Match 1: USA-COL - GARCIA (MEX)

One-arm advantage signal has already made an appearance. Still not sure I like it...

 

You don't have to try to keep up with world class athletes with two arms in the air.

 

Haha. I get the reason/benefit. Just looks weird. It'll probably seem normal in due time, though.

The first time he used it, he wasn't running.

 

Easy handling call.

 

Penalty looked like a good call. Hand was extended, but it wasn't intentional, so I think penalty but no yellow was the right call.

 

That seems like a nice example of "deliberate, but not intentional."

 

Yeeeeeeep. Announcers trying to find a way to make it out to be a bad call, though, haha

 

Oh, good, I can't wait to hear what Dr. Joe has to say....

 

"Clearly not deliberate handling... [stuff about unnatural playing position].. it's handling under the letter of the law."

Dr. Joe, I... uhh... what?

 

Clear PK to me, Lalas correct, Friedel out to lunch, and Joe was a bit confusing...

 

As a partisan USA fan, the only quibble I have with the referee's performance is the lack of any yellow cards for persistent infringement.

 

Was just going to say the same during the game. you'd think on the 5th foul in the same area (30 yds from goal center in attacking end) that PI would come into play.

COL stifled most of the US's attacking runs in this part of the field

 

And I am partisan as well for the US, and MB90 is one of my favorite players. He had 3 in the same spot on the other side of the field (two play-ons) alone. The ref was consistent.

 

I didn't get to see the match — How many kickoffs were played backwards instead of forwards or did no one bother to tell the players the new LOTG?

 

Yes -- I would not have minded PI yellow cards being handed out to both teams. In no way am I accusing the referee of a pro-Colombia bias. I imagine the referee chose, or was instructed, to lean towards fewer yellow cards in this tournament format.

 

As far as I recall, none. All the ones I remember were of the slight tap forward to the second player who then kicked it backwards to a midfielder.

 

I wasn't tracking who committed the fouls, so I have no idea if PI should have come into play against any particular player. (Fouls by different players in a particular area of the field is not itself basis for PI.). But I'm surprised none were considered tactical.

More than being concerned by the lack of cautions, I was distressed by the US being unable to take advantage of any of those many FK opportunities.

 

Oh yes, although that has nothing to do with the referee.

 

Ow c'mon. If everything that goes wrong for the team's when I referee is my fault, why isn't it his fault the US couldn't capitalize on their FKs? Gee whiz!

 

Disclaimer: Not a ref but a frequent lurker.

I remember a poster on here (presumably a ref and a respected poster) saying that constant fouling by the team (who rotate the players who foul) can still be PI and once the ref gets wind of it he cards the next offender. did i imagine the whole thing or is that not the case?

 

That is correct. Persistent infringement can be one player consistently fouling, but also can be one player consistently getting fouled by different members of the opposing team.

 

That's Unsporting Behaviour.

Persistent Infringement only applies to a single player fouling.

Targeting a single player? USB.

 

So help me out then- last weekend u12b developmental tourney team from NYC vs PA. NYC has a lot of Spanish kids used to a harder style of play. 1H and their team is persistently fouling as PA tries to bring the ball out of their area. 3rd foul my whistle starts getting harder. 4th foul i make presence known and give a "Settle down" to the offending player. 5th foul i issue a yellow to the miscreant. No player on PA was fouled more than twice and no player on NYC committed more than 2 fouls but it was clear that this was tactical in nature and was prt of their gameplan.
I wrote it up as PI- which i now know to be wrong but for the purposes of the report and procedure, should this be USB-Tactical foul? Thx

 

Yes. Or generic USB.

The reason it isn't PI is in the definition. A player is cautioned if guilty of persistent infringement of the Laws; if that player hasn't previously infringed, he can't have persistently infringed. But this is all referee semantics: the important part is identifying and sanctioning the disruptive behavior.