Well, none of us should think that way. But you and I both had the thought, which I suggests makes it human nature and one which needs to be overcome.
Replay right over his shoulder was rather damning. Mechanically, how would it work? Ref talk or buzzer?
I think it's both. Buzz for attention, then talk. There's no visual signal to indicate what you're calling. Remember that the AARs call both penalties and dives, so there inherently are discussions for all of their most important calls. Take the penalty decision out of it and a couple peculiar foul calls here or there and I think Kuipers was strong overall. No one's been perfect or extraordinarily exceptional yet--but no one has been really bad, either (my criticism of Kassai is relative). Think Rizzoli and Cakir will be afforded opportunities to shine tomorrow.
Not sure what the ref can do. And FIFA is no more involved here than they are at your local youth soccer match. UEFA leaves direct security up to the locals, so this falls on police/stewards. That said, I didn't notice any situations where the players actually reacted to it during dynamic play. Perhaps it seemed a lot louder on television than it did on the field, as mics are positioned deliberately to pick up crowd noise.
It's amazing that the guy was doing this for 90 minutes and couldn't be caught. There was a brief period he stopped and then started blowing it again for full time.
This just kills me. While I agree that the Irish player played the ball, we have seen similar plays 1000 times and many who are now arguing control argue no control on very similar plays in the past. It just goes to show that the determination is purely ITOOTR and the ATR is wrong with the "miskick" language.
I agree, I just don't like the idea of punishing the offense for capitalizing on an obviously catastrophic mistake by the defense. They screwed up, the ref shouldn't be required to bail them out.
Maybe, but those full-time whistles in particular were indistinguishable (to me) from the refs full-time whistle. And it seemed on at least one of them that the players stopped, thinking it was full-time.
So how exactly was the Ward deflection different from the Dudar deflection, which I think MLS conceded was wrongly called onside?
When I initially saw the the play and the replay, my thought was there was no control and therefore, it should have been whistled for offside. I need to restore the recording and watch it again. Also, Duff was clearly fouled in the box. That should have been a penalty. Croatia was better, but they got help from the officials.
I don't think that the officials making a couple mistakes counts as "help", putting it that way sounds cynical to me at least. Also to a professional athlete that's gotta count as control. The balls on his foot and he doesn't swipe at it, he controls his kick...it just goes the wrong direction. If he was say, falling or no in control of his body in some way I'd agree, but he wound up and intended to kick it, I say that's control.
Am I completely wrong for thinking the 2nd Croation goal was offside from the initial shot? The attacker in the middle was in an offside position (just), he was screening the GK and without a defender blocking the shot (and who was essentially defending him), it would have hit him. As for the second phase of that play, it entirely comes down to if you feel that the defenders play was controlled, which in this case is very borderline. The ball takes some crazy bounces and then falls near his feet where the defender takes a stab at it. I thought that "anywhere but here" plays of the ball don't count as a controlled touch by the defender, which this arguably is.
But the ball wasn't going anywhere. This wasn't a desperation lunge to prevent it from going through to some place else. As you say, it "falls near his feet." If he hadn't played it, it would have remained at or near his feet. Yes, he tried to clear it away quickly because he obviously would have been under pressure. But he still had the ball at his feet. I find it difficult to argue that the initial kick is not a controlled play then. He chose to play it fast. Maybe there were reasons that he made that choice, but it was still a choice.
USSF has always said the defender must not only play the ball but also control it: 2. The ball is played (possessed and controlled, not simply deflected, miskicked or misdirected) by an opponent, including the opposing goalkeeper. So I wonder how you so matter-of-factly state that this play was not offside, because by my understanding, by USSF standards, it certainly was. Of course, this has always gone beyond the language in the LOTG: “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means ... or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position It was certainly a difficult play for the AR to make a call. Did he just make the wrong call, or does he actually use a different interpretation of the law?
But while it was at his feet, the ball didn't end up at his feet from a controlled touch on his part and he had attackers all around him. Instead, the ball bounces around and lands near his feet and he immediately tries to clear it. I think the borderlineness of this play is even more clear if we compare it to the pass back to the GK law. If this same ball had gone to the GK who then picked it up, I don't think anyone would argue that it was a controlled back pass to the GK. So this ball is both not close to being controlled enough to count as a backpass yet is more than controlled enough to reset offside.
I don't know how any of you thought he had a good game. The penalty miss was a game changer. 3-2 at that juncture is way different. Would you feel the same way if the match at that point was 0-0? He missed a stone penalty. Not that the Irish deserved more, but I thought he wasn't world class at all. And enough about the deflection by the defender. This is the big leagues and he kicked it straight to Jelevic. Period. End of story. No OS.
Maybe this is just one of the several reasons why USSF referees are considered a joke around the world.
The ball rebounded off two defenders: first (6), then (3). After the ball hits (3) in the left leg, it begins moving away from the defender and toward one of the originally offside attackers (8). The defender (3) then took a wild swing at the ball to clear it but only succeeded in pushing it further backward toward the other originally offside player (9), who scored. Fortunately, we are not arguing about whether or not control is needed to reset offside. We simply are on opposites sides of the question of whether or not on this particular play, the defender played the ball with control. I don't think he did.
I think the last part answers your own question. The ATR goes beyond the Laws. And, quite frankly, the interpretation is stupid if it's taken literally. If read, literally, it would mean that the ball could touch 5 or 6 defenders in a row--say off headed balls--and the attacker could still be punished for being offside so long as he was in an offside position when his teammate last touched it and that none of the defenders ever "possessed and controlled." We all know that's not true--at least I hope we all know that's not true. In fact, didn't USSF say in one of the WiRs two years ago that a headed ball back reset the offside, even though there was no "possession and control?" As is all too common for USSF, the more they write in an effort to explain things, the more they contradict themselves. Irish player had the ball at his feet. He tried to clear it. He shanked it and kicked it backwards. Offside needs to be reset there. You don't bail the defender out with a flag.
I'm not sure it's stonewall. I think it's a legitimate penalty, but one that isn't always given. That said, I do think he "missed" it rather than chose not to give it. But your point about one call leads me to a question I've always asked... how many match-critical judgment calls can a referee get "wrong" and still have a good game? Because, if it's one call that makes a bad match, then an argument can be made in almost every single match that the referee had a bad game. I'm pretty sure you could make an argument that each referee in all six matches either missed a decent claim for a penalty, missed a red card, or gave a red that was unnecessary (and no, before anyone jumps down my throat, I do not agree with all of those claims). Perfection might be the goal, but it can't be the standard. Thank you. At least we agree fully here.