Thursday June 9, 2016 - 10:00 (EDT) - Pasadena Referee: Wilton Sampaio Assistant Referee 1: Gustavo Rossi (ARG) Assistant Referee 2: Alexander Leon (COL) Fourth Official: Ricardo Montero (CRC) This thread is for all pre-match, play-by-play and post-match discussion and analysis of the refereeing team. Per the forum guidelines (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/welcome-forum-guidelines.2032251/), this thread will be heavily moderated. For more general or partisan discussions of the match, please go to the general Group thread or the individual team forums.
I find it interesting that the only two all-CONCACAF matches had CONMEBOL referees. But I find it more interesting that this is a crew of reserves, so three different nations, which means it is almost a certainty they have never worked together before. Could be something to keep an eye on.
In international competitions where you're likely to have, like here, a referee crew from different countries, what are the linguistic expectations for the crew? Are all high-level referees expected to speak a particular common language so they can communicate with each other no matter what countries they're from? I mean, in Copa America it may not be too big a deal, but at Euro I can imagine a 3- or 4-language crew finding themselves working together.
Well that's one of the reasons I pointed this out. You're not likely to have this sort of a multinational crew at international competitions anymore. In the old days, at the FIFA-level, you would. But ever since the aftermath of WC2002, we live in a world where there are pre-set trios that are usually from the same country. Even if not, like with Geiger's crew having a Canadian included, it's a trio that works together regularly and knows the same language(s). I expect the biggest issue on this match not to be the language issue, but for it to be the comfort/familiarity issue. I don't like doing what I would consider a high-level match for me with two ARs who I don't know and blindly trust. I can't imagine working with the same ARs all the time and then being tossed into a Copa America match with two people I've never worked with. Yes. Theoretically all FIFAs at a tournament like this are supposed to have a working understanding of English and there is actually an English language test for World Cup and similar FIFA appointments (though the test, I've heard, is not as tough as you might imagine). English is the preferred method of communication but in a case like Copa America where another language is so dominant, that's far more theoretical than practical. But it won't happen at Euro, barring some crazy circumstance. The trios sent to Euro are set. There will be no mixing and matching of crews. Furthermore, the UEFA referees' mastery of English is, on the whole, far more advanced than that of those from CONMEBOL (simply for practical reasons--UEFA referees actually need it; for the most part, CONMEBOL referees don't), so communicating in English when necessary for UEFA referees is easy. What makes this appointment so notable is that all three on-field officials for this match were sent to Copa America as "reserves" only. They were just supposed to be fourth officials and reserve assistant officials. For whatever reason, they've been thrown together and put on this match.
I assume this is not the PK claim since, you know, it's out of the PA, but that's a good find. It is a foul by Watson in a vacuum, but that looks way worse than what it is because Jimenez jumps and the contact spins him around. Does he jump to help avoid some contact from Watson? Absolutely. But if you're already airborne like he is, then any contact on your feet/legs is going to spin you. The signboard contact and the speed at which both players are running are also factors that make this look worse than it is. From the .gif, it can look like Watson either wins the ball himself or they make joint contact with the ball. I really have no other point other than to point out that while someone that's not a referee would use the word "destroyed" to explain this play, I might have a simple DFK, based on the situation. It's an example of how referees tend to look for the nuances and the characteristics of a tackle, while the average person looks at it and sees Watson barreling over Jimenez. The same thing happens in reverse when we send a player off for contact that we saw, yet it doesn't appear that bad to other observers who aren't watching for key contact areas like we are.
Are you talking about the decision toward the end of the first half? I was in a restaurant watching without volume, so had no idea how "controversial" the commentators made it out to be. To me, it is a clear dive and one of the most cynical sorts of simulation, precisely because it was done so well. The attacker played the ball by the defender, saw the tackle coming, and started dragging his foot and going down so as to ensure there was contact, even though the defender was pulling up to ensure there would be no contact. There's no way that was a penalty for me. It was a dive. I wish it would have been booked but most FIFA referees avoid booking for "simulation" when there actually has been some sort of contact. I dislike that philosophy precisely because it means the best sort of simulation--the time where the attacker goes out of his way to make sure there is contact with the defender--goes unpunished. But the bottom line is it would have been a travesty in my eyes if this was given as a PK. Of course, we could be talking about two different plays, since I couldn't pay attention to the entire match...