2019 WWC Referee Discussion [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by lil_one, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006

    So, we will only call encroachment when the encroaching player actually becomes involved because the encroachment did not affect the play.
    However, we are going to enforce encroachment on a goalkeeper on a missed PK (as opposed to saved) even though the encroachment did NOT affect the play.

    Where’s the consistency of logic in that?
     
  2. Casper

    Casper Member+

    Mar 30, 2001
    New York
    People are likely to discuss the issue that feels most important to them at the time, and the bummer of how this played out for Nigeria and Jamaica previously is the most important issue at the time.

    But maybe the lack of discussion about other issues reflects a relatively sportsmanlike tournament from the players and a pretty good job by the refs ex-VAR?
     
    duality72 repped this.
  3. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, I suppose you could make a case that the goalkeeper getting an early start could affect the kicker while the players getting an early start into the box wouldn't? Its a stretch though.
     
    fairplayforlife repped this.
  4. Plausible stretch...common sense reasoning.
     
  5. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I keep sayin'--they hate GKs!! :cool:

    More seriously, the problem is that they took two steps on GKs without thinking how they went together. Last year or the year before they thought they would scare GKs by saying we'll give cautions if you violate and the goal doesn't score. Net effect as far as I can tell was zero, because being threatened with a caution for something refs don't call really wasn't a threat. So they decide, OK, we need to stop the GKs, so we're going to mandate precise enforcement through VR to make sure GKs don't come off. (Whether they thought through the distinction of miss versus save, who knows--even though we all know there has always been a difference in how we apply trifling on that.) And since the timing is very hard, of course we are not only getting PKs retaken (OK, fine, that can be the rule), but also unfairly tagging GKs with USB for a timing mistake.

    But no one has ever really cared about encroachment--by attackers or defenders--unless they get involved in play. So it makes sense that we aren't going to use VR on that unless they do.

    But I'm firmly in the camp of get VR out of the PK process--if an AR can't make the call, let it go. It is just a very bizarre place to artificially insert precision to a game that is supposed to have flow. PKs interrupt the flow enough--and with VR, they are interrupted more as everyone gets checked (and it seems that about half are raised by the VAR in the first place), and then we add another flow buster with the VAR checking on the GK.
     
  6. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It is even less consistent than that, as I read it. These are VAR rules for its scope of review, not on the field laws.

    It is possible that the on the field ref and ARs must still call nonkeeper encroachment the old-fashioned way, and not require involvement...

    But since she didn't quote that part of the new rules, I don't know for sure, but I'm sure someone here must.
     
  7. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I’m not sure it’s a stretch at all. Keepers are aight to come out at attackers to close down their angle and to throw them off their attack.

    When we talk about a PK and being only 12 yards from the goal line the margin to throw someone off and cut the angle is small.

    Making the case the keeper being off the line early doesn’t affect the kicker is a rather presumptuous argument.

    At this point I have no sympathy for the keepers. They were given a whole step off the line early that is now within the law. If you still can manage to do this legally, then you face the consequences.
     
  8. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The stretch is that keepers effect takers (which they do) but we're ignoring that the encroaching players could affect the keeper. Not that I expect encroaching players have much of an affect on the keeper but if we're going to claim the first it seems a stretch to overlook the second in the way they're currently doing it (yellow card for the first, no foul for the second in some cases).
     
    duality72 repped this.
  9. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #684 fairplayforlife, Jun 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
    But I think the argument that the “encroachers” affect the keeper is going to be squashed down for the same reason the player in an offside position that isn’t in possession of the ball doesn’t get factored in when the keepers say “I was distracted by the other player.”

    As fascinating as that is, only the one with the ball can score on you right now. That’s where your focus should be.

    Edit:

    PKs are by tradition and design a 1v1 event. Unless another player does something overtly distracting they are for all intents and purposes, not part of the event.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  10. TxSooner

    TxSooner Member

    Aug 12, 2011
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Certainly a feint by the kicker can greatly impact the GK ability to save the ball. Though, that part isn’t subject to review.
     
  11. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A feint or a stutter step? Big difference.
     
  12. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Kind of late but at least I was thinking about this Forum while watching the 1st half of Spain/China, refereed by Edina Alves Batista (Brazil). By most accepted standards, I'm sure Alves Batista was very competent. But by what I've learned from the Big Soccer Referee School of Dialectics (admittedly I'm a poor student), I thought it was philosophically inadequate to prevent a cynical, negative team like China from playing cynical, reckless soccer.
    Unfortunately I have no technological skills and it's very hard to obtain replays and clips of the World Cup so I understand if no one cares to review my comments but, still, here they are -

    Two plays early in the first half foreshadow potential problems in the match and two later ones confirmed the dangers and made me worry about the 2nd half, although apparently it didn't go off too badly (I haven't had a chance to watch the 2nd half yet)

    About 4:35-4:40, a Chinese defender clips a Spain attacker receiving ball in the attacking third, who's trying to spin away from her. Alves Batista appears to play the advantage; Spain keeps possession but has to play ball back towards midfield, losing any advantage.

    About 4:55, there's a clumsy challenge, not from China, but from Spain, in which a defender tries to reach from behind to deflect the ball but winds up stepping on the Chinese player's foot. I think, based on my understanding of Big Soccer Referee Dialectics (or the Big Soccer School), this would be a good time to make a clear verbal warning even if a yellow card would be too harsh.

    The later plays in first half -
    21:40 Spain #12 (Guijarro) backtracks to retrieve an aimless pass and she's tackled from behind, nearly scissored, by China #11 Shanshan Wang (the player, by the way, who injured Germany's Dzsenifer Marozsan in their 1st group match)

    31:40 Spain #9 makes a short run across the front of the area and takes a shot. A backtracking Chinese defender runs through her on her follow-through. It was after the shot, which went well over the crossbar, so no call was made, "No harm, no foul" apparently.

    At this point it's clear to me that a cynical team knows it's not going to pick up yellow cards early enough and often enough to make a difference. They're not going to get a yellow card in the 1st half except for something really bad. They're not going to have players playing with a yellow card long enough to worry about a 2nd yellow, unless there's just a few minutes to kill off the clock.

    Of course, you can't prejudge a team (in this case, China) and deem them worthy of picking up yellow cards, but what I've gained from this Forum is an attempt by some referees to manage a game in a way that's fair but which can adequately deal with cynical teams when they appear. China is such a team in this World Cup. Their player #11 Shanshan Wang broke Marozsan's toe on a play and Marozsan hasn't returned to Germany's lineup since. After the match, in which China picked up 4 yellow cards but should have had more (and perhaps red for the tackle on Marozsan), Christina Unkel talked about referees' reluctance to issue yellow cards because they could result in players being suspended during the Cup.



     
    TxSooner repped this.
  13. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    If they are going to have this stupidly strict enforcement of encroachment followed by a caution, both of the above need to be banned.
    A keeper that moves because of a feint or fake kick can't be given a caution. It is patently unfair.
     
    JasonMa, kolabear and duality72 repped this.
  14. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd


    This is actually really good and Christina Unkel is really good here and has a really good understanding of the VAR protocols.

    Now if only there were some people that foresaw some of the issues with VAR....
     
    Rufusabc repped this.
  15. balu

    balu Member

    Oct 18, 2013
    Group E

    Netherlands - Canada: FRAPPART (FRA)
    Cameroon - New Zealand: MONZUL (UKR)

    Group F

    Sweden - USA: PUSTOVOITOVA (RUS)
    Thailand - Chile: KEIGHLEY (NZL)

    Confederational neutrality broken twice more in group-winner deciding matches.
     
  16. balu

    balu Member

    Oct 18, 2013
    #691 balu, Jun 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
    Number of matches in the group stage (27 referees, 36 matches total):

    2 - Ri (PRK), Beaudoin (CAN), Borjas (HON), Venegas (MEX), Batista (BRA), Umpierrez (URU), Keighley (NZL), Frappart (FRA), Hussein (GER), Kulcsar (HUN), Monzul (UKR), Pustovoitova (RUS)

    1 - Jacewicz (AUS), Qin (CHN), Reibelt (AUS), Yamashita (JPN), Abebe (ETH), Mukansanga (RWA), Carvajal (CHI), Fortunato (ARG), Adamkova (CZE), Braz (POR), Staubli (SUI), Steinhaus (GER)

    0 - Lengwe (ZAM), Koroleva (USA)

    One of the biggest surprises for me is Staubli and Steinhaus getting only one group stage match each (even Steinhaus' compatriot Hussein got two matches.) I hope FIFA makes better use of these two top referees in the knockout stage.

    If it's not a UEFA referee for the Final (which looks likely, given that either a) it's a UEFA v non-UEFA final, and confederational neutrality is desired, or b) it's an all-UEFA final, in which case FIFA will probably want a non-UEFA involvement), the top candidates from AFC, CONCACAF, and CONMEBOL are probably Ri, Venegas, and Umpierrez. If it's a UEFA referee, it's anyone's bet.
     
  17. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well actually in a case of an actual illegal feint and a goal then only the kicker is cautioned and they lose the kick while the keepers team gets an IFK and no caution so...
     
  18. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    True,. We regularly allow a player to do something to trick or deceive another player. But now, you are punishing someone who falls for the deception with a caution. Imagine doing that during the run of play. Every time a player gets juked by some move, he gets a caution. That's what's happening here. Keeper falls for a deke, its a caution. Not only is it a caution, but the opponent gets to retake the PK.

    It is horribly unfair.
     
    tomek75 repped this.
  19. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    With Steinhaus, this has to be completely by design. My bet going into this tournament is that Steinhaus gets the semifinal on the side of the bracket that Germany is not on. Making sure she doesn't do a matchday 3 decider allows her to do a R16 match, too. Putting her on two first round matches makes things a little more difficult from both a timing perspective and is also risky if she has a controversial match with any team(s).
     
  20. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I still remember a penalty I missed in my college days where I pulled it wide after the keeper came out early and cut down the angle to the post where I was aiming. It was the only penalty I ever failed to put on frame. So I definitely understand the argument that an early departure from the keeper can put the taker off.

    But we're talking about cases where the keeper is a full step or two off and jumping as the run-up completes--not incidents where the back heel is 5cm off at the moment of impact. So while I get the philosophy behind ordering the retake on a missed penalty (rather than only saved ones), it doesn't make sense with rigid enforcement because it takes a blatant offence to actually affect the penalty-taker.
     
    JasonMa, MJ91 and socal lurker repped this.
  21. balu

    balu Member

    Oct 18, 2013
    Would the teams that get Steinhaus be happy if Germany is in the other semifinal? Not sure I'm convinced...
     
  22. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No. As @RedStar91 says, this has happened in the MLS forum. It pretty much happened last year in Russia. It's the U20 thread, too. Even a lot of the UCL matches in the knockout stages started to go like this.

    If you go back to previous WCs and previous seasons, we analyzed how the referees managed matches and how they did on major decisions. We had some very detailed threads on referees and matches and were able to discern very well how certain referees performed viz a viz other referees. Now the entire focus is on VAR decisions and its application. We don't talk much at all about player and match management. That doesn't mean that, suddenly, players are so well behaved and the refs are doing a great job to the point that there's nothing to discuss. It's just the big shiny red ball of VAR distracts from everything else.
     
    frankieboylampard and socal lurker repped this.
  23. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But that’s what I’m saying, and perhaps we are losing each other in translation. If the kicker does an illegal feint (fake kick) even if the keeper jumps early and the ball goes in, the keeper is no longer punished.

    If you are referring to a keeper coming off early as a result of a legal stutter step then I guess I kind of see your argument but most times the stutter happens well before reaching the ball so it would be horrible timing by the keeper regardless.
     
  24. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    FIFA and UEFA has seemed to dispense with this "rule." I don't think anyone would be upset to get Steinhaus, knowing her reputation.

    I suppose another option is for her to do a R16 and then get the expected France-USA quarterfinal. That would allow her to do two second round matches.

    What's the alternative? Do you think FIFA just poorly planned to use its clear #1 referee? Putting her only one group stage match has to be by design.
     
    frankieboylampard and Dom. FC repped this.
  25. balu

    balu Member

    Oct 18, 2013
    When was the last time a referee had a semifinal with his/her country in the other semifinal? Can't seem to recall it happening. UCL first leg is a different story, of course. Proenca had a EURO final after Portugal got eliminated in the semifinal, but that's not exactly the same.
     

Share This Page