Usual disclaimer: I'm not a ref. My question is this: why _would_ it be advantage? Advantage may be subjective, but I almost always feel (feel, not LOTG) there should be exceptional circumstances to allow advantage when a player is fouled in their defensive third. Jones was at least moving toward the opponent's goal. But, he was indeed in his defensive third and had a single attacker in front of him - Dempsey. Dempsey was still 8' into his defensive half, with 3 German defenders even with him or goalside. What advantage is that? The advantage to make a series of perfect touches and all-time World Cup great-level moves? No advantage there for me. The other question here is that if a ref applies advantage, but the "advantaged" team stops playing... and even the opposing team appears to stop playing... what should the ref do then? I know the answer is play on, but I don't think anyone would have shed a tear if Irmatov had called it back at that point. (Pardon me if this has been discussed already... I was having a hard time making it through the thread... )
no reff has "EVER" been biassed or wrong or currupt, this has been proven you sound like you're saying the reff had no influence, the problem for me with marchisio's red was that it seamed random compared to the way he had let the teams play physically before that, he ignored an elbow to the side de sciglio's head, he ignored other rough tackles, he saw marchisio's contact, he didnt even bother to discuss with the AS if he saw anything, he then wasted the whole of the 1st minute of injury time, so its laughable that you suggest the reff had no influence on the outcome of the game especially when uruguay should have been a man down for SFP in the 1st half, but i guess all the officials missed that too.
Well, it is a humor column, and it doesn't appear to be true, but don't let that stop your referee self-rightous indignation eye rolling thing.
So you expect him to discuss with his AR something that happened within a yard of himself and 40 yards from the AR? Makes sense to me. The AR definitely would have had a better view. Just like coaches that can see offside from the sideline compared to an AR right in line.
Here you go.... Oregon Prep Baseball Team Wins Three-Game Series Vs I'm a former Ref so you can take it to the bank that I am always truthful.
Advantage means that the fouled team is better off if play is not stopped. It's really that simple - in concept. (The 4 Ps [Possession, Potential, Personnel (attackers and defenders) & Proximity (to the attacking goal)] are a common way of evaluating whether Advantage exists.) And it is typical that advantage is not useed on a play that warrants a caution [whcih I thought thsi was] unless advantage is particularly clear. It used to be that the referee had to decide immediately if there was going to be an advantage, which led to it not being used as much because it required a bit of prediction. Now the referee can go back if the advantage he thought was going to be there wasn't actually there. On this play, I thought it was shaky scope of advantage in the first place -- and I thought it was immediately clear that any advantage he might have thought might be there wasn't and it should have gone back. With respect to teams stopping, largely that is a sign to the referee that the team doesn't see it as more advantageous, and is probably a good indicator not to play advantage. On the other hand, if a player has a clear opportunity and flubs it, oh well, the advantage was wasted -- that is not the same thing as never being there. (And perhaps that is what Mr. Irmatov thought on the play in question: that the advantage was wasted by a poorly executed pass forward. I don't agree, but he has the white badge . . . )
Mentions of officiating = 0 I have no doubt that most of those that repped Mr. Roby's post firmly believed that it was true. I don't question referees humor, merely their competence. Although I must add that from reading the "Best stories" threads, I find that they do have amazing imaginations.
I apologize if the following question has already been asked and addressed. In the sequence in which Jones ran into the ref near Germany's penalty area, was the positioning of the ref wrong (and got into Jones' way) or was that just one of those things?
@striker It is not the positioning most refs on here would take. But if you watch, the referees in the WC have been much more central when the ball is in thate area. None of us were privy to the instructions the WC refs were given -- it seems they were told to move more in and it might have been where the WC refs were asked to be.
Putting is simply, regardless of the level of competition, the Referee should not occupy space that the players want to use. In this instance I feel the Referee had the obligation to avoid the player since it is not considered by most to be to typical positioning for the Referee.
Personally, I think Irmatov is not at all at fault there, but that seems to be a bit of an unpopular opinion. His positioning would be atypical by USSF standards. However, the USSF instructions on positioning are not really in line with the rest of the world (though recently they have moved in that direction). By USSF standards, Irmatov would be a lot closer to the other side of the box, in the traditional diagonal that USSF taught for years. One could make the argument that Irmatov should have recognized that there were players in the area, and he could move away from it. But to me, it was more important for him to be close to play and have his eye on the ball than it was to ensure that nobody runs into him. It would be one thing if Irmatov was running quickly, or zig-zagging around, but to me it looks like he is just jogging forward, and Jones just runs into his back. As a referee, you want to be as proactive as possible in making sure you don't interfere with play. But sometimes, there's not a whole lot you can do. If a referee is constantly checking over his shoulder to make sure nobody is about to run into him, he's going to miss a lot of stuff on the ball.
Just watched this. Anyone making a direct comparison to the Marchisio foul is being completely dishonest. KB's foul was a bad one, but the direction of his foot, as well as the fact that he didn't make contact with the studs, to me, make his foul not at all analogous.
Granted I didn't watch the whole game but to me this seems to be it. If the next touch was controlled then he took that as "advantage realised" and moved on with play regardless of what that touch resulted in. IMO that isn't really the intention of advantage but as you say, he is fairly high up in the pyramid...
The big question for me is how Irmatov who was excellent in his first world cup match four years ago has never been as consistent and good since then. We first ran into him in the U17 World Championships in 2003. He was terrible. Young and inexperienced. He improved by 2010 and the World Cup opener, but since then his performances have been weaker and mediocre. I do not see how his performance in the USA vs. Germany match could be considered as passing. For me it is a culmination of bad traits and tendencies that have been present from his first international appointment as a referee. Many times I feel FIFA goes to far in trying to be inclusive of referees from all confederations to the detriment of the game and the art of officiating.
It's a shame that all the crying over the calls vs Italy in South Korea got lost in the Big Soccer crash, they could just cut and paste them, and save all this typing.....
I was at that game. Most incredible crowd experience I've ever witnessed. That was the only game Korea played in one of the small 40k seat stadia - when the schedule was laid out, they didn't envisage Korea winning the group.
You really think the player has an obligation to avoid the referee in that area? That positioning is atypical for most leagues in the world. No way an EPL ref is there, or anyone in Spain or Italy. Middle of the arc?
I've definitely demonstrated otherwise. I would have loved to see some people here defending Moreno 12 years ago. Anyway, you guys win. I've been told by a supermod that I'll be banned if I continue. Forza Authoritarianism!!!
Dude, I'm completely neutral in all of this. I'm not a ref and I have no leanings for/against Italy or Uruguay. But I do know trolling and persecution complexes. If it was authoritarianism, your posts would've been erased. You really need to come down off the cross.