There's No Easy Fix for a Blown Call
by Dave Clark on Jun 18, 2010 5:45 PM PDT
in US National Team, World Cup and Other International Soccer
Email
Print
Yes, the call sucked. No, it isn't the only reason the United States of America lost got the tie. But it can, will and has been the focus of that match. Rather than talk about Little Bradley coming through for Dad heading into Father's Day, or Landon Donovan finding a window for a shot that was about the size of the ball, all of the sports world is talking about the blown call.
FIFA is exploring pulling Koman Coulibaly from any more matches. But that doesn't fix today. That doesn't make up for his poor call in the USA's favor concerning Dempsey. It doesn't make up for his awful call against Findley. It doesn't make up for the wrong interpretation of last man when Altidore drew the Yellow. And it certainly doesn't make up for the call against who knows when Maurice Edu made a perfect run and drove the ball home.
The worst thing is that the most commonly explored fixes that have been explored are Goal Line Referees and Goal Line Technology. NEITHER of these would have fixed a bad blown whistle by the Center Referee. Goal Line Tech will only help a goal/no-goal situation.
Goal Line Referees would not be able to overrule a call by the Center Referee and so this call will always be possible until something much more significant changes in FIFA and IFAB. The scrums inside the penalty area will continue until there is a rules change, or after several years of GLRs in place at the highest leagues and international competitions.
Simon Haydon, a referee with 10 years of experience, notes that unlike the Offsides Rule where the default is now in favor of the offense, most referees will call issues in the Penalty Area in favor of the defense.
Most referees are unwilling to penalize the defending team, preferring to reject goals rather than give them. This is what Coulibaly did Friday and it cost the United States a victory that would have brought the team close to qualifying for the next round.
Instead, the team is struggling to qualify and must beat Algeria in Pretoria on Wednesday to have any chance of qualifying.
The referee's job is impossible in these situations.
In any game - from the lowest league to the World Cup - if eight players are fouling each other in the penalty area, the referee can only see a small number of the penalties that are occurring. Cynical professional players tumble and dive in the penalty area, trying to trick the ref into giving a penalty and only television replays reveal the full madness of their actions.
Emphasis there is mine. Haydon's writing deserves a full read, but this selection shows the issue. If FIFA truly wants to push for more offense (such as the recent offsides rules tweak, and having Goals Scored as the 2nd tie breaker) maybe the answer is to give the default inside the Area to the offense.
Because if 5 guys are clutching and grappling like a Greco-Roman match, with 4 of them for 1 team and 1 for the other, it would be ideal to call the team fouling more than the other. In this case that would have been Slovenia.
But a referee isn't going to be able to notice everything. They can't. So if scoring is to increase, and we get a game of more skill a default to the offense does both of these. Yes, it helps the USA in this one instance, but the problem is bigger, and the current "solutions" don't actually solve for the problem.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"No, it isn't the only reason the United States of America lost"
The USA lost?!?
That said, I’m not a big fan of forcing “scoring increase” through rule tweaks. Good defending is still good football, and it always makes my ears bleed to hear how disciplined defending teams like Switzerland or Inter Milan were “murdering” the “beautiful game” of Spain or Barça. They didn’t murder anything, they played better football. Better defending football can be better football.
Dutch side’s former head coach, Marco van Basten, has always been in favour of a 70-minute game with stoppage for referee reviews. Seems the only likely fix. That or just live with it, which works fine for me.
You read quick
If you reread you’ll notice a change. Emotion overtook editing, but I think they way the American media is treating the draw that one might undersand the use of the word ‘lost’
BTW, I don’t think you can claim that there was good defending in this particular situation. I’m only suggesting that as the Offside Rule is now defaulting in favor of the offense so should other blurry call situations.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think the reasoning behind the "lose"
is more so to do with where it left us standings wise. If England had won against Algeria (which is what I was expecting immediately after the game) the US would be in a tough spot to get out of group stages. And even making it out then running straight into Germany isn’t much better.
If we had the win we’d be sitting on 4 points, with Slovenia at 4, England at 2, and Algeria at 1. We’d be tied in points and winning in GD with Slovenia. The last 2 games would be England vs Slovenia and US vs Algeria which at face value looks very favorable to the US.
Thanks to the England draw we are looking a lot better then I was originally expecting though.
Slovenia would have been at 3, not 4
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Sometimes "handball" defending, as we Dutchies call it, is still good defending
It’s uncoordinated, everything-but-the-kitchen sink, dependent on effort rather than coordination-style defending, but if it works don’t knock it. But I missed the US match and was talking more in generalities.
Catenaccio gets a lot of whining from the pundits whenever it appears, and I do understand how these grind-em-out matches are disliked, but on the other hand a win’s a win. And let’s not forget, the fairly low-scoring 2006 World Cup was better than the overly chaotic 2002 World Cup. This one has a good average of goals so far too, yet some of the better matches have been the low-scoring ones, like the Ivory Coast-Portugal 0-0.
Anyway, to get back to the point, I don’t know if you can equalize the two situations that easily, or if your argument works, for two reason;
On the general change to offense, offside was invented to make scoring more difficult and has seen multiple experiments to make it more conductive to scoring. It was changed from three players to two players in the early 20th century for exactly that reason. It is a rather binary decision though, you’re either offside or you’re not, which makes it easier to go “in case of doubt, whistle for…” The in-the-box wrestling that occurs during set plays and other moments isn’t as binary, , it’s more like there’s a score card of how many fouls there are being made, with the defense getting a few free fouls in before they start getting ticks. Because it’s so hard to get an exact looking, it’s almost impossible to shift that one as easily as offside tho.
What’s more, "but the problem is bigger, and the current “solutions” don’t actually solve for the problem" implies that changing the favor to the offense solves the problem. It doesn’t, it just means the unfair calls go the other way from now on. That doesn’t solve anything.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Besides, the defense tends to outnumber the offense in the box, and would be at a marked, inherent disadvantage if the ref didn't give them leeway
Because of that, it’d mean more goals, but inferior football. Making scoring goals too easy will eventually hurt the game, that much is obvious.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions
You really need to see the false call
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Fine!
watches Sure, nonsense call, sucks.
That really doesn’t change my point on why your solution is no solution. These nonsense calls would still occur, only they’d be against teams losing 3-2 rather than winning 3-2.
And one nonsense call doesn’t change much about my argument, including how the defense in the box is always at a disadvantage in the wrestling matches that occur. Unclear stuff like this will always cause nonsense calls unless they allow instant replay (which they won’t), crippling the call will lead to more goals, but no fewer nonsense calls. And intuitively I’d say that making set play goals too easy will lead to a lot of searching for corners and fouls rather than the beautiful combination football we’ve seen develop, and would thus lead to less skill and less high-quality football.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree in general
There’s no scenario which I can imagine in which a bad call from the center ref (not a noncall) can be overturned. It’s like having the second base ump overrule the homeplate ump on balls/strikes. If the center ref makes a bad call, it sucks, but it’s probably always going to be part of the game. That said, the call was awful and probably inexcusable.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 18, 2010 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I definitely agree with you on the grey area problem on fouls
It is possible, in theory, to call offsides objectively. It is not possible to do that on the vast majority of regular fouls.
The only argument in favor of more offense, in principle, is this: the more you reward good play with goals, at both ends, the more likely it is that the final score will accurately reflect the performances of the two teams. If one team is 5 or 6% better than the other, is it better for the game to end 1:1 or 9:8? Do lacrosse scores better reflect the teams’ performances than soccer scores do?
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
I'm more about prevention
and the only way to really do that fairly, is to do so after the fact. Every game should be reviewed. Players who repeatedly foul/fake in the area without getting caught get punished after the fact (yellow?). Enough players start having to sit out a game because of accumulations, suddenly you’re seeing a whole lot less crap in the area. Simple…… but, of course, it ain’t.
That still wouldn't fix the idea of the CR blowing the whistle for the wrong call
That to me is the issue that post match video review, GLT, and GLR can’t address, and the only way I can think to fix it is through the same minor adjustment as per the Offside Rule – if multiple fouls are occuring favor the offense.
It is a minor change in application of the current rule.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
You still haven't explained how that would actually stop them from blowing fouls
All it would do is make the blown fouls go in favor of the other team
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Right
Exactly that.
Why is the default for Offsides difference than the default for a foul in a box?
Why does FIFA use Goals Scored, rather than Goals Against as a tie breaker?
Shouldn’t these be consistent across the board?
I’m saying that since the CR will make mistakes, in which way should those mistakes be made? Should that be consistent with other rulings by FIFA?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Apples and oranges
These rulings are all about optimizing scoring opportunities while encouraging good football. Allowing the offense to foul in the 11-meter would optimize scoring but encourage bad football. What would stop a team for just looking for fouls and corners rather than even attempting to set up a good attack? It’s counter-intuitive.
Besides, ideally all the rules should be equalized, and most of them are. Offside and goals scored are both binary, absolute yes-no questions, not as shades-of-possibilities as most on-the-field fouls.
And none of that really changes the issue. The issue is really bad calls happen, the issue really isn’t that really bad calls happen against the offense.
Unless you think the issue is calls happening against the offense? I know Americans often complain this is a low-scoring game and maybe that’s where you’re coming from, but I really can’t see that angle. I care for beautiful football, as do most pundits, how many goals are scored is not representative of the beauty of the game, and putting in place rules that make for ugly play but more goals is really counter-intuitive.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I think in the specific cases of fouls inside the box
DURING a Free Kick the fouls are in the majority of circumstances instigated by the defensive team not playing good soccer, but instead playing rugby and knowing that the referees will not call it against the defense.
What happened today was not beautiful. It was the defense taking advantage of the default position of referees in these circumstances, as linked in two articles above, and took place in the match.
I want to watch soccer, not rugby. The current default does not encourage soccer.
I have not been talking about all fouls, just these specific cases.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Wait, I think we're talking at cross purposes...
The problem was not the amount of fouls. The amount of fouls were not egregious enough to keep you from scoring. The problem was that your score was recalled after for no clear reason. If the ball hadn’t gone in, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Why? Because you do not call a penalty for a bunch of players clinging to each other. Look at your own picture below, tell me how many US players are clinging back. Is a head-count relevant? No it isn’t. When multiple fouls are going both ways and none are out of line (tossing a player to the ground, etc), you don’t call.
That’s a golden rule for refereeing: when this happens, you do not make any call. Not for the offense, not against the offense. If it’s a goal it’s a goal. If someone is being knocked to the ground then yes, that could be a penalty.
The reason this ref is getting criticism is for making a call in the first place is for blowing the whistle, no matter what Haydon says. But so far I’ve been getting from you that you think he should’ve blown the whistle for the US. I can’t agree with that. If teams get a penalty every time a scrum happens, hell no.
If you’re just saying he shouldn’t have blown his little whistle then well, yeah. Most refs don’t blow their whistle in this case. That’s exactly why this is such a mind-boggler. That’s also why no rule-change is necessary. 99/100 times refs faced with this situation will simply make no call, and thus allow the goal. If I’ve seen it once I’ve seen it a million times. The only fouls offense can make to have a goal canceled is throwing down a defender or hitting the goalkeeper. Were either of those fouls in play? No? Then most refs won’t call it back.
But by making a golden pro-offense rule you’re creating a problem that does not exist. If we make the rule adaptation you suggest, defenses are left helpless. I’ve always played central back in my football days, do you have any idea what it’s like to try to cover an offender in the box? You can’t do it without contact. You can do it with more elegance than our Eastern-European brethren, sure, but again, they didn’t actually stop the goal from happening. Then bring in a rule that the offender can have more contact than you can? Holy crap that’d ruin football, and no two ways about it.
It’d make for more goals tho.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
We are disagreeing on the Problem I'm addressing
I’m talking about the problem of how referees default position is that the defense is innocnent.
In this specific case a defense that committed 4-5 fouls compared to 1 by the offense the offense was seen as the guilty party. It was not just “contact.”
I have not suggested that the offense be allowed more contact, nor have I said that a penalty would be the right call. I’m suggesting that the referee if in doubt should default to the offense.
In these specific cases that means letting them play, for the most part.
It would be exactly as the application of Offsides, where ARs are taught that if they don’t know they should allow the play to develop.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Actually, it would.....
after the fact. On a judgement call (and that’s what this is), you can’t overturn the call. But if every game is reviewed for these infractions and cards are handed out, there would be far less fouling in these circumstances (in time). The ref doesn’t need to make a call where this isn’t one to be made. Again, prevention. As is obvious from the rest of the input on this thread, there is NO on-field answer to this issue. Not another ref, nor review. Police it after, punish severely, it’ll all but disappear.
Wouldn't work
It’d make the refs go too easy on carding during the match, figuring it’ll be caught post-match
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 18, 2010 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Screen Capture of the Scrum
Now, I didn’t create this, and I think it ignores highlighting of the US fouls as well, but it shows that in this case the defense certainly committed more fouls, but due to the nature of refereeing are highly unlikely to be called for it.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Great shot, that call was really atrocious
Look at Adu, his lane was wide open. What I would like to see is this. The call cannot be overturned, we all know that. But, I think (and I know this would never happen) that all four of those players should get yellow cards after the fact. In other words, in reviewing the match, FIFA should card those four players.
I also cannot remember when the obstruction was so blatant by so many players at once. It had to be orchestrated by their coach.
One thing I never understood in reffing is what to do when there are multiple simultaneous fouls and what the AR is supposed to do. Yes, an AR cannot overrule a center official, but what if the AR calls a different foul? Isn’t the assistant referee obligated to call the foul on Michael Bradley which is plainly in view because he was being marked/bear-hugged by the second to last defender? I was shocked that there appeared to be no communication with the assistant who was in prime position to see a few other fouls.
But in the case of multiple fouls what are refs supposed to do?
One Solution
How about FIFA actually gets officials that have some sort of core competency when it comes to officiating a match? Sure, officials from everywhere have made bad calls, but I think a more seasoned official would have had a better match than Coulibaly, and by more seasoned I mean volunteer high school soccer linesman.
17 years and like 6 straight Africa Cup of Nations
He has experience, a ton of it. And not just in rinky-dink leagues. The ACN has top talent, more than the Gold Cup.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Tin foil hat moment
Ok, I watched the second half again last night. Obviously there was a phantom call on the goal attempt, but there actually were two other dead ball situations for the USA where the Ref did the exact same thing. I think they were in the 58th and 73rd minutes respectively.
In both cases the US lined up the kick and the ref blew it dead as soon as the ball was kicked. In fact I didn’t see the ref call a single foul in favore of the USA after the second goal. The loan foul that went our way was flagged by the linesman. Almost all of our dead ball situations were on the right side, right in front of the linesman…
Ok, tin foil hats off… play some fricken D in the first half USA!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
