Full disclosure that I'm doing little more than educated guessing when playing "fantasy assigning 101" here , but I would imagine there's going to be some shuffling given what has happened in this cycle. The item I've bolded is where CONCACAF has an issue - and quite possibly why I don't think it's out of the question at all that we see some UEFA crews (or at least VARs) with Rizzoli now nominally in charge. The only three non-US/non-Mexico referees I would personally trust on a big final window match would be Martinez, Escobar (I don't really trust him, but I know others in CONCACAF do), and Barton. Fortunately, they are all from countries that aren't in contention. If you're trying to keep Mexico and US referees off of VAR, you almost have to bring in some UEFA referees to at least handle VAR duties. No one else outside of PRO and FMF have any reasonable experience to handle this, especially given the stakes. Purely from a refereeing perspective, seeing the US and Mexico with a lot to still play for makes assigning really difficult.
So then Marrufo and Fischer were originally assigned, got swapped, and CONCACAF press office was unaware. Seems more than plausible. Marrufo for injury and Fischer because of CWC appointment?
Without knowing the language proficiencies of those involved, a Spanish VAR would probably fit in very easily.
Having lived in Europe for a while, I would guess that a Spanish VAR would work well. The differences between "European" Spanish and "Latin American" Spanish are there, but they shouldn't be an issue. I'd also say Portuguese VARs would also work since many Portuguese also speak Spanish well.
With regards to today's US-Honduras match, does the CR have any authority to stop/postpone the match due to unsafe weather conditions? If my memory serves me correctly, they have said authority with regards to unsafe field conditions and/or crowd control problems, but can they say "it's too cold to safely play"?
At a practical level, your suggestion is laughable. Discerning the kick you talk about is really, really difficult to start. Stipulating it's actually there... no one cared or noticed. I mean, literally no one appealed or complained. There's not a human on that field--including the guy allegedly kicked--who even considered the idea that this was a foul. You're suggesting an absolute nothing incident on a speculative bicycle kick results in a penalty kick. There's no other way to answer your question, in practical terms, than just saying it's not a penalty. At a theoretical level, though, it's actually quite interesting. What is the threshold for punishing a kicking foul against a defender when the attacker has attempted an unorthodox or spectacular attempt at the ball (e.g., a bicycle kick)? There's nothing in the Laws themselves that say such an incident should be treated any different than a kicking foul with the ball on or near the ground--other than the requirement that the attacker himself isn't playing in a dangerous manner, of course. But presuming that threshold is met... can others envisage giving such a penalty? What factors would you consider?
There's no scenario where this match is being postponed tonight due solely to cold. Everyone knew what was possible when it got scheduled in the first place. If cold was a legitimate concern or justifiable reason for postponement, then this venue wouldn't have been sanctioned. Also there's no plausible time to make it up. At the threoretical level, yes, the referee is working with CONCACAF/FIFA on any postponement. But it's not happening. It does raise another interesting point, though. This will undoubtedly be the coldest match the Jamaican crew has ever had. It's not just the away team (and many home team) players that are in unchartered territory here.
I grew up in Minnesota. I'm not sure if I've spent this much time outside in near 0F and sub -10F wind chills before, without a heavy jacket, and a full face mask. I know one of the US media reporters said it was being asked if the players could wear neck gaiters.
Reports that El Salvador are threatening to refuse to play against Canada tonight due to various things including a lack of bonuses paid. But now it sounds like game is on. Football politics through media.
Thanks for entertaining my curiosity. On the first part. I get that a ref would be doing something very unorthodox to call the foul but the fact that people were more worried about the attacker's health than a foul shouldn't be the deciding factor should it? On the second part, is there any excuse for #5 kicking out there? He got nowhere near the ball and I think his kick caused the hard tumble. I don't expect the ref to catch it live but I thought the VAR might with the stoppage while Arriola recovered his wits.
Hoping Honduras gets another attack, I don't think US keeper is too distinct from outfielders, based on one lightning peek.
This was stupid. First of all the reports were that the U.S. had gotten permission for the keepers to wear it. Second, even if that wasn't true, its not like he strapped it on at the opening whistle. Why not just tell him he has to get rid of it before you start the game?
Wait, referees are supposed to inspect players’ equipment before the game? Who knew? He’d also want to US to change undershirts.
Ok now I got it, GK is in the same blue as what you see on field players from behind. Surely there was another paste-bait color available.
The tactics from Honduras around fouling are so transparent. They foul—charges from behind and hacks—hard. So hard and so obviously that it makes Nation think twice and become reluctant to call the softer fouls they are also committing. Meanwhile they are going down like they’ve been shot when the US fouls them or comes close to fouling them. And they then get in Nation’s ear about it, trying to create the impression in his mind that the fouling is even. It seems like it works. I wouldn’t be shocked if the foul count ends up being about even.