You're off topic, but you aren't going to convince me that refs can't make bad decisions that heavily influence outcomes of games, especially when the evidence is overwhelming and the flow of traffic goes east to west after the decision. If that's going to annoy you and you chose to succumb to insulting me, it's ok too. You probably missed me acknowledging that losing to Costa Rica was where Italy lost control of their own fate, but I'm not here to debate why Italy went out. I've already stated my opinions on that elsewhere. One game failure from the team, won't convince me that a wrong from a ref isn't worth criticizing though, and that is especially true when he ignored fouls that were clearly worthy of SFP infractions leading up to that. You're also not going to convince me that he was acting on a law that is "clear cut" while someone else isn't because of some cultural perspective either. That just reinforces my point that the laws are written to give the ref an opportunity to interpret it as he pleases. Lastly, you can't convince me that a ref isn't human and not subjected to cultural biases.
There are very few laws in this game that are clear cut, and SFP is not one of them. Something that happens in a youth game might be seen different than in an adult game. Something that happens in Liga MX might be different than in MLS. It seems others have explained this before, yet you still don't understand? What are you trying to accomplish on here?
Thank you. I said that in the other thread and Alberto and stj4141 called me a troll, and tried going off on an "Italy wasn't good enough" tangent to bait me as well. Actually I do. As I said, it proves my point. Rodriguez and many that support him want to believe the Red card was valid. I do not. I think his incompetence there and up to that point heavily influenced the flow of the game. It was also an inconsistent call because he ignored much more blatant earlier on.
Tagging @Horsehead and @bungadiri here, so that SuperMods are involved in the process. But this has become ridiculous and the complaints are consistent. I'm sure I'll get called worse than a dictator, but there's the yellow card--tagged to the last post, but consider it for persistent infringement after being warned earlier today (meaning: don't get me on a technicality and say nothing was objectionable about your last post). You're welcome to criticize and question referees. As @GreatGonzo said, we all do here. But you're dragging down the overall quality of the forum by harping on one single call, with no end in sight. You've come here with an axe to grind and this forum doesn't exist for you to have that outlet--there are plenty of other venues. If you want to protest, I suggest you take it up with the admins. There's no forum ban, so you certainly have the ability to publicly complain here, but I don't foresee that being the best course of action.
He put his studs into an opponents knee, two feet above where the ball sat. Regardless of what happened in other games in this tournament, your complaint is invalid. The referee can and did show a red card for this. Just because it wasn't shown red in other games, doesn't mean it wasn't correct here. Like others have said, referees are different, games are different, etc. You don't agree, we get it. Most people don't agree with referees on controversial calls, and we're used to it. Continually posting about this other game in a different thread won't change the call. In fact, this referee will continue to be seen as Mexico's number one and might referee in Russia in 2018. He didn't make a blatant mistake like the AR sent home early. He made a judgment call, which by the letter of the law, we as referees can do.
"put" implies intent. I got into trouble saying that word too. Beckerman didn't "put" studs into a knee (limb or otherwise), or was it just a scrape now suggesting degree's of contact that might fall under the careless or reckless distinction? So you're implying it was not correct in other games, and I've said similarly making me unpopular and subjected to hostility for maintaining my opinion. Essentially this lack of consistency not only proves incompetency but confirms that the refs are allowed to apply their own beliefs to the rules as they are written which further does nothing more than confirm that none of those rules are not clear cut like some of the others have tried to argue.
Great because before you called me a troll for doing so. I'm glad you've taken a different tact for the time being. If it was or is a boring point of discussion then why are people continuing to respond? It's because they too are also interested in continuing to debate this call? How am I being singled out if not just to try and silence me again? I get a yellow card for persistency? Was I debating with myself?
I don't recall saying another call was incorrect, so maybe that's why when you're saying it, it is unpopular. I haven't seen any call in this entire tournament (and I've watched every game) in which the referee was 100% completely wrong by the letter of the law, and that was the offside call in Mexico's game in which the corner came off a defender to a player in the offside position. One call, out of 100s. There is tons of leeway for referees to use their personality and understand the temperature of a game when making certain calls. This was one of those times, as was the KB non call. Neither are incorrect, both are correct because that's what the person in charge decided. "In the opinion of the referee" is a very common quote you would see reading up on the LOTG
So basically whatever the ref decides is the right call, and there is no questioning it? Well that confirms it.
It's his opinion, not yours. Question it all you want, but calling him incompetent for a judgment call just proves how little you know about the job. A referee giving a penalty kick for the keeper handling in his area is incompetent. A referee giving an indirect kick for a trip is incompetent. These examples go against the LOTG and are not defensible. Giving someone a red card for studs to the knee is defensible. Giving someone a yellow card for studs to the knee is defensible, depending on what the referee's angle was, what he saw, the temperature of the game, etc.
By the nature of this post, it looks like the IGNORE function is working just fine, thank you. Alas for innovation on BSF!
He held that position for a while. Let him live in a fantasy world where refs are incompetent and biased, he'll be at peace.
Wait wait wait...now you're saying the Marchisio FOUL wasn't obvious? That is incidental? Am I reading your post correctly?
Brining it back to this game specifically...any one have a replay of the Beckerman yellow? Would like to see it again.
Univision has lots of highlights of the match, Beckerman yellow minute 62 video on the Lo Mejor tab. http://deportesenvivo.univision.com/game/alemania-at-usa-on-20140626?mc=1
We are extremely lucky that Irmatov decided to have a ridiculously high threshold for misconduct. It is however, a massive failure in the performance of his duties as a referee. Thankfully, no one came out of the match injured from either team, but he certainly allowed some horrible tackles. It resembled a match from the 1970's. Several others have also pointed out that his application of advantage was inconsistent with the intent of it's use. He stopped a good attack in the first half by blowing the foul and cautioning the German player even though the ball rolled to a US attacker down the wing. He could have come back to caution prior to the next restart. Similarly, before Beckerman's caution, he played advantage on a foul I believe against Jones, and failed to blow the play dead when advantage did not materialize. It was amateurish.
Foul was against Beasley. The video NW Referee linked was excellent at showing how upset at least 3 of the US players were, with Jones even doing the "you suck" wave at the ref. They are exactly correct there - advantage didn't materialize, bring it back and caution the German. Instead he gives a caution to Beckerman (Beckerman earned it, but Irmatov was responsible). I see two differences in these two tackles. Marchisio definitely hits knee with studs. Beckerman hits Schweinsteiger's shin (not his knee) with maybe the studs, but I think more likely the outside of the boot. It wasn't a stomp to the knee like Marchisio's, IMO. I'm NOT saying it's not worth a red, I'm simply saying the ref may have seen this as a different type of tackle and, therefore, it didn't rise to a red. The second reason it's different is because, as I said before, the referee may have realized he was responsible for this challenge, blew the call on the advantage, and didn't want to further disadvantage the US by sending a player off. Had he done that I would have personally written Busacca and ask that Irmatov be sent his plane ticket. What you need to understand, Calcio, is that in any sport there is room for subjectivity. In American football you could call holding on every play, but they don't. Pass Interference is largely a judgment call, and one ref calls it one way and another might call it differently. That doesn't mean we don't strive for consistency, but it does mean we're human. You can't look at two tackles in their individual vacuums either. Marchisio's tackle was in a MUCH higher intensity match that had pretty much reached a boiling point. Beckerman's was in a relatively calm match that had much less on the line (I know it determined who advanced, but it was not do or die like Uru-Ita). Not every game is the same, not every 5 minutes in one particular game is the same. My guess is that Rodriguez refereed in the manner he thought appropriate for that game, maybe even that time in that game. Irmatov refereed in the manner he thought was appropriate for this game, and maybe that specific moment of this game. What did these games need? That's the question they answered with those cards.
Thanks for posting this. I'm amazed again as I watch this clip. I was too busy yelling at a couple referee buddies of mine (one did some MLS games a few years ago) that this was a horrible application of offside, that I missed the Beckerman tackle. I hate to beat a dead horse (who am I kidding, that's what these forums are for, right) but this advantage call is truly horrific. Beasley gets chopped down, 100% tactical foul, ref plays advantage. Ok, I can see it, maybe the US will break. Jones picks up the ball and immediately hits a ball in the direction of Dempsey, but so clearly off target. Instead of coming back and issuing a caution to the German he plays on! Dempsey, Bradley, Jones (and 20,000 referee helpers in the stands) all start yelling at him and pointing back to the original foul. We all know what happens next. This is where the three of them should have sprinted over to him and said "this one's on you, call the first one and this wouldn't happen". I hate the crowding of referees in Spain, but he needed to be told he screwed this one up.
No one has tried to convince you of those things. Referees can make bad decisions that heavily influence outcomes of games. Referees are subject to cultural bias - the things that rile up players in some leagues are acceptable in others, and that can be seen in international competitions. Referees make mistakes. Referees are human. I would like to think that everyone here would admit to those things. That said, players can be guilty of the same thing. Marchisio made a very bad decision that heavily influenced the outcome of the game. From your previous post: Or the challenges are different. Or the viewing angle was different. I think that if you show Marchisio's tackle to 100 referees around the world, 99 would call it a red card, and the 1 who didn't would be wrong. It really is that clear-cut, and that's why you're getting hostility when you argue it. If you show Beckerman's tackle to 100 referees, I don't know if you get close to that number. I think this is especially the case if you show Beckerman's tackle to referees from the angle that Irmatov has. But maybe I'm wrong, I really don't know. Beckerman's studs don't go directly into Schweinsteiger's leg like Marchisio's do. Maybe other posters here disagree with that, given that a lot of them here do think that Beckerman could and should have seen red for it. Personally, I'm okay with yellow, but I'm also a US fan and know I'm biased. And frankly, I think the issue with "incompetence" is that you suggest that they are unable to perform their entire job successfully due to one possible mistake - if they made an error, they're incompetent. If that's the case, Marchisio is incompetent at tackling. Akinfeev is an incompetent goalkeeper. Every software developer ever is incompetent at their job. That's a ridiculous stance to take. Call it whatever you want - Marchisio's studs were perpendicular to the Uruguayan's shin / knee area and made direct contact. Given the benefit of slow-motion replay, we can see that Beckerman's studs did not do the same. They are not the same tackle. Also, studs + contact CAN be SFP. Most of the time it is, given the speed and tenacity that go into the tackles. That doesn't mean that studs + contact is ALWAYS SFP. And I would disagree with those posters as well. Based on what I've seen, players in MLS expect the game to be called differently than games played in Liga MX. Players in the EPL expect a lot more leniency on physical play than elsewhere in Europe. There is subjectivity in determining whether something is careless (just a foul), reckless (yellow card), or excessive (red card). If you spend any significant amount of time in the normal Referee forum, you'll see that the referees there debate tackles frequently and there are differences in opinion on how they should be punished. You will also frequently see people describe tackles as "orange" - ie, in between a yellow and a red, where either could be given and be defensible. There are even cases where referees (not fans coming in asking questions, but between the referees!) disagree on whether or not something is even a foul. Look at the Diego Costa penalty kick, or the penalty kick given to Sunderland against Chelsea where Jozy Altidore stepped on a sliding Azpilicueta. Some people call those 100% fouls. Others don't. And this is with replay! Refereeing is subjective. It can also be really hard. No matter what is done to try to make refereeing standard across the board, at the end of the day, referees are human and what one referee decides might not match what another referee decides. They are judgement calls, and not everyone is going to judge things the same way. And that's another reason why "incompetence" is such a combative term - you're suggesting that if a referee makes a subjective decision that you disagree with, it must be because they are bad at their job or biased, when there is the much more likely possibility that they just didn't see it the same way you did. I also notice you didn't actually respond to my bit about a critical factor in Irmatov's call, which is his viewing angle. And if there's one thing that I really hope you can take away from all of this nasty discussion, it's that referees can only make decisions based on what they see. Not on what you see in slow motion replays from multiple angles, but what they see once from their particular vantage point. That notion of basing your analysis on what the referee likely saw, not what you saw, completely changed how I viewed refereeing decisions. I highly suggest you try to do the same. Look, I don't know what you're looking for in these threads. Do you want confirmation of your opinion that the Marchisio red card was wrong? You're not going to get that. Do you want confirmation of your opinion that Rodriguez did a poor job? You might get that from some posters, but arguments from others. Do you want confirmation that Irmatov made an error by not red carding Beckerman? Again, you might get that from some but not others. Do you want confirmation that Irmatov is not up to the standard of other FIFA refs? Okay, you'll probably get that. What's clear to me is that you don't actually want an explanation for any of these things - you just know that you're right and anyone who disagrees must be wrong, incompetent, or biased. That's not the point of this forum.
The question is whether the original foul was a cautionable offense or not. If it was and he properly applied the advantage (I don't see why not, Jones has the ball, un-pressured if recollection serves me right) then Irmatov could further muck up the situation by stopping play (after signaling the advantage) after Jones makes a horrible pass in Dempsey's direction. Coming back and issuing a caution to the German player at the time he issues Beckerman his caution (the next stoppage of play) would have been appropriate. I see a very orange situation on Beckerman challenge. He was lucky. Regardless Irmatov was inconsistent in his application of the laws and in managing the game. Too bad we'll see him a few more times in this tournament.
Well...I can sympathize with Calcio Paulie's stand. I just read an article by Brad Dickson of the Omaha World Herald. After an Oregon HS won a 3 game baseball series by a combined sore of 127-1: "In a sign of the times the losing coach blamed all three losses on bad calls by the umpires."
That Lo Mejor tab is MONEY!!! Muchas gracias, NW! Or, as Steve Martin would say, "Mucho dinero." For those who haven't seen it, it's a pretty fine-grained list of in-game activity & related video clips. Worth checking out.