Copa America 2024

[Quarryref]

Safe refereeing is often misinterpreted. It should be applied when a decision has minimal impact on either team and fairness, and it helps the referee manage the game better which is in the interest of both teams. However if it means rewarding the offending team for their offence and denying the attacking team a significant opportunity that they have fairly created, it is not safe refereeing, or at the very least a very poor application of it.

In this clip, the tackle, reckless IMO, has one intent only and that is to delay the break away so that other defender's can catch up (and accepting a yellow card). Had they taken the QFK from the general area of the offence, the right and fair thing to do is to allow it. Doing otherwise means helping/rewarding the defending team for their offence and achieving their goal, and denying the attacking team of the opportunity they created fairly and had every right to continue with.

Off course once you had started the sanction process you create the expectation for everyone that you will not allow the QFK and no matter what you do after that, it'd be unfair to one or both teams.

I don't disagree that there are edge cases where it is possible and sensible to allow a QFK in these situations. However,
it's my view that they are just that - 95% of the time, whether it is my contrib game, a Premier League game or the dog and duck on a Sunday morning, the referee blows his whistle, everyone stops and looks at him waiting for the card. Do what's expected and no-one is talking about it afterwards. That's safe refereeing for me.

As I say, I don't rule out ever allowing it and I probably have at some point. For me, it's just not a situation to be overthinking it or manufacturing something that's not there

 

[socal lurker]

In this clip, the tackle, reckless IMO, has one intent only and that is to delay the break away so that other defender's can catch up (and accepting a yellow card).

I have trouble believing, in the context of the game and what was/wasn’t cautioned previously, that he pulled that he pulled that card out for reckless rather than SPA. I believe when he pulled it, he was absolutely cautions for SPA.

All in all, he seemed in over his head during the game. Given his minimal experience, it seems likely he was assigned this game when it was expected to be a meaningless game and a “safe” game to gain experience. The US losing to Panama (due to a correct, stupid card early in the match) changed that dynamic to make it an important game. And the R wasn’t up to it.

 

[one]

I have trouble believing, in the context of the game and what was/wasn’t cautioned previously, that he pulled that he pulled that card out for reckless rather than SPA. I believe when he pulled it, he was absolutely cautions for SPA.

That may well be. But do you also believe when he went back and carded him after 'the advantage' he still had SPA in his mind?

This really is a moot argument. I feel for this referee. You don't get to this level of game not knowing such recent obvious relatively big law changes. I think what happened here is that he let the player(s) get under his skin and that threw him off his game makeing him get simple and basic things wrong even though he knows them. It's happened to me before and likely many others.

 

[socal lurker]

I suspect he wrote it up as R, as I agree he would know the rule, at least in the calm of report writing.I do think it highly unlikely he would have carded that play as R in light of his other decisions in the match. He had a rough day. Time will retell if it is a learning event or a confidence shattering event.