Agree wholeheartedly, given my post, but just want to add that his approach would have been 100% different if this was one matchday earlier. The circumstances around qualification allowed--perhaps dictated, in his mind--the approach he took.
I think this is on point - it wasn’t pretty but Fischer didn’t make it that way; I think both teams would have been fine to skip the match and I think everyone went home (basically) satisfied. Nobody got hurt, no controversial cards/suspensions, no crowd trouble, etc given what we’ve seen in the last month those are not things we take for granted
In Jamaica... First penalty via OFR is obviously correct. Second penalty has a question of whether or not the ball is in play when the foul occurs, but it seems close enough that Penso had to let it stand. VC red card downgraded to yellow also seems correct but might be on the border of "clearly" wrong.
It's easier to quote this than your long explanation, but I think this approach to this game was crap. This was not a friendly, and bad tackles hurt just as much, and risk injury just as much in this game as any other. If Pulisic did his ACL on the 10th professional tackle, and missed the World Cup and Champions League, when PI wasn't called to shut this bullshit down, would you have felt differently? The ref took the easy way out and it was wrong, IMO. His job is to protect the players, not to worry about whom might get suspended on yellow cards...
But suspension wasn’t really an issue, was it? Very few players that would be used in a playoff were on the field and at risk, right? My point wasn’t about future suspension so much. It was about antagonizing a set of players with very little to lose. I get what you’re saying but I think you also need to ask if there were any truly dangerous tackles or if they were all more “professional.” I think Fischer would have shut down any actual dangerous tackles very quickly. And maybe my bigger point is that calling his performance terrible is wrong because it’s what he set out to do. Now, you and others can dislike the approach—that’s obviously fully justified for a variety of reasons. But usually when we say a referee was “terrible,” we can imagine him hanging his head in the locker room, disappointed with how the match went. I’m fairly certain that’s not how Fischer felt post-match.
Not least of which is because 22 went on and 22 came off at 90 mins. Sensible all things considered here. Sure the LOTG sticklers don't like it, but not many of them have actually refereed a CONCACAF WCQ match, even one where the likely result makes little difference. PH
This is probably keeping the lid on a match similar to the last game of the season in college or high school where the seniors have nothing to lose anymore at the end of their careers. PH
Just a follow up on the Mark Kaye foul on Costa Rican defender Matarrita #FCCincy GM Chris Albright spoke with @PBrennanENQ and myself just now. Ronald Matarrita will undergo surgery Monday in NY. He’s currently in Cincinnati and has been evaluated by multiple specialists. #AllForCincy— Laurel Pfahler (@LaurelPfahler) March 31, 2022 “Obviously we wish Mata the best. It’s unfortunate for him. I think it’s a dirty tackle, frankly, that injures him. It’s obviously frustrating for us.” - #FCCincy GM Chris Albright https://t.co/RS2WdzNquQ— Laurel Pfahler (@LaurelPfahler) March 31, 2022 Probably our a minimum of 3 months small soapbox here - THIS is what we should all be trying to avoid; young, talented players missing months due to foul play. Hopefully this will continue to lead toward a higher emphasis on safety - I’m encouraged by the euros last year and hope that will continue
And quite genuinely this would be considered only a borderline challenge by all top referees from all confederations if they were shown the video in a seminar; well done FIFA…
In a very comprehensive piece in The Athletic about the US's process to qualifying, you'll find the following nugget about the (first) USA-Honduras game: “When I scored, I shushed the crowd,” Aaronson said. “I was just pumped up at the time and I wasn’t really thinking, but I don’t think that was the best thing to have done. I remember I went up to the ref after the game to shake his hand and he was like, ‘Listen, you should not do that in countries like this. You don’t know what could happen.’ And he was dead serious. So I’m like, ‘OK, don’t think I’m doing that again.’” Hernandez (Mexico) was the referee that night.
Not saying you guys are wrong or anything like that, of course not, who am I to say, especially with you guys who are always right. This seems to be very sophisticated refereeing that is far above my ability/understanding. But I just can't wrap my head around some of these points. Carding players too early actually can make players play even rougher rather than making them lighten up? Players can be "understanding" if you as the referee are letting the opponent get away with too much without (what we think is the correct) reprimand? I guess you conclude this by saying "don't do this at home", and that if most of us ever tried these tactics in a game our game would go to absolute hell (which I 100% would expect), so I shouldn't read too far into the comments anyway. I guess it just takes a certain level of balls to hope that the players respond well to letting too much stuff go without cards, as opposed to the game going to hell when you're too lenient which has been my experience.
Luckily nobody was hurt. The idea that carding fouls that should be carded would have escalated things is a stretch. Contrary to the whole reason cards exist.
I don't recognize you as a referee poster here, but MassachusettsRef is basically a ref savant. You can pretty much take anything he says as being correct. There's a few others who are mods who are really good as well but I don't remember their names. I want to make it clear I'm not saying at all that he is wrong in his analysis. I would not be surprised if he is 100% correct. It's just that for probably most if not all of us refs trying to apply this to a below-professional level would have a game get completely out of hand, which is why it happens to us all the time in youth and adult amateur/semi-pro games, and so it's harder to wrap our heads around why it's okay here.
Oversimplifying it here, there are two main uses for disciplinary sanctions (yellow/red cards) - protecting players and protecting the game. Protecting the players means punishing foul play that endangers the safety of an opponent - I think I've been pretty consistent on this board in advocating that be sanctioned regardless of time, place or person. there should be a very low threshold for yellow or red cards when play endangers the safety of an opponent (see my comments on Kaye's challenge on Mataritta, above). With the caveat that I missed about 15 minutes of the game last night, I didn't see any truly dangerous challenge that went unsanctioned. Now, there was a decent amount of tactical fouling (persistent infringement, stopping promising attack) that wasn't sanctioned with a caution but I don't think the players were upset by that. Over-calling THAT kind of misconduct can really frustrate players if that's the game they want to play. Of course, under-calling it can lead to a mess as well, but it really depends on how the players want to the game to go. The referee can't make it any better than the players will let him.
This right here is what I don't get. I can understand not calling every pull down as a SPA YC (there was one on Pulisic yesterday), but how can players "want" the game to have lots of uncalled tactical fouling, or lots of persistent infringement, without punishment for them? I feel like the biggest gripe I see with reffing internationally is that they don't give SPA YCs often enough. And I don't watch a lot of international soccer, but it seems like every time I see a USMNT games, Pulisic is getting the crap fouled out of him repeatedly and there is always commentary about how persistently he gets fouled, he seems frustrated on the field by it, but the cards either don't come or come very late. I can't wrap my head around how letting that happen is actually what players want.
Canada had an equalizer correctly taken away by VAR for being offside by an inch or two. It was close enough that I don't fault an AR for not flagging it.
Ok, I admit I was wrong about how crazy the last assignments would be. Obviously the craziness was averted the results going a certain way, but also the referees that were assigned got through their games without any disasters. Also, VAR ended up being implemented in a way better fashion than I had expected it would be (although some of the assignments are still shrouded in mystery). That said, CONCACAF dodged a bullet--but at this level, bullet dodging is not all luck. As much as it hurts me to say it, the last two match windows were very well refereed, and CONCACAF got through what--going back to like October or whenever--a situation that didn't look navigable.
Good point. I’m probably not the only one surprised that VAR wasn’t more of an issue after being added late in this competition.
Yes, but results allowed for it. If Mexico had won at the Azteca against the US and/or Costa Rica hadn't got three points off Canada or Panama didn't drop two points to Honduras.. at least one of Marrufo's and Fischer's matches is much different. It took three specific results (all against betting markets, I believe) to reach a point where the final matchday essentially didn't matter. I'm sorry, on the assigning itself, the bullet dodging was luck. On the VAR side of things, yes, it was implemented better than expected. But that is because CONCACAF chose, yet again, only to use PRO and Liga MX VARs. That's unsustainable long-term so we'll see how things evolve.
I know who he is but I didn't realize it was a cult in here... How many times do I need to post to have an opinion? There were five yellow card worthy challenges on Pulisic alone, not even counting infringement. One was called. How is that game safe for him? Musah had his achilles stepped on from behind to stop his dribble, is that not worthy of a card? This is the first Concacaf qualifying I've really watched since I became a ref. There is the reputation for just terrible calls and phantom goals and hand balls. But a big, underreported, reason that the USA (I don't know if this happens to everyone, it probably does) has problems in Concacaf is the way the game is refereed. In many games, teams are allowed to foul better players with impunity. When an underdog can commit any tactical foul, it is hard for the better team to generate offense. When every set piece can be defended with hands to the face, it is hard to score. Low scoring games favor the weaker teams. We can be big posters in here who are great people to listen too, but I also think some of it is just defending the status quo. The USA usually gets a ref from a small 3rd world country. That is a problem too, but what are you going to do. In a twist, the smaller countries actually get the best refs and Mexico and the USA do not. In the previous game, the El Salvador ref let the USA player be hit four times in the face with no call. The Mexican VAR ref sends it down and it is a penalty. VAR is going to put the spotlight on a lot of stuff and it is time for Concacaf refs to do better. Later in the game, the El Salvador ref calls that same thing because now he knows he can't let it go as, "just concacaf". So, when the USA is lucky enough to get an MLS level ref to do their game, I expect an MLS level performance. I don't expect Mr. Fisher to decide to think about the ICPO or the state of qualifying or when his flight out is or how he can do little and collect a paycheck. I expect him to call a good game and not let 11 fouls happen on one player or every USA player that has beaten a player to be pulled down with no cards. Fisher should be the best ref we had this cycle, and he was a huge disappointment.
Anyone can have an opinion, but I think you're missing the themes here. Your take on Fisher here is a bit naive and offensive about what he is considering. What he is, in fact, considering is what the powers that be in CONCACAF expect him to do. You may not like what is being expected by CONCACAF (and there are good reasons reasonable minds can differ here), but that's different from criticizing Fisher for doing what his bosses expect. Do I think it would be better if CONCACAF was more willing to sanction PO and tactical fouls? Heck yes. Do I think CONCACAF creates absurdity by suspending players for a second caution in 14 games? Heck yes--that harsh suspension rule is part of what creates the pressure not to caution. CONCACAF seems to want to have the image of being tough with a two card suspension, while creating the reality of not giving the cautions. And if you haven't watched CONCACAF in the past, these expectations/standards are nothing new. And we were definitely better off with Fisher than we would have with many of the alternative possibilities.
He was just following orders? That is the defense? Don't you want it to be better? Was that acceptable to you?