Intentional handling is not a must card crime. The Law has a more specific requirement than just intent. It was a response to the "double jeopardy" argument made by Rydian. And here I agree with celito, the punishment and the restart are two separate consequences from a made call and they should not be seen as, or decided upon, in combination.
Yeah, and not just for the Howard Webb's of the world. Even on Saturday's at the park, it's easier to understand "I didn't see it" than to accept a guess. I know I'm in the minority (all you assessors out there ), but I frequently see refs make a "game critical" mistake and yet still have what I would consider a very good game. Speaking solely as a ref-geek, and fan of the craft, that one second doesn't really diminish the performance. Unless, I suppose have to admit, it goes against my team . But, as a neutral, I often find myself saying: "Good game, except for THAT decision. Can't wait to see you work again."
I think this is a pretty intelligent comment. Baseball officials often are taught about the difference between making the expected an unexpected call when you're in equipoise about what you saw. And, in this consequence, "expected" refers in some sense to the nature of the result and whether its' commensurate with the play that occurred. I hear people often saying that footie is different to officiate, because it's more "subjective" than other sports. I'm not so sure about that. I think the issue is more that there has to be a gloss on the game compelled by the fact that the laws of the game do not do a good job of matching infraction to penalty. The six second rule is a perfect example. An IFK in the box is too much. But rather than being able to utter discrespect for the sacred LOG, you end up with this ridiculous gloss that you cannot call the laws as they are written. It's unbelievable -- the world actually had a debate that went like this: (1) Yes, that's the rule. (2) But nobody calls the rule. At some point, you'd think someone should say, "should it be the rule," but you're not allowed to say that in footie. That leaves refs hanging. All that said, I'm not so sure handling in the box is the greatest example, because it's sort of an area where the expected call is sort of 50/50. If you asked me what's a worse call to kick -- calling something that wasn't handling a penalty or not calling handling in the box when it should have been called -- I think it's pretty close.
I want to first basically agree with this post; player management is what seperates good referees from world class ones, and that is extremely important to remember. I also finally saw the missed handling call, and wow does that look bad on TV (which clearly had the best possible angle for this decision). I would be interested in the positioning of the referee on this play, but I'm surprised with the AR on the other side that the referee didn't take up a position to watch this from a similar angle to the TV Camera, and I also wonder what the positioning would have looked like with an AAR. EDIT: Regular guy: It is way worse (perception wise) for a referee to award a phantom penalty (or phantom goal) than to not award a penalty/goal. I don't agree with this (Refereeing decisions simply introduce another element of luck in a game with many others), but thats the way it is seen. The incorrect giving of a penalty is seen as the referee giving the other team a goal, and that always, always blows up an important match.
I agree and have the same feelings. In no way am I trying to imply that Steinhaus had a bad game or anything like that. But it really is an interesting question for me. At the top levels, what's the "point of no return" threshold where you've failed even though your overall performance was strong? A referee has a near perfect game except for one game-critical error... is that fine? What about two of them? Three? Or is it not the quantity, but the extremity of the error(s) that matter? Take Kassai and his AAR at EURO, for example. He had to go home because his team missed a goal (and the other teams did so well, giving him less room for error). But what if his team had merely allowed an offside goal? Probably still gone, as Howard Webb's team was in 2008. But what if they stopped an onside goal for a phantom violation? Can you still get positive reviews from the assessors and instructors? It's a really interesting question for me, because the only measurement the public gets after the fact are the assignments and since those have a lot to do with politics and which teams progress, they can't tell the whole story. You've got Irmatov and Clattenburg doing the two big men's games tomorrow. Irmatov had one game that most observers here viewed as extraordinarily poor, with at least one match-critical error. Clattenburg had a tense game that he did well overall, but had an incident that most viewed as a missed red card (though perhaps vetshak's dissection of it gave a window into FIFA's thinking). Anyway, are we to take away that Irmatov's performance on the England-Senegal was acceptable? Clattenburg's QF performance was considered top-notch? I realize that some politics played a role in both assignments, but there were still other options to choose for either match--some of whom did not have anything close to something that could be considered a match-critical mistake. Anyway, a bit of a ramble, but it's just always something to think about when watching these performances.
But does it? I've been involved in assessments where an assessor says something like "I really think you should have gone red there..." or "well, it looked a lot more like a penalty than a dive to me..." But the referee in question passes. I guess it might be how you (or the assessor) defines a "miss."
Here is a link to a US Soccer National Assessment Program paper http://www.massref.net/assessorforms/CriticalIncidentMarking.pdf Critical Match Incidents: Definition If a match official fails to deal with any of the “critical match incidents” listed below and such failure results in “the outcome of the game being affected,” then the performance of the official(s) should be judged to be unacceptable and no score higher than 69 may be given the match official(s). A “Critical Match Incident” must be one of the following: • Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) dealt with incorrectly; • A clear and obvious serious foul play/violent conduct send off not correctly dealt with; • Not calling a penalty kick that is obvious or incorrectly awarding a penalty kick that is clearly not; • Incorrectly allowing a goal that should be disallowed or not allowing a goal that should be given (including offside decisions for assistant referees); • Not sending off a player after he/she has received a second yellow card; • Incorrect application of the Laws of the Game; • Any other incident that has a significant affect on the match that requires further examination on the part of the assessor.
Full disclosure: I am not a certified assessor. To me, there is a difference between "didn't see it" and "saw it, made the wrong decision." In situations where the referee was in a tough position and a call was missed, I would hope the assessor would consider why the referee was in the poor position and work that into the post game discussion. It's one thing to know you missed a call (she might have even realized this during the match) but if that's all the assessor tells you, they are missing the boat. When I have been in a debrief where the assessor knows something critical was missed but the referee could not have seen it due to positioning, rarely does it result in a failed assessment. This has applied even to some assessments for National Badge. Of course since I'm not privy to the instruction to the assessors I could be wrong here. I can still see scenarios where someone would fail for not being in the right location to see something. If it's a pattern throughout the match, they have fitness issues, etc.
But there is a key point in that very document that supports not failing the referee if he or she couldn't have seen it: Clearly that leaves some room for the assessor either way. I would also add that just because she gave the "safe" signal, i.e., no foul, doesn't mean she actually saw it. I know I've done that a few times. After a NCAA match in a big stadium, my referee friends asked how I saw a flop when I was pretty much completely screened from it. "I didn't see a damn thing, I was blocked." "Why did you say nothing there?" "Because it was controversial and I wasn't gonna call anything." Players (and apparently fans) accepted it. YMMV widely
Thanks, HeyDude. I don't know why I've never taken a look at that. Part of me is embarrassed I haven't, though there is a partial sense of pride (the whole "not refereeing to the assessor" thing). Anyway, I find it really interesting that something like "not sending a player off after he receives a second card" is equated with something like not sanctioning SFP properly. The latter is far, far more subjective. I also find it interesting that the automatic failure is only triggered if the outcome of the game is affected; seems we should judge the merits of the decision regardless of the outcome. So, in the end, those first three bullets for a CR are going to often hinge on the opinion of the assessor. Or perhaps more precisely, the definition an assessor has for words like "clear" and "obvious." I find it hard to believe that FIFA uses a similar standard, as you implied earlier, because there have been referees rewarded in almost all their tournaments who have missed obvious penalties or red cards. Of course, maybe there's just an extremely conservative definition of what constitutes "clear" or "obvious" at that level.
Interesting discussion. So something like violent conduct behind the referee's back (or, in their view, but not something they would be expected to see--like Tancredi's head stomp)... would almost never be cause to trigger a failure by itself.
She will fail the assessment unfortunately. Even if she didn't see it, she could and should have and it was a positioning error. Remember that is also a USSF document. If the FIFA assessor says "you made an error that affected the outcome of the game" (incorrect penalty decision, regardless of if game is 1-1 or 5-1; incorrect red card; incorrectly disallowing a goal; etc.) then the maximum mark is 69. Unfortunate, but that's life at the highest levels. Now, stuff that the referee could not possibly be expected to see, then it falls to should the AR/4th have seen it.
I'd suggest that you think in terms of "error in Law" or an "error in judgement." An error in Law is misapplication of the Laws of the Game or Rules of Competition. The former is an automatic fail. "You had a good game, but you cautioned red #8 twice and didn't send him off." Errors in judgement are, of course, much more common and, IMHO, range from "I didn't call it because I didn't see it" to "It wasn't 100% misconduct, so I thought I could get away with an ass chewing, but then he committed three more fouls." So now the assessor needs to talk with you about why you had an error in judgment. Remember, also, that assessors at the lower levels are primarily focussed on pass or fail, upgrade or not. At the professional and international level, it's much more about coaching the referee, discussing what worked and what didn't work, etc. Even a formal rating is more about where do they fall on the range of referee skills at this level rather than did they cross that magic line into 'acceptable' from 'unacceptable?' As the ever quotable Herb Silva said "We all have shitters." i.e. we all have bad games, games that turn to poop in our hands. It is unrealistic to expect that a referee who has a bad game or even a single large error will be consigned to outter darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I almost feed bad for Steinhaus. Except for that missed handling call, she called a perfect game, better than any refs I've seen recently, men or women. Of course I feel worse for the Japanese.
video is here: http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/so...-women-win-third-consecutive-soccer-gold.html starting at 2:48 I was very surprised to see that Stienhaus was in a very good position to see the handling. It seems likely that she had moved her eyes to the landing zone and missed what happened halfway there. (This happens pretty often to me (maybe 3 times last year) and is something that I need to work on--but I am not sure how, since watching the landing zone is taught, and handling is pretty unexpected.)
I've have to say, what on God's green earth would possess parents to name their daughter a surname like Tobin?
I never understood the novelty of naming kids with surnames. How bout Rachel Tobin Heath instead? Tobin is one ugly name regardless of it meaning in Hebrew. In fact Tobin is a masculine variation of Tobias.
Despite the errors made in the match, there is a huge disparity between Bibi and the other female referees. Conditioning-wise, it's no contest. She gets up and down the field with ease and is in great shape. It wouldn't suprise me if she still plays on some level. There were at least two refs in the Olympics that looked in poor shape. Positioning-wise, she was great since she seems to have a better understanding of the game than her peers. She has the credibility and the respect of the players that most of the other refs don't seem to get. Although she deserved the final, it would have been more interesting to see her in a physical match such as the semifinal game against Canada. In fairness to the other referees, she officiates high-level mens games, so she is well prepared. None of the other referees get to experience consistent high level games like she does and only see them every 4 years at the Olympics and World Cup. On a non-referee note.....USA dominated most of last year's World Cup match during regulation and lost and I thought Japan had the better chances against our porous defense but lost, so I guess everything evened out.