All pre-match discussion of the appointment, play-by-play descriptions and post-match analysis of the officiating performance for this match belong in this thread. Analysis threads in this forum are strictly moderated. Supporters of participating teams are welcome and encouraged to participate. But all posters should take non-analytical posts to the group or rivalries forums. Thank you. Germany v Spain Referee: Viktor Kassai (Hungary) Assistants: Gabor Eros (Hungary) and Tibor Vamos (Hungary) Fourth official: Frank De Bleeckere (Belgium)
To me, it likely indicates he won't be on them. To start, as others have noted, he has reffed in the Dutch league. So he cannot do whichever match the Netherlands are in. Recent history is a bit more muddled... 2006: Fourths on semis: Shield (AUS), Kamikawa (JPN) 2002: Fourths on semis: Hall (USA); Vessiere (FRA) 1998: Fourths on semis: Gonzalez (PAR); Al-Zaid (KSA) 1994: Fourths on semis: Lamolina (ARG); Jouini (TUN) Of the above... Kamikawa whistled the 3/4 playoff, Gonzalez whistled the 3/4 playoff, Al-Zaid had the boards on the Final, and Jouini had the boards on the 3/4 playoff. Given the fact that both Mexicans are still around, I would suspect Rodriguez works for Archundia in the Final. Damon is kept around as well as Webb, and they fit together in either combination for the 3/4 playoff. But Pozo and Ruiz are also there, just in case FIFA wants to mix things up. Why keep 6 referees for 4 assignments if you are going to repeat anyone from the semis? I think it's the end of the line for De Bleeckere. I know some people don't like it, but I think all this indicates that FIFA saw De Bleeckere as the #2 or #3 (behind Webb) European at the tournament. Nothing more, nothing less. This would have been his match, but he apparently got out-performed by Kassai.
well, isn't it just as likely they would put Webb on the final presuming the Dutch make the final since that would be two Euro teams? I also suspect Damon will get the 3rd place game.
Possible, but I really don't see how Archundia (and, by extension, Vergara) would be denied the WC Final at this point. The two of them have done everything and have been trusted by FIFA with big matches since the mid-90s. They weren't sent home for mistakes. They haven't done any of the teams remaining. They fit any permutation of the Finals. It's almost as if they were penciled in for the Final the moment Mexico lost--Argentina subsequently losing seemed to change that to ink. I can't fathom, after nearly a decade of being ranked near #1 for FIFA, how Archundia wouldn't get the Final.
So you've now finally settled on Archundia. Are you now officially off the DB bandwagon? From another recent thread:
I'm really not sure what to make of this assignment. Kassai has done well, without a doubt, but he's 34 years old. He's age-eligible for two more WC's, so a semi-final now seems somewhat premature. Look at all the experience that was passed over for the semi-final assignments: Simon, Ruiz, Webb, and Archundia. I expect the final to go to Archundia, but I can't understand why FIFA would pick Kassai over Simon, Ruiz, and Webb. Also, if FIFA feels that De Bleeckere has a conflict of interest with the Netherlands in the other semi, they shouldn't have assigned him as fourth official either.
I'm not sure what the point of your post is. You seem to be enjoying throwing my words back at me, but I don't understand why. A) De Bleeckere is the referee that I wanted to officiate the Final. B) I've made no secret that I've thought, for over a year, that De Bleeckere was UEFA's #1 in FIFA's eyes. C) I still think the assignment for De Bleeckere on Japan-Paraguay boded well for him. The man had done two FIFA Cup Finals and did a QF in WC06--getting two teams that weren't likely to make the Final was a very good step. D) You bolded "De Bleeckere unless Argentina makes it...," yet didn't bold the previous clause, which said "Archundia unless Brazil makes it..." clearly implying I thought De Bleeckere was the second choice by that point. E) Netherlands' run was somewhat unexpected, and I've been making the point that their progression hurts De Bleeckere. F) Things change. Discussions now are about trying to figure out who will actually do the Final. It seems clear that it is Archundia, not De Bleeckere. Why stick to previous predictions when circumstances start to dictate they won't happen? Did any of us know that Archundia was going to be kept on the sidelines for the entire knockout stages? Did any of us know FIFA would stick to a policy about UEFA referees not working UEFA teams, since they never have in any previous World Cup? G) Since you are in the mood of referencing old posts, see this one: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20786646&postcount=27 Seems pretty clear that, pre-tournament, I thought Archundia had a good shot, no? H) Can you show me your predictions?
My point is that you seem to enjoy writing these long pieces about who will do this match or that when you could simply post the names of your guesses and not subject the rest of us to having to wade through all of your blathering. With these long posts it's as if you are posting for yourself. Now that is an extremely harsh criticism, but really you don't have any more insight into the matter of appointments than the rest of us. All that you are doing is throwing some names out there and trying to justify your guesses. Let's face it, if you throw enough darts you are bound to hit a bullseye. If you think it's fun to play the guessing game, that's fine, but keep it short and sweet. For the record, I would never have thought that Archundia would not get a knock-out match, but I just realized that instead of FIFA holding him back for the Final perhaps he suffered an injury and FIFA kept him around hopeful that he could recover and work a late round match. Have you considered that possibility? The fact is that we just don't know what's going on behind the closed doors over there, and it's silly to pretend that we do. PS My predictions are: Webb for the Final and Damon for the 3rd Place match.
I disagree with everything you wrote here. While others make predictions, since you chose to focus on MassRef, I will use him as the basis of my comments, though I believe they pertain to all of the regulars that make predictions on these boards (and not just World Cup, but UCL, MLS, etc). MassRef offers well thought out reasoning as to why he believes certain assignments will be made. He considers historical precedent, teams, prior performances, politics, past assignments, and a wealth of knowledge garnered from observation of many of the referees' perfomrances. He collects all of this information and makes educated guesses about whom he believes will get the assignment and whom he believes deserves the assignment and then he offers a plethora of supporting information to justify his predicitons. He does not just randomly throw darts at a board but rather offers insight and thoughtfulness to what might be going on behind those closed doors. You are correct that we don't know what is going to happen or what the discussions are. This is evident when old policies or years of precedent are ignored. For example, the new policy that UEFA referees can't work a match involving only one UEFA team, the assigning of Irmatov to a team he had handled previously, or from '06 the assigning of Elizondo to both the opener were unforeseen. In this case, MassRef has been clear, with a great deal of supporting evidence, that he beleived FdB is the guy who deserved the final. However, with the Dutch in the Final, it is doubtful that would ever happen so MassRef has given an updated prediction based on new information. He always included Archundia as one of the guys on the short list coming in to the Cup. As the matches have played out, he has done what any assignor would do; he has analyzed all of the available information to offer up the best assignment for the match. His "blathering" supports his reasoning. It is no different than listening to talk radio where experts weigh in on who they think will win a game. You expect them to offer information to support their choice not just say Team A has been good so I pick them. Just showing up and saying I like Webb offers nothing to the board. This is a board for analysis and reasoning and I think MassRef offers more of it than just about anyone else on here. You may not agree with his predicition, but you can't argue that he offers good reasons that go beyond just saying "I think xxx referee is good. He had a good match last game so I think he gets the final." We all know so much more goes in to an assignment than that, and I think MassRef does a phenomenal job at processing all that information to make well-reasoned predictions. And, for me, they are incredibly informational and I learn a lot from just about everything he posts.
Some of us enjoy the justification, as it often provides some history on the referees that we (or at least I) didn't know. You don't have to read through his entries - you can always skip past them.
Spaceball already put you in your place in a VERY diplomatic way. So, allow me to take the low road. I cannot believe you posted this. And I cannot believe that you believe what you said. I thought you were smarter than this. Much smarter than this. The amount of historical information and background that MassRef digs up and shares here is very impressive. It is NOT easy to find some of this information, and it takes a lot of time to put it all together in a relevant manner. Beyond that, MassRef *analyzes* the information in a very knowledgeable way. Like Spaceball, I learn a LOT from this stuff. Nobody else provides this sort of information on this website. In fact, I have never seen or heard of anyone posting similar information anywhere on the internet. If you don't like it, then don't read it. But trying to belittle MassRef for posting it here -- when so many people find value in it -- just makes you look like an a#*hat. I don't give 2 shits about guesses on referee appointments based on darts at a board. I find almost no value in listening to different people say, 'Mr. XYZ is my favorite, and I think he should get the final.' Or 'Mr. ABC did well on his 2 group matches, and I think he will get the final.' This is useless information and has very little entertainment value. The information that MassRef provides, I find to be VERY educational and interesting. I am honestly shocked that you feel otherwise. Perhaps it is because you are one of the few people in the world who are on par with MassRef in terms of understanding and knowledge and insight about how international referee appointments are made. If so, then I guess it makes sense that you don't care about his blathering -- because you see it as common information. But the rest of us don't. If that theory of mine is accurate, then I see where you are coming from. If not, then there is nothing nice that I can say about it.
Why so cranky?! (And MassRef does provide reasons for his speculations - previous patterns, rules about assignments to ones own confederations, etc.) Let's chalk it up to Loney and Archer not regaling us with a really entertaining blog piece this week. But let this one drop and let's move on.
Yeah! Really MassachusettsRef!!! What do you think BigSoccer.com is anyway??? Some kind of forum for you to post your thoughts about soccer??? Get with the program!!!
As luck would have it, Caesar is gone for several days so I'm moderating the forum almost by myself. Since I'm the subject of the posts above, there's really no good way to handle it impartially. So I'm just going to let everything remain (at least until Caesar gets back), state that we are obviously far off-topic, and let everyone know if the discussion continues I will remove any subsequent posts--no matter which side they come down on. The only change I'm making above is to edit out one personal attack almost immediately prior to this post. That's it. With that, we're approaching kickoff. Onto the match...
It is almost kick off so time to get on with the next game (with a touch of sadness as we are so rapidly approaching the end). We don't need a poll, but add me to the list of fans of posts by MassRef (and several others who have provided similar analysis about reasons for and against appointments). Educational, historically/factually accurate, both thoughtful and thought-provoking, and extremely unique in the perspective that they bring to the "game" in the broader sense. Also, they usually stand alone as separate posts, so easy enough to skip over them if it's not your cup-o-tea. But, again, let's get to the game, and perhaps even have one without anything for us to talk about here for a change.....
Well, Ballack is in the stands and van Bommel does not play for either team, so maybe this game will be reasonably clean!
At least. It wasn't "over-the-ball," but it looked a lot like Ribery's tackle in the UCL semis. Given the potential injury that occurred, I think there's a strong case that it was a tackle which endangered the safety of the opponent. But yes, at least a yellow. Kassai wanted to play advantage at the start. He definitely didn't realize how bad the challenge was. In a different match, that could have been the moment of truth. It still might be, but given the stakes, I would imagine the players just get on with it.