OK, here is my somewhat detailed humble opinion. Will not go into arguments, just writing down my position. Why are goalkeepers allowed to jump with their knees raised high Goalkeepers are taught to jump with their knee raised high to gain extra momentum, and to protect themselves in case of collisions. Traditionally it is accepted and is not considered dangerous or reckless play. The consensus is that goalkeepers are very vulnerable when they reach high with their hands (they can’t use their shoulders/upped hands on that side as a “bumper”), and because their center of gravity is very high and so they can be tripped over easily. As field players are allowed to shield impacts with their shoulders, a raised knee for a goalkeeper is allowed for the same function when reaching for a high ball. Yes, it can be dangerous the same way as the shoulder can be when it comes in contact with the head (if you think a knee is more dangerous than the shoulder, think twice, just think of the Garay-Kramer collision, which actually made Kramer suffer concussions and he had to be substituted). However, the risk of this type of collision is much lower than the risk taken by keeping their body vulnerable. Compare it to the seat-belt, there are probably real cases where the seat-belt actually impedes the ability to escape the car fast, yet it is saving much more lives when it protects the driver and the passenger from flying out of the car or into the dashboard. From a risk management standpoint, allowing the goalkeeper to protect themselves in this manner has more benefits than occasional risks. But bad things happen. Note that this doesn’t mean goalkeepers are allowed to use the knee as a weapon such as you cannot use your shoulder as a weapon and deliberately aim it at your opponent. But what is attacking and not protection? In my opinion this collision below is an example of using the knee as an attack, not as defence: Clearly, Neuer was not doing anything like that. The way I see it it was for protection, was no intention to hurt Higuain (I will explain later why I think the collision ended up so bad). There are subjective elements in this, but I cannot see it as an attack. Was Neuer running over Higuain illegally even if we disregard the raised knee as a potentially dangerous play itself? No, absolutely not. Every player has equal right to go for a ball. It doesn’t matter where the ball comes from, the only thing that matters is if you go for the ball and have a reasonable chance to get it. You can’t interpret it as Neuer running into Higuain, or Higuain running into Neuer, they were both running for the ball on a collision course, and the one who actually gets the ball before the collision is in possession and the other is considered faulting him by colliding, tackling, or blocking. The one who has no real chance should make every effort to avoid the collision. Often the chances are not clear (considered a 50-50 case) and in these cases usually no foul is given against either party. Was Higuain faulting? There can be an argument supporting that Higuain should have been the one avoiding the collision. Seconds before the collision, when starting his run for the ball, Higuain was clearly aware that Neuer is running towards the ball (see later). He could have known that he cannot win a high ball against a goalkeeper inside the penalty area, as the goalkeeper has the advantage of the extra height as he is allowed using his hands. Neuer hit the ball a split second before the collision, so usually the call is given against the player who had no chance winning the ball. Higuain, as an experienced player should have also expected that Neuer will jump and as usual, will raise his knees. However, interpreting it as a 50-50 collision is a possibility, and since Neuer punched the ball out, he was not blocked from running back or engaging in further play, so a no call is also a good decision. Why did Higuain not expect Neuer? Should Higuain have expected the collision with Neuer, he would have assumed a position to shield the impact. He clearly was caught by surprise and this made the collision much worse than in a situation where he does expect a collision. Actually the initial impact was Neuer’s leg with Higuain’s shoulder, but as Higuain was not expecting the collision, his muscles were not tensed up, his head tipped over to reach Neuer’s knee as seen on USSF REF's image above. While initially he did see Neuer running for the ball, he later turned his head toward the ball and stopped following what Neuer is doing, and was surprised by the collision. The seconds before the collision gives us a clue why http://giant.gfycat.com/PeriodicWellinformedBalloonfish.gif The ball initially seemed to bounce wider than the penalty area and seemed to be continuing on a path away from the penalty box. However, there was a significant spin and after the bounce it was moving back toward the penalty box. After the first bounce it seemed that the ball will continue a path outside the penalty box, Higuain no longer expected Neuer to make a high jump, expected him to return to the goal or maybe try to challenge him outside the box without the advantage of using his hands (that would be a major mistake from a goalkeeper). But the ball bounced back just enough so that Neuer was legally parrying it out, which caught Higuain by surprise. This is why the collision ended up this bad as Higuain was unprepared.
This argument could hold water for the exception that since 1986, there is always expectation that divine intervention would assist an Argentine striker when making such a challenge with a goalkeeper.
An interesting quote from Rizzoli in an interview he gave about the final ..... One of those in the first half involved 23-year-old Kramer having to be substituted soon after being caught in the head following a collision with Ezequiel Garay. It was a change that as Rizzoli has revealed, came about after a bizarre exchange between official and player. “Well, shortly after the blow suffered by Garay, Kramer came to me and asked: ‘Ref, is this the final?’,” Rizzoli has told the Gazzetta dello Sport today. “I thought he was joking, he repeated the question and said: ‘I need to know if this is really the final’. “At my ‘yes’, amazed, he concluded: ‘Thanks, it was important to know’. I advised [Bastian] Schweinsteiger and they replaced Kramer.”
In that same interview, to his credit, he admitted that the foul whistled instead against Higuain on the Neuer play should obviously never have been called against him: http://buenosairesherald.com/article/164627/rizzoli-‘it-was-not-a-penalty’ However, the referee admitted that he made a mistake conceding a goal kick because Higuaín did not “commit a foul against the German goalkeeper.” “I realized that when I saw the images of the match. I must admit my mistake,” Rizzoli said.
He didn't. A free kick was awarded. I'm guessing that it was the authors poor attempt at translating what he said from Italian to English as they meant "free kick" instead of "goal kick".
Here is the bottom line I get from this thread. It just shows you how damn difficult it is to ref a high level match. Look at the many varied opinions on how this play might have been called. 1. Foul on Higuain which now even the official of the match said was probably wrong. 2. Throw in for Argentina. 3. Foul and maybe even RC on Neuer. While I am totally fine with both 1 and 2 I can understand how some might have gone with 3. Point is the speed of the game is just damn fast and it is really really hard to get all the important calls correct. I thought the CR did a superb job in this match and still look how many different calls we have discussed with no consensus on many of them! No wonder I retired from playing and reffing!!
No / Only in supporting a referee's interpretation of Part B (if indeed Rizzoli considered this). I'd argue yes. Because while intent does not matter, the referee CAN deem Neuer's attempt at the ball to be the standard method of fairly challenging for the ball (which he won) and thus in no way reckless, ergo not a foul. Interpretation can go many ways.
The only real error was in my eyes that he did´nt give the second yellow against aguero. Like the Höwedes Foul a red card would be possible, but a yellow ( in this case the second) was a must have.
I think I usually agree with the things you post on here, but in this case, I have to disagree. It is patently absurd to have games refereed one way for WC qualifying and other competitions and then to have them refereed differently in the biggest showcase of them all. Yes, the entertainment factor is important, but it should not be at the expense of typical enforcement of the Laws. We all know that there is a degree of latitude in top pro games that is not and should not be present at lower levels; this is acceptable. But not giving the appropriate sanctions when deserved by the standards that these players, spectators, journalists and TV announcers are used to is illogical. Why do you think there is the huge outcry about the officiating? It is because it is not what people are used to seeing. In actual fact, allowing the players to get away with nasty fouls and tackles detracts from the entertainment value, not enhances it. Losing Neymar to a foul that could have prevented by earlier strong intervention did not increase the entertainment value of the WC! Why publish a set of Laws and interpretations only to disregard them in your own showcase tournament? It does not make sense, no-one wants to see it, except the people who run FIFA, and everybody knows where their priorities lie. It is wrong-headed thinking, and it was used in MLS for several years under the old regime before PRO took over and brought some logic and good judgement to the program. The big danger, as has been mentioned here before, is that participants in lower level matches, players, coaches and referees will think that they should mimic what happens in the WC. He did OK, I am not going to go as far as very well, but certainly far better than the 2010 version. The way the teams played also helped (in contrast to the disgraceful tactics the Dutch used in 2010). PH
I am also very troubled at reading several posts here where fellow referees are ok with the spectacle created where the referees went with a different set of rules in this World Cup under the rationale that this is an "event". Referees I work with regularly as well as assignors I work for are equally appalled that the games became a running joke on plays where guys would get hammered or be repeatedly fouled and no punishment doled out....other than a meaningless free kick from a distance. If folks want to say that Rizzoli (who is an outstanding referee and who I am a "fan" of) did a great job with the handcuffs all of the referees were placed under, that's another thing. To say that because it's an "event" and it has to be officiated differently is troubling. I don't want a return to the 2006 World Cup either where it was the exact opposite; cautions given on plays that would never have been given in the qualifying rounds. Just officiate the games the way they have always been up to that point and all involved will respect it.
One of my biggest beefs in all of sports is the way officiating is done differently between what the actual rules/laws say and how they interpret and enforce them. Then tack on extra "guidance" for a set of games that is different from the "guidance" that is usually given and adhered to. 1. Enforce the laws they freaking way they are written. If the powers that be want to do things differently fine. Revise the freaking laws. 2. ONE set of guidance or interpretation for a given level of play. Totally trash this idea of the WC should have a different set of expectations. BS. How the heck can we expect players to play to a certain standard if we change that standard. It is damn hard to be consistent across refs as it is. Then change the way they are supposed to do things. I call BS on this whole nonsense.
In response to yours and a couple subsequent posts, all which make a similar valid point...I don't agree with the practice of officiating the World Cup Final differently than the rest of the competition. However, that's the current reality. It's not realistic to expect the WC Final referee to ignore what FIFA tells him and go out and call the game his own way. It's just not very likely for a referee to do that. So, yes, all things considered, with all sorts of 'guidance' and 'advice' in his head going into the match, Rizzoli did very well. It's hard enough to referee an important match such as this. External factors from the higher-ups make it even tougher.
Actually, doing a World Cup final is exactly the place a referee can "do it his own way" and ignore fifa directives from higher ups with alternate agendas. Finals referees are usually up against the mandatory 45 year retirement age ( Rizzoli is 42 and will be too old for the next cup) there really isn't anything left for them after. Why not do what is right?
You forget though that there is no consistent level of officiating expected across all of the players at the World Cup. La Liga and the Premier League alone have WILDLY different officiating standards, let vastly different activities slip, and all other vastly different things tightly... and that's only considering 2 leagues. Perhaps this attempt at homologation causes the outcry because no one is used to what they witness, but let's not forget that this tournament is an anomaly in terms of recent history of World Cups. Typically they are officiated much more tightly than league play standards, and I would agree often at a detriment to the product on the field. 2006 in particular was a horror show.
Agreed. It makes no sense to modify the laws for the world cup and ignore what is considered and modified by the IFAB at their annual meeting. Say what you will, but the revisions to the LOTG are meant to facilitate fair play. What I witnessed in Brasil was laughable and only succeeded initially because teams came to play fairly. Frankly, I am dismayed that some of you that still harbor aspirations of moving up the refereeing ladder are so willing to swallow the hemlock and avoid rocking the refereeing establishment. Rationalizing the modifications or ignoring the laws does nothing positive and contributes to a confusing and condradictory atmosphere, detrimental to fair play, making a mockery of the laws. Let's not forget the annual changes are a response to negative play and general improvements to insure fair play at the professional level.
This is the WC2014 refereeing forum. People are talking about the referee performances in the WC, not what is or should be done on the games we referee at other levels.
Please read what I wrote. You will not diminish what I wrote with this false claim that what I was writing about was not about the officiating at the world cup. The laws of the game are not modified for youth games or amateur games. The changes made on a yearly basis are for the professional game. FIFA should not be tinkering with the laws. They do so because they have a hard on for having to listen to the members of the IFAB. So they stupidly flex their muscles and make changes that always make no sense. Consistency is the rule that makes sense. Avoiding the issuing of cards for things that are cautioned the rest of the year at the professional level is stupid. It's confusing to everyone. It's quite clear that many with higher aspirations will not openly criticize FIFA for bad policy. So much for being open, honest and having integrity about what are clearly negative changes to the game.
Alberto, I read what you wrote. Twice. I'm done with this thread. Too much wasted time explaining that my point is not inconsistent with yours.
My post was not intended to criticize specifically the referee, but the clear stupidity of the concept of different application of the Laws in the WC competition and even more so if the final match was supposed to be different from the earlier rounds. I realize it is the current reality, that is quite clear. It is wrong for so many reasons, and unless it is stopped and the referees are allowed to officiate matches as they have been trained for many years, we will continue have what was an embarrassment for the worldwide refereeing community. The referees are placed in a very difficult situation and in a way makes a mockery of the whole concept of uniform application. I don't know anyone, other than the FIFA hierarchy who thinks this is a good idea. I am glad we agree on this. However, just accepting it without condemning it gives the impression that it is OK. MLS eventually got away from this style of refereeing, so there is hope that FIFA may see the error of its ways. PH
I have thought about this puzzling fact. The conclusion I have come to is that referees have learned over their careers to do what they are told, and do not rock the boat or be a maverick. There are too many people in the system who get to positions of influence and control who will unhesitatingly block a referee's career and advancement for trivial perceived slights. Everyone has seen this happen to someone they know who was a very good referee and they don't want it to happen to them. So basically they go with the flow, hold their noses and swallow hard and don't say anything or make a fuss. Some will even lie and say they support these concepts in order to appease their masters. Even if it is the last game of their career, they may want to become a FIFA instructor or assessor and continue on the gravy train, so they conform. Sad but true. Sometimes we see it here on this board, if you know where to look for it! PH