I believe it. When I said "at least 6" there was still time left. Not that I think the lack of a PI caution for him had any significant effect on the game. I also thought that the US was the beneficiary of several soft foul calls in the last 5 minutes or so, but ESPN was using such a wide angle shot that it was hard to judge very well and there was no opportunity for replay. Overall I think Haimoudi did a good job, and the better team won (although I reeeeaaaally wanted a second goal for the US).
Klinsman's concern about the match official made for a nice story but I think the game was fairly called. Too bad we did not have a proper striker in the 92nd minute; Altidore would have buried the shot.
I agree about handing out a caution for PI would have had any significant outcome on the game but it shows what is not an important concern for the refs. Any assessor in the US would have been all over a ref here if a player committed 8 fouls and did not get a card for PI.
I thought LOTG didn't have an specific about the number of fouls that ones considers a PI, a marking/defensive midfield player is bound to commit more fouls and it is part of the game. A player is allow to challenge, I didn't think all his fouls were aimed at disrupting the flow of the game nor they were tactical fouls. I believe the ref keep in line with the rest of the refereeing we are seeing here. Not much caution for Tactical fouls (Argentina sure did a few of them without getting a YC) Quite entertaining game and I believe the ref let it happen
I liked it when klinsman dropped the F bomb when politely asking the 4th how they arrived at 1 minute of stoppage for the second period of extra time.
Referee did pretty well in what was a fairly easy match to officiate. For my money, his biggest failure was in not identifying the fouling patterns - the quantities (27 by Belgium, 11 by USA), the foulers, and the foulees. This makes me wonder how sophisticated the referee really is. At this level, does he understand and recognize the big picture and tactics and what's going on and why? This performance suggested to me that perhaps he doesn't.
Altidore wouldnt have been with fifteen feet of that ball. You did see him play for the Black Cats this year?
An excellent opportunity to allow him to express some joy with his team but also reign him in with a smile: "Hey coach, FIFA got rid of sudden death. I need you to hustle back to your bench."
You realize stoppage time is whole minutes? Other than the extra time, Haimoudi has been my second favorite referee in the tournament right behind Geiger.
Stoppage time is announced in whole minutes, but there is absolutely zero requirement that game actually finish at the minute mark. You've really never seen a game end 30 seconds after the announced stoppage time?
No but I stand corrected on the matter. Almost every match I have seen on TV has ended within + or - 10 seconds of the stated stoppage time, or near whole minute marks when additional stoppage time is added.
What are the typical foul counts for PI by one player (3-4ish?) and by a team against another player (?)? What's the rule of thumb?
The chance that Green absolutely buried a was at LEAST half again as difficult the one Wondolowski shanked to heavens...
A few people have pointed out that this was "an easy match to referee." I hope they realize that it was "easy" in large part because of Haimoudi's consistency on fouls. He set a threshold, held it, and the game stayed in that window. This was a very well refereed game. I know it didn't have close fouls in the box or a pk/non pk decision of note. But he called fouls on headers/gk's/punts strictly and consistently, and I really think this kept the game tight. He didn't fall for dives (which he constantly waved off). It was obvious that with that sense of safety, the players tried creative flicks and daring turns, and in addition that they respected each other. I think we under sell a solid performance when we say, "well, that ref sure was lucky this game was so easy." It was an overtime match in the WC knockout round! No way you can tell the crew: "sorry, this game just wasn't demanding enough to get a good feel for how well you do as referees; maybe next time we can see you guys on a semi or something that challenges you."
For me, I'll usually be giving the player some serious ass chewing at three fouls, and four in a half or five in a game will almost always bring out the yellow, and sometimes it comes sooner. That said, you also need to keep in mind the nature of the fouls they are occurring, as well as if they're also committing a lot of trifling fouls, which should be taken into account when considering PI. Three fouls that each individually are just short of a caution will bring out a yellow from me almost every time on the third. But three soft fouls, where the player seems to be legitimately trying to win the ball and is just going a bit overboard will usually get more leeway. I think this is what helped the Belgian player here. While he had many fouls, most of them were pretty soft. I guess the referee felt he would have had some trouble selling a card on such soft fouls, even if he tries to make it clear it's for PI.
I mean, I might let young players get away with a couple more fouls, because I tend to call those games a bit tighter, but for the most part I'm pretty consistent among different levels in regards to PI, and I imagine most referees are the same. I will take the temperature of the match into consideration, though; sometimes if I feel like I need to give a caution to start settling things down in a chippy game, PI is a good place to start, so I might give one a bit earlier than I would in a game that doesn't need that kind of early intervention. That could again factor in in this game, as it was not the chippiest game of the tournament. All that said, I'm not under nearly the same kind of pressures that a world cup referee is under. When a yellow card can potentially mean a star player misses a game in the most important tournament in the world, I can definitely see a referee trying to do everything he can to control the game without them. And in this case, I don't think a yellow card for PI would have really done anything for him in terms of match management. It may not be totally just, but keeping his card in his pocket here is probably what FIFA prefers.
I agree with this, and I'll go you one further and say that I've been impressed by the consistency of officiating in Brazil. More than in the past, referees understand what FIFA wants and have succeeded in delivering it. But yesterday, I think we saw some teams adapt to the officiating with negative tactics. Argentina-Switzerland had the exact same foul counts as the 2010 final (19 fouls by the team that controlled possession, 28 by the team that didn't). And then Belgium managed to commit 27 fouls in a game where possession was 50-50 and they weren't under a lot of pressure. If a team can foul repeatedly at midfield or in the attacking half without ever being cautioned, then what's the downside?
Especially when you take your eye off the ball @ the last second. Horrendous miss. Did you see the look of incredulity on Klinis's face.
Depends on many factors, such as: What type of fouls are being committed? How clustered during the match are the fouls? How high a percentage of the overall fouls in the match are being committed by the 1 player? What type of result or outcome is being achieved by the fouls? E.g. is it taking away something in particular that the opposing team is trying to do from a tactical standpoint. A borderline reckless tackle after a talking-to from the referee for a very similar challenge 5 minutes prior may very well earn a caution for PI on just the '2nd one.' 3 or 4 similar fouls, or even perhaps different types of fouls, within a 15-20 minute stretch normally should be tripping the referee's trigger. A player who spaces his 5-6 fouls well apart during the match may escape a PI caution and may not even be on the referee's radar for potential PI. Fellaini's fouls mostly were softer upper body fouls, but he was being called for enough fouls in the first half that it seemed pretty obvious he was guilty of PI. The referee did not appear to pick up on this. In 2nd half and extra time, it seemed his fouling rate decreased substantially. In my opinion, the time to book Fellaini for PI was sometime in the 1st half. The ref missed that opportunity, and it didn't make as much sense - because the PI didn't look as obvious - to book him later in the match. Match statistics say 8 fouls by Fellaini. 8 fouls by 1 player is a TON. And that's 8 midfield fouls, not 8 fouls by a striker trying to hustle and win balls in the opposing team's penalty area. I.e. more important fouls.
Bingo. It goes to what I said earlier about the referee not picking up on the tactics and trends of the match.