Analysis: USA-ALG - De Bleeckere (BEL)

Discussion in 'World Cup 2010: Refereeing' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. o5iiawah

    o5iiawah Member

    Oct 31, 2008
    What constitutes early? I dont remember the exact point of the whistle but whenever there is stoppage time, this is a minimum. A goal does not add a minute because the ball is out of play. The referee keeps stoppage time for things like unreasonable stoppages of play like injuries, outside agents and substitutions. Sure, the USA dogpiled after the goal but Algeria showed very little want to attack and the final whistle came with the USA in control of the ball.
     
  2. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    This has been discussed previously in this thread, mostly just touched on.

    The LOTG have (mostly) specific reasons for adding time to the end of a period of play:

    1) Substitutions
    2) Time lost to assess an injury
    3) Time lost to treat an injury
    4) Time wasting
    5) Any other cause

    The only thing that happened during stoppage time that would have warranted added time would have been after the goal. There is nothing specific about time added after a goal, but after the flap in the ManCity-ManU finish in the English Premiership last year, analysis by Graham Poll suggested that the standard is 30 seconds for after a goal at the highest levels.

    There were no injuries and no substitutions in added time. The only other delay was the dismissal of Yahia, but this is not listed as a reason to add time. Furthermore, because that delay was caused by the team that actually needed time, as a referee I would most certainly not add time for the 45 seconds or so that elapsed during the send-off and the time it took the player to leave the field. If they don't want to lose that time, they shouldn't be dissenting.

    If De Bleeckere had added 30 seconds for the goal, he should have played to 94:30. But with the foul called at 94:00 deep in the Algerian end and subsequent restart at 94:10, I saw nothing wrong with calling the match at that time. The likelihood of Algeria regaining possession and mounting an attack down a man in those last 20 seconds was very poor. If the restart had been a corner kick for Algeria, of course De Bleeckere would not have blown the final whistle.

    De Bleeckere, on Media Day on Monday, noted that he is a very serious student of the sides he officiates. Therefore, he would have known that Algeria is prone to dirty play, especially when frustrated or desperate (consider their 3 red cards in the loss to Egypt at the ACN in January, or they way they kicked the game out from under the Egyptians in the Qualifying playoff last November to protect a 1-0 lead). After the send-off for dissent and the subsequent hack on Altidore, any right Algeria might have had to those extra 20 seconds may have taken a backseat to protection of the team that was now set to advance. I'm not saying that's fair, but Algeria decided to start hacking and misbehaving instead of fighting fairly for an equalizer. The game must be safe, first and foremost.

    Only American versions of soccer (college, high school) seem to demand an absolute clock that everybody can see. The obsession with having "exactly" a certain amount of time is something that we Americans really need to get past.

    On another note, does anybody else at least find De Bleeckere's send-off of Yahia a little amusing? He spun his hand with the card around in a little circle, and I swear he was tempted to pull the American baseball "You're outta here" toss! :p
     
  3. RegularGuy

    RegularGuy Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thanks for posting the LOG. I had thought that time when the ball is out of play after a goal is a pretty standard reason for adding lost time. Sounds like it's not necessarily. There actually weren't many stoppages in the second half -- so 4' seemed kind of generous to begin with. I was expecting 2 or 3.

    The analysis looks right to me. I guess to put my long winded thoughts a bit more concretely, what I was really asking about was the dynamics of referreeing and added time in a game where the stakes matter not just for the teams on the field but for teams off it as well. In knockout stages, I completely understand the notion that Algeria should not be rewarded for its time wasting. Group play and qualifying, though, seem different to me where there's a complicated set of tie breaking procedures all of which depend on a certain level of uniformity across games within the qualifying group. I guess the real question is should the United States be benefited viz Slovenia because of Algeria's time wasting? Algeria could not go through. The only teams that had a stake in how much lost time was added back were the U.S. and Slovenia (and, to a lesser extent, England).

    I suspect the answer to my question is yes. That's the way it goes. A ref can only officiate the game before him, not some factors that involve teams not before him. Just seemed like an interesting question from a fan's perspective. Watching the end of that game, it really did seem as though the situation, not some neutral timekeeping principles, dictated the time of the final whistle.
     
  4. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    Another interesting point to note...

    Tonight I was watching the Donovan goal again... after De Bleeckere gives them time to celebrate, he does the standard, "OK, we have to restart the game fellas" thing. The US team crushed the corner flag in the celebration, so De Bleeckere bends down to pick it up.

    As he puts it back in its spot, one of the American assistant coaches says something to him, and De Bleeckere cracks a grin. I had to pull it up in high-def to see it, but there's no question that De Bleeckere grins at the assistant.

    This is not like the French ref's grin with Luis Fabiano, not by a long shot. Personally, if I was in the middle of that game as a neutral, I probably would have been a bit giddy just recognizing the significance of what I had just been involved in. (I've been there, in a high school playoff game that ended 4-3, it's just exhilarating to have been a part of it.)

    None of the Algerians saw it, it wasn't public. Personally, I don't think it's awful to show a little emotion when such a huge goal is scored, nothing public, but to be happy that you were part of something bigger than you or anybody else on the field.

    It's also interesting because every CL game I've seen De Bleeckere do, he's Mr. Stoic. On his blog he toes the line and stays very neutral and unemotional. It was a bit out of character from what I've gotten used to seeing him do (as was the little flourish with the send-off), not necessarily bad, but just interesting...
     
  5. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Apr 7, 2004
    Southern NH
    Cracking a smile is a management tool. I am sure the coach said something along the lines of "feel free to stop the game now", heck if I was coaching, I would!. As a ref, I'd smile and answer, or just smile!

    As for Dempsey and the blood, he did leave the field, they did clean him up. However with a cut lip, as soon as he runs again it might start bleeding a bit, when he took that kick, there was no blood worth sending him back off the field.
     
  6. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I thought I saw something like that. Hard to not smile at the pure joy expressed by the Americans in that corner, unless you were Algerian or Slovenian.
     

Share This Page