Another factor to throw into the discussion is that Boxx is not a stupid player. She had received a caution already, and had committed a tactical foul already. I can't believe she would deliberately commit ANOTHER tactical foul on such an obvious attacking buildup given those circumstances. The replay shows she is running as hard as possible to stay in front of the attacker, trying to prevent the opportunity for a through ball into the space behind her. I gotta stop thinking about this call, it is making me very frustrated!
If someone on the crew knows there was a mistake it should be discussed. You're doing the crew a disservice if you don't discuss a strategy for improving in the second half.
Why wouldn't you want to avoid the mistakes you have made in the first half? Having a discussion at halftime is the only way.
That mistake has already happened. It's over. No amount of halftime feedback from the ARs and 4th can guarantee that the referee will not make any poor judgement calls in the 2nd half.
Go back and read what you copied. I never said don't talk about it. I said, most often you won't even know that you got it wrong. Hell - It wasn't until an hour after the match that Graham Poll realized that he cautioned the same player 3 times. He was getting a massage when they told him to come back to the locker room and that there was a problem with the bookings. Often, it takes TV to show a referee there was an error. So, I don't think that yesterdays ref ran back into the locker room thinking - "wow, I blew that one!" I think she went back in and thought she made the right decision. If the ARs and 4th were doing their job, they probably also didn't really have much of a view of it (far side from lead AR who would be looking for offside anyway) - (4th is probably scanning field behind referees back or dealing with the benches) - (Trail AR is looking at players in the inactive area). So, they wouldn't be able to "confront" the referee about her error either. So, the premise of this question was - what do you think was going through the refs mind when they discussed the obvious mistake at halftime, and would they look to give a "make up" call in the 2nd half. In my mind, they wouldn't have even had any idea that it was blown. If the referee knew that, then she would not have sent the player off in the first place.
Wow, that's pretty tight. The American defender doesn't even know the attacker is behind her. We are going to penalize the defender for slowing down??? Isn't it her right to change pace, change direction, sit down and tie her shoe, etc etc while she is on the field? She is not intentionally impeding the attacker by slowing down. The attacker has put herself in a bad position by running directly behind the defender while the defender has her back to the attacker and does not know she is right behind her.
Actually, the referee can change any call up until the moment the ball is put back into play. It doesn't happen very often, but it's possible.
The defender knows where the brazilian is, she is clearly marking the player without the ball, which implies knowledge of her location. I don't feel you are taking any kind of objective view of this incident. Your defenses are full of "the american player was surely thinking this", which is a difficult way to referee.
I understand your point. Yes, Boxx knew the Brazilian player was somewhere behind her. Nobody has really mentioned in this thread that Boxx looked back a couple times to see where the opponent was located. I appreciate this. However, at the time of the contact she was not looking back at the opponent. She was running downfield. I don't think she knew at that point whether the opponent was directly behind her, or 2 feet to the left, or 2 feet to the right. If she had slowed down, it would have taken a ref who was smartly watching this off-the-ball situation and a no-doubt feeling that the slowdown was tactical in nature, aimed at putting the Brazilian off her run. That is a lot of 'ifs.' Still, a valid argument could be made that the player is entitled to slow down. I liken this to the player who pleads for obstruction simply because an opponent is between him and the ball. My typical response to the player is, 'he doesn't need to get out of your way so you can get to the ball.' The player is entitled to his position. As for not taking an objective view of the incident, I am about as objective as it gets on these sorts of forums. Besides, we aren't even talking about the actual incident -- we are talking about a hypothetical variation of it!
The difference between impeding or, in this case, tripping, and an accidental collision is whether the defender is actively getting in the way or not. As with all incidents in soccer, the referee has to judge if the nature of the contact was through a deliberate act. So to say something like... ... comes with the caveat that a player is entitled to their position so long as they are not interfering with their opponent's desire to take up a position in any sort of deliberate manner. That being said, the replays don't indicate there is any active or deliberate movement by Boxx to get in the way of the attacker. She never changes direction or slows down her run, and as pointed out many times, is not even looking at the attacker when the contact occurs.
I would not argue that this situation was obstruction, but I don't think it would take much of a move from Boxx for it to be obstruction, which makes the refs decision more difficult.
I don't recall seeing any protest. Kristine Lilly did not do her job. She should have gone over to talk to the referee before the card was thrown (she would have to have Flo-Jo speed for that) or discussed it after it was thrown. But, to not even lodge any sort of a protest, that's unforgivable. Not one peep from what I could see. Communicating with the referee is one of the captain's responsibilities and too bad that Lilly abdicated that duty. Give the armband to the large-boned girl upfront; Abby won't have any difficulty speaking her mind and trying to get some justice.
Ok, be that as it may, I guess I'm just trying to understand what is your overall point that you and bluedevils, and now I evidently, are dancing around. I know earlier you mentioned that you thought the call was more difficult to make (or not make) than most posting here. It seems you are contending that because there are these other actions that Boxx could have taken, but did not, it somehow shrouds the judgement on whether a foul occurred or not. Personally, I think this is an extremely easy call to make. It didn't take a million slow-motion replays to derive the exact timeline of contact or anything ridiculous like that. I hadn't even seen the game at the time, I just watched a real-time replay once. As soon as I saw the contact and realized the referee was calling not only a foul, but a send-off (!), it absolutely REEKED of injustice and the worst quality of officiating known to man. Bottom line from my perspective is that despite there being a million things that Boxx COULD have done that may very well result in a real foul, the fact is that she did NONE of those things (some of which you illustrate). It seems that, to most of the trained referees here, even in the split-second, real-time, one-look-only world of officiating would none of us ever make that same call. It makes it all the more infuriating to see this at the World Cup level (a semifinal), and why so many are trying to rationalize that the Swiss Miss must have either a) completely not seen what actually happened, or b) only caught a peripheral glimpse, and in either case could not have possibly actually SEEN what happened because it was so absolutely clear that there was no foul! With either case, the referee should not blow the damn whistle, let alone SEND SOMEBODY OFF!
Yo - go back and re-read this entire thread. Then you will see why she did not go talk to her lineswoman.
The Pièce de résistance lies in that FIFA has not rescinded the second caution to Boxx. That is such a joke and speaks volumes of just how much FIFA cares about fair play.
I guess you didn't notice that after the Brazilian pushed the US player down from behind with her forearm the Brazilian sprawled out sideways to the direction of movement instead of falling on top of the US player. This made it appear to a ref, who would be expected to be looking elsewhere at the time, that the US player had crossed in front of the Brazilian tripping her. The Brazilian waited sprawled on the ground for the ref and then rolled over and solicited a second yellow. The sprawl sideways to the direction of movement is the key factor.
But you saw the TV angle, which makes this a VERY easy call. The ref had to look through the Brazilian, which makes what she sees and what you are seeing quite different. I agree it's an easy call when watching on TV, but that is not how the game is refereed. The ref saw an obstructed view of the incident, which could have been a foul based on many minor acts by the American. Just as with any call where you are looking through a person, it is easy to get it wrong (which the official did). I just don't think this is the slam dunk call you are making it out to be.
I appreciate your point of view, and you have defended it vigorously. What stands out is that, even if the referee thought she was correct in calling the foul, the apologetic arguments in defense of the subsequent booking and send-off require torturous leaps of logic. Swiss Miss blew the call, then failed to consider the logic behind the likelihood of a booked player committing another bookable offense under the circumstances. She was way too quick to the card, and was then too busy asserting her "authority" to notice the blatant act of unsporting conduct behind her. Had she bothered to take note, it might have given her pause. Arrogant. Supremely arrogant.
You didn't read what I wrote. I described what happened after the push. I did not say anything about what occurred before the push.
I disagree with this completely. Once the referee felt it was a foul, based on the prior tactical foul, and the tactical nature that a foul under these circumstance would have been, I think the 2nd yellow and subsequent red would be any officials reaction. Obviously, the contact was wrongly interpreted by the official, but once the official felt it was a foul, the yellow card MUST follow.
She could have talked to the player instead of showing a 2nd caution. I'm not saying she SHOULD have, because I wasn't reffing the game and I did not have the in-game feel that the referee did. But a warning there IS an option.
While we are on the subject of a captain talking to an official...does anyone know of a case where the official being talked to has actually CHANGED his/her call? Yeah, I didnt think so... I guess you didnt see the Man U-Chelsea match where the Chelsea players attempted to prevent the referee from pulling the red out of his back pocket by holding his arm down!!! That's one way to prevent the card from coming out!! R