Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG) - Part I

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Great post. You described the situation with a high degree of understanding and skillfully laid out the arguments for calling the DOGSO or letting it go (either because advantage realized or contact deemed trifling and therefore not a foul).

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

The first time I saw the replays, I thought Robben stepped on Casillas on purpose AND dragged his other feet across Casillas. I agree it is hard to tell for sure. It is one of those things that is very hard for the referee to feel 100% certain of, and usually goes unpunished.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Regarding the question of whether Webb was screened on De Jong's karate kick, this pic is relevant:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/7/11/1278875849249/sport-012.jpg

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

An honest question here as I am still trying to understand the LOTG and interpretations:

For those of you saying that the van Bommel tackle on Iniesta should have been a send off, what leads you to say that? Is it the slide into Iniesta's planted leg?

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

I did feel that Iniesta deserved a yellow for simulation on Van Der Wiel's "tackle".

It was a similar play to the yellow Altidore received for his tackle on Haliche which I felt was clear simualtion despite extremely minimal contact.

This does raise the question shoul their be double yellows issued? Or is does create even more problems?

In hockey we rarely see a diving call without a matching minor for tripping.

As far as the DOGSO with Robben and Puyol what would have happened had he gone down but in a fashion which screamed embellishment? (this isn't too unreasonable as Robben does embellish quite a bit) What then?

Red for Puyol and Yellow for Robben?

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

We have seen that picture earlier in the thread, but it really is not conclusive. There are other overhead shots that seem to make it clear that Webb did NOT have a clear view of the incident.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

So is this one:


This is a really crappy still from this highlight:
http://footytu.be/v13ti

It shows the ball an instant after XA heads it and an instant before DJ kicks him. DJ is the farthest right orange blob. Notice that VanBommel is perfectly placed between Webb and the rising foot. Watch the video a couple of times and you will see that the relative paths of Van Bommel, Webb and de Jong prevent Webb from seeing the kick develop. The still shot you reference shows that Webb did have a look after contact was made--although it is deceptively static, as it is afterall a photograph.

But I would suggest that to Red Card someone, you want to see the whole play develop. And if you are partly unsighted, you will hold off on the ultimate sanction.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

summers - But isn't the linesman there to get a better view of it than Webb?

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Then why give the yellow if he had no sight of it?

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Well, I am not suggesting he had no sight of it. I am suggesting he had an imperfect view of the incident as a whole. I am also suggesting that without a full view of the event, it is difficult to give the ultimate sanction. On the other hand, what he did see indicated that deJong was reckless, at the minimum.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

The linesman would indeed have a better view of Puyol's arm, but since Puyol didn't grab Robben's jersey or hold him for an excessive amount of time, it would be tough for him to make a definitive call there. He might think it's a foul, but ultimately he's going to leave it up to the referee unless he's absolutely certain, because nobody wants a linesman making a call of that magnitude in the middle of the field. A linesman would be more apt to make a call if he saw a clear hand ball that the referee missed (such as if the linesman saw Thierry Henry's hand ball against Ireland) where the violation is more cut and dry and less subject to judgment. Or if the foul occurred along the sideline in front of him where it is more normal to have a linesman make a call.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

I've seen several Dutch posters take the exact same attitude. Namely, that they didn't play negatively, cynically, or violently, but that the whole world is against them because they were playing to win (instead of entertain.) Seeing this quote from a top official in the Dutch federation explains, to me, where those posters got the idea. Somehow it has taken root within Holland. It's a kind of bizarre paranoia. Not to get political, but I'm vaguely aware of a rather large controversy within Holland over immigration and foreigners.

Last thought...the world wasn't exactly fawning over Holland when they lost in 2006, remember.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Robben ended up with a 1v1, and it was a pretty clean 1v1 too. So I don't think Puyol denied an OGSO. To me, it was the difference between murder and attempted murder.

But in this context, attempted murder is a tactical foul and the end result would have been the same, since Puyol was already carrying a yellow. (Right?) A 2nd yellow for a tactical foul. To me, that was the right call. I understand what you're saying, but to me, the miss was just too long after the Puyol foul to bring it back and call DOGSO.

Which brings me to my newbie question...are there any written guidelines for how long after a foul a ref can decide the advantage didn't materialize and bring the play back and give a free kick? Or is it all ITOOTR, with no roadmap.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

*USSF disclaimer: the USSF's Advice to Referees says '2 to 3 seconds' which is quite a long time when you really think about it.

Superdave, normally I would say yes, that the referee CAN come back and caution the player for the foul after the fact.

I have been meaning to start a thread on the concept of an *attempted* tactical foul in the general Referee forum; perhaps you bringing this up will give me the needed kick in the pants. Can a player be cautioned for an attempted tactical foul that is not successful? I have heard one of the USSF's top instructors and assessors say that you cannot give a yellow card for a player who tries, unsuccessfully, to foul a player and break down the attack. In other words, the player tries to hold the opponent to slow down a promising attack, or even an obvious goalscoring opportunity, in the Robben/Puyol case. But the holding doesn't work; the attacker keeps going and the advantage is applied, and the attack plays itself out.

Very interesting concept, and I do not really have my arms around it quite yet. Just wanted to throw it out there.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

and the line assistants? Did noy anyone see it? Were both assistants obscured by some other player? And the 4th referee?

Sorry, this can be a proof of non-guiltiness for Webb, but the overall refereeing team did not act correctly in that foul.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Some people feel he failed to gain control early on, but there is a difference between that and feeling that he could have done more to sanction the players more strictly. I agree with the latter, but not the former.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

What's interesting is that the Dutch were in my mind equally cynical v. Brazil. They were able to create bit more agaisnt the brazilians but the Dutch save for matches against less talented/skilled foes employed a strategy of cynical play with lots of fould to disrupt play and play for counter attacks.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Yeah, go ahead and start the thread.

I started a thread a while back on a play where Ashley Cole was guarding the post on a free kick, a shot was taken, he started to put his arm up to try to block the shot then (I think) pulled it away in the nick of time. My question was, what would the call be if he clearly made solid contact with the ball, but it went in anyway? The strong consensus was, play the advantage and give the goal (duh!) and give Cole a yellow. Maybe the yellow would be for something other than a tactical foul negated by advantage, but I'm positive refs here thought he should get a yellow.

And that's why I thought the proper call here was advantage, yellow at the next dead ball to Puyol. But maybe the yellow for the Cole situation would be for USB or something else, so it's not a proper analogy for the Puyol play?

In any event, if you can't give a yellow for a failed tactical foul, then IMO Webb handled this play properly. The foul was outside the box, so no PK, and Robben got a pretty clean 1v1, so that's a better scoring opportunity than the free kick.

Of course, the counter to that is that Holland would rather have the yellow since it would be Puyol's 2nd, but I would think that a referee can't consider whether a card would be a player's second when assessing advantage. Is that correct? It's just an assumption on my part, I don't really know. And I'm not ref, just a fan.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Right -- handling in an effort to prevent a goal, but the goal is still scored, would be a caution for unsporting behavior.

Similar but not quite the same as an unsuccessful tactical foul. Until I heard the statement from the assessor that an unsuccessful tactical foul is NOT cautionable, I felt that it WAS cautionable. And I'm still not totally on board with what I heard.

Good question. I do not recall having seen any guidance on this from FIFA or USSF.

 

Re: SFP standard for 2010 WC

No it's not.

Well, not normally anyway. Of course, like all 'rules' they're only rules if there are exceptions, like this...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7-RXM5sg7k"]YouTube- John Evans Teakwondo Kick vs Didier Drogba[/ame]

In that incident Drogba was given a yellow card for 'diving' but, then again, that WAS at Old Trafford and, after all, he IS Didier Drogba... so that's alright then. Of course, some people might feel similarly towards many of the Spanish players, (for their diving, waving yellow cards and so on),.... that's it alright if they get kicked. To me this match was a perfect example of what happens if you follow THAT approach to it's logical conclusion.

Well, that does actually raise an interesting point about refereeing, doesn't it. If each player, almost turn by turn, does ENOUGH of a foul to warrant a yellow but not a red then I don't see you have any real alternative to give them the appropriate card. In fact, in this game, as others have said, the amount of fouling DID drop off quite markedly in the second half.

Of course, there's another point I think people are forgetting. That everyone is assuming that the Dutch would have to be the ones to be hit with a straight red and, in retrospect, that would have been the appropriate course of action. As we all know EVERYTHING'S easier in retrospect. What if Webb decided that enough was enough and the next player to do what would normally be a borderline straight red challenge was going to GET a straight red card but it was, say, Puyol?

I think this is the problem Webb found. In most matches, even CL finals and so on, the players WILL respond if you start brandishing the cards. In this one, individual players did but the TEAMS didn't. They just got someone ELSE to do their fouling for them.

Regardless of how unpalatable it may be, that presents the officials with a problem.

 

Re: Final Analysis: NED-ESP - Webb (ENG)

Am so sick and tired of people blaming the ref for games lost. its easier to project your insecurites on somebody else then to man up to it.

Robben's run

Robben had the option of going down. he was fouled, if he went down, it wouldve been a straight red. he went for the glory, the goal, so he went all out. He fcked up the chance. thats it. he had the advantage played. he choose NOT to go down. And dutch fans want the CALL AND THE ADVANTAGE? thats ridiculous. you get ONE. Robben choose the advantage. he fcked up. end of story.

Iniesta's story is the same when he got fouled, yet he choose to go down and get the call not the advantage. end of story.

Dont blame the ref for the missed free kick/corner in overtime, because if the ref was proper, De Jongs, -KARATE CHUCK NORRIS JACKIE CHAN JET LEE KUNG FU FIGHTING FAST AS LIGHTENING NINJA KICK- shouldve been a RED CARD. If netherlands were playing a man down, it never wouldve went to overtime. damn.

The dutch brought the dirty dirty game. look at spains previously games how many cards did they get? now look at the final? is that coincidence? No. the dutch played down and dirty and spain had to adjust. It was the dutch that mad it hard for webb, i think he did a good job just a few missed calls in a rugby game..i mean soccer. At the end of the day i believe spains bench players couldve beat netherlands starters. The better team won i wouldve been really upset if netherlands took it