Did anyone watch the match and see the foul on Ruud van Nistelrooy by the JUeventus keeper? Can someone explain how NO card red or yellow was given for the challenge? The challange was cynical, a trip then a hold, deliberate and CLEARLY denied Ruud van Nistelrooy a goal scoring opportunity. I assume the referee applied advantage, not sure I saw an arm movement, but if it was a delayed whistle as Scholes was on to the loose ball, it was a ball riding away from goal and Scholes was on the dead run at angle with a Juventus defender cutting across the goal trying to intercept. Granted it was a decent opportunity but was it decent enough not to give a PK and have one team play a man up? Given that Scholes wound up putting the ball off the post and thus not scoring is the opportunity a continous phase of play and the fact that the Nistelrooy chance was not a seperate issue? If we accept the argument that advantage was given and realized and that DOGSO criteria is not applied is not the cynical nature of that foul worthy of a yellow? I sure wish the referee in the Match, Mr Nielson could make known his thoughts it would be illuminating.
Here in the States and I thought Canada as well, we were cheated again by the Evil ESPN and shown only match day 9, Barcelona vs. Inter de Milan. So we got to see the second best referee in the world Anders Frisk. I am not a big fan of Kim Nielsen, going back to his sending off Beckham against Argentina and failing to deal with the known cheat Diego Simeone. I feel Nielson sometimes loses the feel for the game. I wondered too when I saw the replay why Milton didn't blow the whistle and call the penalty and send off the keeper. Bad call to play advantage. I can't recall how much time elapsed (couldn't be more than a few seconds) from the foul to Scholes shot, but the advantage was slight as you stated in your post given Scholes angle and the onrushing defender. Even if he played advantage, then the keeper at minimum should have been cautioned.
just a few thoughts Alberto I watched it at 1.30 in the morning on TSN. :>) The officiating crew and support work from AR to CR was not an exemplimentry performence. It was a good effort by a weakened Juventus and felt they were a bit unlucky to be losing the match. I felt the rational may have been to keep the match at 11 aside? The Referee was of the opinion that Scholes had a decent crack at goal so he played advantage as ANOTHER goal scoring opportunity was looking to appear other than the one Nistelrooy had just been denied. The Foul was a cynical, professional foul, consitiing of a trip, (legit try at the ball) perhaps so only a DFK or PK offence but the holding/grab by the keeper was specifically designed to stop THAT attack. It warrants a caution by itself which to me is the real sticking point of this incident. When Mr Nielson sees the replay of the Match I will bet he is cussing Mr Scholes but it still was his choice not to give the red card to the keeper for DOGSO just as he did not give the keeper a caution and show the yellow card. Both these avenues were available or are they? If advantage is played on DOGSO and is missed as in this case is it a second chance or ONLY a continuation of the first? I know if the goal had been scored on the advantage I personally still would have cautioned the keeper at the very least? Is this a bendable issue not a letter of law situation? The fact that advantage WAS given and subsequently squandered(Did anyone actually see the APO performed?) making the PK a non possibilty as pointed out as a second try still does not prevent either DOGSO or at least a caution for the cynical foul to be applied. While we can accept the referee decision I disagree strongly it was spot on. It was acceptable as it carried a degree of practicality and keep the game at 11 aside. For a match enjoyment level it was good. The possible chance versus a PK and a send off? It was not the only call in my opinion. Sure ANOTHER opportunity opened up for a CHANCE at GOAL but as a coach give me the PK and send off at this level.
Alberto, sorry to disagree, but if you're going to fault Nielsen, fault him for something else. Allow me to preface: First, I fully concede that Simeone dove against Beckham (Simeone has admitted as much since the incident) and Beckham only slightly touched Simeone and probably only deserved a caution. Now, with that said, look at it from Nielsen's perspective. A hard foul (charge to the back) against Beckham by Simeone, which rightly earned a caution (an argument could be made for red). Then, Beckham stupidly kicks out at Simeone. Was the action worthy of a send off? No. But from the distance Nielsen was at, plus the theatrics of Simeone, plus the fact that FIFA was explicity clamping down on retaliation during WC 98, there was little doubt Nielsen (or any other ref) would have pulled a red in that situation. I agree with you Alberto, it was an incorrect decision---but it was the expected decision at the time. Even Collina would have given that red, however poor the decision might have been. Remember, Collina sent of Kluivert (on the advice of his assistant who later worked the knockout rounds in that WC) for an even more innocuous forearm in the first round. No 'world-class' ref was immune from the plague of red cards for minor violence that World Cup. You said Simeone was a 'known cheat', but it was not until that particular simulation (and the gross exagerration against Holland which brought a second yellow to Artur Numan from Castrilli in the next match) that people fully recognized him internationally as an expert diver. Anyway, my point is not that Nielsen is an excellent ref--all are welcome to their own opinions. But to fault him for the Beckham decision in the ARG/ENG match is completely unfair. I venture to guess that all 34 referees in that World Cup would have come up with the same decision. Would they have been wrong? Yes. But it's unfair to single out Nielsen for that particular decision.
Wait! I thought only referees in the US made mistakes in big matches? Aren't all the Euro referees perfect?
I'm a United fan and I had very little problem with the advantage being given in this instance'; I do think a card should have been given since you could actually see the GK almost reach backward to grab Van Nistelrooy as he goes by. In terms of the play itself, it's almost identical to the final goal in the United-Juventus semifinal 2nd leg in the CL '98-99, where Dwight Yorke was taken down as he rounded the keeper and the ball rolled forward to where Cole scored from an even more acute angle. While a referee can wait to see if an advantage materializes, if the player himself then doesn't take advantage, you can't then go back and call the foul.
Massref, you should not jump to an opinion on what I know of players. Long before the world cup, I knew of Diego Simeone's reputation. Remember I have been following international soccer for 30 plus years, and in particular Brasilian and Argentinian futbol. Simeone learned his craft in Argentina playing for Velez Sarsfield and moved to Italy for a year and then went to Atletico Madrid before going to Inter. He was a known quantity before the 1998 world cup.
Fair enough, but do you think that other refs at that World Cup would have come up with a different decsion for that incident, based on the way red cards were flying for any off-the-ball incidents?
MassRef, just a point in clarification. The "official" line on the Beckham send-off in 1998 - as discussed by Esse Baharmast at National camp the following year - was that Nielsen over-reacted, and that a caution would have sufficed.
11 aside not even a consideration? I am perhaps looking in for something that may not be there or misinterpreting. But this exerpt from another post I found interesting. Is there a kind of feeling that you do not go looking to send off if it is avoidable? Given that only one red card is manditory (double yellow). Even thinking about that WC incident with Beckham as being a yellow in retrospect would seem to support this? I agree though the fixit approach just prior to the World Cups seems to cause even more controversy then if the status quo was maintained. -------------------------------------------------- At the professional level if Crowd Pleaser" is not present - do we still have a game? - or will it go the way of the crowd? I was told by a National Ref, last weekend that that is exactly what was conveyed at the past National Camp. -------------------------------------------------- Are they saying a referee can not afford to be influenced by the crowd or need to be aware of the enjoyment and the fact the crowd is paying money to watch? -------------------------------------------------- We need to aware of the fact that the crowd is paying for to watch a match, without being influenced by their antics. Maybe this is a political way of stating it, but it is something we, as officials, need to be aware of at all times. Maybe we, as older officials, do some things out of custom rather than strictly by TLOTG. However, as we have all been told, laws are meant to be bent, just don't break them.
Pehaps another internet myth, there are so many opinions but what if the national camp was not USA?? It was off the UK RA post by an annon poster but I was curious as to its validity. At the elite level are you told to totally ignore the crowd? Is it in fact possible to do so? In away games a team is twice as likely to be red carded than at home. Are there certain things that are just not to be done or are we to look for a better way to keep 11 aside? In watching many elite games the dissent, abuse even the amount of reckless tackles and cautions and excessive generally seem to be below what the game calls for. I am always curious if there is reluctance to send off as it spoils the game from a tactical and watching spectacle. It is the magnitude of the importance, the prestige of the teams playing and the results that failure means at this level that must weigh heavily on a referee to apply the law in the strictest sense and not look for that bendable out that could keep things under control but not change the entire structure of a match. I know the addage a referee only applies the law and it is players who break them. ITOOTR also if he feels the match is not needing cards to complete the match. I do not agree with "We finish 11 aside at any price but at the elite level are you not asked to try? Or is it the players who dictate this and leave it at ITOOTR?
I know that if you have a situation of SFP but apply the advantage that you can come back and take care of the red card at the next stoppage. Can you do this for DOGSO? In other words, would the Scholes chance be considered a second chance or would the Scholes attempt be part of / a continuation of the same chance? If it's a second chance, then I would think that I can come back and send the keeper off for DOGSO. But if it's a continuation of the same chance, then how can you send someone off for DOGSO -- the opportunity is still there. In this case, the most we can do is to come back and caution the keeper for the cynical foul. According to the laws, ATR and other instructions from the powers that be, could I (as the referee) have sent the keeper off for DOGSO in this situation?
At the pro level, you are not going to see a ref playing advantage, then when Scholes does not convert, going back and sending off the goalie on the basis that he denied the first attacker a GSO. Technically, it may be possible, but at that level, you wont ever see that done. It's another example of Law book and reality being at odds. For instance, USSF has a question on state/national tests that says a defender stops a shot from player X by deliberately handling on the goalline; the ball rebounds to player Y who immediately shoots and scores. The "correct" (text book) answer that these USSF tests are looking for is you allow the goal, but send off the defender for DGSO from the first attacker. That's text book, but would never be called that way. If the ref gives the advantage, he's not going back to issue the send-off. I think in hindsight that Nielsen wishes he just gave the PK, sent the player off.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. So when it's DOGSO, you'll rarely see them come back and get the offender. Whereas if it's SFP or just a caution, they'll come back and get the offender. Doesn't really seem the right way to handle it, but I guess I can kind of understand it.
I guess I am thinking in terms of what you are getting out of the send off. If the goal was scored, even if it was a little later, you are just inflaming the situation by going back and nabbing the original offender. ie You dont need the card for game control.
This is a very fair point for most other players. I do agree that FIFA had issued an edict prior to the world cup to clamp down on serious foul play. In particular fouls from behind. The AR was not that far away from the action as I recall in the Beckham Simeone incident and I remember the shock when Nielsen pulled out the red card. I don't think he even consulted with his AR on the incident. To give you some context, I had come down from my office (5TH Avenue and 40th Street) and walked over to Bryant Park to watch the match on a large screen TV the park had generously set up during the 1998 world cup. I was shocked. When I saw the play again on replay I turned to a buddy of mine and remarked that was the most idiotic call I had seen in a long time. When the fans saw Simeone's dive they groaned. I kept asking the same question, what was Nielsen thinking? I believe that FIFA shares a lot of the blame for this nonsense. If they would allow referees to do their job without tying everyone into a corner with absolute's, it would make everyone's job easier. Clearly conern about tackles from behind led to a rash of suspect send offs in many matches due to over zealous application of FIFA's edicts as well as several well know refereees that were dropped from further international matches for failure to follow FIFA's edict. I wish referee's would just yes FIFA on their more dogmatic edicts and call the game the way they have been trained and based on what they feel in the inner center (call it heart, brain, or soul or a combination of that that is our inner referee and self). No one needs the pressure of refereeing trying to comply with a simplistic and a times suspect edict. Particularly when FIFA follows the edict with a warning that those referees at do not comply be sent home. Let me also add thattackle from behind comment in the memorandum was clearly required due to a rash of cynical professional fouls that have plagued soccer for a very long time. I primarily object to the or else you'll be sent home message. Soccer is not that black and white. I have often felt that Nielsen suffers from a lack of emotional intelligence or common sense. Look Nielsen is a good referee, but I have seen many matches where weird things like the Beckham incident happen including matches in the 2002 world cup and Champions League matches. There always seem to be at least several calls where you are left scratching your head wondering, why. He is clearly not as sharp or as in tune with the dynamics of the game as say Collina or Frisk are. I think that if Nielsen refereeed the Inter vs. Barca match he might have missed Recoba's cynical and premeditated hang of his boot at face level onto the sliding Barca defender.
This is a very interesting discussion and touches on several differences in how professional versus amateur matches are handled. There are a lot of pressures brought to bear on professional referees. Let's face the reality, the game is about the players and fans are paying good money to see them play, so unless the player commits a DOGSO or commits serious foul play, you will see referees tolerate a lot more dissent than in an amateur match. There is an unwritten code to give players the benefit of the doubt on second cautions. The same thing applies in many major youth tournaments. Referees are asked please be sure that you are 100 percent positive before you caution or send off a player, it's a showcase for the players talents for college coaches and pro scouts. I agree with deep and would add that not sending off for DOGSO also applies in high level amateur matches. The thinking is the same, you are ultimately trying to facilitate the flow of the game. If you can play advantage and allow the players to decide the outcome, you try to do just that. After advantage is given, I certainly could not in good conscience go back and send off the player for DOGSO. For serious foul play and violent conduct yes. I would also point out that as deep mentioned, you better be pretty sure that a goal is going to result from your decision to allow play to continue. Based on the extreme position of both Scholes and the onrushing defender. Nielsen should have blown the whistle, signalled to the penalty mark and shown the keeper the red card and sent him off.