Monday June 6, 2016 - 10:00 (EDT) - Santa Clara Referee: Daniel Fedorczuk Assistant Referee 1: Nicolas Taran Assistant Referee 2: Richard Trinidad Fourth Official: Jair Marrufo (USA) 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.
Min 19. I thought they were applying the new changes, the Argentinean player that received assistance should have stayed on the field as the Chilean player esas cautioned. Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk
Through the first 30 Fedorczuk has been great (I missed the first bit). I love that he is not biting on the flops and is not shy about showing his contempt for embelleshment.
They are, however it could have been a mental lapse or it is possible that the treatment extended past the time it took to get back in to play.
Caution for de Maria? Doesn't violate law on jersey removal/verbiage Certainly violates spirit. Thoughts?
In my opinion, not for that, he's excited and flipped his jersey up and down for a few seconds. Wasn't like he was trying to toe the line between what would and wouldn't be a caution for removal of a jersey.
Referee dealt very well with the crap between DiMaria and Nedal. Stepped quickly between them like a boxing referee and cautioned both. Good no-nonsense refereeing IMO. We need to see more of this in this tournament. PH
The question is should he have been. While he didn't remove his jersey, he was given a second shirt that had writing on it. I thought such props were cautionable
He reminded me of the mold of an old school South American referee from the late 1980s or so. No nonsense, as you said. More disciplinarian than manager, but done with such authority and disdain for perceived stupidity that it's hard for the players to tell the difference. Not personally my style, but far preferable to what we saw from Montero or Caceres, who I felt had weak on-field personalities to the point that they were almost pleading with the players. It's also the type of style that tends to work in the most heated matches in South America.
This was clearly the best game of football so far, and it was helped by the very good performance of the referee. He dealt with the bad stuff with authority but allowed the game to flow and breathe without a lot of needless interruptions. I think he had the respect of the players, or at least their apprehension. Note: I don't know why there are discussions here about Di Maria's shirt. It was not an offensive or political gesture. In the overall scheme of things this is insignificant and nobody cared. We should keep the discussions to things that really matter. PH
It may be old school, but there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes, dealing with these sorts of games, old school is the best school. As you say it does work. I am sure he can be more managerial when the game is manageable. The skill is to be flexible and know when to apply which technique. Some players will take advantage of the weaker referees. It is very like the system in wolf packs. Everyone knows who the top dogs are! PH
Where else would it be discussed? I think it's not an unreasonable question. Given that the use of "props" is supposed to be a no-no, it's a discussion worth having. I believe "nobody cared" is a good description of a lot of this stuff that gets an automatic caution...shirt removal, celebratory props, non-political slogans, etc.
give him a simple warning to not do it again, and turn the page, no one died over what he did, and the man is really only trying to make a statement over whom was one of the most important persons for him, whom passed away. This is about the same thing as the minute of silence for Ali, but only at a personal level
We don't base decisions upon whether a prop is offensive or political. That would be a nightmare for us. No one cares when someone removes their shirt, but it is almost always an automatic caution. You really aren't the arbiter of what "really matters". I'm not actually calling for a caution, but it is a legitimate point of discussion. If the next guy does it and it is offensive to someone or it is political, we get in to content based judgments that have no role in our game.
Can any of you explain why he was the referee because the other referee (sorry, can't remember name) was blocked from this tournament?
Almost always? Maybe not, but I think a vast majority of observers would agree with me on this point. I am glad to hear this at least. I don't share this opinion for this particular incident. If you are not calling for a caution, and none was given, it seems like you are just arguing for arguing sake, i.e. trolling. However, each to his own. You can worry about and discuss trivialities. I am more concerned with overall match control, dealing with nasty play, and troublesome players, and correct decisions regarding fouls and misconduct, excellent positioning and fitness, as well as displaying courage, strength, and positive management. Technical items such as removal of shirts, which have nothing to do with actual playing the game, do not really affect match control. If this is the only contribution you can make regarding the refereeing of this match, perhaps you need to calibrate your priorities. Four posts by you on this extremely minor incident in the match is very revealing. I am waiting for the 5th! PH
I was wondering the same thing. On the Univision(?) feed they mentioned something about a replacement and Uruguayan club Penarol, but I missed the essence of the discussion. If there was a change, was this after an announcement was made?