dot   Home     World     More     Referees  
Flag Referees

Referees

They’ll Be Singin’ the Blues in Berlin

Ten of the starting twenty-two players in tonight’s France-Portugal semifinal in Munich were sitting on a yellow card prior to the match. With Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda in the middle, I was wondering how many of them would be facing suspension by the time the match was over. Judging by Larrionda’s previous performances as well as that of the teams, it seemed likely that several starters might be forced to become spectators for their next match – the championship or third-place game depending on the outcome.

So let’s jump into the action and see how Larrionda and the teams fared. But before doing so, I’d like to give a special shout-out to ESPN announcer Marcelo Balboa and all of the American conspiracy theorists who think that this ref had it in for the U.S. in their 1-all draw with Italy. Clearly, FIFA disagreed with that biased assessment, not only by assigning Larrionda to a couple of matches in the knockout rounds (including one of only two semifinals), but they also suspended Pablo Mastroeni for three weeks as a result of how recklessly dangerous his red card offense was against Italian playmaker Andrea Pirlo.

But enough of that, how’d Larrionda do in THIS match.

In only the first minute of action, Malouda was through to goal, but a defender caught up with him and forced the Frenchman’s effort to go wide. And for the next several minutes, it was all France. Portugal would then take things back the other way and Deco would force Barthez to make a tough save.

A few minutes later I noted how surprising it was that there hadn’t been any fouls and that the teams clearly came to play. Moments later, in the 7th minute, France would win a corner. That amounted to nothing and then in the following minute Ribery was tracking a ball down but ended up on the deck after a bit of contact. No foul was called and rightly so as the ball went out for a goal kick.

Maniche cracked one just over the bar in the 9th minute after Ronaldo no-looked it back to him about thirty yards from goal. In the following minute, the first foul of the match would be called – it wasn’t all that much really – when Henry went down near midfield. I’m thinking that this probably set a record at this tournament for the longest stretch to start a game without a whistle for a foul.

Shortly thereafter Portugal had a call comin’ back out of defense. There was a lot of midfield play for a while and then France had an excellent opportunity, but Henry couldn’t latch onto a cross sent along the ground across the face of goal. But they were able to win a corner. However, a push in the back ended that threat though.

In the 16th, Figo took a crack at goal from twenty-five and then connected with Patrick Vieira on the follow-through. The Portuguese midfielder stayed on the turf and was eventually stretchered off, but it wasn’t a foul and Figo was back on a minute or two later.

More midfield action and then Abidal was called for going over the back in the 21st. It wasn’t the most high intensity match at this point, more like long-distance runners setting a slow pace. And then in the 26th, Deco won a call I thought he really didn’t deserve…and neither did Claude Makelele. Sure I was rooting for Zidane and Les Bleus, but I try to be objective in my analysis of the action. Just like when I’m refereeing a match.

A minute later, Zidane wanted a call as he was in the attacking third of the pitch, but I thought Larrionda made the right decision not to blow his whistle. However, Vieira definitely was guilty going back the other way even though he suggested that it was perhaps a dive by his opponent.

In the 28th, Henry did well to beat Miguel with a couple of fakes and shimmies, but he was unable to pick out one of his teammates in the middle. Going back the other way Cristiano Ronaldo won a call he really didn’t seem to deserve, but the AR called that one and Larrionda went with his decision.

And now we come to the game’s point of controversy. Did Carvalho trip Henry or not in the penalty box? Larrionda was emphatic in pointing to the spot upon blowing his whistle. And I have to say that after seeing the replay it was clear that the Portuguese defender did catch Henry’s ankle. And while it might not necessarily have seemed like much to the average viewer at home, it was very likely enough to stop his progress and knock him off balance. And while I don’t doubt that Henry may have “helped” the referee to make this decision, I believe that the penalty was the correct call.

And who stepped up to the mark to do what only one of four Englishmen was able to do against Ricardo in the shootout at the end of their quarterfinal match a few days ago? Zinedine Zidane. And just like he did so well against the English, Ricardo guessed the right way, to his right. But Zidane was perfect, cracking it into the side netting to give France the opening lead in the 33rd minute.

Barthez snagged a cross in the 35th and then a minute later stopped a thirty-five yard shot. On the next play a Portuguese player was down in the box on a cross. Was it a dive? Was it a shove? Or was the player just going for the ball? Well on replay it appeared that it was nothing more than Ronaldo diving to reach the ball with his head. It was a lame attempt really and maybe that’s why a couple of his teammates raised their hands in protest, but in the end, Larrionda got it right…no foul, no simulation…just a missed opportunity.

On the next play Ronaldo did well to win a corner. On the kick, there didn’t seem to be any infraction by the Portuguese strikers, but Larrionda called a foul for some contact on Barthez. It made no difference really as he had won the ball anyway.

France on the attack now and Ribery wriggled between a couple of defenders near the touchline. As he broke free, one of them seemed to stick a leg out as the Frenchman ran by. No call from the AR and nothin’ from Larrionda, but a few seconds later he’d award the French a kick at midfield.

Zidane was “fantastiche” (this according to our German kommentator) in the 42nd, but Figo put a stop to his former Real Madrid teammate’s progress and got whistled for it as well. Another call went France’s way, but then it was Henry with a little touch foul in the Portuguese defense to end the attack.

Ribery was fouled by Nuno Valente with an arm to the back of his head on an aerial ball, but a minute later the rising young French superstar was done an injustice when he got knocked in the back.

In stoppage time Portugal mounted an attack of their own and took a shot that hammered Vieira, just a few yards from the shooter. The Portuguese wanted a call for handling the ball, but no referee would ever give that as it was without question NOT deliberate and Vieira’s arm was not extended away from his body.

As the halftime whistle blew, I noted that despite the lack of any cards, a number of Larrionda’s decisions did surprise me a little. However, the most important call of the match was one that I believe he got right. No doubt, some will disagree, including a few of the guys who I watched the game with; but the onus was on Carvalho not to make illegal contact with the attacking Henry. And on that point, Carvalho was guilty.

In the 47th minute Figo was rightly called for a foul as he tried to go over Thuram while he was on the ground. You have to go around a player to get to the ball, not over him; and the Portuguese attack would end.

Going back the other way Henry almost beat Ricardo from a tight angle, but the keeper did well to get an arm to the ball just as it was about to slip underneath him and into the goal. Instead, it spun out of play for a French corner. From that, the ball would eventually find its way to Ribery who wheeled and dealed and ripped a shot from twenty-two yards, forcing a tough save by Ricardo once again.

The following minute Henry begged for a call he didn’t deserve, but then the French would win the ball back when Figo was called for the high boot. A few minutes later it was Pauleta’s turn to beat Thuram, turning on him quickly and sending a shot into the side-netting left of the goal.

Ronaldo won a corner a minute later. Nothing. Back the other way Henry won a corner after finding some space down the left touchline on a counter-attack. Nothing for France.

Portugal then won a foul, er actually a throw-in, which confused and annoyed Figo who had some words with the referee. Thuram was then fouled on a French counter, but then the Portuguese turned things around and Miguel beat a couple of defenders before dishing the ball off. As he did so he went to ground and thus, was unable to receive the return pass.

The Portuguese players remonstrated extensively that Miguel had been knocked to the turf, but the replay clearly showed that Larrionda got this one right as the attack-minded defender landed oddly after passing the ball and injured himself on the play. Three minutes later he would leave the game for good, unable to continue.

And before the Chelsea defender Paulo Ferreira entered the match in the 63rd minute to replace his fallen compatriot, Abidal was down for the count for France after taking a stinging cross to the face. It seemed legit as I doubted that he was trying to work some time off the clock.

In the 64th, Barthez snagged a cross and a minute later the ref played the advantage when Figo went down to the turf. The play would end, however, when Pauleta was flagged for being barely offside.

On the next play of the match, Larrionda emphatically said “NO” to Pauleta who clearly wanted a call to go his way. Two minutes later, the Portuguese striker made his exit to make way for Simao Sabrosa. Immediately, he seemed to be obstructed on an attack, but the referee whistled him for a hold; a tough decision I thought.

Then Wiltord came in for Malouda to bring on some fresh legs for the French midfield. Barthez would then collect a cross, however, Portugal, now a little desperate, would soon win a corner.

Still on the attacking end a minute later in the 72nd, Portugal was called for offside, but I think the AR might’ve been a little hasty on his decision as the ‘guilty’ player appeared to have been the one who ran back towards his own goal, thus allowing one of his onside teammates to play the ball that came over the top. But who really knows?

Govou would then come in for Ribery like he did against Brazil. And then two minutes later Portugal was offside once again.

Postiga came in for Costinha in the 75th minute, clearly an offensive move as a striker replaced a defender. On the very next play two Portuguese players went down in the box almost on cue it seemed as the ball passed their way. But Larrionda saw nothing untoward and he was probably right as neither player protested the decision.

But a minute later, in the 77th, Ronaldo did well to trick the referee into giving him a call when he went down without virtually any contact about twenty-five or so yards from goal. The shot was directly at Barthez, but it must’ve been a knuckler because he misplayed it, allowing it to bounce off his body and directly back to a couple of hard-charging Portuguese attackers. But the best that one of them was able to do was to head it over the bar.

In the 78th, Zidane was clipped in the ankle. A couple minutes later Ronaldo went down to ground far too easily in the penalty area and Sagnol rightly yelled at him for trying to unfairly win a call from the referee.

Moments later Thuram DID hold Ronaldo, but the ensuing free kick was easily cleared. Going back the other way, Carvalho was way late AND came in from behind on Henry. The only thing that saved him from being tossed out was that his studs were not showing. And this, folks, was the very first caution of the game – in the 82nd minute.. But it would cost Portugal as it meant that Carvalho would only be a spectator in his team’s next match.

Figo then won a corner that was poorly kicked. Three minutes later, in the 87th, Manchester United striker Louis Saha, who only played a total of about ten or fifteen minutes combined in France’s matches with Brazil and Portugal, received his second booking overall (his first of the night) as he came in a little recklessly from behind. He might have gotten the ball, but he got the man too. As a result, he too would be unable to participate in France’s next match. Maybe David Trezeguet will get some playing time as a result.

France would then win a foul in their defensive third after some nice work by Zizou. Figo would not get the call he wanted in the 89th. And then Zidane was fouled by Nuno Valente as we learned that there would be four minutes of stoppage time.

It was all Portugal in these desperate final moments. They’d win a foul in their own defense and then Meira had a good opportunity from twenty, but the shot was blasted well over the target.

In the next minute a cross was misplayed by Barthez and Portugal would win a corner. Ricardo came up from his goal to join the attack now.

France would knock the ball away, but the Portuguese keeper kept it alive by kicking it back up over his head with his back to the French goal, sending it into the mixer. Figo was able to latch onto it on the left eventually, crossing to the far post, but Barthez ultimately got his hands on it, and as he so often does, made a poor decision.

He played the ball only about twenty yards to a teammate in the middle of traffic. Not much time was left now, but Portugal stole it back and played it through with one last desperate attempt to score…but it was stopped by a flag from the AR. The attacker had clearly mistimed his run. And now, it surely was all over. It would be an all blue final pitting Les Bleus from France vs. Italian Azurri. The French have been dominant in their white tops at the tournament, so watch out if it’s Italy and not France who comes out wearing their blue unis.

Zizou congratulated Larrionda and then traded jerseys with his former teammate and friend, Luis Figo. This is the end of Portugal’s “Golden Generation”. Cristiano Ronaldo will obviously be the heart of his country’s future football glory. Thierry Henry was seen hugging and having a few words with the talented young midfielder. Perhaps he was telling him not to pay attention to the hate-filled garbage in the English media. Hopefully when he steps back on the pitch again at Old Trafford with his teammate Wayne Rooney, life will go on and the English fans can stop blaming him for their country’s failings in Germany.

And in the end, I can’t help but wonder if maybe some of FIFA’s new mandates have finally begun to sink in with the players as most of the quarterfinals and certainly the two semifinals were carried out in a manner befitting of the motto “My game is Fair Play”. Certainly, tonight exemplified that to the maximum extent possible for a match of such gravity. But then again, maybe the players were holding back just a little, perhaps fearful that they’d miss a chance at the final if they were to receive another yellow card. If so, don’t expect the players to worry about such things on Sunday.

And lastly, to all my new friends at WorldCupBlog.org HQ here in Berlin – Sean, Chris, Bob, Nick, Mika, Peter, and Mihai – thanks for a great week. I didn’t have any idea what to expect before I got here, but you’ve all made me feel quite at home. Hopefully, when the World Cup concludes later this week, it will only be beginning of greater things to come.

Until next time…

peace,
ac

Subscribe

 

rss icon World Cup Referees RSS Feed

Print

Share

Comments
By Raybron | July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Top

Holy schnikies that is a thorough analysis.

It was the right call, and not even as close as some of the most stubborn Portugal fans (you know, the ones that told the English fans to “get over it” with Rooney) and die-hard conspiracy theorists would have you believe:

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z38g0p.jpg

Not aware of any league where that’s not a foul. I think that’s even a penalty in American football.

Posted from United States United States

By David | July 6th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Top

As a mathematician and a fan of the game, here’s why I think the penalty should not have been awarded.

Suppose there are two equally skilled teams, A and B. We consider a match in which each team has 10 opportunities to score. Each converts an opportunity 10% of the time. Penalty kicks are made 90% of the time. (For all of the purists out there, we’re actually considering an ensemble of matches.) Absent misconduct, each team will win 50% of the time, as one would expect.

Now suppose that team A fouls team B in the box during one of B’s opportunities. This foul denies B any chance of scoring. Should the referee call this foul? If he does, A has 28% chance of winning. If he doesn’t, A has a 53% chance of winning. Do I approve of the edge that A has gained through foul play? No. But I’d much rather have a 53/47 split on even teams than a 72/28.

But, you protest, A is much more likely to commit a foul when B has a better than average opportunity. Supposed the denied play would have been 50/50. Then B would have won 61% of the time. This is roughly the break-even point in this scenario for minimal odds distortion on the call/no-call decision. Obviously all of the numbers here are zero-order estimates, but the qualitative effect is clear.

I’ve looked at the play. I don’t think Henry had that kind of a chance to score. Therefore, even if Henry didn’t take a dive (and I’m not so sure about that), I don’t think the call should have been made. I understand the necessity of calling fouls in the box to keep players honest. This particular defense play looked like a garden variety slide tackle gone slightly bad.

Before you ask, no, I’m not a Portugal fan. I’m just really angry that the call resulted in about an hour’s worth of garbage soccer.

By Joe | July 6th, 2006 at 4:22 am
Top

Scolari himself even acknowledged that the penalty for Carvalho’s foul on Henry was a right call. But he also believed that Ronaldo should have been awarded one 5 minutes later. According to the Portuguese *that* was the game’s point of controversy.

It’s interesting how the tide turned for France with respect to refereeing having come to their advantage. Les Bleus clearly had been unlucky in their first games with that penalty they should have got against Switzerland and the 2nd goal they should have been awarded against South Korea. However, in the knockout phase they seemed to have got the crucial calls: Puyol’s foul on Henry and now that penalty. This proves again that the outcome of soccer matches is in great part due to referee decisions that were made or not made (rightly or not) rather than the achievements of the player. For me, soccer has always been more of a lottery than a fair the-strongest-wins game (look back at the 2002 World Cup if you’re not convinced of that), although it is true you need a certain level of skill to get the calls. Perhaps that’s what makes soccer a thrilling sport.

Posted from Germany Germany

By John | July 6th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Top

Was it really the right call? Raybron, your picture proves absolutely nothing and your excessive confidence in it as tangible proof is laughable… but I digress. David, I’m not much for your math but I agree that it should not be called… whether or not it was a foul. It was obvious that, to some extent, Henry sold the call. I believe that he went down because he felt that it was the best way to create a scoring chance. If he thought that staying on his feet would have led to a sure goal then I feel that he would not have gone down. For this reason I do not think it should have been called. That being said, any tackle like that in the box is just ill-advised on the part of the defense.

Seriously Aaron, I know you love defending Larrionda to the death but do you think he ever really looks comfortable out there? He doesn’t seem to have any rapport with the players. Also, how are the referees chosen? Could it in fact be a highly political process in which the best referees do not always rise to the top? I really have no idea and this is all speculation but it just seems like he is far from being one of the three or four best referees I’ve seen in the tournament.

By David | July 6th, 2006 at 5:07 am
Top

Joe, I agree with your assessment of this World Cup as a lottery. The officiating decisions, the freak hits, the unlucky misses, the penalty shoot-outs: it doesn’t seem as though the outcome of games has a lot to do with skill.

The sad part is, things wouldn’t be this way if there were more scoring. Eliminating the error-prone offsides rule probably wouldn’t help, contrary to the previously-expressed opinion of the original poster; the consensus seems to be that it would discourage defenders from ever attacking.

By Raybron | July 6th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Top

“Was it really the right call? Raybron, your picture proves absolutely nothing and your excessive confidence in it as tangible proof is laughable… but I digress. David, I’m not much for your math but I agree that it should not be called… whether or not it was a foul. It was obvious that, to some extent, Henry sold the call. I believe that he went down because he felt that it was the best way to create a scoring chance. If he thought that staying on his feet would have led to a sure goal then I feel that he would not have gone down. For this reason I do not think it should have been called. That being said, any tackle like that in the box is just ill-advised on the part of the defense.”

Ah, okay, so a picture showing someone getting directly kicked in the leg in the box is insufficient evidence for you but apparently we should take your MIND READING at face value. Congratulations, you are an idiot. I’m not sure exactly what league the kind of kick shown in that picture is not a foul, but you seem like an incredibly imaginative person with your mind-reading skills, so I’m sure you can entertain us all by coming up with something great.

Posted from United States United States

By Raybron | July 6th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Top

Everyone sign up for:

JOHN’S KARATE FOOTBALL!

Mid-air kicks at opponents’ legs encouraged!

See if you can guess what every player on the pitch is intending to win a prize!

Posted from United States United States

By Raybron | July 6th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Top

Joe- Excellent point on Scolari. Sure he went crazy when it was awarded, but that is his job, and even he was man enough after the match to admit that his initial reaction was wrong. The Ronaldo play, that many are calling a “dive” I don’t really know was a “dive” so much as Ronaldo just going through the air for a header and missing and then trying to see if he could get a PK out of it. It wasn’t a penalty, and I don’t think I have read a single report that has said that it was, but I don’t begrudge Scolari for arguing the point. Again, it is his job to stand up for his team through thick and thin, and he gave France credit saying they deserved the victory. He may be a bit overly emotional sometimes but I also respect him very much as a coach.

Posted from United States United States

By Joe | July 6th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Top

C. Ronaldo was booed by all the non-Portuguese spectators throughout the whole match. He is known to be very inventive when it comes to falling to the ground to get the referee’s attention and unfortunately that kind of tactic doesn’t really pay in the long run, because eventually the officials become distrustful. His gamesmanship then works to his disadvantage when a *real* foul is committed on him and the ref’ does not blow his whistle because he thinks the player has dived again (not that I think that Ronaldo was fouled by Sagnol as he claimed).

Posted from Germany Germany

By Pat | July 6th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Top

John, when you said “but I agree that it should not be called… whether or not it was a foul”… I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be called if it was a foul. Firstly I believe it was an obvious foul, he was kicked/tripped. Secondly, that leads to a penalty kick as it’s in the penalty area.

My understanding of what you were saying was that Henry went down because he thought there wasn’t much of a chance for him to score staying up. If that’s so… why would the Portuguese player even do anything stupid like that? It was a dumb mistake that cost them a place in the final. The referee can’t NOT call a foul because he thinks there was no scoring chance. A foul is a foul, no matter where, when, and how important it is to the game.

Posted from Canada Canada

By John | July 6th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Top

Raybron, I simply feel that the still picture is misleading. I would ask you to refer to the match highlight video at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com. If anything, the defender’s original stab at the ball was far more vicious. Your picture is misleading because it suggests a karate kick… rather than the fact the the defender was actually falling on his back when he committed the foul. I’m not saying it wasn’t a foul, I’m just saying it was far from as brutal as you are trying to make it out to be. I may be an idiot but at least I don’t post lame jokes about karate and laugh to myself about them.

Pat, you say that, “A foul is a foul, no matter where, when, and how important it is to the game.” This could not be farther from the truth. We have talked often about game management skills by referees and they obviously are more lenient within the box than, say, at midfield. The grabbing that goes on during a corner kick would not be allowed at midfield and, because of this, the players know they can get away with more. I just think it is sad to see a referee’s decision decide the game. (Perhaps this was better though than seeing the game go to PKs) I think if FIFA used video replay to fine and suspend blatant dives then this would cut down on the use of the tactic in general which would make the job of the referee easier.

By Doug | July 7th, 2006 at 6:35 am
Top

For anybody who cares, I have done a detailed statistical analysis of all of the referees and teams for the tournament at:

http://webpages.charter.net/dmarshak/WCBlog/analysis.htm

It’s part of my blog for my friends on my trip to Germany, so you can skip all the other crud if you would like. Yes, I am a referee, and yes, I like math. I find all of this discussion nteresting. The stats don’t really prove a whole lot, but they certainly suggest that some of the comments being thrown around by the press and a few coaches are nothing more than mindless blather…

Posted from United States United States

By Sam | July 7th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Top

David, I think you’re missing the point. The purpose of a penalty kick is the *punish* a team for having fouled a player. It’s not just to get the odds back to 50-50.

You say that a 53% advantage for the fouling team is ok by you. But it’s not just a 53% advantage. If fouls in the penalty area don’t get called, there would be far more fouls, leading to whichever team fouls the most getting more than a 53% advantage and, more importantly, a lot of dangerous and reckless play, possibly causing injuries.

If the police catch a man who has just stolen $1000, they don’t just make him give back the grand, they also put him in prison. Just giving back the money is the equivalent to what you seem to be aiming for: returning everything to the state it was before. However, the prison term is there to *deter* people from robbing money, or commiting cynical fouls that disrupt game-play and possibly injure players.

Now if your saying that the penalty should maybe be moved back a little, to lower the odds of scoring just a little bit, well that’s fine by me. But trying to make things so that the state of the world is identical to what it was pre-foul… that’s not the purpose of a penalty.

Posted from United States United States

By Tamori | July 8th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Top

It seems strange to me to suggest calling fouls and awarding penalties based on maths and statistics. How do you calculate the odds of scoring on a particular play? How do you calculate a player’s chances of scoring a penalty in a given situation? It’s completely impossible to model mathematically.

Besides, penalties do not necessarily result from illegal play that prevented a goal opportunity, they can also be called for dangerous play, handballs etc. The only thing that depends on the circumstances of a play is the colour of the card that is given following the foul, i.e. last defender=red card.

Posted from Japan Japan

Comments are closed

 
 
 

MORE BLOGS

referees
World Cup Referees
76 articles | 614 comments
 
nz
New Zealand World Cup Team Blog
14 articles | 35 comments
 

CATEGORIES & ARCHIVES

 
 
Closer