I can't imagine most of the remaining referees being as horrific as Brych was today. Not showing the red card was bad enough, but not whistling easy fouls early in the 2nd half resulted in retaliatory fouls for the remainder of the match.
I stopped by to see what you guys made of it. I agree - he seemed to lose control of the match. i thought letting the shirt pulls on Lukaku go in the first half was especially stupid? Should have handed out a yellow for that after he played advantage -....
He didn't see it. He was directly between the defender and Lukaku. But that was his first oof moment. Unfortunately it wasn't his last one.
But that would be even more bizarre? His shirt was pulled 3 times in what was clearly a professional foul? ETA - ok - i understand he didn't see it
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/match-39-bel-por-brych-ger.2116040/#post-39687007 Check the screen shot I posted. He can't see the shirt pull. He needed help and didn't get it.
If it wasn't Pepe, maybe I buy this. Given how that game was going, I can't buy the argument that the Portuguese players were the ones in need of protection. I think it was Pepe realizing that the way the match was being officiated he had a chance to take a free run at an opponent after the whistle and only risked yellow. So he took it. It's hard to say that's not on-brand for Pepe.
So weird to see brych lose the point in any game. But a great example of not making calls leading to loss of control. What I really couldn’t believe was that he actually at times was frozen by uncertainty and then missed or was out of position for the next decision. I mean, I do that. one of the qualities that separates them from mortals is their ability to keep complicated and layered decisions straight. It wasn’t the kmi’s- it was that he looked like anyone else. That he could even have a game like this is a remarkable comment about humanity.
I was talking in general, not that play. Pepe should have seen red. Except,by that point, it would have been unfair.
Also, why is it that Portugal seems to be in more than their fair share of matches like this? It seems like they have a pretty wild game once every other major tournament or so.
Refs are no different from players, and elite refs are no different from elite players: everyone can have a really bad day where their performance is at the left of their personal performance bell curve. The difference between the elites and the mortals is where that bell curve sits--the far right of my referee performance bell curve doesn't even reach the left of Brych's.
As others have said, all of the referees at this event are elite officials. Like the players, you have some sort of scorecard that shows how you did. Regardless of the sport, the referees who grade out best get the marquee events. I know Brych is a top official, but he's going to get a bad score on his assessment and be sent home. When you're an elite referee working at one of the sport's 3-4 marquee events, a bad performance can be enough to knock you out of contention to work other games at the event.
Football still struggles with the idea that each player has a yellow card to give and can't receive it unless they do something bad - that incentives rotational fouling as we saw. In Rugby, for some years now, the ref can give a warning in the face of persistent infringing that the next player will be yellow carded no matter if it is his first offence or not (yellow card = 10 min sin bin) I don't really understand why a player is allowed to commit a professional foul to stop a promising attack, for which the tariff will be at most a yellow card (compare to the red for le ligt). And you can do this once per player?? Why isn't it some time off the field for a professional foul? Also how does it make sense that one player cannot do 2 professional fouls, but two players can? (yellow each) Football has structural problems in this area IMO which the ref can't easily fix, and the result is two of the biggest stars of the tourney are out injured and the 3rd one is eliminated. How is this a good result for TV audiences?
The same is true in soccer and has been for a very long time. Targeting of an opponent by multiple players is considered unsporting behavior and should be cautioned. Alas, referees probably do not issue those cards as often as they should. Depends on what you mean by "professional foul." Soccer really has two flavors. Stopping a promising attack (caution) and denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (send off).
That is my point. Why should you be allowed to stop a dangerous attack with a professional foul (e.g. shirt pull), with basically no tariff applied so long as you have a yellow card to give? Other sports have superior logic - if you give a so called professional foul then there is a real cost to it - this stops the persistent infringement we saw last night where you just hack belgium's best players and the ref will allow a tolerance for that. It makes no sense, and especially makes no sense in terms of global viewership
Last I checked, no one is stopping watching or playing soccer . . . . But I think it is naive to say there is no cost to that yellow, especially for defenders. Once on a caution, a player has to play more carefully, as cautions can come in different ways. I'm not totally opposed to sin bins for cautions, but I don't actually think it would have the effect you hope for. By increasing the sanction, you increase the pressure on refs not to call it. If refs won't caution for targeting now (which I agree they should and don't do enough), increasing the consequences isn't going to make refs more likely to call it. What is really needed is competition authorities demanding that the cautions be given. But part of the problem is that the message from competitions has been going the other way, with a priority of keeping all the players on the pitch.
Remember when making coming off the line on a pk a mandatory yellow would make keepers stay on the line more? Turns out refs just stopped calling it.
Not sure I buy this. Let's go around the horn. The closest I can come up with to a "Professional foul" in basketball is an "intentional foul". Penalty is free throws and the ball. As long as you have any of your five (FIVE!) left, there's no additional sanction. Referees, as we've mentioned recently (might not be this thread) are loathe to call an intentional foul "intentional", so we get end-games of constant hacking to stop the clock and have the fouling team get the ball back. And even if you have committed your fifth foul (and remember, each player on the roster can do this four times before being sent off), your team still doesn't play shorthanded. Football. What would a "professional foul" be? Pass Interference? There's no additional penalty assessed if a pass interference all is "intentional". The closest thing to a yellow card is "Unsportsmanlike conduct" where, yes, yardage is assessed against the miscreant's team, but that player doesn't really see any additional sanction. And each player (out of what? 55 on the roster in the pros, 100 in college) could commit one such infraction before the first player is ejected. And, having ejected a player, the team STILL doesn't play short. Hockey: Many infractions are for "professional", deliberate, "stop a promising attack" type fouls. Holding. Hooking, Interference. Even tripping. None of these assesses a greater penalty if the referee deems them to be deliberate, or "professional" in nature. While at least your team plays short for some amount of time - the "sin bin" you seem to be looking for, there's no theoretical maximum on the number of these offenses an individual can commit - you're really only limited by the amount of time in a game. I can't think of anything in baseball that is the analog of a professional foul. Batter/baserunner interference? . Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong. Enlighten me on where "Other sports have superior logic - if you give a so called professional foul then there is a real cost to it - this stops the persistent infringement"
Well, it's not like they were calling it before that change. . . . but yes, I was among the many who wondered why anyone thought that adding a caution would make it more likely that it would be called. It certainly improved nothing--and yet it doesn't go away (though it has been watered down).
I cannot recall seeing that cautioned. Ever. Not to say it hasn't happened, and I'm a fan not a ref so I could easily have missed it. I'll say this...if it were to be enforced in CONCACAF, Pulisic suddenly becomes a much more dangerous player.