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

posted by Orion and Zazu at 10:37 AM 0 comments

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

posted by Orion and Zazu at 5:49 PM 0 comments

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


posted by Orion and Zazu at 3:00 PM 0 comments

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.

posted by Orion and Zazu at 11:38 AM 0 comments

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

posted by Orion and Zazu at 6:32 PM 0 comments

Thursday, June 15, 2006

13. France-Switzerland 0:0

Match 13
Group G
June 13, 2006
Stuttgart

Referee: Valentin Ivanov (RUS)
Assistant Referee 1: Nikolay Golubev (RUS)
Assistant Referee 2: Evgueni Volnin (RUS)
Fourth Official: Kevin Stott (USA)
Fifth Official: Gregory Barkey (USA)

Official Match Report: html/pdf

Ivanov’s position was generally too far from the action, though he seemed perfectly located when he decided not to call a penalty in 38’. In our opinion, this was the most serious refereeing error of the tournament to date, even worse than awarding the goal to Japan against Australia, because it affected not only the score (which can affect advancement from group play, but only if the tie-breaker of goal differential is necessary), but also affected the outcome of the match (points are of primary importance in advancement from group play).

There were, in our opinion, at least two other missed calls as well: a Swiss push/trip (the blocking kind) of Henry (FRA 12) in 10’ and a potential French trip in 40’. Also, we thought that Makekele (FRA 6) should probably have been cautioned for a dive (unsporting simulation) in 92’. In 55’ Ivanov should have just called the Swiss foul rather than give some kind of “play on” gestures when there was no obvious advantage to France.

We were also perplexed by the decision to not stop play for Henry’s injury in 41’, presumably on the rationale he happened to already be off the field following his attack when he felt pain. There was no obvious advantage to be removed from the Swiss and they kicked the ball around the half-way line for a while until the realized the referee did not intend to stop play.

We also found the 8 cautions issued in this match to be excessive. During the periods around 68’ and again from around 80’ to the end of the match, it seemed that every player on the field was angry with Ivanov's decisions; the high number of cautions issued may have contributed to the anger. It was impossible to tell from the television coverage why Zidane (FRA 10) was cautioned in 72' just before taking a direct kick outside the area, but it could have been very serious. Dissent? Delaying the restart? Neither seems likely, since he was presumably happy with the call and did not seem to us to take an excessive time in setting up for the kick. Cautions should be reserved for truly deserving situations; for example:

Abidal’s (FRA 3) caution for dissent/delay of restart in 65’, when he kicked the ball into the stands upon hearing the whistle for his foul was consistent with new FIFA guidelines for the tournament, and similar to several cautions issued in previous matches. Another deserved caution was to Cabanas (SUI 7) for his late challenge on Sagnol (FRA 19) in 72’.

Finally, mention must be made of the caution to Alexander Frei (SUI 9) for deliberate handling in a goal-scoring attempt in 93’. Good position, good eye, correct decision. Perhaps there will be no “hands of God” at work in Germany, just the occasional hand of a defender.

-Orion & Zazu

posted by Orion and Zazu at 2:26 PM 0 comments

18. Ecuador-Costa Rica 3:0 (1:0)

Match 18
Group A
June 15, 2006
Hamburg

Referee: Coffi Codjia (BEN)
Assistant Referee 1: Celestin Ntagungira (RWA)
Assistant Referee 2: Aboudou Aderodjou (BEN)
Fourth Official: Mohamed Guezzaz (MAR)
Fifth Official: Brahim Djezzar (ALG)

Official Match Report: html/pdf

Codjia and company did very good work in this game. For a period of time around 39' and following, Codjia called a number of what one might call "small fouls", something a referee will sometimes do for a period when s/he feels the players are becoming a little out of control. We didn't agree that things were particularly out of control during that period, so it struck us as a little strange. On the other hand, we weren't down there on the field. The feeling that you have to "tighten things up a little" often comes from what the players are saying to you or to one another.

He did a great job of getting to possible points of confrontation along the touchline more quickly than some of the referees and anticipated requests for foul calls by signaling the direction of the throw-in, when there was no foul to call. When the referee is too far removed from touchline action it can contribute to the perception, by the players, that s/he is oblivious to contact occurring there.

The game involved many excellent offside/onside decisions by the assistants, with single exception of 20', where the Costa Rican attacker appeared to us, from the replay, to be onside when the ball was played.

Codjia was never taken by any dives or "enhanced falls" (our term for a dive when there was actually some contact). He made an excellent decision to let play go on in 32'. Centeno (CRC 10) endangered himself by throwing his body around Mendez (ECU 8) in trying to stop his kick. Mendez made his play on the ball and, in the follow-through, caught Centeno's leg. No foul, good decision.

63': Centeno (CRC 10) was very lucky that Codjia apparently missed what appeared to us to be a deliberate step on the leg of Kaviedes (ECU 10). If the action had been spotted by the referee, Centeno would almost certainly have been shown a red card for serious foul play. The foul was clear in the replays, and Codjia was in the vicinity, but he must have looked away at the critical moment. This happens pretty frequently, because you can't be looking everywhere at once. Unfortunately, in the middle of the field -- where this potential foul occurred -- you are on your own. Your assistant can't very well raise a flag for a foul right next to you.

The foul Codjia called against Soborio (CRC 19) in 81' is an excellent example of how a player can "get ball" in a tackle and still commit a foul in the process, due to what he does to the player's body after he makes contact with the ball.

94': We felt Kaviedes (ECU 10) was fortunate that Codjia did not caution him for diving. There was minimal contact from the outstretched leg of Umana (CRC 4), a little delay, and then he flopped to the ground, looking up at Codjia in appeal.

CAUTIONS

10': Marin (CRC 3) was cautioned for unsporting behavior when he took down Nunez (ECU 21). The challenge was not particularly late but clearly Nunez was going to reach the ball first, so Marin stepped on his foot and then took out Nunez's body, rather than make a legitimate play for the ball himself. Note also that Nunez had been involved in Ecuador's first goal, making him a likely target for retaliation.

28': Solis (CRC 8) was cautioned for unsporting behavior for his tactical foul on Mendez (ECU 8).

44': Castillo (ECU 14) was cautioned for "lunging", we would say, since he launched himself at the opponent in a reckless manner. We would call this an example of the enforcement of the Laws under FIFA's new "areas of interest" for the World Cup. Lunging was already specifically mentioned in the Instructions to Referees in the back, but referees have been encouraged to sanction it as unsporting behavior more consistenly than we are used to seeing during, say, the last two seasons of the English Premier League. Notice the rare situation here. No direct kick was given for the lunge, because Codjia had applied advantage and the ball had subsequently gone out for a throw.

54 ': De La Cruz (ECU 4) was cautioned for delay of restart, when he deliberately wasted time in taking the throw.

60': Mora (ECU 21), the Ecuadorian keeper, was cautioned for delay of restart; when a card is issued, as here, in a period between a call for a restart (here a direct kick for a foul), that restart takes precedence over the issuance of the card, since play has not yet started again. Hence Mora continuing with the kick after receiving the caution.

-Orion & Zazu



posted by Orion and Zazu at 1:06 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

11. Brazil-Croatia 1:0 (1:0)

Group F
Match 11
June 13, 2006
Berlin

Referee: Benito Archundia (MEX)
Assistant Referee 1: Jose Ramirez (MEX)
Assistant Referee 2: Hector Vergara (CAN)
Fourth Official: Mohamed Guezzaz (MAR)
Fifth Official: Brahim Djezzar (ALG)

Official match report: html/pdf

It was a comparatively clean first half, though by the end of the match the sides had 20 fouls apiece. Archundia demonstrated the importance of calling the “little” fouls, in order to prevent the escalation that often accompanies players’ frustration. He missed very little if anything, partly due to his excellent positioning. A possible exception was what looked to us like a foul suffered by Ronaldinho (BRA 10) in 75’ with no acknowledgment from Archundia and possession immediately going to Croatia -- there was no replay shown. Also see our note at 32’ about three fouls supposedly suffered by Kaka. As for the assistants, replays showed that every offside call was flawless: Brazil 11’, 13’, 24’, 55’ (the official match report for some reason gives only 3 offside calls against Brazil); Croatia 7’, 11’, 22’, 27’.

OF NOTE

24’: Adriano (BRA 7) was called for an unnecessary foul with the ball already on its way out. Again in 29’ Adriano was called for excessive holding and then pulling Niko Kovac (CRO 10) to the ground, as he moved up the touchline. Incidentally, this fall caused the initial injury to Kovac (possibly a broken rib), exacerbated by his second fall when fouled by Ze Roberto (BRA 11) in 35’. Archundia whistled both of these routine fouls and the calls were all that was necessary; neither player was deliberately trying to injure or further injure Kovac, who was then substituted in 41’.

27’, 38’, 42’: Emerson (BRA 5) committed these three fouls. After the third, Archundia showed him a card. The most serious of the three was the last -- a late challenge in which he deliberately stepped on his opponent’s foot. Possibly this foul alone earned Emerson the card, but it seems to us more likely that Archundia cautioned Emerson for persistent infringement. In any case, the card had the intended effect. Emerson committed only one more foul, and it was in the second half (63’).

32’: Caution to Niko Kovac (CRO 10), unsporting behavior: Difficult to tell from limited replays whether Kovac deserved this card for this off-the ball contact with Kaka (BRA 8), whether it was foul at all, or whether it might have been simulation by Kaka to draw a kick for Ronaldinho at the top of the area. Note the similarly questionable call for a foul on Kaka by the substitute Leko (CRO 16). While there was definitely some contact in that play as well, in both instances Kaka generally seemed to fall quite easily. We felt that his fall backwards over Leko in 73’ was his own fault and not Leko’s, though Archundia ruled it a foul. Kaka is a player for the referees of Brazil’s next games to keep an eye on. He is quite good at earning foul calls, and not -- to judge from the benefit of replays from multiple angles --- always deserved.

42’: One of the beautiful applications of advantage in this game. No need to disrupt the attack, since Ronaldinho (BRA 10) shook off the foul and continued his attacking run. We noticed, though, that here and elsewhere in the match, even (as here) when obvious fouls were committed, Archundia did not make any advantage signal. In fact, we think we may not have seen one in the entire game. Even when the signal might be unnecessary for a player who has shaken off an obvious foul and is continuing to play, a clear signal can help fans know that the foul has been seen, and that the advantage has been applied.

67’: A well-deserved caution issued to Roberto Kovac (CRO 4) for what would be his only foul of the match. The foul on Adriano (BRA 7) was deliberately late, well after Adriano had played the ball. Sometimes commentators call this sort of challenge “ill-timed”, but it usually seems to us, as here, that the defender has no chance of a fair play on the ball and so intends to hit his opponent at precisely that moment, risking the card in order to cause the attacker to be a little more hesitant next time. Occasionally (and there have been a few examples in this Cup already), a referee will miss a late challenge because he turns too quickly to follow the ball. Not so with Archundia.

86’: We found it funny that the Croatian fan on field was initially missed by Archundia as he turned to follow the play. Perhaps because he was wearing a Croatian shirt, but more likely because it is about the last thing he would have expected to see. As with any outside interference occurring during the run of play, whether a dog on the field in a Saturday-afternoon youth game or one of 72,000 crazed spectators in a stadium beating security and disrupting an attacking play by the world’s defending champions, a drop ball is the proper restart. As per the unwritten convention of drop balls, the Croatians kicked the ball out for a Brazilian throw to restore rightful possession.

92’: Foul by Ronaldinho (BRA 10) was clearly tactical, hoping to run down the final seconds of the 2 minutes of additional time, making it a good decision by Archundia to allow the Croatians to have the kick and the ensuing play until the Brazilians regained possession (at about 92:18) before blowing the final whistle. It is important to remember that, in theory, stoppage time should be treated no different from regular time: injuries, substitutions, and various other time-wasting tactics should all add corresponding amounts of time to the announced additional time. The announced time is a minimum.

-Orion & Zazu

posted by Orion and Zazu at 12:00 PM 0 comments