If I'm understanding the problem: USA and Mexican refs can't work a USA-Mexico game because of obvious concerns about the appearance of bias Refs from other CONCACAF countries are largely seen as not being up to handle USA-Mexico because their league assignments in those countries aren't at the level of USA-Mexico and the players involved. The only leagues in CONCACAF that people fee adequately prepare a ref for USA-Mexico are Liga MX and MLS. Isn't the answer the Canadian refs who work MLS? Maybe not the current group (or maybe so, no judgement of the current refs intended) but if there's not currently a Canadian ref up to it, isn't the solution then to use the Canadian MLS ref slots to train refs who can handle USA-Mexico?
Slight delay on giving up, because I know you're sincere... "largely seen" needs to be defined. By whom? Here? Sure. Where else are there serious discussions about the state of CONCACAF officiating right now? It's a somewhat interesting suggestion--and it's why a Canadian VAR had to be on this match. The truth is that there have been traditions (not sure if they are set "rules" or not) about referees from a given league not typically officiating that league's national team. I'm not sure how that is viewed inside CONCACAF right now. Canadian referees have officiated the USMNT. But not often in big competitions. And I genuinely can't recall if they've done US-Mexico. To put a fine point on this, the FMF may not want an MLS referee on a Mexico-US match--regardless of that referee's citizenship. And all this goes back to point #1, too. Is Fischer or Gantar better than Escobar, Barton, Pitti, etc.? Not if you ask CONCACAF right now. So all of this is academic. The Canadian officials aren't ranked above the officials who are in the current pool for US-Mexico consideration. Also, one again, it's not PRO's or MLS' job to train a referee to officiate US-Mexico.
The problem in CONCACAF is not limited to US vs. Mexico. Just remember the Philadelphia vs. whatever Costa Rican team that debacle was a few months ago. The problem--which others have correctly pointed out--is that CONCACAF exists primarily to distribute wealth (and even prestige) to other nations. To take money from the US (and a lesser extent, Mexico) and spread it out. That wealth is money and assignments and games. So when people are talking about referee exchanges and training some Guatemalan ref for the two WCQ games between US and Mexico, that's cute, but not the point or the problem. About zero other CONCACAF nations care who wins when US plays Mexico. THEY DON'T CARE. Its not about bias. Obviously Mexico would care if an American worked that game, but more to the point, FIFA would obviously object. Heck, just two months ago an African game was abandoned rather than have an AR (!) from the home nation step on for the last ten minutes. So forget having a Mexican work US Mexico, but again that is not the problem. When people say CONCACAF had no problem with the officiating, don't picture them watching the hand ball PK in slow motion to figure out if the Canadian MLS ref in the booth got it right. Again, that's not their problem. Their problem is making sure an official from their nation gets on the game (as R, AR, AR2, 4th, or commissioner--in a few years they might even start caring about VAR, but for now, probably not). It has less to do with bias than with representation. Picture each state's SRA hanging out in the assignment suite at youth regionals--this is that on steriods, only factor in millions of dollars into impoverished nations, and you start to have an idea about the dynamic in CONCACAF.
A magic wand. . . . It's not just about "cleaning house," it's also about having opportunities for referees from those smaller countries to ref. It's going to take time and some of those countries developing stronger programs to give their refs more high level games. Don't hold your breath. (I'm not going to even address the absurdity of the top two teams boycotting confederation activities.)
Fair, I guess I was conceding the point of the conversation, which isn't necessarily true. And to the prior point, if that's the case, then it really good evidence that we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't need to be solved. If the FMF and/or USSF would rather have what we currently have than have a supposedly better ref on the games that might cause an image issue, they can't be too concerned about what they have now. Worth repeating, thank you
Look, if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that this would have been one crappy retirement present. Maybe just give him a Deuce jersey (and camo jacket and sunglasses) and let him go home.
An opinion on the handling. If the game was played under 2021-22 LOTG, the Referee would have been empowered to maintain his original decision that handling did not take place. New LOTG give the Ref a lot more judgement authority on handling. Didn’t like the handling decision v Swiss either! https://t.co/02GQdGWmCg— Joe Machnik (@DrJoeMachnik) June 9, 2021
Anyone coming to the conclusion that the new version of the laws of the game make handling more likely immediately shows that their opinion needs to be ignored.
No, in fact the new laws reduce the occurrence of handling calls, because accidental handling by the offense can only be called if it immediately leads to a goal. Deliberate handling is still the same for both teams.
I think that's what Dr. Joe and @code1390 are saying. Any law that gives the referees more latitude in calling something that was more "factual" will lead to fewer instances. If the officials aren't bound by as many "if this, then you MUST do that" types of items, they won't have their hands tied so much (pardon the unintentional pun on that last line.
OK, let's play that game. What in the 20-21 Laws makes that handling? Seems to me the only thing it can fall under is biggering, which is the surviving concept from the recent tinkering that remains in the 21-22 Laws. (As I've noted, I don't believe it was handling under either version of theLaws.)
Simplifying a bit, considerations for 2020/2021 are essentially "was the arm away from the body" and "was the arm making an unnatural barrier for the ball." But what the 2021/2022 Laws tack on (while removing some other bits) is the clause about the arm position being justified by or being a consequence of the player's actions. This adds a layer of subjectivity such that the referee has more leeway to apply their experience and feel for the game. That's all Dr Joe is saying. He thinks this is a fairly automatic call now but that it might be treated differently with the Law change. You might disagree.
You're paraphrasing not quoting here, correct? I think the second phrase is fair, but unless you have something to point to, I don't buy the first. For example, if a player jumps for a header with his arm away from his body but not above the shoulders... my impression is that it's been a no-call (with either version of the laws) if it deflects from the body of the player or an opponent so long as the positioning of the arm could be justified as "natural." The actual relevant language--from what I can discern--in the 20/21 LOTG is simply "the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger." The 21/22 version may add language that explicitly excludes certain positioning based on the player's actions, but that doesn't mean those actions or positions were inherently encompassed in the 20/21 version. Maybe I'm way off, but it feels like 20/21 allows for more subjectivity whereas the 21/22 additions was about eliminating certain (wrongly perceived or undesirable) calls. In short, the updated language gives additional specific reasons not to make the call. It doesn't inherently increase the referee's subjectivity. Ultimately, it is supposed to be restricting it.
Definitely paraphrasing the sort of language that PRO has used. When it's "making the body unnaturally bigger" they always pull out the bit about making a barrier for the ball so you know that's what they're looking for. How much subjectivity was really applied to various circumstances, I dunno. You mentioned arms coming out going for headers, and we've definitely seen instances where the ball caught that trailing arm and it wasn't considered clearly wrong to not call it. The way the IFAB tends to word Law changes always makes it seem like they're just clarifying their original intent and that it was everyone else just misinterpreting their language, of course, so it's hard to say how big of a change *they* think it is.
This is where I was going. Calls that were maybe made under the 20/21 language were perceived as "wrong," so IFAB put in more explicit language to exclude such calls from being made. People like Dr. Joe think that, because that should lead to fewer calls, it's giving the referee more subjectivity. But by explicitly eliminating calls, in practice it's actually limiting subjectivity.
I think it does increase some subjectivity. In 20/21, arms above the shoulder were automatic; 21/22 they are judged ITOOTR as to whether the position is unnaturally bigger for what the player is doing. (I know others have seen it as a change, but I don't think the justified by what they are doing language changes anything--I think that was always implicit in unnaturally.)
Relative to the arms above the shoulders, yes. That provision was eliminated and, by implication, folded into "unnaturally bigger." So there could be some cases where "above the shoulders" didn't equate with "unnaturally bigger." At least, that's what I think happened! But for unnaturally bigger, writ large. You had this: 20/21: "touches the ball with their hand/arm when the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger" And now you have this: 21/22: "touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised" This is sort of an academic discussion but I don't see everything from "[a] player is considered..." onward is giving more subjectivity to the referee. It's trying to give definition to what "unnaturally bigger" means, which was non-existent (at least in the text of the LOTG) in 20/21. Back to the match and Fischer, yeah, I don't see how that is a penalty in 21/22. But I also don't understand why it is a clear penalty in 20/21 either.
I guess I can go either way on this one. I can believe that there was a gap between the intent of "unnaturally bigger" and how it was actually applied, but they also cut out the bits about arm above the shoulder and have pared down the attacker's handball to the bare minimum. If the intent of rewriting Law 12 was greater consistency across competitions and across referees, for me that means less gray area, which means more objectivity. It also means more robotic refereeing, which is always very popular on this particular forum. This, for me at least, feels like a walk back to a less objective call, even if it's more of a mix of clarification and actual backtracking.
See post above. Concede the point to an extent about above the shoulders (though I do think it's implicit in the new text that "above the shoulders" is often going to be "unnaturally bigger.") And I definitely wasn't talking about attacker handball, which is another whole ball of wax to me. Maybe. Genuinely not sure what I think here. I think it does lead to fewer calls but I guess I'm suggesting it is because IFAB thought there were too many "wrong" calls under their previous change? Are the IFAB minutes public somewhere? Wonder if original source material sheds any light on this.