Prove? I asked a question posted in a site where I hoped there might be expertise to properly answer it. Thank you for your response. That defines the armband quite well, but does not define "captain" except by implication that it is the player wearing the armband. However, that's not the LOTG as most of us commoners know it. Another question came up and I can't find an answer - what is the procedure under the Tournament organizing rules to handle a protest due to referee error? I will rashly assume there are such rules, but my experience is limited to organizing and participating in youth soccer rules, where the Tournament Rules are displayed on or linked from the tournament web page. Is there similar access to WWC 2019 rules?
That section clarifies the notion that captains have armbands. What's not clear to me, though, is that the captain is the one to get a card. From the LOTG: "The team captain has no special status or privileges but has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of the team." So we're parsing the definition of "degree of responsibility." Is there a clarification somewhere that specifies that the captain gets a card for a team infraction? Or would it be the coach?
FWIW it was SportingBilly who suggested the yellow. It's neither wise nor legally justified to caution the captain in that situation. So this whole deep dive into definitions is pretty useless IMO.
I agree in principle with this. But I still think carding the captain who straight out ignored her might have stopped some of the later antics
I agree in principle with this. But I still think carding the captain who straight out ignored her might have stopped some of the later antics
I think it's not a matter of the captain receiving a caution on behalf of the team. It's a matter of the referee telling the captain to re-start the play, and the captain refusing to do so. Sure, theoretically the referee could have made this instruction to anyone. But the captain is a natural choice that would be understood by anyone who is familiar with the game.
We can differ on the wisdom. But why is it not legally justified to card a player who straight out ignored her. It fits under delay. They didn’t center off until after the ref went back in and grabbed her again. The “captain” was only for identification, not a generic if you don’t know who to card, card the captain. She talked to a specific player and that player ignored her.
Yikes...this crew did a great job of getting control thisback of game, and is completely choking on the home stretch. End the game!!!
1) End the game. 2) That's a red. 3) Letting a player say **** you to an injured player on the ground. From start to finish, that might be the craziest match I've watched in a long time.
I absolutely think that’s a red card, but I don’t know what would’ve been served at that point by issuing it. This is one of those rare cases where I think looking the other way is actually the right thing to do.
Through 95 minutes, I was about to say the ref did a really good job with a incredibly crazy match. The last three minutes though...
I think there will be criticism of this crew, and some of it justified. But I do hope that due acknowledgement of how difficult this game was to manage is given. I was half-expecting a terminated match after the offside goal was called off. The match easily could have exploded, and it never quite did. It wasn't pretty, but they landed the plane, and think there is credit due for that.
Ignoring absolutely everything else, you can’t praise a crew that misses two red cards inside 12 minutes.
I'll give the ref a break on that one. She's not in position to give that. The VAR let her down there.
I know it's buried in some FIFA World Cup document somewhere. It was used during the 2006 World Cup qualifiers to replay a match in Asia.
Maybe 1, though I don't think that's so clear and obvious to completely declare it a failed game. I don't think the spit should have been a red card. She's not looking at the player when she spits. That's not a play to ruin a game over.