http://www.theblizzard.co.uk/blog/issue-eleven-excerpt-horacio-elizondo-on-sending-off-zidane/ Pretty fascinating stuff as to what transpired. Great insight. Nice to know that Elizondo pulled the old "I'm going to go talk to my AR to sell this decision even though he saw absolutely nothing" trick. I think we've all done that before.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Wish it addressed why it took the 4th so long to tell Elizondo what he saw. Lends credence to the rumour (unless it's been confirmed, and I haven't heard) that he saw a replay.
I dunno about that. While I wish it were more specific, the hint of an answer on the timing is there -- he talks about the crowd noise and that the head sets were new.
I often wonder if almost all conferences between officials and AR's nowadays at the pro level are simply for the purpose of selling the call. I'm not sure what could be said in person that couldn't be said over a headset.
There may be some we can gleem from what he did say. It's almost like the pre-game was to only answer questions when he asked and not to shout to him during play. Incident was behind his back and he went through the officials one by one.
Another thing to consider is that, at the FIFA level, there's really not usually as much involvement from 4th as we might think. The 4ths aren't helping with throw-in direction and fouls in front of them in a way we sometimes instruct our 4ths in the US. A big part of this, I believe, is that the 4th is not part of the "team" on a regular basis--only for that particular game. I think I relayed my observations from being in the stadium for a couple EURO 2012 games--I was shocked to see how little the 4ths (world-class officials, obviously) did--both pre-game and during the match. I don't think it's surprising that the 4th would get the third crack on this. Elizondo probably worked dozens and dozens of matches with his ARs. And that was probably his first ever match with Medina Cantalejo. I'm sure there were very restrictive instructions on when the 4th should involve himself. It would probably have to be an extraordinary event where the ARs couldn't help, which this was. Plus, it's probably the biggest call a 4th will ever make. A couple second delay is not that surprising. Actually, when you read Elizondo's thoughts, I'm very surprised by how early in the process he knew that he was sending Zidane off. If the story is relayed and translated correctly, Elizondo knew he was sending Zidane off before he ever got to the spot of the incident, which is amazing given the amount of time that then elapsed before the red was produced. I'm going to have another look at the incident with that in mind.
The thing is, you don't want multiple people talking on the headsets at the same time, especially when you've got a lot of crowd noise. Obviously, he did 'roll call' for help and the 4O is the bottom man on the list. I also liked how he pulled the "Why did he head butt him?" line, The answer might get a confession from the teammate that, yes, it was a head butt and it might also give him information about what else went on. E.g. this is going to be easier to sell if the other guy is getting plastic also.
Don't take this wrong, as I'm not trying to be rude, but have you ever used headsets? I think the headsets are great for short conversations but if you are having a more detailed conversation that requires a lot of back and forth, having that in person is much better. Plus, as others have mentioned, it goes a long way to see the referees huddled together, discussing the call (even if they are just discussing their weekend plans). Once you add crowd noise into the mix it gets all the more interesting with the headsets.
I am sorry, but it was more than a couple of seconds and I guess whether or not it was surprising is somewhat subjective. Personally, at least from what I recall and what I've read (before and in this latest interview), I come down on the side of it not making a lot of sense: - The 4th (allegedly) sees what he later describes as a "violent headbutt" and says nothing. - There is a stoppage and then restart. And he still says nothing. - The CR then stops play (after the intervening restart) and he still says nothing. - The CR then talks to AR1, who didn't see it, and then to AR2, who didn't see it, and then a lightbulb finally goes off that this might be a good time to tell everyone. Maybe that's how it went down, but I suspect this is only going to fuel the suspicion of many that he must not have seen it and must have watched a replay or gotten information from some other source. For me, it is hard to imagine that a 4O who saw this live is not, at a minimum, telling the CR "man down" and/or "stop play". But, as I'm reading this interview, 4O is the only one claiming to have seen it and yet he was absolutely silent. I'm certainly curious to hear more from those with experience with headsets and with experience with higher level games, but are people really saying that the right procedure for the 4O in this situation is to remain absolutely quiet and wait until you're asked what happened?
The way I read it, he asked that question to the 4O. Your suggestion of asking it to a player is much more clever and very well might get an admission of some sort.
If I'm 4th, regardless of how restrictive the referee's instructions are about my role, I'm telling him IMMEDIATELY if there's VC.
I hadn't focused before on the red having been given after an intervening restart. The I&G says this: Is that what would have been applicable in this case? Even though the AR did not signal? (Does Law 18 perhaps hold that the 4O's radio squawk is tantamount to an AR signal? Even if that signal/squawk did not come until after the restart?) In the US we are told this (ATR 5.13): Does this mean that in the circumstances as they unfolded in that match, under US guidance Zidane could not have been sent off?
Before we go fully down this rabbit hole, for reference--and a trip down memory lane--here's the original thread on this forum: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/zidane-red-card-discussion-thread.380461/ The discussion you want to have starts on Page 6 (post #144). Jim Allen was consulted later in the thread, too. The short answer to your question is, "no, Zidane gets sent off no matter what." ATR 5.13 actually covers this (the restart was a dropped ball). It is an interesting discussion to have based on the Laws and instructions as written, but basically the referee has to act on the advice of his assistants once he becomes aware of the misconduct. If a restart happens in between, that changes the nature of the next restart, but the red card still should be shown. Oh, and I'll pat myself on the back for speculating the conference was merely to sell the call (#264) just days after the incident.
One other thing to consider about Elizondo's story and why it seems plausible. From reading the old thread, it seems some claimed the 2006 system was not open mic and the CR had to initiate discussions with his crew. That would support his description of turning, one-by-one, to each team member for help.
Thanks for the reference MR. That was well before my short time here on the forum. I see no reference in that discussion to the language I quoted from ATR 5.13. Did that language come into the ATR after that time? And if so, does that mean that under current USSF guidance (putting aside the interesting question of whether the ATR any longer qualifies as current USSF guidance), Zidane could not be sent off?
Putting aside the validity of the ATR as controlling instruction (and someone else will probably know if 5.13 was written that way in 2006) ... I don't read anything in 5.13 to support the position that he can't be sent off. The passage starts off by saying it's "normally" the case that a card can't be shown if play has restarted. Right off the bat, the passage is stipulating a card can be shown after play has restarted. I imagine you're sticking to the part where the assistant has to raise the flag and maintain the flag in order for such a situation to be triggered. First, fourths don't have flags and if we were in a match situation in which they didn't have headsets, that would mean the fourth could never relay misconduct unless he did so before the next restart, which would be practically impossible in a lot of situations. Second, the passage talks about the responsibility to maintain the flag being discussed during pregame--some might read that as "you must reiterate this passage of the ATR" in the pre-game; I read it as "some deviation from this instruction could be allowed and should be discussed in your pre-game." For example, there might be situations where a referee wants advantage played, despite serious misconduct being witnessed, and still come back to issue the appropriate card; in a case like that, the flag should not go up right away. As we talked about back in 2006 (toward the end of that thread), the Laws give the wiggle room and given the serious nature of a situation like this, we need to seize it. Imagine the same scenario in your local amateur league, except a few opponents saw the headbutt. And they know your AR saw the headbutt. But you didn't see the headbutt and a restart occurred before your AR got you the information. If you choose to get hung up on language in the Laws and our instruction (which, to reiterate, I don't think actually handcuff you) and opt not to send the aggressor off, you might as well abandon the match that very second.
I'm curious as to how AR closest to the incident didn't see it at all, but the 4th did? I have no doubt that 4th saw the incident, but how is it possible that the AR couldn't see it. If he's watching the second to last defender which Materazzi almost was or close to it than he should have seen it. Unless he watched the ball get cleared up field. That's what I'm baffled by from this interview is how did the AR not see it? It should have been or right near his line of vision if he is watching the second to last defender.
I understand that why he was trying to "sell" the call, but wouldn't he have been able to establish the same feat by running over to the same guy who actually did provide the info? I realize that getting info from the 4th official wasn't as common "back then", but it still would have seemed to have made more sense.
He's made his decision already, he's only trying to sell the call at this point. It's easier to sell the call by going to the AR (who, regardless of whether he actually saw anything, was in pretty much ideal position to have seen the headbutt) than to the 4O (who let's face it, is often considered not a real match official by non-referees).
The interview leaves an important point unaddressed: If Materazzi got tired of lying on the floor after 20 seconds, and got up and continued to play, Elizondo would never have stopped play. He would never have asked his ARs about why Materazzi was down, and the 4th would never have told him that it was VC. Maybe he would have mentioned it in the change room after? It seems pretty clear to me that the 4th shared his opinion at pretty much the exact moment when TV audiences were being shown the headbutt – while Elizondo was approaching Materazzi. Was there a screen in the 4th’s field of vision? With the number of cameras in that stadium, my guess is he saw one of their screens, which showed a replay. I don’t really have a problem with that, but it’s the massive element in the room which the interviewer doesn’t address.
I think you're suggesting a hypothetical that would absolutely never hew with reality. The chances of Materazzi--or any professional player--voluntarily getting up from that (or a similar) incident without involvement of the referee is zero. I believe it was discussed at the time that the 4th wasn't even at the midfield table because he was dealing with an injury down the touch line, toward the Italian defensive half. Also, I'd watch the video again. If Elizondo is correct in saying he knew by the time he arrived at the incident that he was sending Zidane off, then you're wrong about the timing. The replay had not yet been shown on the international feed. Elizondo arrives at the incident around 3:13 into the extra time half. The replay was not shown until 3:36. Moreover, think about where the cameras are positioned at a FIFA match. I can't think of a single situation--other than a monitor behind the 4th's table--where a video would be in his field of vision (and even then it'd be the 5th official seeing it). Particularly when he's up near the touch line. And again, just in case you're talking about a big screen replay instead of one on the cameras, the replay was never shown on a big screen. I don't know why it's so hard to believe that the 4th saw this with his own eyes. I realize that none of us know for sure what happened and piecing it together is fun. But the 4th seeing it directly makes the most sense to me now, as it did back then. The only thing that doesn't make some sense, as was noted above, is why the SAR didn't see it directly. Why he missed it is far stranger to me than why the 4th caught it.
I find it hard to believe because the fourth didn't immediately say "Horacio - violent conduct, behind you!". And then he let a stoppage for handball pass, again without saying anything. That's absurd behaviour from any official, never mind a FIFA in the WC final.
Were the 2006 communication systems push-to-talk/open mic or did conversations have to be initiated by the referee? I genuinely don't know (0r remember) the answer, but there was talk here on this board, at the time, that they were the latter. That might be wrong, but Elizondo's story--where he asked each official one-by-one--seems to support that.
Yeah, if that's the case, then it makes sense. Though why you'd have a system like that in place, I don't know.