Am I just being a US homer if I think Salcedo leaving that game without a yellow was refereeing malpractice? Two bad elbows plus consistent infringement....
Goals do not figure into added time. Check out Law 7, Duration of the Match. Added time allowed for: subs, injuries, time wasting, disciplinary sanctions, significant delay of restart.
I've praised him a couple times over the past few years and he has beaten the potential alternatives most of this decade in CONCACAF, but I've never thought the old Aguilar has gone away. He has good fitness and he can manage a match much better than he could when he first appeared on scene. But he's always shied away from making big calls that could impact the match, no matter how warranted. I tend to think his ability to manage is partly due to his development but a lot to due with players just becoming accustomed to him. Regardless, I still firmly believe he's not the right pick for a big FIFA match--if he ends up on the wrong World Cup match next year, he could get exposed badly.
No, you're not. The first elbow seemed easily reckless, and needed a stern dressing down at minimum. The second one was borderline VC, a minimum yellow card and needed to be a DFK in a prime position. Instead, no call.
In theory, Aguilar has that right. But remember that everyone is being assessed, including the VAR, and the point of the system is to not miss major incidents. So if the VAR made a suggestion that the incident needed to be reviewed, I would tend to think Aguilar (or any CR) would at least follow that advice to do the review. Now, the technical aspect here is much more interesting. Because the review could only be suggested if the VAR thought there was a possibility of a red card. In this situation, Aguilar called no foul. So what happens if Aguilar goes over to the monitor, reviews the incident, determines that it's not enough for a red but it's clearly a foul and a yellow card? I honestly don't know the answer to that. Per the protocols as written, I think we just keep playing and the US doesn't get the DFK and Salcedo doesn't get cautioned. But I've heard suggestions from some involved in the training that, in certain situations, once the review process is triggered a referee can hand out misconduct as appropriate based on that review (you might remember that at Generation Adidas, yellow cards were given after a review of a mass confrontation). What's allowed and what's not allowed in situations like that need to be very clearly and publicly spelled out before next summer--and hopefully sooner. PS - the contact was well outside the penalty area
I had the same thought. I was watching the game with a pro AR, who said that was a straight red. I then posited how the ref would react if a VAR recommended a sendoff where the ref didn't have a foul at all- the answer was that the VAR should only intervene on a clear and obvious error, which of course is not defined.
Even Dr. Joe said it should be a red card, which is saying something, since he was running the referees in MLS back when red cards were a rarity! PH
This is the counterpoint to the Fischer incident, but both had the same result, no red card. Whereas it would be easy for Fischer to give the red card to a visiting player at Azteca, it is a tough sell to give a red card to a Mexican at Azteca especially early in the game. Taken together this raises the question of the instructions to the referees in these high profile matches. It seems like the players have got wise to it also. PH
In 2017, any ref that allows 2 elbows to the head without even calling a foul needs to be sit down with a suspension. It doesn't matter what minute of the game or what the man management theory is. We will not have a sport in the future (after we better understand the significance of head injuries) if we allow those types of fouls.
Agreed. But the lack of the foul call is what separates Aguilar from some others in my eyes (in a negative way). He's looking right at it and Salcedo just had a similar challenge. It would be one thing if Aguilar gives the DFK and then balks, again, at booking Salcedo (let's stipulate that Aguilar is never sending off Salcedo there, regardless of how warranted it might be). But Aguilar takes the path of even lesser resistance by just refusing to acknowledge a foul that he is starting right at. It's impossible to make a credible argument that he didn't see the foul, since he just called a less egregious version of it with a tougher angle.
there is a school of thought with some CONCACAF refs that if you are not going to send the guy, better to not whistle a foul at all. Its reverse psychology--if you call a foul, you have to deal with dissent over the color of card. But if you just waive play on, now any dissent is about a simple foul call. I think that is bogus approach, but that is my best explantion for why he didn't call it.
Because if a foul had been called, it had to be a card as well. No foul = no card. We have heard this song before. Was a foul called when Neymar suffered a broken vertebra in WC 14? I have heard this called smart refereeing by some. I have another word for it. PH
There were two significant injuries involving carting off players that used 5 minutes of time. How do you justify screwing the teams and fans out of that time? Why would you only add significant time to a second half? I'd understand your point if he added it to the second half, but he shorted that also. Teams, fans, countries, the game got screwed out of 6 -7 minutes of what was very exciting soccer.
You didn't answer the question, though. You predicted something that never happens, barring a major head injury. You were shocked by something that happens all the time. You have legitimate arguments based on the Laws. But you shouldn't have been surprised at only 2 minutes. I don't think it's written down publicly anymore, but long ago when the process of publicly displaying the added time came into effect, FIFA did publish a short-hand guide for how referees should account for lost time. It suggested 30 seconds for every substitution and 1 minute for every injury where a trainer came on the field. Obviously, those were or are guidelines. But in a 1-1 game as halftime nears, with what we saw on the field you're going to see 2 minutes added 99% of the time. There's the short-hand reason (injury = 1 minute, therefore two injuries = 2 minutes), there's the television issue (more time added, better chance you go over the windows) and there's also the second half precedent issue: if you add 6 minutes in the first half, what happens when you get two similar injuries, 6 substitutions, and blatant timewasting (if one team takes the lead) in the second half? You really going to add 11 minutes? Would you be equally shocked when that doesn't happen?
I get what you are saying here. But I remember one WC match in either 82 or 90 where there was about 10 minutes (maybe more) added at the end of one of the halves. I don't recall the match, referee was the Frenchman Vautrot. There was a little but not a lot of issue with it at the time. PH
Nonsense. I'm well aware of the practices. The practice you speak of was a general guide to how to judge added time. It was not a dictate that referees abandon common sense and reality. I specifically remember an Italian league match a couple of years ago where the CR was injured 10 minutes in. A replacement was given time to warm up. There was like 20 min of added time. Two injuries requiring 2.5 minutes stoppage each and bringing on the cart for each is time to use common sense and abandon practice. He cheated the game, the fans, the players and failed his duty. Sometimes weird things happen. When they do, you follow the laws and common sense. This referee did neither. If these two injuries had reguir end even longer, do you short the game 10 min? In the end, the laws are extremely clear that you account for added time in EACH HALF.
Actually, no. My entire post was well reasoned. You don't seem to be. You talk about a general guide and common sense and reality, as if they are not in conflict but also totally in conflict. Which is it? You seemed to have broken out your stopwatch and confirmed that each injury lost 2.5 minutes of time. Ergo, 5 minutes needed to be added (and then you get a 6th through "minor" injuries, I surmise). What if each injury took 1:31 each? You giving 2 minutes or 3? 2:16 each--4 or 5? This isn't a science. The guidelines were put in place for a reason. There's also the point that not every injury should be timed from the ball out of play until the ball back in play because, well, that often takes 15-30 seconds even without an injury. Maybe, based on reality and common sense, you could make a good case for 3 minutes in the first half. But you said 6. You stand by 6. And I'd argue you're the only person in the world who is shocked there weren't 6 minutes. Great story, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. That's your judgment. And that's what you would have done in the game. Everyone else in the world would have been a little thrown off, but it would be your right. Oh, c'mon. Really? Who is complaining? At altitude, in a 1-1 game in the first half, I guarantee not one of the 22 players on the field felt that way, but I'm sure it makes more sense for you to speak for them. Meh. Says you. I doubt it came up in the assessment. Sure. But I don't think two injuries in one half that require treatment is "weird" to the extent you add 5-6 minutes. As was the whole point of me initially engaging, 6 minutes in the first half would have been the weird part. Why should I answer any of your questions when you evade all of mine? But, to play nicely, as I stipulated with my caveat about a head injury, of course there are situations where you have to add a ton of time, even in the first half. Ambulance on the field. Concussion protocols. Broken leg. Weather stoppage. Soon you can add multiple VAR on-field-reviews. And definitely in an Italian league match when the fourth official needs 20 minutes to warm up. But two slightly longer-than-normal injury assessments does not qualify. It's never qualified. It doesn't happen. Yet you were shocked that it didn't. All caps sells it for me. Sorry, I now change my opinion.
There have been times when it's needed to happen and times where people expect it to happen. And in the EPL, we regularly see 5 in the second half, with the occasional 6. My sole point here is that the first half of the match in Azteca was not a half that screamed for 6 minutes of added time. Were you shocked with 2?
I completely agree the laws are clear here, and it isn't difficult to figure out to the second almost the exact time lost, especially with a 4th Official. However it is also very much a part of refereeing to call the game the players expect. As @MassachusettsRef says this amount of time is expected and until IFAB or FIFA or whoever is governing a particular competition clearly instructs otherwise it is expected to add 1-3 minutes max in the first half of major televised matches. Very special circumstances aside that is what is going to be added.
Not me! I was just responding to your point about when was the last time there was a lot of AT played in a match at this sort of level. I agree it is unusual. The example I cited was unusual and surprising at the time. I also agree that Aguilar was not very good in this match overall, but not adding enough time was not one his major problems and in fact pales by comparison to his other transgressions. If I had been assessing this match I don't think I would have mentioned it as contributing to his failing grade! PH
While I agree with you that it was a poor performance and that he deserved to fail, I doubt he actually did receive a failing assessment. I'm pretty sure CONCACAF are happy with his performance. It's pretty apparent that CONCACAF like the way he referees and are supportive of his style. He in, all likelihood, will get the Gold Cup Final this summer for, seemingly, the 10th time if Mexico and US play. Side note: Aguilar's refereeing is why I can never take Brian Hall seriously as an instructor/assessor when ever he is at tournaments in the US speaking or evaluating. Hard to take someone seriously who deems a guy like Aguilar a good enough international referee and gives him the best games in this region. How can you tell me that I missed a red card when you have referees doing [insert blatant missed red card by CONCACAF officials] every international match day? The reality is that his style of refereeing is what FIFA want at the International level. They don't want referees being the story of the game no matter how clear the decision is. Just look at the way Champions League and other big international games are refereed. Most referees don't referee to the extreme that Aguilar does, but it's a similar style of match management. Essentially, hear no evil and see no evil. FIFA want referees to get the fouls right and give obvious penalty kicks and throw in a yellow card every now and then to let the players know you're there. What they don't want, is referees inserting themselves into the game by giving straight red cards or giving too many cards. They believe that the players are professional and disciplined enough that they will police themselves, to an extent, and not turn "the spectacle" to a farce or a local amateur match. Every now and then you'll get a Portugal vs. Netherlands, Spain vs. Netherlands or Brazil vs. Colombia where the game desends into chaos due to weak refereeing, but it is a risk they feel is worth taking. He arguably missed a red card, a penalty kick, and should have issued about 5 or 6 more cards for persistent infringement, tactical fouls and delaying restart. Yet, no one other than us is talking about the referee.
There's a lot of truth in what you write here. I can't help to think back to one of the points I made early on in the VAR debate; that there are a lot more errors of omission than errors of commission by referees. Yet the public rarely remembers the errors of omission, but the ones done via commission are burned in the collective memory of fans. Fans seem to think VAR will rule out a ghost goal or fix the Argentina-Mexico offside but don't realize it also can and will result in red cards that, right now, very few people complain were wrongly missed after the fact. The "clear and obvious mistake" standard ironically muddles things a bit, but I would guess you're going to see VAR intervene more next summer on errors of omission than ones of commission (precisely because errors of commission need to be "clear and obvious"). And, if and when that happens, it won't be what the public expects. The question will be whether or not it's what FIFA wants. Then again, maybe none of that will happen precisely because VARs will be coached the same way. We saw two instances of clear VC misconduct not get punished at the U20s during the knockout stage. Maybe that wasn't a hiccup; maybe that was by design.