly higher level of foul in the area before the award a pk). Of course, this swallowing of the whistle (or in this case pocketing of the card) becomes even harder to overcome when the game is significant and could even result in a team being eliminated from the tournament. Doesn't justify it, but probably explains it.

Unfortunately for the ref, the two incidents came in this order. Had the second incident been first and he had given the yellow, it would have been easier to not give the second yellow on the softer play. If carrying a yellow, I want to see a real yellow for the second yellow. But, again, here, he had the first yellow - soft or not - and the second one seemed clear and fairly easy to me.

[campton]

I was a bit confused. Then i remembered his earlier tactical foul. It was a good decision to keep it in the pocketbook. It was GREAT player recognition. The referee gets a gold star in my book.

[colins1993]

The ref blew it.
Period.

[Alberto]

Second caution, send him off. Why keep him in the game, so the next time Adu blows by him he thinks he'll get away with a perhaps a scissor tackle or another tactical foul?

[Alberto]

I was a bit confused. Then i remembered his earlier tactical foul. It was a good decision to keep it in the pocketbook. It was GREAT player recognition. The referee gets a gold star in my book.

No gold star for me. By not punishing the tactical foul, he gave Brasil a reason to continue to foul tactically. Hey the ref knows I already have a caution, he won't send me off for a second cautionable offense. Not smart and counter to what we as referees are trying to do. Keep the game fair and protect the game from cynical plays.

[LuckyNat]

This can be hard to answer for a number of reasons. I can tell you what I think went through the referee's head, but only he knows for certain what his thought process was. I will try to take you through how I would have processed the info and why I would not have issued a caution.

1. That's a foul so I need to blow whistle.
2. That could be a caution...who committed the foul.
3. It was Edson again. Great
4. Well, that foul was certainly tactical or professional though it was not hard and the caution would be for the tactics not the foul itself
5. What was Edson's first caution?
6. He tripped Adu about 25 yards out 10 minutes ago in another tactical foul
7. That was a relatively soft yellow...again not a hard foul just tactical and at best borderline yellow.
8. Do these 2 fouls warrant a send off?
9. While the 2nd foul was probably more worthy of a yellow, the first was at best borderline and I think the 2nd caution needs to be more than what just happened.
10. I need to remind Edson that he is now on eggshells as he has used up his chances to stick around.

Process all that in under a second.

I hope that makes sense. For me, the 2nd foul was worse than the first, but the first was so soft that the referee felt it unfair to send him off for it. As a referee I have given many borderline cautions as a game control means or to make a point...however, I realize that for that player they will get the benefit of the doubt on the next borderline play.

Throw all of this out if it is a nasty tackle that has to be dealt with...I am simply talking about those borderline tactical fouls...and only if a player already has a caution. If it is any other player, I guess they get a caution for this foul...or if Edson's first caution had been a hard or cynical challenge that was a clear cut, no choice but a yellow card type foul.

I know others will disagree, but I am ust giving you my guess as to the thought process of the referee...in the end, he did not feel as though the two fouls together were worthy of a yellow.

Great analysis. Of course, we can all argue what was appropriate, but it definitely provides some meaningful insight. Thank you, Spaceball.

[IASocFan]

Great analysis. Of course, we can all argue what was appropriate, but it definitely provides some meaningful insight. Thank you, Spaceball.

Totally agree. This kind of analysis shows that Spaceball understands the game well enough to be a great up and coming referee. Hope to see you in MLS soon. Thanks.

[bluedevils]

This thread is a great indicator/reminder of the fundamental difference between the 'enforce the laws strictly and do not cut the players any breaks' philosophy and the 'manage the players and try to keep them in the game' philosophy. Both philosophies have merit, but they are very different. As referees, the guidance/feedback we receive does not always fall on one side or the other. This makes it difficult for us to decide what is the 'right' approach to take.

[Spaceball]

Totally agree. This kind of analysis shows that Spaceball understands the game well enough to be a great up and coming referee. Hope to see you in MLS soon. Thanks.

Clearly the post of the year by the smartest person on BigSoccer! If there is ever a post that deserved rep, this is it:)

In all seriousness, it is much appreciated.

[Spaceball]

This thread is a great indicator/reminder of the fundamental difference between the 'enforce the laws strictly and do not cut the players any breaks' philosophy and the 'manage the players and try to keep them in the game' philosophy. Both philosophies have merit, but they are very different. As referees, the guidance/feedback we receive does not always fall on one side or the other. This makes it difficult for us to decide what is the 'right' approach to take.

I completely agree with what you have said here in regards to te divergent philosophies and the lack of a clear answer as to which is better. I believe that both of these philospohies can be employed properly in different situations. In some matches, you know going in that the former approach is the only way you will be successful as the teams have a history and that it will be a tough match. In other matches, it is perfectly acceptable to work with players to try to keep them in a match. I know I have told players, "I have done all I can to keep you here...it is up to you now. If you want to stay, it's gotta stop (whatever it is) or I will be happy to help you find the shower early."

I think this play is different than applying a basic theory to a single play for a number of reasons. We are not talking about a nasty challenge, but rather a tactical one. I am not of the opinion that it is such a clear cut yellow as others are. I do think it is a yellow, but not the borderline red I have seen others say in other places. It was a foul and tactical by nature and there is nothing wrong with issuing the caution. My bigger issue is with the first caution. I was very surprised it was given and think it was relatively soft. It may even have been PI against the next player to foul Adu rather than for the foul by Edson himself. When combining those two factors, I can fully understand why no second caution was given. While it would have been easy to justify, I just think the referee had a bigger picture in his head than this single foul at this single moment. I am not saying I would not have given it, I am just saying it is not as simple as everyone likes to make it out to be in this situation.

Bluedevils, I would love your opinion if you get a chance to see the match because as I said even seeing the clips on youtube in this case is not enough. I think this is one of those situations that falls into how the match is going and whether the foul, with everything considered, warrants the send off.

[Attacking Minded]

Clearly the post of the year by the smartest person on BigSoccer! If there is ever a post that deserved rep, this is it:)

In all seriousness, it is much appreciated.
Yes, it was a great example of how ref's can think too much and screw up a call.

As a fan, I'd much rather you side towards enforcing the LOTG rather than other considerations.

[bluedevils]

Yes, it was a great example of how ref's can think too much and screw up a call.

As a fan, I'd much rather you side towards enforcing the LOTG rather than other considerations.

That's easy to say now. And not that it matters, but I'd venture to guess that your opinion might actually put you in the minority. The dilemma for referees is, if we stuck very strictly to the Laws of the Game all the time, fans by and large would be upset at the overly officious, power-tripping, too-mean referees who are giving out cards like candy and killing the flow of the game because they are calling 50+ fouls a game. We try to call only what we think NEEDS to be called -- nothing more, nothing less -- in that game and at that moment.

[Spaceball]

Yes, it was a great example of how ref's can think too much and screw up a call.

As a fan, I'd much rather you side towards enforcing the LOTG rather than other considerations.

So all throw-ins will be taken from within a yard of where the ball went out of play, every free kick will be taken from precisely where the foul was committed, every player within 10 yards of a free kick who does not retreat immediately will be given a caution, foul language will be red carded, and 6 seconds will be called on GK's routinely.

Or maybe it is not so bad when referees use a little bit of judgement in the game and dare I say even think.

We are not talking about the LOTG...where does it say that a foul like this must be cautioned...the LOTG actually says "in the opinion of the referee" meaning deciding not to caution was perfectly reasonable within the LOTG. The referee enforced the law by calling the foul that was clear...nowhere is he required to caution.

Oh well, eventually we will get robots to call the game by the book with no thinking involved so calls can't be screwed up...I love 90 whistles and 15 cautions per match...but it will be by the book.

[GKbenji]

That's easy to say now. And not that it matters, but I'd venture to guess that your opinion might actually put you in the minority. The dilemma for referees is, if we stuck very strictly to the Laws of the Game all the time, fans by and large would be upset at the overly officious, power-tripping, too-mean referees who are giving out cards like candy and killing the flow of the game because they are calling 50+ fouls a game. We try to call only what we think NEEDS to be called -- nothing more, nothing less -- in that game and at that moment.

Howver, if all referees stuck more to the Laws, called all the pushes and tugs and trips, carded the tactical fouls and encroachment, then just maybe... MAYBE... the game would be cleaned up for the better.... Naaah, just a pipe dream. ;)

FIFA tries to do this on occasion. The only problem is that FIFA's only occasions where they are in control are big international tournaments, which is a horrible time to try to make big adjustments.

It needs to be done like the NHL did a few years back: in league play, starting in preseason, to give players time to adjust. And the leagues need to stick to their guns and not go back to the old status quo when everybody starts griping. The players can learn, just not overnight. But with all the various confederations, countries, leagues... naaah, it's just a pipe dream. :(

[Alberto]

Let's not lose sight that players routinely know that referees will be reluctant to pull out a second caution, so they take chances. With all this celebration of Spaceball's post, I have a real issue with a referee allowing a player to get away with two tactical fouls. There is being over officious and issuing cheap cautions. But there is also not having the courage to make difficult decisions including issuing second cautions for tactical fouls.

When discussing over officious decisions I would like to cite some examples noted in Spaceball last post and will offer some additional comments that referees need to keep in mind when concerned about affecting the match by the issuance of a caution.

Enforcing six seconds to a keeper already carrying a caution, to caution is being over officous, just add more stoppage time and verbally warn the keeper to stop.

Retaking or directing the player to take the throw at a given location for a throw in for being several yards from the actual spot where the ball went into touch.

We have to be smart, if the ball is in the attacking third or deep in the defensive third, be strict about the spot. Moving the ball five to ten yards closer to the goal becomes a significant advantage for the attacking team.

Being over officious on the location of restarts. Distance from goal is everything. Who cares if the ball is moved 3-5 yards near midfield. More than that, direct the player to take it from the correct location. However, for restarts in the attacking third. I want the restart at the spot I indicated and will not allow the restart of play unless I am satisfied about the location and that the ball is stationary.

As to cautions for not respecting the required distance, not being 10 yards away from the ball. If anyone delays the restart for failure to respect the required distance after issuing an earlier verbal warning, issue the caution. If the offensive team puts the ball quickly into play ignore the distance and allow play. Standing over or near the ball, arguing with the referee about the spot of the restart are all illegal tactics by the defense to gain time for purposes of allowing the defenders to get players back into defensive positions and to stop a quick restart by the attacking team. The defense has no right to delay the restart of play. Warn and if they do it again caution it.

A player who curses at himself for screwing up gets no caution. A player who curses at the referee or an opponent gets a caution. There is no need for foul language in the game.

The bottom line is the referee needs to use common sense. That said there is a very good reason why there have been mandatory cautions edicts and memorandums from FIFA. Referees have failed to sanction tactical fouls and other actions meant to interrupt the flow of the game and to take away from attacking soccer.

We cannot lose sight that players must be sanctioned for cynical actions meant to gain unfair advantages at the expense of the game.

[Attacking Minded]

So all throw-ins will be taken from within a yard of where the ball went out of play, every free kick will be taken from precisely where the foul was committed, every player within 10 yards of a free kick who does not retreat immediately will be given a caution, foul language will be red carded, and 6 seconds will be called on GK's routinely.

Or maybe it is not so bad when referees use a little bit of judgement in the game and dare I say even think.

We are not talking about the LOTG...where does it say that a foul like this must be cautioned...the LOTG actually says "in the opinion of the referee" meaning deciding not to caution was perfectly reasonable within the LOTG. The referee enforced the law by calling the foul that was clear...nowhere is he required to caution.

Oh well, eventually we will get robots to call the game by the book with no thinking involved so calls can't be screwed up...I love 90 whistles and 15 cautions per match...but it will be by the book.
Well your strawman might look nice to someone else but I'm unimpressed. We've all seen overly officious people more interested in being the center of attention rather than the center referee. To imply that I am arguing for that is obviously not true.

Here's my opinion. The secondary considerastions that you list detract from the game. We, the fans, don't want to have to think about what the ref thinks. We'd much rather watch the game. If a player commits a foul, that's his fault and a part of the game, a apart of the drama. Please don't become part of the drama.

[bluedevils]

Well your strawman might look nice to someone else but I'm unimpressed. We've all seen overly officious people more interested in being the center of attention rather than the center referee. To imply that I am arguing for that is obviously not true.

Here's my opinion. The secondary considerastions that you list detract from the game. We, the fans, don't want to have to think about what the ref thinks. We'd much rather watch the game. If a player commits a foul, that's his fault and a part of the game, a apart of the drama. Please don't become part of the drama.

I'm still looking forward to your response to MY post.

The referee has a very delicate balancing act to play between calling enough but not too much. You don't seem to be acknowledging this in your posts.

[lmorin]

Howver, if all referees stuck more to the Laws, called all the pushes and tugs and trips, carded the tactical fouls and encroachment, then just maybe... MAYBE... the game would be cleaned up for the better.... Naaah, just a pipe dream. ;)
...........(

This is absolutely the crux of the problem. Rules are in place to provide structure for the game. That structure is diminished for everyone whenever a rule is allowed to be broken. The sentiment that certain fouls need not be called because they are "trifling," while sounding wonderful, actually exacerbates the problem. The axiom, slowly learned by youth players, but well understood by the pros, is "give me an inch and I'll take a mile." Pro soccer is built on that and the laudable concept of not calling "trifling" fouls promotes it. The job of referees at the pro level seems to be to just not let the game get out of hand and to decide which laws to enforce. No wonder fans get outraged. How are they supposed to know what's going on when referees invoke the unwritten discretion to decide what rules to apply and when? And, of course, this flies in the face of the constantly rehashed dictum that referees cannot know and should not care about the intent behind a foul. Not mind readers. Just make the decision based on what is observed. Yeah, right, then decide you don't want to call it anyway because the guy already had a yellow. Beyond that, I always thought that another one of the guiding principles of the Laws of the Game was that they should be applied to young boys and girls in the same fashion that they are applied to professional men and women. That is clearly not the case.