A&H

USA:WAL - Al-Jassim (QAT) Matchday 2

george.g said:
Did anyone think bale was unlucky to get booked?
Click to expand...
Unlucky to have a foul given against him never mind booked.

The referee had just missed an opportunity to caution mepham, which about 2 minutes before that I had said he needed to find a caution for Wales somewhere for balance as USA were getting shirty and it was seemingly going against them.

I think as he didn't caution that he was left with nowhere to go, having blown for a foul (albeit I dont think it was a foul anyway)
 
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
Unlucky to have a foul given against him never mind booked.

The referee had just missed an opportunity to caution mepham, which about 2 minutes before that I had said he needed to find a caution for Wales somewhere for balance as USA were getting shirty and it was seemingly going against them.

I think as he didn't caution that he was left with nowhere to go, having blown for a foul (albeit I dont think it was a foul anyway)
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation of it, and very valid. I had presumed he'd seen foul contact, and from memory, cautioned for where it was on the pitch, and SPA effectively. However I agree, it wasn't foul contact for me.
 
Absolutely no way can it be DOGSO, the referee can't look and say "oh look, it's Gareth Bale, he'll score from there", it could just have equally been Keiffer Moore on the ball and he would hit the target from there 1 in 10 at best. It isn't even close to being obvious enough for DOGSO.

I thought the referee was OK. Some free kicks were soft, some were just plain wrong, but his cautions were generally correct. Bale's shouldn't have been, but I can forgive him for the angle he had, it would have looked like a foul from there, and once a foul is given a caution is inevitable.

What annoyed me most was his "proactive" talking to players at set pieces. On more than one occasion he singled out players that hadn't even been close to each other, and they understandably looked completely baffled. FIFA have obviously ordered this as it has happened in every game, but you've at least got to pick on two players that were at least within touching distance of each other.
 
Why/how is a free shot at goal with no keeper home not a clear goal scoring opportunity?
 
RustyRef said:
What annoyed me most was his "proactive" talking to players at set pieces. On more than one occasion he singled out players that hadn't even been close to each other, and they understandably looked completely baffled. FIFA have obviously ordered this as it has happened in every game, but you've at least got to pick on two players that were at least within touching distance of each other.
Click to expand...
This process seemed to take an unusually long time at some points too
 
es1 said:
Why/how is a free shot at goal with no keeper home not a clear goal scoring opportunity?
Click to expand...
When it is that far out. When there are covering defenders, was also difficult to see from the footage where the keeper was but he was certainly racing back. That's getting scored, at best, 50% of times, so just cannot be obvious enough for DOGSO.
 
Admittedly, the officiating was not nearly as bad as it could have been. Didn't make a major difference in the match. Only the most blindered US fans can say the Wales penalty wasn't legitimate. The US just played prevent defense, which only prevents victory.
 
RustyRef said:
When it is that far out. When there are covering defenders, was also difficult to see from the footage where the keeper was but he was certainly racing back. That's getting scored, at best, 50% of times, so just cannot be obvious enough for DOGSO.
Click to expand...
How often do 1 on 1s get scored? I can't see how distance from goal should matter here. He's in the act of shooting, without the foul he's getting a shot on goal with no keeper home
 
JamesL said:
Unlucky to have a foul given against him never mind booked.

The referee had just missed an opportunity to caution mepham, which about 2 minutes before that I had said he needed to find a caution for Wales somewhere for balance as USA were getting shirty and it was seemingly going against them.

I think as he didn't caution that he was left with nowhere to go, having blown for a foul (albeit I dont think it was a foul anyway)
Click to expand...
Cautioning a player just to appease the opposition would be very poor and very weak refereeing. I would much rather him caution the dissenting American players.
 
Considering Bales caution in this match, how was Ream not cautioned for the penalty, leading to a 2nd yellow?

We're talking about a possible DOGSO late in the game and one saying it wouldn't have made a difference in this match, which is correct but still wrong in law (if you deemed it DOGSO) in that if a player went to swing a punch in the last seconds you'd still send him off even if it doesn't affect that very match but the next one.
I personally wouldn't have begrudged seeing a red as I can see an argument for it. But we all say at other times it's a yellow the striker would be one on one with the keeper and the defender brought him down on the half way line citing he has 50 yards to run still. That's probably more of better chance to score than a very long range shot.

But if Ream was sent off... we'd likely have a different outcome to the match still and it would have an affect on this match too.
 
So refreshing to see competent refereeing for a change! Fouls are given as fouls, no debate, no fuss. The ref just gives what he sees according to the laws of the game. No speculation whether it's a big team, big player, big manager like we often see in the Premier League. No excuses of "physical game" or "let the game flow". These are the rules and I am here to apply them, not make a shoe of myself.

The Wales penalty - the clearest you can have. I am not sure why the Bale yellow is debated. The idea that you can throw yourself like this from behind at another player's feet and avoid a yellow must surely come from the poor pundit's "He got the ball" never-to-be-printed refereeing handbook.

Can we import this referee to the Premier League?
 
george.g said:
My thoughts, looked like he barely got the player, or had any foul contact. Was harsh to give as a DFK, and I was shocked when the yellow came out
Click to expand...
Hmm. He made contact with the opponent from behind before he reached the ball. That's an easy foul every time. And I think the powers that be will completely agree with that caution. I though the ref performance was mediocre but not horrible. To me he had the look of a ref desperately trying to be in control who never quite got there. But he did avoid disaster.

As for the DOGSO, I don't think anyone remotely expected that. SPA feels right to me when the ball is that far from the goal.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Considering Bales caution in this match, how was Ream not cautioned for the penalty, leading to a 2nd yellow?

We're talking about a possible DOGSO late in the game and one saying it wouldn't have made a difference in this match, which is correct but still wrong in law (if you deemed it DOGSO) in that if a player went to swing a punch in the last seconds you'd still send him off even if it doesn't affect that very match but the next one.
I personally wouldn't have begrudged seeing a red as I can see an argument for it. But we all say at other times it's a yellow the striker would be one on one with the keeper and the defender brought him down on the half way line citing he has 50 yards to run still. That's probably more of better chance to score than a very long range shot.

But if Ream was sent off... we'd likely have a different outcome to the match still and it would have an affect on this match too.
Click to expand...
The difference is clear. Bale has no chance of getting the ball, is about two yards behind the US player with the ball and so throws himself at him. Reckless play.

Ream tries to get the ball, gets it wrong and sticks his foot in-between the Welsh player's legs. It's a foul but never reckless
 
Pmalinski83 said:
The difference is clear. Bale has no chance of getting the ball, is about two yards behind the US player with the ball and so throws himself at him. Reckless play.

Ream tries to get the ball, gets it wrong and sticks his foot in-between the Welsh player's legs. It's a foul but never reckless
Click to expand...
Clear as mud. Bale, whilst from behind the player was coming in from the side. As for no chance of getting the ball, he got the ball.
 
es1 said:
How often do 1 on 1s get scored? I can't see how distance from goal should matter here. He's in the act of shooting, without the foul he's getting a shot on goal with no keeper home
Click to expand...
Shooting opportunity does not automatically equal obvious goalscoring opportunity. From a closer distance, the probability would be that the shot would be on target, and consequently it would be an OGSO. Even at professional level, I think it's improbable that a player shooting from 55-60 yards will be on target, so no OGSO.
 
Yes, got the ball after mowing down the player first. I should've added "no chance of getting the ball without a foul".

From the rulebook: "Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned".

Throwing yourself at this speed from two yards out from behind meets the criteria for yellow easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top