Is Costa Rica just better than both the USA and Mexico this year? They seem to have that something special which gets them the result.
Let's get real... you can "show" the card in some unusual way, I suppose. But, everybody expects it to be done a certain way (and those mechanics are also outlined in the additional instructions at the back of the FIFA law book IIRC), and it almost always is, and if it's not done the right way, what does that mean when it comes to punishment?
I don't believe that is accurate. The GK is allowed to be substituted during the Kicks process. They just have to say that he strained something and is injured.
Yes, but it's not an optional step, either. How is a player to know if he's been cautioned if the card isn't displayed? You can't count on a common language, and a player could always say "I didn't hear the referee say that" or something of the kind. The card takes all doubt out, as it was intended to do.
Well, if we want to get really technical, the LOTG says a player is cautioned AND shown the yellow card. Yes, you're supposed to do both. But the LOTG make it clear that they are two different things. Not showing the card doesn't mean you didn't caution the player.
Enough with the Dutch keeper. I would have warned him and told him to back off and stay on his line or be cautioned. Pure gamesmanship.
It's definitely an intellectual discussion more than anything else, but I wonder how FIFA would react if this had unfolded differently... evidently I don't have enough to do with my spare time...
Nah - it's a no lose move for the coach. He looks brilliant if it works. If it doesn't, you can't assume the other keeper would have stopped more. But my little brain thinks there are generally better uses for one of three permitted subs.
I thought about this too. As a goalkeeper, I think it's smart. As a referee, you have to try to get him to cut out the shenanigans.
On all the replays it looked like Krul never came off of his line, probably worried that he would get called on it. Made the two easy saves that he needed to.
After 85 minutes I was all prepared to say I would eat humble pie and admit Irmatov had had a great game despite my prior doubts. After 120 mins + penalties, I maintain that how this guy is even at the World Cup, let alone on a QF is a miracle. Great first 85 as I said. Seemed consistent on the "let them tactically foul whenever/wherever they like" FIFA directive, but then having been so consistent, he then doesn't second caution Diaz for the worst of them all! Add in embarrassingly forgetting to show the yellow card when cautioning someone, giving handball when it hits a player on the back, and letting Krul touch and sledge opponents spotting the ball in a penalty shoot out, and you have a performance far below that expected from a referee officiating a World Cup quarter final. If he gets any more games it won't just be the 2022 World Cup bid that needs investigating...
This is why I don't like Irmatov. He is so clueless and naive. He really loses the plot with respect to breaches in fair play.
Did he delay the end of the 2nd OT period to allow the sub? He didnt' signal injury time (that I saw) and that ball stayed in for a while. I wonder if he and the 4th knew what was going on. The CR bench seemed pretty hacked about it too. That was a real interesting scenerio. I think this was one of Irmatov's better games. A real contrast to last night. It increased my confidence in him...that one weird no show card not withstanding. it actually looked like he got talked out of it when he realized they hit heads, I guess. That was weird, and it says a lot when one of your better games has that kind of weirdness in it.
Many years ago I heard Bob Evans say this. "If you are doing a game between two teams and do not speak their language, remember this. If you use the right tone of voice and right body language, don't worry. They heard the same thing in their own language last week. They know what you are saying."
Yes he signaled added time - there were two cautions and a GK injury. They definitely got the sub keeper in on time.
And as I've posted already, even if the extra time had expired prior to the substitution, the Netherlands still could have made the switch by citing an injury. From the FIFA LOTG: A goalkeeper who is injured while kicks are being taken from the penalty mark and is unable to continue as goalkeeper may be replaced by a named substitute provided his team has not used the maximum number of substitutes permitted under the competition rules With the exception of the foregoing case, only players who are on the field of play at the end of the match, which includes extra time where appropriate, are eligible to take kicks from the penalty mark
I'm surprised there has been ZERO discussion of CR's two penalty shouts. One in the first half when a Dutchman (the black guy who plays on the back line) held the CR player on a corner kick. I'd expect that to be a PK in MLS, but our refs are better than what we've seen at the World Cup, so.... The other was in the second half when Campbell got run into. Looked like a PK to me, but it wasn't a 100% PK, only 75%, so....
Which is also a good history lesson and game management discussion. You could be both cautioned and sent off well before cards were ever in use.
Look. If Irmatov is slated for the final, he did nothing tonight to disqualify himself. If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is.