A&H

Gold Cup MEX vs CAN - CONCACAF at its "finest"

RefIADad

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
Hopefully, these highlights from CONCACAF's YouTube channel will work across the Atlantic. If you want to understand why we lampoon CONCACAF refereeing, this will do it. Two penalties awarded via VAR, three mass confrontations, a referee who was a complete deer in the headlights, the match stopped for Mexico's common homphobic chant in stoppage time, and then Mexico scoring in the additional stoppage time following the suspension of play for the chant.

If this doesn't work, search for CONCACAF's YouTube channel, and you'll find the highlights.

Or as we call it over here, Thursday. :D

 
The Referee Store
Works! Looking forward to this after your intro

Haha this ref pundit is worse than walton! Never seen a clearer pen. Ref not punishing Mexican dissent is criminal

Wow was there really only one yellow in that final confrontation?!
 
Last edited:
es1 said:
Works! Looking forward to this after your intro

Haha this ref pundit is worse than walton! Never seen a clearer pen. Ref not punishing Mexican dissent is criminal

Wow was there really only one yellow in that final confrontation?!
Click to expand...
Loved the 'justification' for his no penalty shout

1) Played the ball (Didn't, but obviously wouldn't necessarily have mattered if he did)
2) Ball was out of reach

Staggering
 
  • Haha
Reactions: es1
es1 said:
Works! Looking forward to this after your intro

Haha this ref pundit is worse than walton! Never seen a clearer pen. Ref not punishing Mexican dissent is criminal

Wow was there really only one yellow in that final confrontation?!
Click to expand...

The ref pundit is one we don’t like over here as well. He’s a former domestic indoor soccer and college official who got his job at a time where we didn’t have a lot of options for referee analysis. He’s a nice man, but just not that good at analysis.
 
Peter Grove said:
Interesting AR positioning for the Mexico penalty.

View attachment 5064
Would that be because VAR was in use?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because of VAR, referees in CONCACAF are now staying at the corner flag for penalty kicks. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t agree with a lot of what CONCACAF teaches.

The big issue with CONCACAF is that referees are taught to get along with players and try to be their friends instead of managing the game and maintaining discipline. Skilled players aren’t protected, and dissent is hardly ever cautioned.
 
RefIADad said:
Yes. Because of VAR, referees in CONCACAF are now staying at the corner flag for penalty kicks. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t agree with a lot of what CONCACAF teaches.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s just CONCACAF. Once the powers that be told ARs to leave GK movement to VAR (which didn't start with CONCACAF), there’s really no point in coming in. Coming in has always created a disadvantage for the AR when the ball rebounds into play, as he’s instantly out of position. If VAR or GLT is making the calls that we always came in to see, why not stay out to be in position on rebounded balls?
 
RefIADad said:
Hopefully, these highlights from CONCACAF's YouTube channel will work across the Atlantic. If you want to understand why we lampoon CONCACAF refereeing, this will do it. Two penalties awarded via VAR, three mass confrontations, a referee who was a complete deer in the headlights, the match stopped for Mexico's common homphobic chant in stoppage time, and then Mexico scoring in the additional stoppage time following the suspension of play for the chant.

If this doesn't work, search for CONCACAF's YouTube channel, and you'll find the highlights.

Or as we call it over here, Thursday. :D

Click to expand...

Help me out here. The first pen that was given was presumably for the trip upending the Mexican who tapped the ball to far forward to get it?

Why or why not is that a penalty?

Thanks
 
I haven't seen it but if it was a trip as you describe then that sounds like it should indeed have been a penalty. The fact that he had "tapped the ball too far forward to get it" is wholly irrelevant. So long as the ball was still in play and the trip was, at a minimum, careless then it's a foul.
 
Murri O said:
Help me out here. The first pen that was given was presumably for the trip upending the Mexican who tapped the ball to far forward to get it?

Why or why not is that a penalty?

Thanks
Click to expand...
For the trip, it’s a clear foul and pen. Absolutely wipes him out
 
es1 said:
For the trip, it’s a clear foul and pen. Absolutely wipes him out
Click to expand...
Yeah cool. Just thought that maybe because he played the ball so far forward and no way was going to get to it there may have been some extenuating circumstances.

Thanks
 
Murri O said:
Yeah cool. Just thought that maybe because he played the ball so far forward and no way was going to get to it there may have been some extenuating circumstances.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Nah, fouls a foul regardless of where the ball is. It might influence any discipline mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top