Fascinating. Here's a possible explanation I find intuitive: Referees seem to have a "gyroscope" and tend to a certain fixed number of cards for each team per game. Obviously there's flexibility but the tendency is back toward that mean -- e.g. if you commit twice as many fouls, you could tend to get around 50% more cards but not 100%. (Made up numbers.) This would lead to more fouls per card for the team committing more fouls overall. Imagine you have two kids, one rambunctious and the other relatively compliant. Naturally you'll spend more time disciplining the first one. But won't you reach a point where you feel a bit guilty about the imbalance? It feels unfair to always be getting on one of them but not the other. At least subconsciously you'll let some stuff go from the first, and be a little pickier toward the second. Right?
That is fair but Uruguay was football shithousery defined. They should have finished against Brazil and Colombia with 9 men at best.
I agree, but that seems a bit extreme. They should have finished with 4 players against Brazil and 5 against Colombia?
Counterintuitively, you sometimes get away with more if you consistently play more aggressively. Easier to get carded when you are playing more passively and come into challenges late and leave a leg dragging or you're reaching. When you come in more aggressively, you sometimes have better timing to get to the ball at least in a position to challenge even if you do end up fouling. The cards usually fly out when you are behind the play and reaching with an arm or leg. Not denying the refs at Copa being poor and inconsistent but playing aggressively and committing fouls is not always the same thing as and racking up cards.
you can foul on every play because the ref cant call a foul on every play. if the opponent is only fouling every sixth play the ref can call that. the idea that refs should call it the same both ways isnt feasible. say a ref does that, and blows the whistle every time uruguay hack, tug, kick out- theyd be at 7 men by halftime. would that change the way the game is played? or would that ref be calling an u15 match the next weekend?
I think there are a bunch or possible explanations that we could theorize, but the long and short of the matter is that in this Copa, there seemed to be a clear correlation between playing aggressively and getting away with it, while those who played more passively were more often punished. I personally hated how passively we played in this tournament, and refereeing aside, I feel it was a key element that got us beaten twice, once by a team that really has no business beating our first team at home ever, and that in the end is what cost our manager his job.
The bigger the difference in size, in your favor, between you and the guy you fouled, the more likely you are to get the yellow.
No not really, he’s have to show that it was basically a done deal but for the Reynas interference. Furthermore you can just get whatever you want, it has to be relevant to your claim, so again, anyone arguing that is soccer would be embarrassed or whatever is being ridiculous. If ussoccer hadn’t renewed and this was just another piece of information for them to consider, Berhalter would have a case against the reynas. Besides again, people are trying to imply it made economic sense, which it doesn’t. Because they would have been in the case, spent a bit on an attorney, and that would be that. If you are arguing it was better o hand Berhalter a contract worth millions, have to terminate it early, as a way of avoiding, at worst, turning over some emails about discussing the issue, you should probably keep your advice to yourself