What the heck happened on that send off? Correct me if I'm wrong, but heres what I saw. - Kljestan with a very late and nasty tackle - Busacca plays advantage - Brazil makes some passes - Brazil shoots wide - Treatment for injured Brazilian - Kljestan sent off - Play restarted with US GK I was shocked to see Busacca play advantage when he knew that Kljestan would be sent off. What did you think of it? When I saw it live, my gut said "could be red" but once he played advantage, I wrote off the red and figured it would be yellow.
I think we need to get MLS referees to start pulling out red cards at the same standard as international referees do. That way it'll be less likely that MLS "thugs" like Mastro/Clarke/Sacha (I like all three players) will be sent off in international tournaments. none of those 3 reds would have been red in MLS in my opinion.
Somewhat similar reaction to you. But, unlike with the Clark incident, in which my reaction was "could be red," my reaction to Kljestan's was "that's going to be red!" With that said, like you, I wrote it off after the advantage but was still pretty confident that Busacca would come back for a yellow. The question is, of course, how everything happened. A few things are possible, in my mind. The first is that Busacca is a gutsier ref than most (wouldn't be surprising) and opted to play an advantage on SFP even though it's frowned upon. Or maybe he's trained that you can/should do so by his authorities in Switzerland and UEFA. It's also possible that he saw it initially as a reckless challenge but, upon seeing the Brazilian injury, realized it was more than that and only then decided to go red. Finally, and probably least likely but somewhat plausible, is that the AR, who would have seen the nature of the tackle coming at him, gave the critical info to go red. It's unlikely we'll never know how Busacca arrived at the decision, but I've got to say my gut instinct was red and, after seeing the replays, I have no complaints.
I thought it was less of a red than Clark's challenge...equally late but not high on the leg. However, my reaction was the same as yours, mostly due to the Clark situation...it must be a point of emphasis for the refs in this tournament. I said this in the "US-Italy" thread: Now add Kljestan to the list.
It's always hard to compare two challenges directly, but I thought it was much later than Clark's was. And you're right, of course, it wasn't high. But it was directed at the exposed ankle and had zero chance of playing the ball. It wasn't as obviously stupid as Clark's, because it didn't involve something easily identifiable like a kick toward the knee area. But, in my eyes, it was much more dangerous, and, due to Kljestan's momentum, had a higher degree of force. The Brazilian had just played the ball, had no chance to prepare himself for the challenge, and got clattered into very hard in his ankle.
I was thinking red all the way as well. It was a really nasty challenge that went all the way through his body as oppose to where Clark just kind of clipped him.
I agree with the force of the tackle...it reminded me a lot of Mastro's tackle v. Italy in the World Cup, which was also a red. Since this is a widespread trend with our players, where does the blame fall? Obviously, the player has to make better decisions, but are they not getting the coaching as youth, with their clubs, or is it related to their play with the USMNT?
This is what happened: - Kljestan with a late and nasty tackle - Busacca plays advantage - Brazil makes some passes - Kaka takes a very hard shot on goal parried away by Howard that could just as easily have been a brilliant goal - Kljestan sent off (this may be what we see Howard reacting to) - Treatment for injured Brazilian - Play restarted with Brazil throw-in Kljestan's tackle was not "directed" at Ramires ankle. If Kljestan had zero chance of playing the ball, he should spend some time in a jail cell somewhere in South Africa. However, it would be correct to say he had no chance to play the ball without taking out Ramires. Kljestan had his eyes on the ball and probably did not know where Ramires was until the last second. He wasn't wildly late, IMO. He did realize that he wasn't going to reach the ball at the last second and did not make an attempt to kick at the ball, and got his foot underneath Ramires' kicking foot. Unfortunately, his momentum in an attempt to reach the ball gave him no option but to take out Ramires plant leg as well, which is where the real damage could have been done. As to why so many US players are getting red carded, perhaps it has something to do with John Harkes commentary at 54:44: "Dunga... very hard tackler of the ball. And that's how you have to be at the international level. If you are going into a ball you have to make sure you don't shy away from any tackles at all. You have to go right through the ball, and the player if you can. That's the only way you win tackles." And he said this right after Kljestan got sent off for a hard tackle. Of course, he didn't know that at the time.
PV...I'm totally confused by your last post..... What are you saying...in ten words or less.....was it a red card or wasn't it a red card?
Would that be the standard international referees use when it's the USA or the standard international referees use when it's Italy or Brazil?
Interested in noting that no one commented on the sequence and the first Brasilian goal. There was no foul on the first goal. The Brasilian player was barely touched and flopped over the ball. Perhaps he tripped over the ball? It was laughable that a foul was called. It was most evident in HD in the super slow motion replay. The second part of the sequence was the free kick. The Brasilian player was marginally, but still offside when the ball was played. I slowed down the slow motion frame by frame and the player that scored was off when the ball was kicked. As to foul recognition, I believe Bussca got tricked by several flops by Brasilian players. Onyewu was a victim of one such flop in the first half. Referees need to be mindful of these types of actions. Now as to Kljestan's challenge, we see many challenges of this type go sanctioned with cautions and not send offs. While watching it live during the run of play I felt it was a caution. when I watched the replay that is also what I thought. Sasha's cleat is not even exposed. It was on the turf. He catches the Brasilian with his shin and knocks him over. This was a challenge clearly worthy of a caution, but a red was excessive. There was zero chance he would ever break his leg. In fact the Brasilian player was soon back out on the field. US players need to be mindful of this. That's three international matches where hard challenges have been sanctioned with red cards. USA players need to think and do better. I'll comment on any incidents following the send off later. I fell asleep watching the match.
Agreed. I didn't think it was a foul on the play that led to the free kick on the first goal, but he did briefly have an arm on him as he went by, which could easily have led to the view of more when he elected to go down. You open yourself up to the possibility of the call by putting the arm on him, even though it was innocuous and part of normal play at this level in my view. I also agree that he was marginally offside. Thought that on the live view, and more so when viewed on slow-mo. But, very close, and not surprising that it wasn't called. On the red, and it is difficult to fully evaluate given the feed, but it seemed like a very, very, very long time after play was stopped before the red was shown and he was sent off. So, I agree with Code1390's sequence. Maybe I was duped by the tv feed on this, but if you're going to show red after allowing play to continue, I would have expected it immediately. I know it remains an "option" until play restarts, it just made the ultimate decision all the more surprising for me.
The display of the red card was not shown live. I agree with Alberto for the most part, although I think there was more than a 0% chance that Ramires' plant leg gets broken. I also doubt that USA players are being targeted specifically for punishment. Also, USA players are just as guilty of flopping as Italian players, and personally, I find it revolting. In general, it should be treated much more harshly than it is.
On the red card challenge, the best view to get the flavor of what happened was the long-range far-away shot. There, you can see the angle Klestjan took relative to the direction of play. It was very clear to me watching the zoomed-out replay, much moreso than the near replays, that this was a sendoff. Hard aggressive sliding tackle, drove straight thru the opponent, got there late and made no contact with the ball and really not much chance at it given the late timing.
Watching DC United versus Seattle the night before it is amazing the differences in how these games are reffed. Had the ref for Brazil game been the ref for the DCU/SS game there wouldn't have been a player left to play the game. That has got to be a very hard adjustment to make as a player. And it is no doubt in my mind that this caters to the Brazilian style of play and is hurtful to the US. The Brazilians got a few dive calls early in the game. So as the game progressed the Americans gave the Brazilians more space on the ball. I think a game where a ref let's them play a more physical brand of soccer would favor the US a great deal.
I agree the contrast in game styles was very stark (I watched the DC/SEA game after watching US/Brazil, since ESPN didn't give us much of an opportunity to watch it live, and still cut out the first five minutes of the second half tape delayed) but my view is that this was a bit of a one-off for MLS. In general, MLS games have been reffed more tightly than that one was.
Agreed about your commentary on the first goal. The Brasilian's left foot clips his own right foot, which seems unrelated to a slight push delivered up high. And yes, very marginal offside. But no matter. I thought it was a marginal red live, but thought it was a more solid call on replay. Kljestan clearly dives in to Ramires' base of support, and I think it's a conscious choice. The ball is on Ramires' right foot and Sacha chooses a path squarely between his legs. I think he had a chance to win the ball - I don't think the challenge is terribly late, nowhere near as bad as Clark - but he also went in with the intent of keeping Ramires out of the rest of the play. look at 4:00, 4:30, 5:10: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xII-BgLsp3A"]YouTube - HQ - BRASILE-USA 3-0 [2.o tempo - sintesi-diretta] - Confederations Cup 2009[/ame] I do think Sacha pulls out of the challenge somewhat at the last instant. His cleat isn't exposed and his knee is what makes all the contact with Ramires' right leg. But that's still pretty violent and Sacha's trailing really comes through on the plant foot. It's an extremely dangerous challenge and justified as a red card. It's possible Sacha was looking at the ball the whole time and a bit ignorant of Ramires' position, i.e. there wasn't the intent to take his legs out. And you can maybe say Ramires shifted his position a bit to be in the path Kljestan was already on - but he needed to be to make the pass. In any event it's SFP by Kljestan, ignorance isn't a plea. My only question was whether Busacca was hearing from the 4th official to call the red. I recall the world camera feed flashed over at him a couple times and Busacca was talking with his earpiece a lot. Which brings up the issue of whether someone was looking at a replay, if not a monitor nearby them (supposedly removed) then the large screens in the stadium.
Smart players will know before the game what to expect from the referee. Smart players also will adjust during the match once they get a feel for how the game is being refereed. Most of the time, a bad challenge that earns a red card will NOT be followed by several more. The players will see where the referee has set the bar for what will be a red card today and most of them will NOT want to get sent off like the first guy.
This is what I came to this forum for. What is the 4th official allowed to call? Are his duties limited? If so, in what way? Thanks.
The 4th official does not technically 'call' anything. Neither do the assistant referees. The 4th official, like the ARs, can advise the referee on anything he sees that may have been out of the view of the referee. And the 4th also can give his input on something even if the others have seen it, if he feels it is important enough to offer such an opinion. The referee ultimately makes the final decision on everything. So, if the 4th sees something that he feels should be a red card, he can and should say something to the referee. Especially when the crew has headsets, it's easy for the 4th or ARs to tell the referee something without taking too much time.
But it is my understanding that he is not able to use video evidence (such as a replay on a JumboTron) to form his opinion, correct?