Spoiler alert- USA vs. Canada soccer

[Vowelguy]

Let's just leave the wishes of personal injury out of it.

But if not for 'personal injury', how would the various BY lawyers make any money?

 

[CTyankee]

My 2 cents... as a 15 year retired USSF referee and state referee administrator familiar with the Laws of the Game as well as those interpreting the Laws and with those referees doing high level national and international games...

None of us will ever know what the assistant referees or the referee said to the keeper during the game about releasing the ball into play... It is/was a matter between the referees and the players and their match inspector (assessor) who would have scored their performance. Certainly she will not be around for the finals... But not because of her performance but because of having done the semi-final.

It remains to be seen if she will ever reappear on the international scene either in top level UEFA matches of FIFA competition. Time will tell. The selection process for these competitions is in the hands of whatever body governs the competition. Each national organization is asked to provide the organizing competition with officials and the final selection is done by the organizing committee. In the case of the Olympics the organizing body is FIFA. They decide the referees. Each Continental governing body submits a number of referees and assistants and FIFA decides within the international environment who they want and what matches they will officiate.

As far as the referee's decision on the awarded infraction, she was within her rights to penalize the keeper for controlling the ball for longer than 6 seconds while it was in her possession. I must say I have never seen this enforced without fair warnings (probably more than once) at any level of competition. This is not considered an cautionable offense. An indirect free kick is awarded. (Even if it was cautionable, the restart would be an indirect free kick assuming play was in progress.)

I am certain that the match inspector thoroughly reviewed this infraction as well as its results with the referee team after the match. The referee would have been asked for her thoughts as would have her assistants. Remember too that all the officials were wired during the match thus probably there is a tape of their communications among themselves as well as with the players... FIFA must have all of this.

What I have written above doesn't make her decision right or wrong. I just want to put it into perspective. The referee, assuming she had previously warned the keeper about her possession (by the way NOT necessary) was certainly acting within the Laws of the Game in awarding the indirect free kick.

 

[stamfordhusky]

My 2
As far as the referee's decision on the awarded infraction, she was within her rights to penalize the keeper for controlling the ball for longer than 6 seconds while it was in her possession. I must say I have never seen this enforced without fair warnings (probably more than once) at any level of competition. This is not considered an cautionable offense. An indirect free kick is awarded. (Even if it was cautionable, the restart would be an indirect free kick assuming play was in progress.)

What I have written above doesn't make her decision right or wrong. I just want to put it into perspective. The referee, assuming she had previously warned the keeper about her possession (by the way NOT necessary) was certainly acting within the Laws of the Game in awarding the indirect free kick.

1. There have been a number of occasions when goalkeepers have been carded for time-wasting near the end of a game, including situations where they have held the ball for excessive amounts of time. If nothing else, could be carded as not showing respect for the game.

2. Agree that I too have never seen this enforced without multiple warnings. IMO, it certainly should not have been enforced at this point.

3. Yes, the referee acted within the Laws, but also not within the spirit of the Laws.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Nothing in the "politically correct bylaws" say anything about who refs and where they are from. Hate when the phrase that came about because of the incredibly ridiculous concept of recognizing that there are belief systems other than the dominant majority misapplied....

 

[meyers7]

She was warned and it was a violation (10 sec). Even if is not called more often, it doesn't change the fact the rule was broken. Kind of like fouls being called with seconds left, still a foul.

True, just saying I can feel for why she would be upset. Like getting a ticket for jaywalking in NYC. Yea, it's against the law (assuming here), but really? Really? It's more the refs have been missing some pretty brutal tackles and she is gonna call this???

On the other hand from what I have heard she was warned and had held the ball for long periods numerous time in the second half. (15-16 seconds). So you make your bed.......

 

[meyers7]

In watching the replays of the handball after the delay penalty...it doesn't look like you can make a case for the ball-to-hand defense...the defensive player's hand moves up to the ball. This may have been reflex, but it's still hand-to-ball in the penalty area.

I could see the call going either way and being defensible by the ref. However with some of the other stuff she missed, it probably all averaged out.

 

[meyers7]

The only time the top referees punish such infringements are when they become habitual and are clearly designed to waste time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that this applies, because it comes from the USSF (not sure where you got it though - d0n't see it in the ATR or Position papers), but that is pretty much exactly what happened.

From the Advice to Referees (ATR) - again this does not apply to FIFA games, but rather USSF games but....
The goalkeeper has six seconds to release the ball into play once he or she has taken possession of the
ball with the hands. However, this restriction is not intended to include time taken by the goalkeeper
while gaining control of the ball or as a natural result of momentum. The referee should not count the
seconds aloud or with hand motions. If the goalkeeper is making a reasonable effort to release the ball
into play, the referee should allow the “benefit of the doubt.” Before penalizing a goalkeeper for
violating this time limit, the referee should warn the goalkeeper about such actions and then should
penalize the violation only if the goalkeeper continues to waste time or commits a comparable
infringement again later in the match. Opposing players should not be permitted to attempt to prevent
the goalkeeper from moving to release the ball into play.

Again, sounds pretty much like what happened.

 

[meyers7]

The fact that soccer has only 1 ref would be laughable if not for the fact that it's incredibly sad.

I was pleased to see that during the Euro they finally had officials standing next to the goal. Long overdue, but at least a step in the right direction.

Although those Goal line refs are/were/have been pretty useless. I would much prefer goal line technology.

 

[meyers7]

I think you've made your opinion pretty clear...

Look, I HATED the call and felt bad for Canada after the game, but they've proven themselves to be a bunch of bitter duck*ing clowns with the way they've handled things post game. Actually, they proved to be clowns even before the game, when their coach was already blaming the officials in the pre-game press conference.

Terrible call aside, here are the facts: Canada had three leads in the 2nd half, and failed to hold a single one of them. When you blow three separate leads in the 2nd half of a semifinal game, you have yourself to blame more than anyone.

On top of that, it's not like the PK led to the game-winning goal; Canada had over 10 minutes in regulation and 30 minutes in overtime to win the game. Instead, they let up a goal with 30 seconds left in the 2nd overtime. That doesn't negate the horrible call, but they at least had a chance to come back from it...and failed.

Canada has reacted exactly I would expect in this situation - like losers. I hope they get smoked in the bronze medal game and Tancredi suffers a rolled ankle.

Ok, but tell us how you really feel.

 

[meyers7]

Nothing in the "politically correct bylaws" say anything about who refs and where they are from.

You probably need to read it again then. It's there, I was just reading it the other day.

 

[Vowelguy]

Although those Goal line refs are/were/have been pretty useless. I would much prefer goal line technology.

Baby steps.

My hope is that the goal refs can help more closely monitor all of the shenanigans that go inside the box.

 

[meyers7]

Certainly she will not be around for the finals... But not because of her performance but because of having done the semi-final.

I believe we have the German Steinhaus for the final. One of the best in my opinion.

As far as the referee's decision on the awarded infraction, she was within her rights to penalize the keeper for controlling the ball for longer than 6 seconds while it was in her possession. I must say I have never seen this enforced without fair warnings (probably more than once) at any level of competition. This is not considered an cautionable offense. An indirect free kick is awarded.

True. I think some people are getting confused with the Delay Restart caution. Which this wasn't because play was not stopped. (hence why there is a 6-second rule)

 

[meyers7]

Baby steps.

My hope is that the goal refs can help more closely monitor all of the shenanigans that go inside the box.

True, but from what I have seen, they don't. Just an extra body there that does nothing. Besides they put them on the wrong side of the goal anyway. (FIFA is so dumb, sometimes).