The camera work during this time stunk, as we only see the 4th official once (that I can recall). I realize the crew know that the importance of their decision, so here are my questions on arriving at the final call: 1) Assuming Cunha is speaking with the 4th, why doesn't he jog all 50 yards and speak directly with him? Would have been quicker than the 5 minutes it took. 2) Why is he allowing a horde of players on both teams around him as their discussing this? (honestly, I thought they wouldn't let it stand based the reactions of the Peru players). 3) Is it possible this took longer than usual if the OTHER AR is providing feedback that he saw a handball (as unusual as it would be for him to be involved in it, being from a distance but possibly seeing it). 4) We still don't know definitively if the AR ruled a goal or not. Is it possible he stood in place (similar to a disputed offside decision), to get the Referee to discuss the decision to get it right as he probably knew it was a handball, but not 100% certain?
Disagree. Brazil 4 likely obstructed the ARs view as he flashed across. Difficult at speed. This is when the referee crew can play detectives and piece it all together. Especially if they have doubt about the veracity of the goal. The keeper reaction should be a clue.
Brazil did nothing to win this game and we got help from ref against Ecuador so this is just Karma I was wondering if the Peru player (Ruidiaz) could get into trouble for this?
I expect the referees were dealing with cognitive dissonance in that it appeared that the goal must have come from a hand (based on angle and trajectory) but no one actually saw hand touch ball. You cannot disallow a goal based on an inference. They were reluctant to make a call that they knew was incorrect even if it was their only option given the parameters.
I don't believe in Karma. I do believe in what Former NFL head coach Bill Parcells said. "You are what you are." And Brazil are on a plane back home as a losing team.
But in baseball, we have people actually reviewing film frame by frame. That's not happening here. You just have 4 guys telling each other what they saw. The delay was unacceptable. Walk off the pitch. Tell players to stay on pitch. Card anyone who leaves pitch. Conversation gets much easier
The refereeing at this tournament has been astonishingly poor. Some of the guys look completely out of their depth. I don't know if it's confusing or contradicting instruction that has paralized some of these referees, but some of these referees lack basic misconduction selection recognition. I refuse to believe that these guys can get to this level and not know what a caution for dissent is. Some of the scenes by the players towards the referees has been really disgraceful. It's a bad a look for the sport and for officials everywhere when none of the officials has the courage to punish that kind of behavior.
I was at the game. Couldn't see anything (handling or not) from my vantage point. What was so bizarre was the CR would walk over to the AR, talk a bit, then walk back on the field like he was going to make a decision, then go back and talk some more with the AR, then talk to some one on the bench (like he was explaining the call), then back on the field, then back to the AR..... it was crazy. The way Brazil reacted (especially the GK) you knew something wasn't right. Unfortunately for us at Gillette, they did not do a replay of any kind on this play.
Its come up in another forum so I thought I'd ask here. Are the ref's mic systems connected to anyone else beside the 4 refs on the field? (Somebody is suggesting the reason the call took so long is that the CR was getting feedback from somebody outside the 4 refs. I know that doesn't happen but the poster won't believe me just saying that the ref mic system is only hooked up to the 4 refs)
On the television coverage there wasn't a replay until the CR finally made the signal that the goal was good. It made me wonder if they were trying to make sure that there wasn't an "accidental" use of video replay. My son thought that might have been what the referee crew was hoping could happen.
It was the same reaction that Peter Shilton had in Mexico on June 26, 1986. It didn't do him any good either. PH
As far as I'm aware, there has never been an instance where a person outside of the assigned referee crew has been able to communicate via the referee communication systems. I have seen videos where their conversations are recorded, but never any input for an outside agent.
since i'm the famous somebody, please tell me what makes you so sure. with all due respect, you don't sound like an insider to this particular type of situation. in a major tournament, with wireless technology, you really don't think it's possible for a ref to end up talking to the match supervisor? in case of match delay for extraneous reasons, for example? so as not to leave the ref out there naked? obviously it's not intended as a back door to use of replays, but... and if the connection is in fact possible, what's so far fetched about interpreting this long delay as the ref hoping the match official could see it on tv? big question: did you happen to notice tv did not show any replays until after the whole thing was over? why? i suggest they darn well suspected a replay could get back to the ref's ear. far fetched? not, not really, not at all!
oh, and to be clear you don't even need to bring a match supervisor into it. if there's a tv monitor on the sideline, the 4th official can sneak a look at a replay. they're waiting... waiting... waiting... for what? what's the one thing they could get by waiting that would help them? it starts with re and ends with play. mind you, it's a hypothesis. but it has a decent chance of being right, especially since nothing else really explains it. of course we'll never know for sure. i just wish tv had been showing replays while they waited...
I certainly don't have any insider information, but I'm of a mind to believe that if the folks in charge were willing to intervene on the officials' decision-making, they would have got the call (and plenty of others in the past) right. And as has been said earlier, Univision had replays on the air during the referees' conversation, so it's not like your notional press-box "match supervisor" wouldn't have had the ability to see tape at that time. No, I think the fact that they got the call wrong argues against your point.
With due equal respect, neither do you. I didn't watch the match live and don't have a strong desire to go back and watch the delay and its entirety. But three quick points in response to these most recent posts: The members of the referee team are in control of the headsets from the beginning of the match. They test them. They put them on. They set the frequency. Etc. etc. The technology obviously exists to have more than four people on the communications system (witness both the AAR system in Europe and other locations, as well as the video trials in the Netherlands and elsewhere) but it's not happening here. There is not a monitor that the fourth official has access to; also, the fourth has a lot more to do than just stand there and wait, particularly during a controversial incident like this. Finally, I think I'm very confused. Your argument--and please correct me if I'm wrong--seems to be that either an outside voice (the "match supervisor," who doesn't actually exist, but that's a different issue) intervened or the fourth used a replay to intervene. Yet, ultimately the team got the call unequivocally wrong. Why do you believe there was forbidden outside help if the decision ended up being incorrect? I, like you, don't have the answers. My best guess is that the CR (obviously) didn't see the deliberate handling himself and then two other members of the crew had a disagreement on whether there was deliberate handling. If one assistant was sure of what he saw or didn't see and the fourth was sure of what he saw or didn't see and you had protests and cajoling from 22 players plus the two technical areas during this indecision... well, that can take awhile to sort out. Usually, a crew member is "saving" the entire team by seeing something critical that no one else saw. But if a different crew member is adamant that said crew member is wrong, then you (as the referee) have a pretty big problem on your hands. And that can take awhile to sort out. Mind you, that's just a guess on my part.
Yes, a hypothesis, but with no chance of being right. As has been pointed out Spanish language TV did show replays. Since most of the people involved in this match were Spanish or Portuguese (who understand Spanish anyway) speakers, they would have been watching that coverage and therefore seen the incident clearly. If so, they would have informed the referee and the goal would be disallowed. Since this did not happen, there could not have been anyone who was looking at replays who was in contact with the referee. To prove a hypothesis correct, there needs to be evidence, and logic. In your case there is neither. I don't have direct evidence, but logic is on my side, and on the side of others who responded here who understand how the referee communication system works, no doubt from having used it themselves. PH
No I don't, they are usually all nuts, put forward by the crazy tinfoil hat brigade. Have any ever been shown to be correct? PH
This is true for many games, but not all. The contrast with the Euros, which we don't usually get to compare on a daily basis, is really stark. Coupled with the issues in the last Gold Cup that resulted in some changes in the refereeing operation in CONCACAF, unfortunately it seems that many of the issues in the instructional area are still present. Of course these games are difficult to referee due to the bad behavior and poor discipline of many of the players, but referees at this level should be able to do much better. PH