R16 Analysis: ESP-POR - Baldassi (ARG)

It looks like Costa gets a pretty good shot in at 22 seconds on your video.

I miss the days the clueless morons were shouting inanities at me from the sidelines. But then I log into bigsoccer...

 

Of the three replays shown on that video, only the last one shows the entire sequence. The first two replays happen well after the elbow has been thrown.

 

If they are straight lined, you describe EXACTLY what they would have seen:
- defender turns his back on the ball, so he is not playing the ball (not illegal)
- contact? Can't see, but as you say, IF there's contact it is a foul

but the guy who went down is a known diver, refs can't have seen, or been sure of seeing contact since they were straight lined. there's no call to make.

And just for the record, Ronoldo, WAS fouled and should have gotten that call, in my opinion.

On the red card, the only replay in the video that might show it is the last one from a wide angle. Looks like he did lead with his elbow, can't tell if he really made contact, looks like a definite maybe

 

Yeah...watching the last replay of the "elbow" I'm content with the call on the field. Still can't tell if there was contact but it did look like he had his elbow up around Capdevilla's head. Ref is well within his right to call violent conduct on that. That being said, Capedevilla should have been booked for diving. He went down a couple seconds after where the contact would have been.

As for the Ronaldo play. I don't care what his past is. A missed call is a missed call and it's nobody's fault except the two officials that missed it.

If the ref is taking into account Ronaldo's past then he shouldn't be officiating that game. If he can't at least try to be objective...out he goes.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "taking you into account".

I am quoting the USSF again, so perhaps technically this does not apply, but in their "Guide to Procedures", "Prior to the Game: Pre-Game Conference" section, it states clearly:

"Shares and discusses information regarding known team and/or player tactics, strategies, skills and patterns of behavior."

 

The wide angle shot shows Costa stepping in front of Capdevilla with an arm going up; it does not show contact. For example, the moon passes in front of the sun without hitting it.

 

Why did 1 AR have longsleeves and the other officials have short sleeves? I've seen this throughout the tournament...

 

That's some logic there Natty Bumpo. Look at where the players feet are and approximate the distance and length of the elbow when extended back. Let me know. Bet it's a lot shorter than 90 million miles.

 

90 million miles or 90 cm. Machts nichts. You can't see contact on that shot.

 

Can't help ya there. FIFA needs to add another 4 cameras to capture every angle.

 

Does this explain how the refereeing for games sometimes seem so one-sided? Like people who support the USNT and say that our defenders are sent off & carded for things that other, more famous players wouldn't be.

I'm trying to imagine a situation where you could be calling a fair game, but operating on instructions that fouls against the one team's main attacker should be ignored (or that, in the US's case, that if a defender brushes up against an opposition player, he should be carded/sent off).

Is that honestly how things are done?

 

No.

In Cristiano Ronaldo's case, if it is known that he has a propensity for diving, he will LESS LIKELY be given the benefit of the doubt. The referee will be much less likely to assume a foul occurred just because he went down. And that is as it should be.

 

But Spain's defenders also have a propensity to foul attacking players in order to prevent them scoring -- as they* proved again in this game by repeatably fouling Ronaldo. So, now, when we get to the next game, will these defenders be called for fouls at the slightest touch?

I had always assumed before that the referees just protected the famous, expensive players and that was why the US never got calls going their way. That's a subconscious bias. What you're talking about has the referees rationalizing calling a game unfairly -- the total opposite of "I'se calls 'em as I'se sees 'em".

 

It is "I calls 'em as I see's 'em", but it doesn't hurt to know what to look for. If it is known that Spanish defender's "like to foul" the opponent's attackers, then they should get more attention than they otherwise might. That doesn't mean you are calling the game unfairly.

 

Not "like to foul"; WILL foul -- if necessary. That's easy enough to figure out. How many of the defenders in that game have ever been called for a foul during a game?

If they have, then the attackers get protection from them, correct?

And back to the US case -- if defenders have all committed fouls, they should all be considered likely to commit fouls.

 

First, I am a Real Madrid fan and have watched Ronaldo in every game last year. His 'diving history" is over stated. He goes down no more, and in many cases, less than any other top striker/winger.

I thought Baldassi called an excellent game. The players clearly respected him. He did miss two calls: the foul on Casillas (Spanish goalie) and the foul on Ronaldo from the push. But that is in the tolerance level of a tight game.

Portugal did not lose this game due to bad refereeing.

 

Per espn stats. Ronaldo had 1 foul committed on him all game. Carlos Puyol had 2

The question is whether referees go into games with pre-conceived prejudices against players. Some people are saying in this thread, that they can do that and that they should do that.

I find that surprising.

 

If you are talking about the play in which a player from Portugal jumped up for a header and the GK also jumped to knock the ball away very near the goal line, then I don't agree. I didn't think that either player committed a foul there, even though bodies did end up on the ground.

 

ON teh push on Ronaldo, near the end of the game that wasn't called. Yes I thought it was a foul. However, knowing Ronaldo's reputation, here's what the ref MIGHT have seen/thought:

- Long ball in (so ref is not right on top of it).
- ronaldo goes up to chest ball down.
- Hands of defender are somewhre near Ronaldo
- ronaldo goes down

The hands of the defender were on ronaldo's chest and he did push him, however it was not a hard push, it was a calculated push just enough to throw him off balance. Ronaldo exaggerated the effect, as he is known to do. The defenders hands dind't extend out from his body, if they had, it would probably have been called.

So you have a possible/probable push late in the game where Portugal is doing everything in its power to get a goal.

the push is against Ronaldo, who goes down hard.

Two things don't match in your head, you tend towards the reputation of the diver in the WC where is seems they've been carding several dives so it must be a focal point. Hence no call.

 

I agree. At 84:35, it wasn't clear how much of an effect the Capdevila's "push" had, but Ronaldo clearly embellished.

 

An Argentinean referee, so why could we not have a Brazilian ref? ---- Precisely, it should never have been a Spanish speaking ref it should have been a German or Dutch, African or Asian, English