USA vs. Sierra Leone U17 & Alberto's analysis

[WHOLMAN2]

During the 2002 World Cup, Alberto provided top shelf analysis of the officiating. I would be really interested to see his remarks in this thread about the officiating during the Sierra Leone vs. USA U-17 World Cup match.

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by WHOLMAN2
During the 2002 World Cup, Alberto provided top shelf analysis of the officiating. I would be really interested to see his remarks in this thread about the officiating during the Sierra Leone vs. USA U-17 World Cup match.
I'll provide some -- there were some very befuddling calls (or mostly non-calls).

First one that absolutely amazed me that it happened at this level -- OFFSIDE called from a throw-in. Even our kids were standing there saying -- but it was a throw-in.

Beyond that there were a number of judgement calls by the referee. Our attacking players were getting taken down right and left -- particularly Adu. There could and should have been at least 2 and probably 3 penalties awarded in the last 20 minutes of the game, but he just didn't seem to have the cojones to call them -- it was tied 1-1 at that point.

Then when Adu gets taken down with yet another knee leaning in as he flies by, the referee whistles and cautions him for diving. It is a good thing that we were able to finally get that goal -- it would have been a travesty to not win that game given the number of times the guys were whacked.

[Guinho]

Hey, all,

The US U17 boards are all buzzing with calls for the refs head from this match, but I was wondering if any actual referees watched this match. What were your impressions?

Thanks!

G.

[Postmaster]

It struck me as unusual that FIFA assigned someone who has only been an international ref since last year (and turned 26 just this month) as the center in a tournament of this stature. He's about 6-7 years younger than the average of the other refs in the tournament.

Is there a minimum experience/age for referees at different levels or is it based on assessment? Does FIFA look to assign younger refs to youth tournaments? Is this all irrelevant?

Thanks for your comments/insight.


IRMATOV Ravshan
Uzbekistan

Date of birth: 9-Aug-1977
Height & weight: 183 cm, 70 kg
Place of residence: UZB - Uzbekistan
Marital status: Married
Occupation: Football school instructor
Other languages: Uzbek, English, Russian
Int'l Referee since: 2002
Hobbies: Football, tennis

Fondest memory: AFC Champions League (China)
http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/event/referees/view,2003,1056,uzb,196867.html

[ProfZodiac]

A note to all refs on this board:

For another extremely biased point-of-view on the situation in this game, read Grant Wahl's latest column.

[SoccerMan94043]

The ref allowed both sides to play fairly rough and it worked out during the first half. Players got tired in the second half and he called a similar game. Both sides are lucky no one was hurt.

The refs position looked good for most of the "questionalbe" no-calls, so I can't blame him for that. He seemed to be scared to call anything in the box; I saw three clear PKs that were not called. Adu was just too quick for the defenders and they were always a step or two behind.

The offside on the throw-in was just plain funny.

[Alberto]

Guy's I am going to merge both threads on this subject. I recorded the game for a friend and watched it live. I won't go to the level of analysis I did for the world cup and more importantly, I mailed him the tape after reading this post, but here goes.

One of the tenents of being a good referee is the ability and confidence/conviction to make game altering decisions. In this particular match we had a relatively inexperienced refereeing crew with the referee being from Uzbekistan with only limited international experience (all in Asia). It showed throughout the match. There were to my eyes four penalties in this match committed by Sierra Leone. He only called one. There were numerous instances of players specifically Freddy Adu being hammered everytime he got into the attacking third of the field. There was only one caution issued for tactical fouls and none for persistent infringement. Did Adu embelish and act theatrically on the play that led to a caution for simulation? Yes, but he was also fouled. The referee changed his mind and brought the game to disrepute by altering the restart because Adu complained. Adu was fouled and could have been cautioned for USB, but the restart should have been a direct free kick for the USA. Under the circumstances a thinking man would have noted that by allowing a lot of rough play towards the end of the first half and again in the middle stages of the second half that it was understandable why the American players argued and reacted the way they did. They felt the referee had let the game get out of control and that sierra leone was gaining an unfair advantage by his allowing the rough play to go unsanctioned.

His foul recognition was generally very good except for anything inside the penalty area. There he made a huge mistake in swallowing his whistle.

I think this match points to the difficulties FIFA has to deal with in order to be fair with both third world soccer officials (referees from Confederations outside of UEFA and CONMEBOL) and teams that demand and should receive the highest level of officiating. You cannot in my view bring a young inexperienced referee into a match with two teams with great athletic abilities and tactical sosphistication. This is and was a recipe for disaster. FIFA must decide that if it wants to cultivate young referees from third world confederations, they need to work matches at other international tournaments. They should not be experimented or to quote Jimi Hendrix "experienced" in the U17 world championships. Bring them to Toulon, the Asian Championships. Make them work world cup qualifiers. Asian Champions League is not enough and it showed.

Some other perplexing decisions include how did this referee fail to sanction the obvious penalty when the defender stuck his knee out to stop Adu. It was an incredible non-call.

As a referee you need to have the courage to make difficult and game altering decisions regardless of whether it's minute 2, 22, 72 or minute 90.

There was also a play where the keeper appeared to have stopped a shot outside the penalty area. Can someone go back and watch the replay and advise if this was indeed the case. If it is close to the line perhaps it's a caution to the keeper if it's blatant it's a send off.

The other play in question, the odd mechanics by the assistant referee on the foul throw was just that. He raised his flag but did not wiggle or twirl the flag. It was a foul throw by the US player (riased his trailing leg) and not offside. check the end of the restart. No whistle and the ball played back to Sierra Leone.

Lots of bad decisions and the lack of maturity to recognize that he let the game get away from him and reacted by cautioning players for dissent. Very bad.

[MassachusettsRef]

Without seeing the match, a question and then a point....Originally posted by Alberto
There was also a play where the keeper appeared to have stopped a shot outside the penalty area. Can someone go back and watch the replay and advise if this was indeed the case. If it is close to the line perhaps it's a caution to the keeper if it's blatant it's a send off.What does the proximity to line containing the penalty area have to do with the nature of the misconduct. Either he was inside of the area, in which case he made a legal play on the ball, or he was outside the area, in which case a DFK is awarded and he is sent off or cautioned relative to the nature of his offense (did it deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity or did it merely negate an attacking play?). I hope you're not suggesting that there is a grey area where a referee can refrain from issuing a red card just because the keeper didn't 'mean' to be outside the area.

The other play in question, the odd mechanics by the assistant referee on the foul throw was just that. He raised his flag but did not wiggle or twirl the flag. I read this quite a bit on the other thread in the USMNT forum. We must remember that the slight wave of the flag to indicate fouls and other offences is a USSF mechanic. It is being adopted more and more around the world, but it is far from a universally sanctioned mechanic, yet.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Without seeing the match, a question and then a point....What does the proximity to line containing the penalty area have to do with the nature of the misconduct. Either he was inside of the area, in which case he made a legal play on the ball, or he was outside the area, in which case a DFK is awarded and he is sent off or cautioned relative to the nature of his offense (did it deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity or did it merely negate an attacking play?). I hope you're not suggesting that there is a grey area where a referee can refrain from issuing a red card just because the keeper didn't 'mean' to be outside the area.

I read this quite a bit on the other thread in the USMNT forum. We must remember that the slight wave of the flag to indicate fouls and other offences is a USSF mechanic. It is being adopted more and more around the world, but it is far from a universally sanctioned mechanic, yet.

Please review the match before posting on something you did not see. You have a habit of doing it quite a bit. At question is whether the keeper made a deliberate play on the ball outside the penalty area. If you saw the match, the keeper was sliding out to try and make a play on the ball. His momentum pushed him over the top of the penalty area. The ball rebounded off him and the replay was inconclusive as to whether or not he played the ball with his hands. If he came out agressively and the ball on a hard shot struck his hand as he just crossed it would not be deliberate and it was the right call to allow play to continue. Given that there was a defender behind him that cleared the ball off the goal line it was not DOGSO, but if he did handle the ball deliberately outside of the PA it could have been a caution.

With regard to the offside or foul throw signal by the assistant referee. On the play in question the AR muddled the issue by waiting a very long time to raise his flag. He waited so long that it appeared to many he was flagging offside on the throw-in. The AR in question was not from UEFA and was from the AFC. I typically do not see the twirl of the flag from UEFA or CONMEBOL officials, but I have seen it from AFC and of course CONCACAF members. I do acknowledge it is not universal.

Here is the crew of officials
IRMATOV Ravshan UZB Referee
RAHMAN Mahbubur BAN Assistant Ref.
YACOB Mohamad MAS Assistant Ref.
The fourth official was from Finland.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Alberto
Please review the match before posting on something you did not see. You have a habit of doing it quite a bit... Excuse me? First of all, I led into my last post with a disclaimer stating that I didn't see the match and that I was asking you a question. I saw that as a responsible thing to do because I wanted to ask a question about your post. I could have just as easily said nothing and pretended that I saw the match from reading the other boards, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Anyway, because my cable company doesn't have Galavision I should refrain from asking you questions regarding points in your post that confuse me? If that's what you're suggesting, I disagree completely and would think that most others would as well. With the extreme variance of who gets to see what game in this country, our boards would be virtually silent--except for a select few--if there was a gag order on anyone who did not see a particular match.

Secondly, habit?! I can't even remember the last time I posted on the merits of a match I didn't see (including this one). If I ever allude to a match I don't see, it's only to add my input on something like league protocol, or particular mechanics--never my opinions on facts connected with play. If you have evidence to the contrary, then state it. Don't make broad generalizations about my posting in an insulting manner.

With that said, onto your response...
At question is whether the keeper made a deliberate play on the ball outside the penalty area. If you saw the match, the keeper was sliding out to try and make a play on the ball. His momentum pushed him over the top of the penalty area. The ball rebounded off him and the replay was inconclusive as to whether or not he played the ball with his hands. If he came out agressively and the ball on a hard shot struck his hand as he just crossed it would not be deliberate and it was the right call to allow play to continue. Given that there was a defender behind him that cleared the ball off the goal line it was not DOGSO, but if he did handle the ball deliberately outside of the PA it could have been a caution.Ok, thanks for describing the play. I asked about the play because I didn't see it. Your description of the events makes perfect sense. But, in your initial description, you stated:
If it is close to the line perhaps it's a caution to the keeper if it's blatant it's a send off.
That's the reason I posed my initial question. I was trying to imagine a circumstance where the above statement--a send off if blatant, a caution if not--is true. I couldn't think of any, so I asked because I didn't see the match, not in spite of that fact. It's not me commenting on the match, it's me asking a question about your claim that such a situation can occur (and might have in this match). I don't have to see the match to ask that question. We, as posters here, challenge each other all the time on our interpretations and applications of laws and directives. We do it in hypotheticals and we do it in reference to our own matches.

Anyway, in your inital post, you said a send off was possible. In your follow-up to my response, you said it was not, because there was no actual OGSO. If you're changing your opinion, or if you made a mistake in the first place, that's fine--the only reason I asked the question is because I couldn't think of a scenario that fit the initial post and I was curious.

Insofar as the foul throw mechanic goes, I was only making a point that the signal we use in the US is not universal. I didn't comment on the play in the match at all. It just seems to me that most people on the USMNT board had the misconception that it was a universal signal. I was only trying to clarify for others who read the board and may not know as much--not to insult your knowledge.

[diablodelsol]

Originally posted by Alberto
Yes, but he was also fouled. The referee changed his mind and brought the game to disrepute by altering the restart because Adu complained. Adu was fouled and could have been cautioned for USB, but the restart should have been a direct free kick for the USA.

Just wondering...is simulation an infraction that warrants blowing the whistle? Could the whistle have been for simulation and the restart wasn't "altered"?

[kevbrunton]

A couple questions/comments...

On the offside / foul throw -- wasn't the restart a FK? I didn't tape it, but I think I would have realized that he wasn't calling offside if the restart was a throw-in. I thought the restart was a kick. I guess there is one other possibility (and I've seen my son do this dozens of times) -- our player gave a little push to the defender as he was backing out to receive the ball. That would have been a restart of a FK. I have no idea if the restart was a DFK or IFK.

Regarding diablodelsol's comment about Freddy's card -- the whistle was late and the restart was an IFK -- so it seems to me that he was whistling specifically to caution Freddy for diving. I don't think he changed the restart -- he just blew it right from the get go (feeling like there wasn't a foul).

I do have to agree with one of Alberto's comments -- that overall foul recognition was good and his position was good too. Outside the penalty area, except for apparently missing the foul on Freddy when he got the card, he called a solid game.

He just didn't give any cards for the hard fouls and persistent fouling and he completely lacked the cojones to call a penalty late in a 1-1 game.

[Ismitje]

I think what surprised me most about the non-calls is how good the referee's position was in each case. He never appeared to be screened, never was across the field, never was on the other side of the field from the play - he was clearly visible in the replays with good angles of the foul. Odd.

I may have posted in this forum, but if so, I cannot remember. But, it is the forum I read most often because of the give-and-take nature of the analysis offered here. When one of the experts on this board posts something that isn't clear to another, a good spirited reply is most appreciated.

Thanks for the best forum on BigSoccer.com. Keep up the interchange of ideas.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Excuse me? First of all, I led into my last post with a disclaimer stating that I didn't see the match and that I was asking you a question. I saw that as a responsible thing to do because I wanted to ask a question about your post. I could have just as easily said nothing and pretended that I saw the match from reading the other boards, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Anyway, because my cable company doesn't have Galavision I should refrain from asking you questions regarding points in your post that confuse me? If that's what you're suggesting, I disagree completely and would think that most others would as well. With the extreme variance of who gets to see what game in this country, our boards would be virtually silent--except for a select few--if there was a gag order on anyone who did not see a particular match.

Secondly, habit?! I can't even remember the last time I posted on the merits of a match I didn't see (including this one). If I ever allude to a match I don't see, it's only to add my input on something like league protocol, or particular mechanics--never my opinions on facts connected with play. If you have evidence to the contrary, then state it. Don't make broad generalizations about my posting in an insulting manner.

With that said, onto your response...
Ok, thanks for describing the play. I asked about the play because I didn't see it. Your description of the events makes perfect sense. But, in your initial description, you stated:

That's the reason I posed my initial question. I was trying to imagine a circumstance where the above statement--a send off if blatant, a caution if not--is true. I couldn't think of any, so I asked because I didn't see the match, not in spite of that fact. It's not me commenting on the match, it's me asking a question about your claim that such a situation can occur (and might have in this match). I don't have to see the match to ask that question. We, as posters here, challenge each other all the time on our interpretations and applications of laws and directives. We do it in hypotheticals and we do it in reference to our own matches.

Anyway, in your inital post, you said a send off was possible. In your follow-up to my response, you said it was not, because there was no actual OGSO. If you're changing your opinion, or if you made a mistake in the first place, that's fine--the only reason I asked the question is because I couldn't think of a scenario that fit the initial post and I was curious.

Insofar as the foul throw mechanic goes, I was only making a point that the signal we use in the US is not universal. I didn't comment on the play in the match at all. It just seems to me that most people on the USMNT board had the misconception that it was a universal signal. I was only trying to clarify for others who read the board and may not know as much--not to insult your knowledge.

Clearly you have every right to have a different opinion and I welcome the free discourse of ideas. Tom and I run a loose ship given the nature of our core group of posters and I always welcome your thoughtful posts and have in many instances chimed in your defense as a fellow referee (for example the bias posts about Hugh Dallas's non-call in the USA vs. Germany match). That said, I believe in many instances you have to see it to offer an opinion. Everything else is merely speculative. We can agree to disagree.

Thinking back to the keeper handling question, while there was a defender to clear the ball off the line the ball. I am thinking about how the keeper changed to speed and trajectory of the ball. It deflected and also slowed down after striking his body. I now wonder whether without the keeper blocking or handling if the defender would have had a chance to recover and make a play to clear the ball off the goal line. I'll have to ask my friend if he received the tape tonight.

I certainly did not take your post as insult of my intelligence. Thanks Massref.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by diablodelsol
Just wondering...is simulation an infraction that warrants blowing the whistle? Could the whistle have been for simulation and the restart wasn't "altered"?

It certainly could have been, but I think the more Adu flopped and obviously voiced his displeasure over the calls the more inclined the referee was to change the call. We will probably never know. Certainly being on thin ground with this performance I doubt the referee would commit professional suicide and state he had called a foul against Sierra Leone and changed his mind because Adu pissed him off with his flopping or remarks.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Alberto
That said, I believe in many instances you have to see it to offer an opinion. Everything else is merely speculative. We can agree to disagree. Well, I guess I do disagree, which is fine. I see the point of the boards as having a place for all of us to share any and all of our opinions. I offer mine when I think it can add to the discussion and I ask questions when I see points of confusion. That's all I was trying to do here.

I certainly did not take your post as insult of my intelligence. Thanks Massref. That's good, I wasn't sure if you did or not from your response. I guess there's really no problem here. I just would have thought that if you--or anyone else for that matter--had a problem with my posts (either their frequency, their content, or their delivery) it would have been brought up awhile ago and in a less confrontational way. With that said, I don't see any harm done at all, so I'm fine with moving on. Thanks, Alberto.