It's a bit too effusive for my taste. Very grandiose writing. Plus the excessive bolding and underlining reads like a bad Popular Mechanics advertisement.
We've had discussions and people have mentioned Herb Silva saying for nationals he wants people who can put on a production, not just make calls. You'd have to assume FIFA wants the same. Mark and crew did that, it was an entertaining game that was fun to watch, we are dissecting one single call. Wouldn't surprise me if they get another game, especially if USA doesn't win this afternoon
i understand where you are coming from. but i know what the author is pretty blunt and candid, given my personal interactions with him in the past. I think just like americans are on a wave of emotion because of the soccer team progress, we are this way with Mark. but if screwed up royally, I am sure Steve would let him know. I am not saying you have to agree with him, but I have always found him to be neutral, honest, and non b****S**y
Haha, I agree. A good blog doesn't rely on such things to make a point but, rather, it relies on good writing. But that's more of a formatting annoyance for me.
Again, it looks to me that referees have been instructed to not show cards as frequently as they are used to. I think we have all watched Mark give a red for less than the ankle tackle in MLS. In past World Cups, then maybe both incidents are reds, but that just isn't the way this World Cup has been called thus far.
I agree actually that the refs should be handing out less yellows, because IMO too many stupid yellows ruined the tournament in the past, however those are yellows which are not dangerous play which should be overlooked. A straight red is still a straight red. Marchisio, and the Ecuador red were for far less than what happened right in front of the ref in this match. He goofed big time, and it wasn't just this call.
So the onus is actually on you to provide specific situations for discussion as this is a forum dedicated to such things. I kick myself for even replying to you as I know this is just dragging on the inevitable. Like many before you, remember this is not a place to just bitch and moan. Again, specific examples would be helpful here. Just which of the seven cautionable offenses should we ignore this time? There actually has been a good amount of discussion -- from posters who actually have spent time to provide game situations for analysis, not just inflammatory remarks -- around the apparently higher threshold for things like PI. So... let's start over. Aside from partisan dribble about a referee influencing the outcome of a match, is there something specific you would like to analyze from this match?
Umm how about ignoring to call a blatant PK and two blatant red cards. That would be a start, and I have not seen a match officiated at this WC with that many blown calls of such magnitude. Not one. How about you address these points instead of the useless nonsense you just wrote.
If you want an honest answer, all of them. Specifically though, the Brazil - Croatia match resulted in that referee being iced for the tournament. Irmatov had an AR sent home for blowing two offside decisions in a Mexico game. Proneca had a few controversial incidents, including a PK that won the game for the Netherlands which has been dissected ad nasuem. O'Leary had an AR take away a good goal for Bosnia and hasn't reappeared. Eriksson took a similarly lenient view of a few incidents in the Ghana v USA game and continues to work. If you want to go back to the 2010 final, Webb let the boys play in a big way, yet he's back and trusted on big games. We can quibble about individual decisions, but card or no card, yellow or red is ultimately in the opinion of the referee. Whether that opinion is justified or not is ultimately up to the bosses. There were three incidents in the game that we can dissect. In each one he got through without too much trouble. Like Eriksson a couple of weeks ago, he manged the game and landed the proverbial plane.
actually the elbow didn't even land with any force. it was more a menace than a real blow... which doesn't make it less reprehensible. and it was the second straight match in which giroud has done this. i would hope that deschamps will make it crystal clear to giroud that a WC, with 4 years work by the FA and the hopes and dreams of 23 players and a whole nation on the line, is not a 3rd grade playground, and that he will watch the rest of it from the stands if he tries this again, caught or not caught.
Right, because no other world cup match has seen a missed red card or PK (at least in the eyes of adoring fans). Have you actually read any of this thread? And which two "missed" red cards are you referencing? This is the part I was referencing when I said specific game situations. I know you feel my post was useless nonsense, but the vague manner in which you describe these match critical decisions is far from useful. If you had spent some time going through this thread you would find that many posters agree there was a missed send off. I happen to be one of those who agrees it should have been red, but it's probably orange based on the bar set this tournament. This would be a lot easier if you'd follow your own advice. Thanks for keeping this civil.
this is all important imo. the challenge was honest in that matuidi thought he could get the ball, without obvious intent to injure, and not particularly clumsy. but once the gravity of the injury became obvious, changing the yellow to red would have been perfectly justified. and i'm sure matuidi would have had no complaint, and that sincere and contrite attitude might have helped his case a lot. i can't understand why so many players insist on denial, outrage, playacting... just how dumb do they think referees are? matuidi's history as a rugged but very clean player might have helped too. do the refs have time to do that kind of homework before a match?
So the reason for the sarcastic response you are getting is we are not looking to judge intent in these situations. We know the contact occurred, so it just needs to be considered against the careless/reckless/endangering an opponent scale that @socal lurker mentioned earlier.
the french commentators were caught off guard by lots of things he let go "anglo-saxon" style (and both ways, though not necessarily in equal measure). certainly it's not the way a game is called in the french league! but they remarked that the level of engagement he allowed was consistent from whistle to whistle and thought he did a good job in that respect.
With regard to the specifics of this game, this specific referee makes the time for that. Every time. Every game. That's a big part of the reason why Geiger has had continued success, and is likely one of the reasons FIFA feels comfortable trusting him with some big games so far.
I was just trying to point out that neither publication felt like anything controversial happened from the referee. ... particularly an american one who they would have pounced on if anything controversial happened.
why does this keep being brought up in regards to the elbow? the ball was not in play at the time so the careless/reckless/excessive force part of the laws does not apply here. that elbow could only be misconduct.
At this point in the discussion, we got side tracked on striking and whether that's always a send off. So we weren't specifically talking about the situation you mentioned (which did occur while the ball out not in play, as you correctly point out).
I think I'm looking at this too much as a real life lawyer where intentional acts are always a higher degree of wrongful conduct than reckless ones. Therefore, any intentional elbow/slap to the face is "using excessive force" but I can see it failing the "endangering" element. But it sure as Hell is not merely "careless", IMO.