World

Referees

France WAS Robbed

June 19th, 2006 | By: Aaron | 24 Comments »

First off, sorry I haven’t been able to throw in my two-cents about every match lately. It’s been a very busy time for me refereeing games of my own, and as a consequence, I’ve had to forego viewing much of this past weekend’s action.

Secondly, thanks to those of you who shared your opinion about my thoughts on Larrionda and the U.S – Italy match. Even if you disagreed with me, most of you had well-reasoned positions that didn’t include offensive or demeaning language. And while I will agree with at least one person who shared his opinion – that I am a little biased towards defending the decisions of the referees – you will note that I haven’t always been in total agreement with them throughout the tournament.

Case in point – France vs. Korea. I thought that Mexican referee Benito Archundia did a pretty good job throughout. In particular, I was happy to see him take a fairly lenient approach towards the issuance of cautions throughout the match. While it is a style that I tend to employ, it doesn’t necessarily work for everyone and it might not really be what FIFA wants from its referees during this World Cup.

That being said, I thought that the yellow card (only the third of the match) shown to Zinedine Zidane in the 85th minute was terribly harsh. After all, he did little more than bump into the back of a Korean defender who was shielding the ball for the keeper to collect. In fact, it was clear that Zidane actually backed off a bit once he realized he had no chance to reach the ball.

On top of that, Zidane now must sit out a game – possibly his last ever for his country – because of this poor decision. To me, this was Archundia’s biggest blunder of the entire match.

However, I think one thing we can all agree on is that by far the worst refereeing decision of this game – and perhaps of the entire tournament so far – came in the 32nd minute when the Korean goalie, standing ON the goal line, reached BACK into the net to grab the ball following a French corner kick. This poor decision by the assistant referee cost France the game as no goal was allowed when the ball was clearly completely across the line.

And it’s not like the AR was forty yards upfield like when Roy Carroll pulled one out of the goal in that infamous game against Tottenham (is that right?). No, the AR would’ve been standing right on the goal line for the corner kick and would’ve been in the perfect position to make the correct call.

Now granted, the goalie’s body probably blocked the AR’s view of the ball, but still, judging from his position and the way in which the reach was made backwards, it seems a travesty. Maybe this is just the kind of controversy FIFA needed to make sure that the 2010 tournament includes balls with the microchip inside.

In any event, France drew a game they deserved to win and we, the footballing-loving public have been robbed of the opportunity to view a living legend one more time…that is, of course, unless France manages to beat Togo in their final match. And even then, their passage into the Round of 16 isn’t necessarily guaranteed.

Until next time…

peace,
ac

Tags: France, Korea, Referees, World Cup, Zinedine Zidane

Referees World Cup RSS Feed

Comments

By rules | June 19th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

If the goal keeper is behind the goal line, it’s a goal. In the case of Korea vs France, part of the goal keeper’s body (leg) was clearly infront of the goal line…

Posted from United States

By Vin | June 19th, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Welcome to the club, France. Italy supporters remember a similar situation in 2002 vs. S. Korea. Totti was sent off and a goal was called back.

Posted from United States

By Jodido | June 19th, 2006 at 6:58 pm

rules, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the ruling on a goal hinge on the BALL’s position, and not the goalkeeper?

Posted from United States

By so what ? | June 19th, 2006 at 7:00 pm

So what? France got robbed a
supposedly goal ? What about
Togo got robbed a penalty
against the Swissy ? Why only
make a big fuss when refering
goes against the traditional
euro or latin strong team ? What
about Ronaldo was offsite
receiving a pass for Brazil
1st goal against the socceroos?

Besides the French have more
scoring opp than SK and why
haven’t they converted ? How
about blame the Korean fans as
well ? Or the ball was just too
light, or too round, or too
heavy ?

U guys make me sick …. Don’t
bother to reply mate, I won’t
be reading this shitty thread.

Posted from Australia

By chuck | June 19th, 2006 at 7:06 pm

Actually, 5 points guarantees passage into the 2nd round. No matter what — in a 4-team round robin, a win and two draws ALWAYS ensures that you will finish 1st or 2nd in the group.

Oddly enough, sometimes 6 points is not enough to advance, but 5 points always is.

So, if France beat Togo, they are in. If any team gets 5 points, they are in.

Have a nice day!

Posted from United States

By Axel Kurtz | June 19th, 2006 at 7:23 pm

Hey all, just stumbled on this blog. Very interesting stuff. Just the kind of thing that’s missing from most soccer sites. If you don’t mind me plugging my own site: you may want to check out worldreferee.com were we put the focus on the referees as well. (You may even want to join us doing match reports. We could do with a couple of reporters who know their business and… write good english.)

Posted from Netherlands

By chuck | June 19th, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Let me correct myself.

My mental math momentarily let me down. It actually is possible for 3 teams in the same group to get 5 points. My bad.

But in France’s particular situation, if they win, they are in. If they draw, they are also in (with 3 points!), as long as South Korea beats or ties the Swiss.

Have a nice day!

Posted from United States

By chuck | June 19th, 2006 at 7:35 pm

I’m just really not making sense today. I wrote the above message(s) without knowing the outcome of the Swiss-Togo game.

My apologies.

Posted from United States

By Josh | June 19th, 2006 at 8:09 pm

Well, I’ll try to defend both decisions.

The Zidane card: sure Zidane slowed up, but he still charged the player from behind. And he did it after the the keeper had controlled the ball and the play was effectively over. He could easily have stopped entirely or stepped around the player. So, to my eye, he inteded to charge the player. I think it deserved a card.

Two side notes. (i) It’s not the ref’s job to make sure Zidane is available for the next game. (ii) Perhaps the ref should just have whistled the foul and told Zidane to cut it out; but such a claim would be pretty rich coming from anybody defending Larrionda.

The goal that wasn’t: Whether or not it’s a goal has nothing to do with where the keeper is, and everything to do with where the ball is. And it doesn’t matter that the keeper had to reach backwards, either. The ball is what, 10 inches in diameter? So the keeper can reach back 9.999 inches behind the far edge of the goal line to catch the ball without conceding a goal. So how far did the keeper reach back? I don’t know – I can’t tell from any of the television angles. And neither can you. Was it a goal? Maybe, maybe not; it was awfully close, but it wasn’t *clearly* a goal as everybody claims. And as Aaron points out, the AR was in good position; maybe he didn’t signal a goal because it wasn’t one.

Posted from United States

By John | June 19th, 2006 at 9:25 pm

Aaron,

I just stumbled upon this blog and I’m a little confused. Is this a World Cup referee blog or a “I can’t comment on any topic without somehow working in the Iraq war” blog? We should all thank Josh for providing a voice of reason. It is making me sick how you and the US commentators you seem to despise so much are all in agreement that it was absolutely, definitely, unquestionably, a goal. There should be a camera on the goal line but, as there is not, there is no way to tell if the ball was completely over the line or if only most of it was. Calling this a travesty just makes your inherent bias (a trait which you are oh so fond of attacking others for) obvious and discrediting to all your opinions.

By Travis | June 19th, 2006 at 9:41 pm

Is there a video clip somewhere of all this? The FIFA highlights don’t show either, and I didn’t get to watch the game. Any help?

Posted from United States

By KB Cho | June 19th, 2006 at 10:09 pm

For the rest of us who were not at the game, including certified referees, camera angle becomes extremely important in how we see such a case and unfortunately we have NO video from an ideal angle. Aaron, I think you should have pointed that out regardless of whether you agreed with the decision or not.

Josh pointed out an important thing, that the rules call for the ENTIRE ball to be over the line.

Also, did anyone else think that the French opposition to that decision was less than vocal during the game, or did I miss something?

Posted from United States

By KB Cho | June 19th, 2006 at 10:22 pm

I guess it’s inevitable that someone tried to make a point with what we have — here’s a Korean link with graphics:

http://2006bbs1.daum.net/griffin/do/worldcup/talk/read?bbsId=W001&articleId=50485

I don’t get the top graphics myself, but the bottom photo is trying to say that when you bring the image of the ball down to the ground (using the red vertical and dotted lines as a guide), the ball did not cross the line entirely.

It looks convincing at first sight but after staring at it for a while I realized that in order for it to be correct, it a) has to be the exact moment that Lee blocked the ball and b) we have to know the exact height of the ball at that instant in order to know how much to move down the image of the ball.

I’m glad for the ref’s decision, but even if this graphic doesn’t sway you, it at least drives home the point that it’s very very difficult to say exactly where the ball was with video footage.

(And if the AR really was the one person on the field at the time with an ideal view of the situation, we really don’t have much choice but to respect that decision, especially with the lack of good video.)

Posted from United States

By THE RED FURY | June 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am

hey France, please go home. You gave it all in 1998 and 2000, that was your minute of glory. Korea 2002 was a big pity and this year you seem to be going to repeat history…2002 history, I mean. You’d better not get clasified cause if you do you’ll probably have to face SPANISH RED FURY…and that would be embarrassing for you wouldn’t it?

Posted from Spain

By Travis | June 20th, 2006 at 2:09 am

I just wonder why they never fix cameras on the goal lines looking straight down it, and some from above looking down? There’s only one person in the world who can say if it was in or not, and that’s the AR. No one else (especially these “commentators”) can’t for sure say if it was in. I think it would be interesting to look at correct vs. incorrect goal calls if we had good solid evidence. I don’t know if a microchip is the end all, be all answer, because we’ve all been through times where technology has failed us (just ask your English teacher the day that report was due, right??). But it would be nice to have those fixed cameras to have somewhat less disputable proof.

–Travis
BTW – Those top images in KB Cho’s link are computer replicas acting like those cameras I was talking about – one being a top-down view, and one from the side.

Posted from United States

By AE | June 20th, 2006 at 6:10 am

Comment to KB Cho on graphics depicting the anatomy of the play.

What am I missing here ? I did not see the play but here is my take on the graphics:

Th intersecting lines need to be in the back of the line, not the front. Why ? Because the lines are part of the boundaries which they govern the same as the touch line.
The graphic clearly shows the intersecting lines touching the front facia of the goal post (which is supposed to be as wide as the goal line). The
judgement must be made based on the back of the goal post ( or the back of the line ).

The AR should clearly see the ball delineate (see air) between the rear facia of the goal post and the ball, which is the only conclusive evidence that the ball has completely crossed the line. If the AR can see the goal line then he is out of position to make the call
because he is off the line.

I am curious:

If the AR was standing on the
goal line how could he see the ball when the keeper was blocking the view ?

If he was even 1 or 2 yards off the line then his parrallax
view would not be valid to make the call with any degree of confidence.Correct position and a clear view of the ball must be evident to make the call.

If you don’t believe me go to the field and hang a ball on a string from a goalpost and see
what I mean.You wil be amazed at how much your position will
affect yourjudgement.

Posted from United States

By SES | June 20th, 2006 at 6:41 am

It just disgusts me that a critic will launch an attack on a team that had no sway in the outcome of the match. The ref should’ve called it, but he didn’t. It was the same deal in ‘02 with Korea and Italy. The refs are not the best and we’ve had issues with the majority of them, but this blatant hatred towards Korea has got to stop. Stop making it seem like it’s a conspiracy.

Posted from United States

By KB Cho | June 20th, 2006 at 6:41 am

I went back to the link, and when you look at the space within the goal posts that is shaded red it does appear to correspond to the back of the line. (Like where the Korean player is grabbing the goal post.) Then again, the vertical red line isn’t clear about which part of the line it’s going through.

Head hurts. (eyes too)

And of course let’s keep in mind that whoever made this was probably a fan so we don’t know his or her credentials for analyzing video images taken at an angle.

Posted from United States

By Brian | June 20th, 2006 at 4:18 pm

I watched the game in Japan in high def on a large plasma screen and the very first replay at a camera angle which was almost along the line very clearly showed that the ball was way behind the goal line when the Korean goalie repelled it. All my Japanese friends with whom I watched the game (and who, like me, aren’t particularly French fans) all jumped and went “WTF?!! Where was the ref looking at there?!!” I don’t know whether you people in the US get replays with different camera angles but from what I saw here in Japan it was obvious that France should have got their second goal.

Besides it is not true that the French did not protest. Zidane (who kicked the corner and who was in the best position to see that the ball had more than entirely crossed the line) and Henry both called the ref to validate the goal.

Yes, the French team sucks compared to 1998 and Zidane is only the shadow of the brilliant player he once was but it doesn’t change the fact that France was robbed of a legitimate goal, whether you like the frogs or not. It is sickening that those kind of refereeing errors eventually get to decide the outcome of important (and even unimportant) matches and I wonder how many more blatant mistakes like those FIFA needs to introduce video evidence like in rugby. Maybe Sepp Blatter and his gang of stuck-up technocrats will wake up if another “hand of God” a la Maradona causes Brazil or Germany to lose the World Cup finals? Or would more objectivity destroy the sacred “glorious uncertainty of the game” ?

Posted from Japan

By duh !! | June 20th, 2006 at 5:14 pm

It’s very obvious that the ball clearly passed the line. Just wondering where the referee was looking at when the ball passed the line

Posted from United Arab Emirates

By Steve Scheibe | June 20th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

I watched the game. It looked like the Korean goalie did fish the ball out but I did not see any video replay showing the ball crossing the line nor did I see comments from the officiating team although I am sure there must have been some heavy debriefing and questioning by assessor.

Posted from United States

By so what | June 21st, 2006 at 6:01 am

If the exact same scenario
happened to SK instead of France,
I honestly wonder if the reaction
would have been so strong and
supportive of the “victim” ….
NOT!

It’s the same old story of
complacency leads to failure and
falure leads to accusation. Get
your slack French act together
and put up a good AND fair fight
against Togo to see yourself
through to next round is the
most relevant thing.

How many crying looser we had
seen in 2002, Portugal, Italy
and Spain …. simply because
they lost to underdog. Do we
really need to perpetuate this
same mentaility of being the
“victim”. If yes, then you guys
do seriously have the inferior
complexity and not the underdog.

Posted from Australia

By Haarf | June 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pm

You’re wrong. I think most people are ashamed by referees unfair decisions, (except perhaps when it benefits to your own team)
Considering that every game is watched by several hundred millions people it’s incredible that it still happens.
I think France was robbed in this game as I think Spain or Italy were in 2002, Ghana or Ivory coast were this year by not getting the PK they deserve and so on…
Nobody likes unfair decision whatever the teams are. You can be desapointed for your team when it lose, but you will for sure be angry if it’s because of a referee’s mistake.

Posted from France