Match 20: BRA-PER - CUNHA (URU)

Discussion in 'Copa América 2016 - Refereeing' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 12, 2016.

  1. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    i was watching the english feed so i did not know the other feed showed replays. on that i stand corrected.
    as for 'logic,' however, there isn't much on the side of denying any possibility of the ref hoping a replay could help him. 'logic' is hard put to explain the delay as caused merely by having to hear what the 4th official had to say. and there's nothing illogical about a ref in trouble hoping a voice in his ear would tell him based on replays. the chain of communication could be any you like. a tournament official upstairs directly to the ref, or to the sideline official, or the sideline official close enough to a monitor, whatever. obviously that didn't happen, because they still got the call wrong. and the ref once he could wait no longer, reasserted his call and moved on, which i think in the end he did properly.
    but it's odd to say the least that the 4th official would take that long to tell the ref he hadn't seen hand ball, and really that's the only other headset conversation that would have been needed. it's odd the ref would prolong the mayhem for so long once he had that simple information. in other words, the whole thing is odd. and since no one seems impressed with the ref's performance in the first place, i don't see why he/she would be so adamant the poor guy wasn't hoping for some help even from replay.
    we'll never know. but there's plenty here for doubt. and if someone didn't see the game, well, that doesn't put them in any very good position to have a sense of what went on.
     
  2. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    He could have talked to AR2 to see if he saw anything from his angle (as far away as it was)

    He could have been getting word from the 4th official that he needed to tell the bench something to calm them down

    He couldn't have been asking "are you really sure you didn't see anything?" to any of the other members of the team

    He could have been asking them where they wanted to get dinner after the game

    All of those are a lot more likely than your scenario.
     
  3. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Jun 28, 2007
    Candlesticks always make a nice gift.
    I'm with TyffaneeSue. I think they all believe handling is the correct call, and reluctantly decide goal is the proper one.
     
    Ismitje repped this.
  4. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    #54 holiday, Jun 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
    just to clear up, if you say this you missed my point. it isn't that they used replay. obviously they didn't. it's that the ref was waiting much longer than talking to the 4th official to ask whether he had seen a foul would justify. it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that he was hoping someone would tell him what happened also based on some replay. he was waiting for 'fresh information.' and he waited and waited. and it never came, so he made his final call.
     
  5. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    thanks for pointing me to this thread.
    as for what's more likely, i disagree. your options are no more convincing than what i suggested. he waited an eternity. which is the last thing he ought to want to do, unless with some ulterior reason.
     
  6. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    to me this makes little sense. the correct call is the proper call. logically.
     
  7. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Jun 28, 2007
    #57 Iforgotwhat8wasfor, Jun 14, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
    It's the difference between ethics and morals...
    I take it you have never officiated?

    (Anyway, you have earlier agreed that the CR made the proper decision, so you need to have a conversation with yourself.;))

    And let me add one more thing. Of course, it would be better if the crew arrived at their decision more quickly but according to the NYT it took 4 minutes, while in the Chile-Bolivia match, if ESPN FC has got it correct, it took 10 minutes between the handlng call and the PK...(and yes I know that the crew will be criticized in either case, even with the two dissent YCs...)
     
  8. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    In other words I go back to my prior post in the other thread: "I chose to continue to believe what I think despite the preponderance of information that says otherwise".
     
  9. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    there is no preponderance of information. that's the whole point. just a weird incident with no very good explanation. again, if you saw it live it's hard not to get the impression he's waiting and waiting and waiting for something. and the fourth official didn't need all that time to 'remember' what he saw.
    i'm actually being kinder to the ref. i'm saying he had some sort of reason (possibly) for extending the wait. do i know for a fact? of course not, never said so. but the sequence of events makes it very far indeed from 'illogical' or 'impossible' that he was hoping for the sort of help i've described. that's all i've said, just a thought.
    at least read properly.
    i said that when he realized he should wait no longer for any help, he made a decision. i think he was right to wait no longer. i never said that he made the proper call although he knew the correct call was different. that's your logic, not mine.
     
  10. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    i'm afraid you have... :D
     
  11. bhooks

    bhooks Member

    Apr 14, 2015
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I am not so sure. The reason I said "As far as I am aware" is that until I saw a segment that Collina did I have only seen referees use communication systems with exactly enough for the members of the crew, with no outsiders being able to hear or communicate with the crew via the headset. The documentary showed recordings of these conversations, but again no communication.

    Yes, the refs could wait around to see what a replay on a screen shows and one of the commentators themselves hypothesized that the referee could have been talking to the 4th asking what he saw, and making sure he wasn't watching a replay. Again, that is someone else's theory, not mine.

    With replays not being officially sanctioned, I would have to imagine any referee (especially in a match this high a level) making a decision off a stadium replay, would be highly frowned upon by the assigning association. We have seen examples in the past with referees making the wrong call and losing their status, but I could not imagine the punishment that would follow for a referee using an unauthorized replay, making a decision (and ultimately getting it wrong, as seems to be the general consensus).

    So again, I have no idea who is on the mics at the higher levels, but if you asked me to place money on it I would tell you that it is the working crew and not one more.
     
    holiday repped this.
  12. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    Other than the good explanations that have been given to you in two threads that you've chosen to ignore. Instead you're suggesting the refs have added another party to their communication system, something other refs have told you doesn't happen, and they were waiting on feedback from that party in direct violation of FIFA rules. And then still getting the call wrong.

    Occam's razor here man.
     
  13. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    i was thinking the ref may have some way to off-the-field communication for security and emergencies. there's times when the ref needs guidance, such as in deciding about a match suspension, or when something in or outside the stadium threatens the continuation. i don't mean every soccer game, i mean the centenario copa.

    we've seen officials come onto the field in particular instances, like the boca-river libertadores match with the pepper spray incident, to name just one. the centenario copa is not short on technology and resources, i don't have a hard time thinking the ref could be reached by a tournament official via earpiece. or if you prefer, the 4th official could have a connection to the tournament official. the precise chain of communication isn't the point, as long as on one end is a tv monitor and at the other the referee.

    is any of that intended as a way to settle a hand ball call? no, of course not. but here's the ref at a loss what to do. the ar he runs to is as clueless as he is. then the 4th official, let's say it's him, talks to the ref (you see the ref adjusting the earpiece and concentrating to hear). then there's more delay. than the ref again gets some sort of communication, as you can see by the same signs as before. then he waits a little more. it looks like he's waiting to hear... waiting to hear... waiting to hear... what? it's not so far fetched whoever is in his ear is saying 'let's wait if we get a replay...'
    and niceties be damned, so to speak.
     
  14. bhooks

    bhooks Member

    Apr 14, 2015
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Your first point I completely agree with. It is very common for the hosting federation (be it UEFA, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, FIFA, etc.) to have a match delegate. This role is very similar to a referee liaison in smaller leagues, ensuring the officials have their needs met, and making sure the venue is fit for competition. This person would be available to the crew prior, and should be accessible by the 4th Official during the game. While I do not believe they could directly communicate to an on field official, they could speak to the 4th would could relay a message.

    As for your points for a replay, I once again strongly disagree with the possibility that the officials were waiting for a replay to confirm the call on field. Video replays have just been approved for college contests in the US (with both coaches agreeing) starting this year. Video Assistants have been in trials for a year or so, but will not be connected to the officials headsets until the 2018 World Cup at the latest (however I believe some leagues, including MLS, will conduct pre or post season tests with this system). Again I cannot speak for them, but I cannot imagine an international official trying to utilize an unsanctioned resource (be it a replay, or outside party in their ear) to determine a match critical incident.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  15. holiday

    holiday Member+

    Oct 16, 2007
    well, it happened in a wc final, apparently, not that it's an applicable precedent.
    i'm not going to insist because i don't know. i'll just try to clarify a final time.
    it's not so much the ref that holds things up so long, as whoever is talking into his earpiece. that's who might have been waiting for a replay. the referee appears merely to be waiting.
    i went back and clocked. ball into net at 74:42 game clock. referee points to center spot final time at 78:03. that's 3:21 elapsed. the fourth official is on the same sideline as the referee, i believe (all the team bench seems to be there). if he had seen hand ball, referee would have gone straight to talk to him (after being alerted in the earpiece). if the fourth official hadn't seen anything, it only would take seconds to communicate that simple fact.
    during the delay, the referee a couple of times is listening in the earpiece, most of the time he's not doing anything except, really, extending the delay. the referee himself says very little into his mike. some of it he speaks without covering his mouth, but briefly he does cover his mouth when saying something.
    this is the 'forensic circumstantial' evidence. i'll stop there.
     
  16. HoustonRef

    HoustonRef Member

    May 23, 2009
    Maybe the ref is saying "With all this crowd noise I can't hear you." And the 4th is saying the same back to him. Over and over.
     
  17. oxwof

    oxwof Member

    Sep 6, 2014
    Ohio
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    The "correct" call (i.e., the actual thing that happened), for any half-decent referee, is not necessarily the same as the "proper" one (i.e., the decision you have to make based on the information you have), because you can only call what you see. I think the most likely scenario for the delay is that the officials thought, based on the way the ball moved and the immediate and unanimous reactions of Brazil, that the ball was deliberately handled; however, none of them saw it happen and so they didn't know that it was deliberately handled. I'm sure as hell no FIFA referee, but in that spot, my conversation with my ARs and 4th would be along the lines of "oh, crap guys. It HAD to be handling, right? NONE of us saw it? Oh, man, we have to award this, don't we? Crap." Possibly repeated. That, plus trying to get the phalanx of players away, and everyone (all four participants) stating what they saw and what they thought happened and why, and getting everything ironed out so you're all on the same page...yeah, I can see a few minutes there.
     
    TyffaneeSue, socal lurker, Kempa and 2 others repped this.
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Tsk, tsk, tsk. If we use Occam's razor, we wouldn't have many good consipracy theories now, would we?

    I'll bet you also think the NBA gave the flagarant to Green on review because that's how they viewed similar plays all season, especially with a habitual violator, not because they were desperate to help Cleveland win Game 5 so there would be a Game 6. You are so naive. You probably even think we landed on the moon. :rolleyes:
     
    AremRed and JasonMa repped this.
  19. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    Tim Donaghy?

    Green should have been suspended during the Western Conference Finals...
     

Share This Page