US-Costa Rica, the snow (R): FIFA ruling: the result stands!

That determination is completely and totally up to the referee. Period. It doesn't matter where you are or what the conditions, if the refere says play, you play.

 

Go read the entire body of FIFA rule publications some time. No human being in the world knows them all (not even Jerome Valcke) and, frankly, you'll be left plenty confused considering that many of them are ignored constantly, or contradicted by others that aren't enforced.

If the match was played in conditions that a reasonable referee could have determined were playable, then the appeal won't go anywhere. Similarly, if CR made no complaint to any match or CONCACAF official before or during the match, then it's also dead in the water.

As for the other procedural hoops, we'll see what FIFA chooses to do. It may give them an easy out from this situation, but don't cry if they deem them sufficiently immaterial to permit the protest anyway.

 

I think we are actually agreeing with each other. My point is that somehow Uzbekistan was able to lodge a successful protest in 2005, but somehow no one in the entire CR traveling entourage could figure out the proper process when there was 35-45 minutes of play yet to be had.

Of course none of this negates that FIFA is just as likely to ignore their own black and white procedures but to say that the procedures aren't important is just silly.

 

Haha. Just shows how corrupt FIFA is eh?

<One clause says that when a field becomes unplayable, the protesting team's captain "shall immediately lodge a protest with the referee in the presence of the captain of the opposing team.">

- That should be easy to determine.

 

Right.

Similarly, the decision to give a red card is completely and totally up to the referee. Period. If the referee pulls out a red, then it's a red.

That doesn't mean that FIFA has no guidelines for how each decision should be made, and that a decision can't be deemed incorrect (in this case, causing the match official to, at minimum, get a negative evaluation).

 

Oh SHIT! Somebody tell the GoldCup quick! http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/atlanta-will-host-part-gold-cup-soccer-tournament/nT45X/

 

The depth of the snow and its effect on the play is clearly an ITOOTR situation and has exactly zero percent chance of resulting in a successful protest.

The lines, OTOH, maybe the Costa Ricans have a case. Also, I (and probably none of us) know FIFA's rules on the grounds crew having to come onto the field to keep it playable.

Uh oh. The Mexican fans might be rude to us.

 

Thank you Mr. Weatherman. Probably why they put a dome on the stadium.

 

Sure if you will pay me I will gladly sit down and figure out all the rules. Won't be as much fun as what I actually do for a living but I could sit around in my PJs all day.

And the fact that FIFA regularly contradicts itself does nothing to negate the plain fact that there is a black and white procedure written down by FIFA and for some reason it appears that CR didn't bother to find out what that procedure was.

I think deep down you know you are wrong but your training probably does not allow you to admit that. Enjoy yourself - you won't get these hours back.

 

1) The match was indeed played in conditions that a reasonable referee could have determined were playable, as has been ably demonstrated by many soccer games in the snow before. However, that is irrelevant, because...

2) The "reasonable person standard" from U.S. law does not apply to soccer refereeing, counselor. Whether conditions are playable is In the Opinion of the Referee, and on matters that are In the Opinion of the Referee, the referee's decision is final.

 

I can't imagine that happening.

 

Completely irrelevant. The Georgia Dome hosting a tournament game in the summer is a lot different than a WCQ. Unless you find it a good idea to play in a cavernous dome that's maybe 1/3 full for a key game.

 

It's a quaint notion that every participant in a competition should know every rule, but not one that jives with reality. Why have rules? Well, at minimum, they serve as best practices to follow.

The issue here is not whether CR followed a particular rule to its letter, it's whether the punishment for not following that rule should be to bar their appeal on a technicality.

For example, it's a "rule" that every US taxpayer file their return, or a request for an extension, by April 15 (assuming it's a business day). So does that mean that the IRS will reject your return if it's post-marked on the 16th? Does it mean they just keep your refund because you didn't technically comply with the exact rules?

If FIFA rules state that a pitch needs to be marked as a rectangle, and someone realizes today that the pitch in Colorado was 74 yards one end, and 73.9 yards on the other, that the match is invalid? In such case, the FIFA regs. would not have been followed.

A lot of people are jumping to the conclusion that not following a specific technical rule warrants a specific punishment. That may nor may not be the remedy.

 

US is already booked.

 

Blizzard of '93 occurred in mid-March in Atlanta, as well. I know, I was there. 4.5 inches at the airport, but up to a foot or more in the near-northern suburbs.

 

It's nothing at all like baseball. Stop lying. The surface was not frozen. The surface was not underwater. The surface played surprisingly well given the snow. It was far more predictable than some of the monsoon-soaked morasses we've played in over the years.

 

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

And then maybe what speaks loudest to FIFA will be heard . . .

 

They are? I see a friendly on June 2, but not June 4. Not that that makes it convenient. Just wondered if that could be possible date if the game is replayed.

 

It's either that or Sunil is an entirely different type of dog than we always suspected . . .

 

The lines not being visible on TV has no bearing on whether or not they were visible to the players and match officials on the day.

This is entirely at the discretion of the referee. He did nothing to stop the people helping the game to continue, so he at least tacitly agreed to their presence. This argument will get you absolutely nowhere.

 

Sorry, You're right.

The fact that this summer a stadium in Atlanta is hosting an international soccer game is completely irrelevant to your claim that there's is no stadium in Atlanta capable of hosting an international soccer game.

Apologies, my bad. I didn't realize we had entered bizzarro world.

 

Holy shit. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. I see, now, you just like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes, it is true that in some cases, not following procedural rules may not be as "damning" as not having the law or the facts on your side, and in many cases courts do provide some leeway on these issues (but there are many, many very strict judges who will not let you get away with not knowing or following the rules in his courtroom (and this is not just for rules of civ pro, but for his own courtroom procedures and policies).

Although I do agree with your point that FIFA could substitute an equivalent procedure if they chose to, as long as they felt that the substitute procedure was not prejudicial to the other side. But the procedures for protest are set up for a reason, and one reason, I would imagine, is to ensure that both sides are aware of what is going on, so that each side has a proper voice in the matter. And requiring the protest be lodged at the proper in-game time is important to ensure that a protest is not mis-used to try to change a poor result.

Perhaps FIFA says that the coach's claim of appealing to the ref to halt the game was equivalent to a notice of protest, but according to Clint, he was not informed, which would seem prejudicial to me.

And then it does not appear that CR filed the actual post-game protest in time.

But this is all academic, because FIFA can do what they want. And I am kind of hoping they do not merely brush it aside claiming lack of procedure, and rule on the merits. Not slamming the door on this subject will just encourage others to file protests when the results don't go their way.

 

Could be. There are certainly instances of matches having been played in snow before, but there are also plenty of examples of matches that were postponed. The issue here was, particularly in the second half, (i) visibility (as the snow was falling down very heavily), (ii) line markings and (iii) condition of the pitch. I can't say for sure whether FIFA would view those conditions within the realm of reasonableness.

Could be as well. I agree that the referee is vested with plenary powers in this area under the LOTG. Whether or not a reasonable person standard could be applied here or not seems to be determined IMO. Remember, FIFA is the organization that almost intervened when the Henry handball was not called against Ireland. I think FIFA jurisprudence in these areas is fairly open to debate at this point. Nothing would surprise me.

 

You know, I've been thinking about Costa Rica's decision to protest the game and request the suspension of the referee. It's actually very clever, in a Machiavellian gamesmanship sort of way.

Costa Rica didn't protest the game because they actually expected it to be replayed, nor did they request the suspension of the referee because they actually care about getting Aguilar suspended. It's not even really about the USA at all. It's all about the next time that Costa Rica has to play a CONCACAF qualifier in the snow -- and given the infrequency of snow during home USA qualifiers, that means it's more about Canada than the USA. (I realize that snow is also infrequent during home Canada qualifiers, but part of that is because Canada qualifiers in themselves have been just plain infrequent.)

Imagine the scenario: Canada's hosting Costa Rica in some February or November qualifier, and the snow starts to intensify. In the back of the referee's mind is the thought that the last time a referee finished a CONCACAF qualifier in the snow, all it brought him was a hassle. That's where the real advantage for Costa Rica lies.