I have never seen the referee change his mind after awarding a card or a free kick/penalty even if it is wrong so what is the point in arguing? All it does is risk other players getting cards.
I've seen several times referees changing his mind after a mistake or a bad call. At least in South America.
From a psychological point of view, you are trying to work the ref and maybe get an advantage in a future call during the game.
There was a great example of this I heard about in the 70s in a quite well known match between Germany and the Netherlands in the WC final. And after a couple bogus calls for the netherlands and Cruijf getting tackled about 2-3 feet outside of the penalty box yet still being awared a completely bogus penalty kick, Beckenbauer walked up to the ref and said "Are you sure you can be fair, you are an Englishman?" And suddenlly the ref stopped making so many biased pro-dutch calls. They still called back a German goal that was supposed to be offside but wasn't actually offsides if I recall right, but that wasn't the main ref who called it.
My personal theory is not so much strategy but that an outside agent that you can't control has power over you and the game you're playing, and you don't have a say. It's a matter of impotence that bothers players a lot, and the most successful referees learn to man-manage rather than bully. They act like parents, firm when they need to be and understanding and compassionate when they need to be. And knowing when to be those things is the key to being a great referee. Except with women or girls...all you can do with them is stay away from them or they might kill you.
Here's a video i made about FIFA. enjoy. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN4tE_pduS4"]YouTube- FIFA and World Cup 2010[/ame] ;P
Exactly. Personally, I would make it dissent (and a yellow card) to question the referee unless you are the captain or involved in the incident. The constant surrounding of officials is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and manipulate.
I imagine that will normally be through consultation with another offical rather than through the actions of the players. If a referee changes a decision on the basis of the players questioning it then he is just undermining his own authority.
During a WCQ many years ago, Friedel was intially sent off for handling the ball outside the box. The Americans confronted the ref and started pointing toward direction of the linesman. The ref seemed to agree with the American players that he should consult the linesman. After speaking to him, he took the red card back and showed a yellow to Friedel.
I disagree. That's too harsh. Football is a game that provokes high emotions in players. You have to give them some slack. Unless the player cusses the ref or poses a physical threat I don't see anything wrong with it.
If I understand this correctly, the referee is technically not even allowed to second-guess himself, as per rules. A quick talk with the line judge is about all that's provided by FIFA as a remedy for bad calls. And let's not even get into the potential bias scenarios, of which there are just too many. This is one of the reasons why Americans are somewhat less than comfortable with soccer, there are too many important decisisons that are entirely up to one guy with a whistle who isn't really immediately accountable to anyone. Sure, they may or may not be a FIFA investigation (.....) of his call, he may or may not have worked his last game, but his call still stands. And the efforts of an entire team for 4 long years may have been voided right there.
Other sports manage to get away without the constant questioning of referees decisions, and the emotions are no lower than in football. In both codes of Rugby there is generally a healthy respect between players and officials - dissent is punishable by a 10 yard penalty. I have no problem with players asking the officials for explanations, but the organised harrassment of officials that regularly takes place needs to be eliminated - whenever any decision goes against Barcelona, you can guarantee that Xavi, Pujols and co will be right in the referees face (and you can subsitute most teams for Barcelona here). Why are these players allowed to question the referee's judgement? I'm willing to bet that most of them would not be able to explain the rules in detail.
Did the officals have electronic communication then? If they were able to talk instantly, I doubt the players would have needed to get the referee to consult the linseman as he would have made his position known as soon as the referee has blown.
I can't comment on Rugby. But every sport is different. All the ref has to do is stand his ground. In hockey some fighting is allowed between the players and part of the game. It works for them. I don't find this absurd specially with some of the mistakes the refs make.
Why do the players surround the ref? simple, as Landon donovan said one day when asked "because the refs let us". As a ref I have no problem answering questions about my calls, and I even have no problem when I get surrounded, within reason, after a big call. There is a line however, you want to ask, ok, fine, I'll answer, it's not a debate though. As for "can't change his mind", this is not true. The ref can change his decision, until the game is re-started. He can get input from the other refs, as well as players, if possible, though players are biased It's an emotional game, emotions are fine. Within reason.
Was it the mexican ref who just flatout carded those people yapping at him? I kind of liked that and I'd do it too, but I would have given them all one big warning first. He might have actually done that. I'd be like"Shut up. I'll do my job, you do yours." And hey diver boy, this ain't no swimming meet, RED CARD!