Analysis: ITA-NZL - Batres (GUA)

Thank God! That said Chevielli fouled Wood and it should have been a penalty if in the penalty area. Batres has favored Italy on every high or 50/50 ball.

 

I loved it when TV showed him checking the sub for necklace and rings. The type of work that doesn't get shown often.

 

Listen to the announcers at this tournament. Have you ever noticed how inconsistent they are? They are astounded that no foul is called against Slovenia, but this is a "soft" PK. The media looks for controversy... that's fine, it's their job, but then I believe it is FIFA's job to stand up and say, "It was the right call."

I look back at the USA-Italy match from 2006... within minutes of the end of that match, Brent Musburger was mentioning his suspension from the Uruguayan domestic league. Marcelo Balboa was skewering Larrionda for his decisions that went against the US. Never mind that every call was correct.

When presented with an "out" like not cautioning for De Rossi's dive, who can blame the referee for avoiding controversy? The only way such controversy goes away is if FIFA steps out and lauds the decision. And we just never see that happen.

You and I agree that these are dives. My problem isn't with your perception of the act, or with your judgment. I just see the reasons why referees don't give the card there.

 

So specifically, what degree of contact is needed to turn a shirt tug from trivial to a holding foul? If De Rossi is making a run in the middle of the field and that happens, it's a caution for a tactical foul. But if it happens in the PA, it's trivial?

 

Well, we don't get a lot of direct communication from FIFA. On judgment calls, what makes you think FIFA itself, a highly diverse organization, can easily come to a clear consensus?

Certainly USSF would not be shy about saying whether or not such a call was the correct call or for lobbying for the call if it occurred in MLS, and they had approval at some level from FIFA for making such an argument.

 

What "foul" there was certainly was trifling. Far below what is tolerated and expected at this level.

I liked what the ESPN commentator (Ruud Guillet) said of the replay: In Italy, they call it (diving) being clever - the English call it cheating.

I think cheating is most accurate.

 

I am just saying in my opinion it looked like it did nothing to impede DeRossi's motion...that's all...

for me that is trifling anywhere on the pitch and should not be called...does not mean I am right...just my opinion...but I am far from a FIFA referee...

 

agreed! It would seem pretty obvious and disappointing that 2 reasonably intelligent football lovers calling the game for ESPN would not be able to understand it.

 

I was trying to explain a situation where there was a foul and a simulation and both should be called. In the particular case, the "foul" is borderline but the simulation is not.

 

Exactly. Good point.

 

I'd just be glad if FIFA had one consistent position on shirt pulls in the box. I like when they make that call at World Cup time. I wonder what today's fourth official thought of that call.

 

Sorry but I completely disagree

It was a deflection, a ricochet

Why the hell would Cannavaro deliberate play that ball to Smeltz? Since when are they on the same team?

 

And the ball flies 6 feet overhead? Ignore it as trifling for the moment and talk to the player or caution him later. Gifting a goal to one team for what was already a busted play is not at all fair.

 

That is only true when Italians simulate, when someone does it to them they most assuredly call it cheating.

 

I think we are discussing two different things. What I believe FIFA should do is:

a) Come out and tell referees that if a foul occurs but a player embellishes to "make sure the referee sees it", this can be a cautionable offense. Not should be, but can be. This may be implied from the statement in Law 12, but its implication depends on who is reading it. Announcers (most of whom are former players) will complain about a referee that does this unless such a clarification was published.

b) If a referee makes such a decision, come out and stand behind him. Not "It was the right call," but rather, "Law 12 states that a player who embellishes a foul can be cautioned. Mr. Batres felt that Mr. de Rossi was fouled, but he also embellished, and this is unsporting behavior, so based on Mr. Batres' judgment, this is the correct decision."

Nothing I just wrote is revolutionary, and it still leaves open the possibility of scrutiny over such a decision, but it would stand behind such a decision on the grounds that explicit instructions are in the LOTG, and provide public support for the decision.

 

You are twisting the language of the Law. Cannavaro made a deliberate attempt to play the ball and settled it into Smeltz's path. A deflection would imply that Cannavaro did not purposely try to play the ball. He did... he simply misplayed it. There is nothing in Law 11 which states that the defender has to deliberately play the ball to the opponent to cancel the offside. As you point out, that would be a foolish statement.

Law 11 reads that that only a deflection does not reset the offside decision. Horatio Elizondo made a similar call in the South Korea-Switzerland match in Germany, over-ruling an AR's offside flag and awarding a Swiss goal. You can argue all you want over whether these are deflections or misplays, but FIFA gave Elizondo the final. Color me crazy, but I think he got it right.

 

In my opinion, it was clearly NOT a CONTROLLED touch. Sure, Cannavaro purposely tried to play the ball. It was desperation defending in the 6-yard box. He stuck his leg out reflexively after the 2 players challenged for and flicked the ball toward goal. The result was that Cannavaro settled the ball into Smeltz's path. That doesn't make it a controlled touch.

 

This was a clear offside missed. Video replay is the only solution for this. Alternatively, one can say that it was the slightest flick on, the game will never be perfect, play on. Just some bad luck for the Italians that it was not caught.

Obviously, the more glaring the error, the more consternation with the non-call. But it would be very difficult to blame the referee team harshly for this non-call, which was not easy to see at all.

 

As I stated previously, the shirt grab could have cost De Rossi a quarter to half a step, which would have been enough to prevent him from getting a clean head on the ball and scoring. I think he would have had a legitimate chance to do so without the shirt grab. This was hardly a "busted play" and certainly not trifling.

I don't endorse the dive he took, which made it more difficult to see how close he actually was to getting to the ball.

It's fine if many of you want to call this trifling; in my opinion, it was anything but. If you don't call it, as Clint Dempsey pointed out this morning, the attackers then start to fight back, and then the you have rugby matches breaking out. Dempsey's comments from a player's perspective are all I need to know that Batres made the right call.

 

Law 11 actually uses the word "rebound", but USSF believes only a controlled play of the ball resets offside position. Until then the player can be guilty of gaining an advantage by being in that position. If a play on the ball is half deflection, half controlled, then it offside position is not reset.

The USSF ATR goes so far as to say "It also means being near enough to the play to capitalize immediately on a defender’s mistake." One could infer that even a fully controlled touch by the defense might not reset offside position. I don't think I've ever come to a complete understanding about what this is supposed to mean., but a controlled touch by the defense that obviously does not go to where the defender would intentially direct also does not reset offside position.

 

Good point, his mechanics were a bit odd - I also thought that he was going to caution the Italian midfielder for simulation.

In the 87th minute, Ryan Nelsen injured himself. While the New Zealand captain was being helped off the pitch by the medical staff, Batres showed him a yellow card. I am confused why he decided to issue the caution...

 

That is part of the problem. I agree that the hold might not have been trifling, but because de Rossi fell, he made it much more difficult to make that determination. Which IMO creates doubt, which IMO means, because of the dive, the foul should be less likely given.

Of course, if you believe the holding could have affected the play, and thus was not trifling, despite de Rossi not staying on his feet and making this more clear, then a foul should be called regardless.

 

I agree this was very interesting. Batres apparently did not believe Nelsen was actually cramping, and faked the "injury". Presumably Batres was aware that Nelsen was not in YC jeopardy, if he was the card would have been extremely controversial.

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part of Law 11 that says the touch must be controlled. As PVancouver just pointed out, Law 11 only states that the ball must rebound from an opponent. This ball did not "rebound" from Cannavaro.

Cannavaro made a deliberate attempt to play the ball, and misplayed it down to Smeltz's foot. He's not jumping and have the ball deflect off him without an attempt to play the ball... he is clearly attempting to play the ball.

As I stated, Elizondo made this call in 2006 (3:40), and went on to work the Final:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK8aIq34EIc&feature=related"]YouTube- 2006 World Cup Group G South Korea v Switzerland[/ame]

This wasn't "controlled" either, and most certainly the Korean defender did not intend to play the ball into the Alexander Frei's path. But there is no question he made a play to kick the ball and it wound up going someplace that wasn't particularly advantageous.

 

Excellent point. Obviously, our lives would be much easier if players didn't grab shirts or dive to enhance fouls. Which then brings us back to the original problem... call the foul (as you say, if you think the ball could have been played) and caution for simulation.