Thursday, July 06, 2006

62. Portugal-France 0:1 (0:1)

Match 62
Semifinal
July 5, 2006
Munich

Referee: LARRIONDA Jorge (URU)
Assistant Referee 1: RIAL Walter (URU)
Assistant Referee 2: FANDINO Pablo (URU)
Fourth Official: SHIELD Mark (AUS)
Fifth Official: GIBSON Nathan (AUS)

Official match report: html/pdf

There is very little to say about the officiating of this match. Larrionda and his team were superb. The major decisions of the match were three first-half penalty area situations: in 32', 37' and 46'. Larrionda got all three right.

32': Ricardo Carvalho (POR 16) attempted to stop Henry's (FRA 12) progress across the top of the area with his left leg, first making contact with Henry's shin (incidental contact not worthy of a penalty), scraping it down the front of Henry's leg, hooking Henry's foot slightly and then deliberately leaving his foot under Henry's in order to throw him off balance. As Henry was falling, Carvalho's leg returned to the air as he made an appeal with his arms to Larrionda, indicating complete control over the motion of his leg. Larrionda's positioning was perfect as was his decision to award a penalty kick.

37': On the pass across the penalty area, Cristiano Ronaldo (POR 17) might have been able to reach the ball with his head had he made an honest attempt to jump for it; however, replays clearly show that (probably anticipating leg or hip contact from Sagnol) he chose to make a stunted jump in an attempt to draw a penalty call. Then, feeling incidental arm contact from Sagnol (FRA 19) on his shoulder, he pulled his legs up and together and hunched his head forward so as to make it appear he had been pushed hard. While Sagnol did give Ronaldo a minor push, he never made any contact with Ronaldo's head. Ronaldo's fall was dramatic, but Larrionda's decision to make no call here was the correct one. In fact, we felt that a caution to Ronaldo for a dive would not have been out of place.

46': The one replay of this incident is not completely conclusive, but it makes clear that Thuram (FRA 15) blocked Figo's (POR 7) shot entirely with his stomach. The ball rebounded and then made contact with another French defender whom we are unable to identify. That player's arm was raised in the vicinity of the ball (clear on the replay a moment after Figo's body stops blocking the replay camera's view) but it is unclear whether there is any contact with the ball and, in any case, the ball was not clearly redirected by the arm. Based on the available evidence, albeit inconclusive, it seems that no call was the correct decision here as well. Larrionda was less than 10 yards away and had the perfect view.

THE CAUTIONS

83': Ricardo Carvalho (POR 16) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he took down Silvain Wiltord (FRA 11) from behind making no attempt to play the ball. We agree that this challenge warranted a caution.

87': Louis Saha (FRA 14) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he took down Luis Figo (POR 7) with a scissors challenge from the side. He ended up with the ball between his legs, but that was really irrelevant to the decision; Saha's purpose was to take down Figo. We agreed both that this was a foul and that it warranted a yellow card.

MINOR OBSERVATIONS

45': It appeared to us that Ribery (FRA 22) was fouled from behind, but Larrionda allowed play to continue with no clear advantage for France.

58': The injury to Miguel (POR 13), which required his substitution at 61', involved no contact from a French player, despite teammates' appeals.

65': While called offside, Pauleta (POR 9) seemed to be onside here; the ball went straight to the French keeper Barthez, so the decision ended up having no effect on the match.

66': We felt that Pauleta (POR 9) should have been been booked for a dive when he was bumped slightly by Williams Gallas (FRA 5) just outside area, took a couple steps and then crumpled to the ground having recieved no leg contact.

-Orion & Zazu

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

61. Germany-Italy 0:2 a.e.t. (0:0)

Match 61
Semifinal
July 4, 2006
Dortmund

Referee: ARCHUNDIA Benito (MEX)
Assisstant Referee 1: RAMIREZ Jose (MEX)
Assistant Referee 2: VERGARA Hector (CAN)
Fourth Official: KAMIKAWA Toru (JPN)
Fifth Official: HIROSHIMA Yoshikazu (JPN)

Official match report: html/pdf

THE CAUTIONS

40’: Tim Borowski (GER 18) was cautioned for unsporting behavior for his dangerous challenge from behind on Francesco Totti (ITA 10). We agree with this decision.

56’: Cristoph Metzelder (GER 21) was cautioned for unsporting behavior for his challenge from behind on Luca Toni (ITA 9). This challenge appeared dangerous in live action but the replay showed that there was only minimal contact between Metzelder’s right foot and Toni’s right calf; then as Toni begins to turn he twisted his feet and pulled them up as if Metzelder had kicked him from behind or stepped on his foot -- neither of which occurred. So we feel, upon watching he replays, that Metzelder did not commit a foul here and so did not deserve this caution. If there was any caution to be given, it was to Toni for his simulation with intent to deceive the referee.

89’: Mauro Camoranesi (ITA 16) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he took down Sebastian Kehl (GER 5) from the side with a dangerous scissors challenge. We agree with this decision.

103’: Vincenzo Iaquinta (ITA 15) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he pushed Michael Ballack (GER 13) rather than attempt to play the ball. With agree with the decision with regard to the unsporting nature of the challenge, but we must point out that Michael Ballack held his face when there was clearly no contact to his head at all.

OFFSIDE

Every offside call appeared to us to be correct, and we did not notice any missed offside calls.

PHYSICAL PLAY, CAUTIONS NOT ISSUED

Referees in the quarterfinals and this semi-final match allowed a considerably higher level of physical play than in earlier matches. We assume this was by agreement. It was also clear to us by this point that referees had decided not to give yellow cards for some actions that probably would have been cautioned in First-Round or Round-of-Sixteen matches. Four examples from this match:

3’: This failure to retreat from the ball by a German defender after a call against him would probably have earned him a caution for delay of restart in the First Round. It is clear that the referees have altered their standards for the later stages of the tournament.

5’: Andrea Pirlo’s (ITA 21) tactical challenge on Michael Ballack would probably have earned him a caution for unsporting behavior during the First Round, but Archundia decided that a direct kick was sufficient punishment at this stage.

28’: Schneider (GER 19) was only called for a foul and not cautioned when he made a late challenge on Materazzi (ITA 23) of a type that probably would have earned a yellow card in earlier stages of the competition.

63’: This was an excellent decision to play the advantage when an Italian defender slid into Michael Ballack (GER 13) from the front, just after he had passed the ball to his right on a fast attack; however, in earlier matches the Italian would probably have been cautioned at the next stoppage of play, whereas Archundia chose not to go back and do so.

OTHER DECISIONS OF NOTE

16’: We feel that a penalty kick should have been awarded to Germany when Andrea Pirlo (ITA 21) handled the ball in the penalty area. Michael Ballack (GER 13) attempted to head the ball past Pirlo to a teammate. As Pirlo turned, he raised his right arm and took speed off the ball with his upper arm and elbow. We find that Ballack’s appeals were justified. While the second assistant’s view was blocked by both Ballack’s and Pirlo’s bodies, Archundia was about ten yards away and had a clear view.

29’: We felt that the foul called against Lahm (GER 16) for his trip of Camoranesi (ITA 16) just outside the German area should have gone the other way for Camoranesi’s blatant push a moment earlier.

38’: Archundia seemed to miss a blatant and dangerous slide tackle from behind by an Italian in the middle of the field allowing play to continue with no advantage for Germany.

44’: The touch line foul call against Perrotta (ITA 20) for his supposed trip of Ballack (GER 13) was actually a dive by Ballack. Perrotta went to ground in front of Ballack while making a fair play for the ball; Ballack began to jump over him but then deliberately extended a leg back down to catch Perrotta’s body and make it look as if he had been tripped. This is comparable to situation involving Neill (AUS) and Grosso (ITA) in the Round of Sixteen (where Grosso engaged in a much more subtle form of the same action), except here there is no question whatsoever that Ballack could have cleared Perrotta’s body easily.

56’ and 60’: Materazzi (ITA 23) should have been booked for a dive when he pretended to have been hit in the face here, since there was no significant contact between the players at all, but Klose (GER 11) was called for a foul. A few minutes later, Totti (ITA 10) pulled a similar stunt and also won an undeserved foul call for an interaction involving Kehl (GER 5).

81’: Fabio Cannavaro (ITA 5) was called for a foul when he held Lukas Podolski (GER 20) just outside the penalty area. The holding began just outside the area and then continued into the area and another German was just about to take an low-probability outside shot when Archundia blew the whistle. This was an excellent decision in every respect.

86’: The decision to make no call when Lehman (GER 1) and Perrotta (ITA 20) collided in the area was excellent. On the one hand, Lehman had made a beautiful punch clearance and then followed through -- probably deliberately -- into Perrotta’s chest. On the other hand, Perrotta put his hands to his neck as if he had been hit there when replays show that he clearly had not.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

First-Round Cards In World Cup Germany 2006

FIRST-ROUND CARDS IN WORLD CUP GERMANY 2006

A study by Orion & Zazu
July 4, 2006

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During the 48 First-Round matches of FIFA World Cup Germany 2006, referees issued a total of 259 cautions (yellow cards) and 18 expulsions (red cards or send-offs), both apparently World Cup records for the First Round. Five of the send-offs were straight red cards, all of which were deserved by the players who received them. The other 13 were due to a player being issued a second yellow card. Despite the higher number of cards, 11 of 32 nations (10 of whom advanced to the Round of 16) finished the First Round with no player having been shown either a straight red card, a second yellow card in the same match, or two yellow cards in different matches.

While referees were apparently given instructions to penalize yellow-card offenses such as Delay of Restart (10%) and Dissent (9%) more strictly than they typically do in professional play, most of the yellow cards (78%) were issued for types of Unsporting Behavior, and most of those for reckless or tactical challenges -- the offenses for which yellow cards are usually given at all levels of the game. In fact, 82% of First-Round cards were shown for actions which would also earn cautions or send-offs in professional league play, with only 18% for actions that probably would not.

Correspondingly, 22 of the 26 (85%) players who sat out one game due to card violations would have sat out in professional league play as well, because their cautions or send-offs were for actions that would have been similarly punished in professional play. The other four received their “World Cup guidelines” caution in their first match and went on to commit a clear and unquestionable yellow-card foul in a subsequent match. Only 2 of 13 players sent off for second yellows within the same match might have remained on the field in another professional match.

INTRODUCTION

The day Spanish referee Luis Medina Cantalejo awarded a game-determining penalty kick against Australia for a foul during the final seconds of extra time in its Round of Sixteen match against Italy, Associated Press writer John Pye gathered every possible complaint about the FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 refereeing into one long story. On June 27 it was printed in newspaper sports sections across the United States under headlines such as Controversy Centering On Man In the Middle.

While Pye’s article touched on some controversial decisions by individual referees, such as the penalty kick which sent Australia home, the general theme of its criticism was quantitative not qualitative and repeated the media mantra of the last few weeks -- too many yellow and red cards. He wrote:

“All the coach wants is that we have coherent refereeing,” France coach Raymond Domench said. Instead, players and coaches complained and the number of bookings piled up as matches became more tense…Never have so many red and yellow cards been doled out at a World Cup -- and that’s with two weeks left…After 54 of 64 matches the results [are] staggering: 24 red cards, 298 yellow cards, both World Cup Records.

In response to this and similar articles, we offer a closer study of the red and yellow cards issued in the First Round, also known as Group Play or Stage One, of World Cup 2006.

As a reminder, the First Round involved each of the 32 nations playing three matches, one against each team in its group of four -- 48 matches in all. During those 48 matches, referees issued a total of 259 cautions (yellow cards) and 18 expulsions (red cards or send-offs). Thirteen of the expulsions were due to a player being issued a second yellow card. The other five were straight red cards.

The number of cautions in our study differs from the official FIFA totals by one. We believe that all three cautions issued to Croatia’s Josip Simunic in Match 44 should be included, even though the official match report fails to include the second. This decision gives us a total of 259 cautions rather than the official 258. We have only included one red card for Simunic in our totals, not two.

THE RED CARDS

There were a total of 18 players sent off in the First Round. The Laws state that a player is to be sent off and shown the red card for any of these seven offenses:

1. Engaging in serious foul play
2. Engaging in violent conduct
3. Spitting at an opponent or other person
4. Denying the opposing team a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball
5. Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick
6. Using offensive, or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
7. Receiving a second caution in the same match

Two of the red cards were for similar incidents of Denial of Goal-scoring Opportunity. In both cases an attacker’s shooting foot was taken out from behind in the penalty area by the second-last defender. Those fouls were committed by Ukraine’s Vashchuk (Match 15 ESP-UKR) and Czech Republic’s Ujfalusi (Match 26 CZE-GHA).

Three red cards were for Serious Foul Play. They included a fast and extremely dangerous cleats-out tackle from the front with excessive force, a deliberate elbow in the face, and a dangerous cleats-out slide tackle from the side, above the opponent’s ankle. Those fouls were committed by Serbia & Montenegro’s Kezman (Match 21 ARG-SCG), Italy’s De Rossi and the United States’ Mastroeni (both in Match 25 ITA-USA).

Slow-motion television replays from multiple angles fully support these five red-card decisions by the referees.

[The fact that the last two red cards were issued in the same match -- a match which also featured a well-deserved send-off of U.S. player Eddie Pope for two cautions -- was briefly an “issue” in the U.S. media, who remain largely ignorant of the world’s game and were whipped into a frenzy by biased former U.S. players who now serve as commentators for Disney/ABC/ESPN, one of whom, Eric Wynalda, stated after the match, “There are, in my opinion, two kinds of referees -- bad and worse.”]

The other thirteen red cards of the First Round were issued for a player receiving a second caution in the same match, so discussion of those decisions will be part of our discussion of the yellow cards.

THE YELLOW CARDS

There were 259 cautions issued in the First Round. The Laws state that a player is to be cautioned and shown a yellow card for any of these seven offenses:

1. Engaging in unsporting behavior
2. Showing dissent by word or action
3. Persistently infringing the Laws of the Game
4. Delaying the restart of play
5. Failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick or free kick
6. Entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
7. Deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

Here is the breakdown of the 259 cautions issued in the First Round, according to our analysis:

FIRST-ROUND CAUTIONS BY TYPE

1. Unsporting Behavior, all types 202 (78%)
Dangerous or reckless challenge 110
Tactical challenge 55
Deliberate handling of ball 11
Holding of an opponent 8
Simulating action to deceive referee (“dive”) 6
Dangerous use of elbow/arm 4
Other unsporting actions 8

2. Dissent, all types 24 (9%)
Word and/or gesture 13
Action (kicking ball, etc.) 11

3. Persistent Infringement of Laws 3 (1%)

4. Delay of Restart (all types) 27 (10%)
Opponent’s restart 17
Own restart 10

5. Failure to Respect the Distance 3 (1%)

6. Entering/Re-entering 0
7. Leaving 0

It went unmentioned in the press that, despite a supposed rash of yellow and red cards, eleven of the 32 nations managed to finish the First Round with no player on their rosters having been shown either a straight red card, a second yellow card in the same match, or two yellow cards in different matches. They were Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Ten of the eleven (all but Saudi Arabia) made it to the Round of Sixteen, indicating that the accumulation of cautions was not a necessary requirement for advancement.

PRIOR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

Since the 2002 World Cup we have watched three seasons of European professional football, two of those as referees, so we have reasonably good idea of what kinds of challenges, actions, words and gestures are typically sanctioned with a yellow card. Almost three-fourths of the 736 players who appeared in the 2006 World Cup play professionally for a European club, so most are quite familiar with European refereeing.

In reviewing each of the yellow or straight red cards issued in the First Round, we believe that 216 (82%) of the cards were shown for actions which would also have earned cautions in the English Premier League -- the European professional league with which we are most familiar. Perhaps as many as 48 (18%) of the cards were for actions that would probably not earn a caution in the Premier League.

The 48 cautions we felt probably would not have been issued in the English Premier League in recent seasons generally fell into the categories of Dissent, Delay of Restart and Failure to Respect the Distance (which we believe are among the special areas of interest designated by FIFA for the World Cup 2006 referees). In our analysis, all but a handful of the unsporting behavior cautions, which constitute 78% of the total yellow cards issued in the First Round, would be given at any level of the game, from youth play to professional.

PLAYERS WHO MISSED MATCHES

For all the talk in the press about unnecessary cautions and players sitting out of matches undeservedly, we saw few if any suggestions as to which cautions should not have been issued or which players deserved to be on the field after two cautions in previous matches.

[According to tournament rules, a player who received a red card -- either straight or for two yellows -- in a match or two yellow cards in different matches was required to sit out their next match.]

Twenty-six players had to sit out either one of their First-Round matches or their Round-of-Sixteen match, due to having been shown a red card or having been cautioned in two of their previous matches. Of these 26, we find that 22 would have sat out in professional league play as well, because the cautions or send-offs were for actions that would have been similarly punished in the players’ home professional leagues.

These twenty-two were Angola’s Andre, Australia’s Emerton, Ivory Coast’s Drogba, Croatia’s R. Kovac, Czech Republic’s Ujfalusi, Ghana’s Gyan, Muntari and Essien, Iran’s Nekounam, Italy’s De Rossi, Japan’s Miyamoto, Mexico’s Perez, Poland’s Sobolewski, Serbia and Montenegro’s Koroman and Kezman, Togo’s Abolo, Trinidad & Tobago’s John, Ukraine’s Vaschuk, Siverskyi and Rusol, and United States’ Mastroeni and Pope.

Ghana’s Essien deserves special mention, because his first yellow was issued for a challenge involving Czech Republic’s Nedved in which we felt neither player had clearly committed a foul. On the other hand, Essien’s second yellow (for an unsporting challenge on United States’ Reyna) was clearly deserved. Regardless of the merit of his first card (which hinges not on a question of enforcement guidelines, but on the referee’s judgment in the moment, from his position on the field), it is hard to have much sympathy for a professional player who has one card and commits a reckless challenge knowing the consequences.

The other four players may have been surprised in their first matches by the level of enforcement for actions they often get away with in professional play: Czech Republic’s Lokvenc and France’s Abidal both received cautions for kicking the ball in dissenting action following foul calls against them; Togo’s Romao dissented a referee’s call in words and gestures; and France’s Zidane took a direct kick before the restart whistle (unsporting behavior). However, all four went on to commit yellow-card challenges in a subsequent match. In other words, like Ghana’s Essien, these four deserved to sit out for their actions, given their experience as professionals and knowledge of the consequences.

SECOND YELLOWS

Of the thirteen players sent off for second yellow cards within a single match, we find that eleven would have received both cautions in European professional play and therefore would have been sent off anyway, regardless of the special instructions to referees in World Cup 2006. These were Angola’s Andre, Ivory Coast’s Domoraud, Croatia’s Simic and Simunic, Czech Republic’s Polak, Mexico’s Perez, Poland’s Sobolewski, Togo’s Abalo, Trinidad & Tobago’s John, Tunisia’s Jaziri and United States’ Pope.

Only two players were sent off for second yellows who might not have been sent off in another professional match. Both players -- Australia’s Emerton and Serbia & Montenegro’s Nadj -- were involved the same match: Croatia-Australia (Match 44). It was the third match for both players, by which point the refereeing standards of the tournament were apparent. Also, in both cases the “World Cup guidelines” card for delay of opponent’s restart was issued first and their other caution second (for Emerton, deliberate handling to break up a play; for Simic, a reckless challenge), meaning that each player took a calculated risk in committing a foul he knew carried a high probability of expulsion from the match.

REFEREE DECISIONS

A separate issue is whether, upon review of all 259 yellow-card incidents, we agreed or disagreed with the referee’s decision. In 232 of the cases (90%) we were in complete agreement with both the foul call and the decision to issue a caution. This is remarkable, given that we have the benefit of slow-motion replays from multiple angles, while the referee observes an incident at full speed, from one vantage point, and has only a moment to process the information and make multiple decisions concerning the foul and its punishment.

We disagreed with the remaining 27 cautions issued for one reason or another. In all but a few of these 27 cases, the referees in question might well agree with us, given the same benefit of slow motion replays from multiple angles. For the rest, it would probably come down to a difference of opinion about fouls. Referees are all going to have slightly different opinions, and we are no exception.

Here’s how the 27 break down:

In one instance, we feel that a dangerous two-footed challenge by Ukraine’s Rusol, which simultaneously caught Spain’s Del Horno above the ankle and thigh (in 17’ of Match 15 ESP-UKR), should have earned Rusol a red card send-off for serious foul play, rather than just a caution for unsporting behavior.

In six instances, we felt a foul had definitely been committed by the penalized player but that the action did not require a caution for unsporting behavior. In two instances, we thought a foul had probably been committed by the penalized player, but that a card was not necessary.

In eighteen instances, we felt that no foul had been committed by the penalized player. We determined -- with the help of replays -- that in twelve of these instances, the referee’s decision was likely affected by a deliberate simulation (“dive”) by the player who had supposedly suffered the foul.

Two unique situations involving the documentation of cautions in the official match reports should be mentioned. In Match 44 (CRO-AUS), referee Graham Poll issued a second caution to Simunic (Croatia 3) for an unsporting challenge in 91’ but failed to show him the red card and send him off until 93’ when Poll showed Simunic a third yellow card after the conclusion of the match (this time for dissent) followed by a red. The second caution is mysteriously absent from the match report.

In Match 22 (NED-CIV), the official match report shows a caution issued to Landzaat (Netherlands 6) while he was definitely not the player shown the card by Oscar Ruiz in the aftermath of the unsporting challenge. In fact, he was nowhere near the vicinity when the foul occurred. This must have been a clerical error by the fourth official and not corrected by the referee following the match. Landzaat is shown in television coverage beside the referee when he is issuing the caution to a player just off-camera; we are fairly certain the player in question is Boularouz (Netherlands 3). Fortunately this mistake did not have any consequences for the status of either Dutch player in later matches.

BOOKINGS BY TEAM

Let us now examine Pye’s statement that “the number of bookings piled up as matches became more intense.” His implication is that teams generally earned more yellow cards per match in their second and third matches of the first round. There were 72 yellow cards issued in the 16 first games for each team. The second games involved 93 yellow cards and the third games involved 94. At first glance it would appear that Pye is correct.

However, his conclusion is not supported by closer scrutiny. Of the ten teams that were issued their greatest number of cautions in their third match only Croatia, Korea, Mexico and Switzerland were playing for a chance to advance to the Round of Sixteen. The other six (Ivory Coast, Costa Rica, Spain, Serbia & Montenegro, Poland, and Portugal) had their fates determined before their third match.

Nine teams earned their greatest number of cautions in their first match. Of these, only Argentina, England, Italy and Togo had their fates determined before their third match. Australia, Czech Republic, France, Japan and the United States were fighting to stay alive in their third matches, and yet were issued fewer cautions than in their first.

The thirteen remaining nations were issued the greatest number of cautions in their second match, with the United States and Japan being issued the same number in their first and second, and then fewer in their third than in either of the first two.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS

A misperception we encountered in the media was that there were “new rules” in this World Cup, and that large numbers of the cautions were being issued for violations of those rules. In our opinion, what the referees did in the First Round of World Cup 2006 was simply to enforce the Laws of the Game consistently and as written.

While cautions for reckless, dangerous or tactical challenges are enforced similarly at all levels of the game, from youth play up to professional matches, players at the highest levels get away with certain actions that are -- in print at least -- clear infringements of the Laws.

It is sometimes frustrating to us to return home from a day of refereeing in which we have sanctioned a youth player for dissent or refusing to give the required distance on a free kick only to watch a professional match in which a player clearly swears at a referee or stands on a ball outside the area to prevent a quick restart with impunity.

In the First Round of World Cup 2006, by contrast, when a player continued to play the ball after an offside call was made against him, kicked the ball out of bounds in anger at a call against his team or approached a referee waiving his arms and shouting, he was shown a card for dissent. When a player picked up the ball to prevent an opponent from taking a quick kick or a goalkeeper took an inordinate amount of time to set the ball for a goal kick in the final minutes with his team in the lead, he was shown a card for delay of restart.

Historically, those who say that these deliberate unsporting tactics are “part of the game” have had a point, but we hope that the consistency of the refereeing in the World Cup Germany 2006 shows that this can change. As referees and as fans, we applaud the new guidelines and their success in bringing fairness to many closely-contested matches and a new standard of sporting behavior to the highest levels of the “Beautiful Game”.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

51. England-Ecuador 1:0 (0:0)

Match 51
Round of 16
June 25, 2006
Stuttgart

Referee: DE BLEECKERE Frank (BEL)
Assistant Referee 1: HERMANS Peter (BEL)
Assistant Referee 2: VROMANS Walter (BEL)
Fourth Official: RUIZ Oscar (COL)
Fifth Official: NAVIA Jose (COL)

Official Match Report: html/pdf

De Bleeckere and his team did an excellent job with this game. Aside from relatively minor mistakes (such as the England goal kick at 20' which should have been a corner for Ecuador), foul calls were consistent and all the cards issued were necessary and good decisions. De Bleeckere applied advantage perfectly, such as in 4' when he allowed an England run to continue despite an obvious foul near the touchline. All offside decisions appeared to us to be correct, as well as fouls called by the assistants in their areas.

We felt that two obstruction calls would have been warranted, one against John Terry (ENG 6) in 46', for obstructing an Ecuadorean player from collecting a pass up the touchline, and the considerably more obvious example of Wayne Rooney's (ENG 9) obstruction by Giovanny Espinoza (ECU 17) in 57'. Obstruction in the area must be blatant in order to be called, since it results in an indirect kick from the point of the infraction, but we felt this certainly was. Two minutes later (59'), De Bleeckere recognized a very similar interaction as a direct kick infraction, this time just outside Ecuador's penalty area.

MAJOR DECISIONS EXPLAINED

18': John Terry (ENG 6) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he jumped in with his leg out to play a ball and making contact with the chest of Carlos Tenorio (ECU 21).

24': Luis Valencia (ECU 16) was cautioned for delaying the restart when he stood in front of the ball in order to prevent David Beckham (ENG 7) from taking a direct kick quickly. Once a foul has been called, players on the penalized team must immediately begin to give the kicking the team "the distance" (10 yards) or the offending player may be shown a card for delaying the restart, as Valencia was here.

37': Carlos Tenorio (ECU 21) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he made no attempt to play the ball in fouling John Terry (ENG 6).

67': Ulises De La Cruz (ECU 4) was cautioned for deliberately handling the ball.

78': Paul Robinson (ENG 1) was cautioned for delaying the restart when he took unnecessary time with a goal kick. The situation was not entirely clear on television, but it appeared the Robinson may have asked for an additional ball when the ball that had gone out of bounds was close enough to use.

82': Jamie Carragher (ENG 15) was cautioned for delaying the restart when he took excessive time setting England's kick after a touchline foul on Beckham (ENG 7) by Valencia (ECU 16).

93': The match was called at about 93:04 before England's throw in Ecuador's defending half (three additional minutes had been announced). England had wasted about 20 seconds of additional time with a substitution in 92'. A referee should add a corresponding amount for time lost in the substitution, but England was in possession of the ball, and would Ecuador would not have had another run in the next 20 seconds or so. A fine decision to end game here.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

48': Wayne Rooney (ENG 9) should have been cautioned for dissent when he strode toward the assisant who had just (correctly) called him for a foul, shouted at him and then continued to stand glaring at him. If officials are going to caution players for kicking the ball away (and we think they should), this was an open display of aggressive anger toward the officials that should not be tolerated in the game at any level.

69': Hargreaves did not commit a foul here. Carlos Tenorio (ECU 21) began to drop to the ground before Hargreaves had even arrived. We felt Tenorio should have been cautioned for a dive (unsporting behavior, simulating action).

90': We feel, based on the real-time wide shot and confirmed by the replays, that England should have had a penalty shot for Hurtado's (ECU 3) deliberate handling of the ball played by Lennon (ENG 19). Lennon kicked the ball from very close range, but Hurtado's arm was up unnaturally near or higher than head level when the ball hits struck it.

As a minor note, we wonder if two offside calls within the first forty seconds of a match might be a World Cup record?

-Orion & Zazu

Saturday, June 24, 2006

50. Argentina-Mexico a.e.t. 2:1 (1:1,1:1)

Match 50
Round of 16
June 24, 2006
Leipzig

Referee: BUSACCA Massimo (SUI)
Assistant Referee 1: BURAGINA Francesco (SUI)
Assistant Referee 2: ARNET Matthias (SUI)
Fourth Official: AL GHAMDI Khalil (KSA)
Fifth Official: ARABATI Fathi (JOR)

Official Match Report: html/pdf

In our opinion, Massimo Busacca, whom we felt did an otherwise excellent job officiating this difficult and physically gruelling match, fell for at least three dives. Within less than a minute (35'-36'), at opposite ends of the field, Busacca called fouls against Mario Mendez (MEX 16) and Jose Antonio Castro (MEX 15). Replays make clear that both were actually dives by Maxi Rodriguez (ARG 18).

In the first case, the only contact between the players whatsoever was Rodriguez's hand on Mendez's shoulder. In the second, Castro's hand only lightly touches Rodriguez's back and his knee may make some limited contact with the back of Rodriguez's thigh but neither would have been sufficient to cause the sudden fall and clutching of the calf.

In 82' Gerardo Torrado (MEX 6) was called for fouling Juan Sorin (ARG 3, captain). Disgust with this call earned teammate Castro (MEX 15) a caution for dissent (see below). Both the wide live shot and the replay clearly show that there was no contact from Torrado when Sorin abruptly changed direction and lept into the air, pulling his legs in, and fell to the ground in supposed agony.

In another incident involving Sorin (ARG 3), Busacca made no call. We think that in 54', beaten by a ball to Jared Borgetti (MEX 9) played over his head, Sorin either kicked the ball into Borgetti's face from a few inches away to prevent him from taking a shot or kicked Borgetti in the face, the former being the more likely. Unfortunately, the situation was never replayed at all in the television coverage. Our opinion, after watching the live action wide shot several times in slow motion, is that Sorin's action should have either resulted in an indirect kick for Mexico from the point of the infraction (a few yards from the goal) or a penalty kick, depending on the nature of the infraction.

With the benefit of replays, it appears to us that the ten offside decisions in this match were correct with the exception of two. In 78' Mexico's offside trap was not as successful as it appeared in the live action. The Argentinian player who received the ball was actually onside when the ball was played.

In 92' Pablo Aimar (ARG 16) played the ball across to Messi (ARG 19) who put the ball into the net as the assistant was raising his flag for the pass to Aimar. However, the replay clearly shows that Aimar was being played onside by the Mexican defender closest to the assistant. Had Argentina been awarded the goal they deserved here, it is highly unlikely additional extra time would have been necessary.

We felt that at least three challenges warranted cautions for unsporting behavior, in addition to the four issued by Bussaca:

83': Scaloni (ARG 13) jumped into Zinha (MEX 7) from behind and knocked him to the ground. This action occurred a few feet away from Busacca. He called a foul, but waived off Mexico's appeals for a caution.

87': Mascherano (ARG 8) was also called only for a foul when he slid into Osorio (MEX 5) from the front in order to stop Mexico's attack.

89': Borgetti (MEX 9) was also fortunate not to be booked for his cleats-out challenge from behind on Rodriguez (ARG 18).

EXPLANATION OF THE CAUTIONS

46'+: Defender Gabriel Heinze (ARG 6) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he took down the Mexican forward who had slipped past him toward goal with a ball stolen on a pass from the Argentinian keeper. Replays showed that this was the correct decision. Mexican players immediately crowded Busacca demanding that Heinze be shown a red card for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (one of the seven sending-off offenses), but Busacca indicated that the defender on the right side was about equal and had a fair chance of stopping the run toward the goal. A red card for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is reserved for a defender committing the infraction who is the second-to-last defender in a situation where the attacker is on his or her way to goal. There have been only two examples in World Cup 2006 to date: the sending off of Vashchuk (UKR) in Match 15 against Spain and of Ujfalusi (CZE) in Match 26 against Ghana. Note that in both cases the player committing the foul had been beaten and fouled the attacker from behind.

70': Rafael Marquez (MEX 4) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he kicked Hernan Crespo (ARG 9) from behind in order to obtain the ball. While the fall was certainly enhanced by Crespo, the nature of the foul made it a clearly cautionable offense.

82': Jose Antonio Castro (MEX 15) was cautioned for dissent when he kicked the ball away in anger at a foul called against his teammate Gerardo Torrado (MEX 6). While we too felt that the call against Torrado was a poor one (see above), Castro's behavior was unacceptable and was a clear example of one of the actions FIFA has instructed referees to administer cautions for.

112': Juan Sorin (ARG 3) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he deliberately took down Ricardo Ossorio (MEX 5) in order to prevent him from crossing the ball. It was not the severity of the foul but its tactical nature that earned Sorin the caution.

118': Gerardo Torrado (MEX 6) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he deliberately took down Lionel Messi (ARG 19) as he moved toward goal. Here also, it was not the severity of the foul but its tactical nature that earned Torrado the caution.

119': Jose Fonseca (MEX 17) was cautioned for dissent when he kicked the ball away after being called for handling.

A final note: we felt that Busacca should have added at least one minute onto the second period of additional extra time (he added about 15 seconds) in order to make up for the time Argentina deliberately wasted with three throw-ins (108', 109', and 115') as well as the situation with three balls on the field at 115'. While adding a minute would likely have had no effect on the outcome of the match, it would have suggested fairness. Taking no action rewarded what we considered to be several actions by Argentina in the final minutes of additional extra time that we considered unsporting.

-Orion & Zazu

Thursday, June 22, 2006

43. Japan-Brazil 1:4 (1:1)

Match 43
Group F
June 22, 2006
Dortmund

Referee: POULAT Eric (FRA)
Assistant Referee 1: DAGORNE Lionel (FRA)
Assistant Referee 2: TEXIER Vincent (FRA)
Fourth Official: DAMON Jerome (RSA)
Fifth Official: MOLEFE Enock (RSA)

Official Match Report: html/pdf

We have very little to say about the refereeing of this match, due to the fact that both teams fouled very little (15 fouls combined; some games have had more than 60)and played with more flow than any matchup thus far. Both teams tended to play through contact in advantage situations, and Poulat was right to let them do so.

28': Ronaldinho (BRA 10) goes to ground outside the area; this was not replayed, but Poulat seemed to be correct in seeing no foul committed by the Japanese defender.

33': A Brazilian defender was playing Tamada (JPN 20), the goalscorer, onside at the moment the ball was played by Alex (JPN 14), even though a moment later he appeared offside. This was an excellent onside decision by the assistant.

40': Kaji (JPN 21) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he committed a reckless challenge against Gilberto (BRA 16). He appeared to make a little contact with the ball but mostly his action was about taking out Gilberto's legs.

44': The decision to issue a caution for unsporting behavior to Gilberto (BRA 6) for his tactical block/trip of Kaji (JPN 21), who had just touched the ball past him for a fast break, was excellent. The nature of the foul would be enough in itself, but it was also a likely retaliation for the foul Kaji had committed against Gilberto four minutes earlier at the other end of the field.

47': We were unable to evaluate the foul Poulat called against a Japanese player in the middle of the field. The wide angle television camera was not showing the players in question until a moment later and the foul was not replayed from another angle. The players were far from each other when the camera reached them, so it is hard to imagine the nature of the contact.

-Orion & Zazu


Pele cites referees' consistency in discipline

Pele's thoughts on World Cup 2006 thus far, from June 22 interview with FIFAworldcup.com:

FIFAworldcup.com: What has been your verdict on the FIFA World Cup up to this point? Have you been pleased with the standard of the matches?

Pele: I’m enjoying it very much. Firstly because the discipline and the consistency of the referees has been very good and they are clamping down on foul play. Of course, they will always make some mistakes, but discipline in the matches has been perfect.

Secondly, because before the tournament many people said that this would be a World Cup without many goals, with very defensive teams, and yet the average number of goals per game has been excellent. I think this has been a better start to the tournament than in 2002.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

27. Brazil-Australia 2:0 (0:0)

Match 27
Group F
June 18, 2006

Referee: Markus Merk (GER)
Assistant Referee 1: Christian Schraer (GER)
Assistant Referee 2: Jan-Hendrik Salver (GER)
Fourth official: Marco Rodriguez (MEX)
Fifth official: Leonel Leal (CRC)

Official match report: html/pdf

Merk and the referee team did very good work officiating this match. There were some excellent decisions: the two onside decisions preceding Brazil's second goal (Fred, 90') and the no-call for Viduka's (AUS 9) interaction with the Brazilian keeper Dida in 56'. Viduka was always within playing distance of the ball and in no way fouled Dida, since he did not back into him. We have seen a number of forwards penalized unfairly thus far, so it was refreshing to see play continue when there was clearly -- to us and Merk, at least -- no foul.

The only decisions we found questionable:

66': An offside call against Ronaldo (BRA 9). Ronaldo seemed on the replay to have been onside when the ball was played; however, the decision most likely had little effect on the game, since he was very unlikely to have been able to reach the pass anyway.

76': Merk did not penalize a Brazilian player (we forgot to note which) for holding in a very similar manner, as we saw it, to two holding calls he had just penalized Bresciano (AUS 23) in 72' and 74'. Incidentally, the first of those against Bresciano we felt was undeserved.

One minor technical note, this is the first game in which the referees have changed the color of their shirts at half time. They are sporting new Adidas uniforms in this World Cup, and there are four colors to choose from: dark gray, light gray, red and yellow-green. They started the game in the light gray, but must have determined at the half-time that their shirts were too close to the Austrlian dark -- there were a couple times it was hard to pick Merk out of the crowd, at least on the television coverage. The red matched Schwarzer's uniform (the reason they had ruled it out initially, no doubt, because optimally the referees choose a color that matches none of the those being worn by either team or their keepers), but it worked fine. If you are going to conflict with someone, it should be a keeper, since the referee and the keeper rarely occupy the same region of the field.

A second minor technical note: The referees seem to be having a difficult time getting the front pockets open to remove cards from these new shirts.

THE CAUTIONS:

13': Adriano (BRA 7) was cautioned either for an unsporting challenge (he climbed on the Australian's back) or for his display of dissent afterward. Either would have been warranted.

29': Cafu (BRA 2) was cautioned for his unsporting challenge on Cahill (AUS 4).

31': Ronaldo (BRA 9) was cautioned when he continued to play the ball long after being called offside, a form of dissent/time wasting the referees have been instructed to crack down on in this World Cup as a special "area of interest". There are at least three examples from previous games.

39': Culina (AUS 5) was cautioned for an unsporting challenge when he cleated the inside of Juan's thigh (BRA 4). A good decision, as the replays made clear.

84': Our best guess is that Robinho (BRA 23) was cautioned for delaying the resart by failing to retreat before the kick, which would have been warranted as an "area of interest" in this World Cup (there have been many examples so far in previous games); however it may have been for dissent. As with Adriano's card in 13', it is difficult to tell since we cannot hear what the players and referee are saying to one another in television coverage.

-Orion & Zazu