Analysis: FRA-RSA - Ruiz (COL)

Discussion in 'World Cup 2010: Refereeing' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I have now seen the replay during MEX-URU halftime and I will retract this.

    Sibaya was late to the ball but was in position and went straight up for the ball. Had Gourcuff not used his elbow at all, he still could have been called for charging.

    The replays did not make it clear how much Gourcuff's arm made contact with Sibaya's shoulder, but it did make it clear that the initial contact to Sibaya's face was with the elbow, and not the forearm. So this is another difference from the Dempsey case.
     
  2. refontherun

    refontherun Member+

    Jul 14, 2005
    Georgia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Intent doesn't play into it. He knew where he was going when he went in to the challenge, and he should have been aware that there was an opponent there. The SA player went nearly straight up for the ball, where the French player, as was said, came from an extreme angle at velocity. He may not have thrown the elbow, but the rest of his body provided the momentum to cause the impact to be with excessive force.
     
  3. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    There is no intent, and in my opinion and USSF parlance he used his elbow as a protective tool rather than as a weapon.

    If you don't have your arm out, and you run into a player while going a header at high speed, you are much more likely to crash your head against the opponent.

    But the item used for protection (the arm) is not a harmless tool. While hitting your opponent with your head can be dangerous, hitting your opponent with a stiff elbow can also be dangerous.

    Gourcuff has a responsibility not to hit his opponent in the head with either his own head (rarely called) or his elbow (often called).
     
  4. mkoenig_1

    mkoenig_1 New Member

    Feb 1, 2005
    Connecticut
    He can have his arms in any position he wants as long as he doesn't endanger the safety of an opponent.

    There is nothing anywhere in the LOTG, much less in Law 12, about intent. This is one of the myths of the game propagated by commentators and pundits and coaches who should know better.

    Yes. FIFA has a standard. Enforcement of that standard is largely depending on ITOOTR - "in the opinion of the referee." Unfortunately, in this tournament, the referees opinions have been widely varied when it comes to certain forms of misconduct - in particular striking above the neck and tackling from behind.
     
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You recalled what I was referring to, yet found an abbreviated version that you knew wasn't the full text and concluded "this statement says nothing." Thanks.

    I didn't miss a thing. I'm talking about elbows, which the thread is discussing right now. You're talking about tackles, which the thread is not discussing right now. And then you chastise me for "missing" something in an article that I cited.

    And when did I say it was? I said, parenthetically, "recall what the medical guy said earlier prior to the tournament." This is the medical guy. This was his statement. And it was before the tournament. As I said in my follow-up post (and you, yourself, stipulate in the post I'm quoting--"certainly apt"), even if it was pre-06, it still applies.
     
  6. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I asked you what specifically you referring to. Because the abbreviated statement I saw stated nothing, IMO. I wasn't saying that whatever it is you were referring to, be it one page or a hundred, did not apply to this case. I was only saying that the short statement I found did not seem to apply.

    My point is that the point of emphasis in THIS year's World Cup by the "medical guy" is tackles, not elbows. Elbows, as noted in the article, was the focus of the last World Cup.



    Let me highlight some of the important words for you unless you failed to notice them.

    Not once are elbows or head injuries mentioned in regards to THIS YEAR'S TOURNAMENT.

    The career-threatening fouls referred to by the title are tackles. Elbows to the face are already banned. Gourcuff was sent off for an elbow to the face. Dempsey's forearm was to the head. Both regrettable, but there are differences.
     
  7. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I can't disagree with your third paragraph, but the first two implied to me that there was some emphasis made on elbows for this tournament, that something that might not have been called over the last four years must surely be calle now, and IMO this is misleading. If Dempsey wouldn't be sent off at WC06, he shouldn't be sent off at WC10. At least on the basis of what "the medical guy" said.
     
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not going to be party to this thread going further off the rails, because there's plenty to discuss with this match and this debate should not monopolize it. I'll conclude simply with the following, which is response to the general theme you've chosen, which is encapsulated by this quote:

    Instead of flippantly retorting "so what?" I will again stress that I parenthetically referred to what the medical doctor said before the tournament about elbows. I wasn't talking about what any particular emphasis might be. You want to talk about the entire article (after you couldn't find it the first time) and chide me for "missing" or "failing to notice" something. It's rubbish. There was an elbow in this match. We were talking about elbows. Just because I reference a single quote, doesn't mean I'm "missing" the rest of the article. Similarly, just because I'm bringing up a single quote, doesn't mean that the whole article even needs to suddenly be in play. The article in question mentions an incident in the Belgian league... does that mean we both "missed" the chance to discuss the Belgian season?

    Yes, the "emphasis" of this tournament is tackles. Does me saying that make you feel better? I don't get it. In your own words you say that the quote about elbows from the medical doctor is "certainly apt." So, in my original post, I applied it. Where on earth is the problem here?

    And if you chose to answer that rhetorical question, understand that you will get no further response on this subject. The only reason I'm not completely ignoring you at this point is because I have to moderate the forum.
     
  9. LiquidYogi

    LiquidYogi Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    It was a good red card...led with the elbow...it connected with the jaw he could've broken it easily. The referee say the elbow connect with the head and he decided it was to be a red card, FIFA will no doubt thank him for calling it that way.
     
  10. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    PVancouver, it is one thing to hold a different opinion to others. It is a different thing to be the resident sea lawyer of the forum and argue the toss wherever you see a foothold. Many of the bows you draw are extremely long, and you are so vocal in espousing and arguing these positions that it gives the impression to the observer that legitimate controversy exists where there is none.

    This may wash in other forums but not here. There is no right to freedom of speech and if I feel that your posts are unduly confusing to observers or excessively derailing the thread then I will simply remove them. Persisting with tenuous arguments is a quick route to this happening.

    If you have any queries on this matter please PM me.
     
  11. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    Agreed. This is the very definition of what FIFA wants deemed a send-off.
     
  12. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    Now who has any insight into why France's coach refused to shake hands following the match? What was he upset about?

    He can't accuse them of trying run up the score. South Africa had to win by three or four in order to advance. He had to know that going in.
     
  13. rippingood

    rippingood Member

    Feb 13, 2004
    LosAngeles
    Club:
    Liverpool LFC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    The ever-reliable ESPN commentators indicated that the RSA coach had made a disparaging comment about the Henry "hand of Gaul" issue at some point in the past.
     
  14. Emmet Kipengwe

    Aug 15, 2004
    Maryland
    Please follow through with this.

    It wouldn't hurt in other forums, either.
     
  15. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Referee's Committee didn't send out word that Dempsey should have walked. Hence, this red card. Which I think was perfectly, 100% legitimate, even without Dempsey. To me, the clincher is after flying in at high speed from 10 yards away, Gourcuff finishes off the elbow by pushing off with it as the SA players falls.

    BTW, as others have noted, there is no mention of intent regarding SFP:

     
  16. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    So everyone is in agreement that the Gourcuff red implies that FIFA wanted a red for the Dempsey foul, becasue of the similarities?
     
  17. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    Not a completely new subject, as it has been touched on a bit somewhere in the WC Refereeing threads...

    At 61:30 of this match, a great example of why players go down looking for calls, especially in the penalty area. The South African attacker is steaming into the penalty area down the right channel and is being tracked by a French defender who is inside and slightly behind. The defender makes a reaching/kicking motion and catches the South African player on the left shin, not coming close to the ball. It appears to completely put the SA player off stride and he loses balance, but stays on his feet and keeps running, only to fire a very weak shot.

    It looked like a clear penalty to me, and the referee appeared to have a good angle and proximity around the top of the penalty area. It seems to me he did not call it because the player still got off a shot. But the chance to score was severely compromised by the contact from the French player.

    The announcer, Ian Darke, even said something like, 'he really hurt his chances by staying on his feet there.'

    This reluctance by referees to call fouls in the penalty area when the player stays on his feet is a major reason why players embellish the contact and go to ground...because they feel they are more likely to get the call if they go down than they are if they stay up. And they are right.
     
  18. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, Clint should have gotten a yellow. But Gourcoff took a 10 yard run into the box, which vastly increased the power behind his forearm.

    The two plays have only superficial similarities.
     
  19. dclark5ref

    dclark5ref New Member

    Jun 21, 2010
    USA
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nice observation!!!
     
  20. Elninho

    Elninho Member+

    Sacramento Republic FC
    United States
    Oct 30, 2000
    Sacramento, CA
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not really. This part is still debatable. Gourcuff was charging in at speed, leading with the elbow, into a South African player who was jumping straight up. He had very little chance of reaching the ball from where he jumped. Clear red to me. Dempsey struck with his forearm, contesting a 50-50 ball with neither player moving much. I was surprised not to see a card there, but to me it's an "orange" card foul, a yellow that might be a red in certain contexts (mainly players having disregarded cautions and warnings).
     
  21. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh my God! If that is the reason, Raymond Domenech is as clueless as his team. What's not true about it. Perhaps France's performance lends creedance to the existance of Karma. France got the result they deserved for getting in by cheating.
     
  22. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    While the discussion around here has been about the red card, what do some of you think of the first goal? The South African attacker jumped over the back of the French defender. Add to it that he hit the ball with his shoulder, two reasons the goal should have been disallowed.
     
  23. refontherun

    refontherun Member+

    Jul 14, 2005
    Georgia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I noticed the player coming over the back, but I think that was reasonable contact in this match. There had been a couple of similar calls earlier in the match, just in open field.

    The ball came off the top of his shoulder. That's legal.
     
  24. Falc

    Falc Member+

    Jul 29, 2006
    Club:
    Juventus FC
    He puts his arm over the defender and jumps over him, preventing the defender from making a play. And it went off the side of his shoulder, not the top.
     
  25. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    I noticed the 'over the back' part but not the ball going off the shoulder. I've seen fouls given against attackers for contact like that, and it could have been given in this situation. But just as often, it's NOT called. It looked to me like the defender didn't really try to make a good jump or challenge for the ball before the contact.

    There's definitely a case for a foul, but I am okay with a no-call at the professional level.
     

Share This Page