2nd half added time and I think we have a talking point... Ball heads deep to the left side of the field in the attacking half of the Dutch. It almost goes over the goal line but the Dutch player appears to keep it in. Kolodin, the Russian player, then goes into a pretty dangerous tackle, showing his boot, but making minimal contact. Michel comes over and shows the yellow. Prepares to show the red card as it is Kolodin's second yellow. Before he gets it out of his pocket, he turns to his AR. He runs over to his AR, confers briefly, then waves off the yellow card and awards a goal kick. The first question is whether or not the ball actually went out (initial replays don't seem to show it did). The next question is whether or not there was a flag when the decision should have been made. If there was, this is all Michel's fault for not catching it. If there wasn't, why wasn't there? Replays weren't wide enough to show the AR. Finally, of course, there's the fact that if the nature of the tackle deserved a yellow card, then it doesn't matter if the ball went out of bounds, right? I mean, yes, "justice" is probably done here but if this was worth a yellow while the ball was in play, then surely it's worth a yellow if the ball is out of play, no?
The wide angle shot showed the ARs flag up before the challenge. Also, I think it was correct by the laws to rescind the yellow since a foul cannot occur with ball out of play.
You are correct. So the first point here is that the whistle should have gone a bit quicker. Possibly in some situations, but I don't think so in this case. If the caution were for a tactical foul, sure--you can't have a tactical foul if the ball is technically out of play. But for a reckless foul? This is a grey area, I think. You wouldn't rescind a red card for an elbow in this situation, so why reverse a yellow card for a dangerous tackle? Split the difference--what if a tackle had come in that Michel had deemed SFP? Would you reverse that? I think this is very dicey. It's like the situation where there's what would otherwise be a DOGSO but the player is actually offside. You can't give a red because there was no goal-scoring opportunity. BUT, if the nature of the foul was SFP, you still show the red. In the end, justice was probably done because no one, save Dutch partisans, wanted to see the red card there. But I think we have a case of two wrongs (ball never went out, card probably shouldn't have been rescinded technically) making a right.
Technically the ball was out because the ref said it was. Anyway, I can't remember where I read it (maybe asktheref?), but I don't think a foul can occur when the ball out of play, so you can't commit a reckless foul with the ball out of play. Maybe I'm way wrong on that though.
Fair enough on that count. So Kolodin committed a dangerous tackle while the ball was out of play. What's the justification for rescinding the caution? There are a lot of intricacies to this decision. Since the flag went up, and he had to give a goal kick, if he had not rescinded the red, he would have had a lot of angry Russians. Thinking about this more, the biggest mistake Michel made was showing the yellow without looking at his AR. And, that might have been the AR's mistake (he's got a beeper AND mic, why not use them?). Other than that, recognizing that he's the best in the world, I would imagine Michel weighed all these things in the mind and, for the game, made the right decision in spectacular speed. But, technically speaking, once the yellow was shown, I don't think he had sufficient reason within the Laws to rescind it.
Lubos Michel was absolutely dreadful today and that call really sealed it. The AR was not in position to have judged if the ball went over the goal line. When Snieder was clearing the ball he was running to the corner arc. He signaled the ball over the goal line after Sneider had cleared the ball up field. That screams that it was a judgment decision made by the AR. Now here's the real kicker go and look at the contact by Kolodin. In real time it's a violent challenge in slow motion he barely makes contact with the Dutch player. Lubos Michel's foul recognition was very inconsistent. I think the Dutch have a bone to pick. Almost every foul call went as a no call against the Dutch. I saw a lot of Dutch players going down from contact and he did not call anything particularly through most of regulation play.
Well, isn't getting the call right paramount? It would seem to me that he was too quick to pull the card and did not look back at his AR to see the flag up. But since play has not restarted and acting on advice from his AR he can rescind the cards, he just looks foolish doing so.
Since there was basically no contact made, the ARs bad call ended up bailing him out of giving a send off that would have just been wrong. And I say that as some one who was rooting for the Dutch. I think whether he is "best in the world" is a very debatable point. Frankly I have never been particularly impressed with Michel. I would be very surprised if he got the final. And if he isn't even assigned to the final in this regional competition I don't know how you argue he is the best in the world. But I suppose that is a debate for another thread or another day.
Was the ball out of play? It was not shown to the viewers! The referee and the AR have communications devices; why then was a decision not communicated earlier. If the ball was out of play and the tackle has occurred, this still warrants a yellow card for unsporting behavior if nothing else. Rescinding this yellow card appears to have been a demonstration of realizing it was a second yellow which required expulsion. Did the referee in this case decide the outcome of the game? Was the fact that the second yellow card had been shown mean, by extension, that the player automatically receives a red card (whether shown or not)? Was a technical error made on behalf of the referee?
That is precisely the justification. He was going to give UB for a careless foul. But as there was no foul, he can't with the Laws give that. So what caution would you have him give instead? Dissent, PI, FRD, DR, Entering or Leaving. None of them fit. The reason within the Laws is that he acted on the advice of his assistant regarding facts of play that he had not seen. And as play had not restarted, he could rescind the caution. That was my first thought when I saw it too.
There was no conclusive TV angle to judge it the ball went over the goal line or not. The Dutch player is clearly off the field when he kicks the ball, but you cannot judge the position of the ball. I think Michel could have affected the outcome of the match if the ball was never judged out and he showed Kolodin his second yellow card and sent him off. It would have been a bad call given the minor amount of contact. I really want to review the contact again, but my DVR stopped recording at 5:00pm. Also, I refuse to view a link to a Youtube crap video. It needs to be viewed in a high quality 480i standard resolution or in 1080i or 720p high definition.
Does anyone on BigSoccer have the slightest understanding of the rules of soccer??? The referee can decide anything he wants up until the restart of play, and can nullify a restart if he realizes it is in error. A reckless tackle during play is unsporting behavior. A reckless tackle when the ball is dead is unsporting behavior. Unsporting behavior can be cautioned. Jeesh.
So can the referee deem a play unsporting behaviour if the ball is in play but not unsporting behaviour if the ball went out of play? And can the referee retract a yellow card?
There was no foul. Replay from another angle clearly showed what the ref did not see. He conferred with the AR to make sure. Really not much to discuss.
No he didn't. He checked to see if the ball went out of bounds. He took away the card because you can't foul someone when the ball is out of play. Thats why play restarted with a Russian goal kick and not a Dutch FK.
Ok. I understand this is going to be the sentiment of almost anyone watching. I sort of feel this way as well (though some, including Alberto, are talking about the lack of contact by Kolodin--I thought we were supposed to be judging the nature of challenges; an argument can certainly be made that the tackle was reckless). Regardless of all this, I'm trying to look at this from a technical standpoint as in what's right within the Laws. This isn't as cut and dry as some are making it out to be. People are rightly pointing out that Law V allows the referee to change his decision on the advice of the AR. But the advice of the AR had to do with the ball being out of play first. So, since play hasn't restarted, Michel correctly awarded a goal kick (leaving aside the debate about whether the ball actually went out). But the caution (and consequent send off) is a different story. The AR didn't give him any advice about that play. Michel saw what he saw and, with the ball in play, he deemed it a reckless tackle and gave a yellow card for unsporting behavior. The question then becomes, is it right to rescind that card? Nothing about the nature of the challenge changed from talking to the AR (try to leave aside arguments about this not being caution-worthy to begin with--let's use this as an actual referee learning experience and not a debate about the match). If it's unsporting behavior when the ball is in play, surely it still is when the ball is out of play. Well, I don't think he will get the Final now. But that's sort of irrelevant. Collina never got the Final of a EURO, yet he got to work a World Cup Final. Michel is definitely considered one of the top 3 referees in Europe and that puts him on any list for best in the world. But yes, I should have said "one of the..."
This isn't correct at all. We give cautions for UB all the time when the ball is dead (most dead-ball pushing/shoving that doesn't rise to the level of violent conduct falls into this category). Also, you don't give cautions for "careless" fouls. You give them for "reckless" ones.
Just one more thing about this affair. The AR is on the opposite side of the field from where the contact took place. He is 60 to 65 yards away from the action and he is able to give reliable advice to the referee on the matter of the foul or non-foul? Truly amazing, he must have the eyes of an eagle. 1. He clearly makes an assumption on whether the ball was in play or not. He was not at the corner flag while the ball was on the goal line. He was at least a yard away perhaps more. 2. He gives advice from that extreme distance on whether there was contact? To allow Michel to rescind the caution? Both decisions are extremely suspect. I can't buy either decision at all. When in doubt keep the flag down. This is very troubling to me. Questions I have. 1. Why didn't Michel observe proper mechanics and look back to his AR to see if his AR raised his flag while the ball was on the goal line or immediately thereafter? 2. What happened with the communication device? Did it not work? Is that why he ran over to the AR? 3. Why so quick to issue the caution? 4. Did the AR advise on the foul or non-foul from that distance? 5. Why show the card and then rescind it? 6. Did he rescind the caution on advise from the AR, or because he saw the player already had a caution? It would drive my crazy to think he rescinded the caution on seeing the player already had a caution. That would be a completely bush league decision.
Just an observation- There is no TV footage that I saw that shows the exact position of the AR on the far side as Kolodov was trying to prevent a corner on the play we are discussing. As others have posted, this would have been an extremely difficult call to make even if he was properly positioned on the end line hugging the corner flag.
I see your point also made by others here. I was trying to lay out the law-based line of thinking that could justify rescinding the card. Phweet! Careless typo. I just realized that myself rereading the thread and went back to edit post but too late. Makes it hard to make a credible argument based on the laws when you don't even quote the laws properly yourself. <sigh>
My take: 1: The ball never went out, but it is the type of ball that could easily be miscontrued as having gone out. It very nearly did go out. Exactly how close to going out isn't clear. 2: The AR could have judged that the ball went out, but (cynically) may have used this as an excuse to bail out his referee. 3: Michel almost surely believed that Kolodin made contact with Sneijder with his attempt to kick the ball, which had bounced a bit so Sneijder's kick attempt was a bit well off the ground and, from Michel's angle, appeared to be a dangerous challenge to Sneijder. Kolodin did not actually make any contact with Sneijder with his attempted kick, and from the AR's angle it did not appear dangerous at all. 4: Sneijder's follow through from his kick on the ball carried him into Kolodin. Technically, this is a trip by Kolodin, but is certainly not a cautionable foul, and is rarely even called as a careless foul. It is usually deemed as incidental contact. 5: The AR had a good view of the play, and may have concluded that a gross injustice had been done to Kolodin. The fourth official also commented on the proceedings via his radio. While the AR surely told Michel that the ball had gone out, which was his responsibility to determine, he may have commented on the nature of Kolodin's foul as well. I don't fully understand how the radio communication systems are intended to work. 6: After the caution was given, we are shown a close up of Kolodin, but we get a brief shot of Michel reaching to his right breast pocket to presumably show the red. There is then a loud cheer, and Kolodin turns away. Almost assuredly this is because Michel has shown him the red card, which probably went immediately back into Michel's pocket. 7: Kolodin rubs his face with his shirt and then notices the AR, turns to Michel while pointing to the AR, and says something to Michel. The goalkeeper also points to the AR. 8: Michel immediately blows his whistle twice and begins running over to the AR, apparently not saying anything into his mic while he continues to hold the yellow card in his left hand. 9: He stops about 5 yards short of the AR and immediately turns around and begins to wave off his previous determinations and indicates a goal kick for Russia. Obviously we don't have and probably never will have all of the facts, but in this case justice was served in the end. I don't have an issue with the fact that a reckless foul deemed worthy of a caution for UB is no longer considered as UB once it is determined that the ball had been out of play unbeknownst to the participants. If the ball had been whistled dead, Kolodin would not have had any motivation to commit the reckless tackle. I would have an issue if it was SFP. Suppose the play occurred closer to the goal and Sneijder had intentionally knocked the ball into the goal with his hand into the net. The unsporting behavior by Sneijder certainly would not have been any less unsporting, but I would rescind a yellow card for him if it was later determined that the ball had gone out of play before he touched it. Although I'm not really sure why.
What we all are engaging in here is TRIAL BY TV. Yes, some of these comments are helpful and instructional. But let's not forget that these TV slow mo replays make it very easy for all of us to critique. Being actually out their with the whistle in your mouth or flag in your hand is the real "reality". Mistakes are made.
On the last goal, at first I thought Ashavin was in an offside position. When I watched the replay of the match and paid closer attention to the play, my suspisions were correct. He was in an offside position. So let's see who was paying attention and can explain why offside was not called.