Not at all. First the alignment was referee, Messi, Muller. So the referee was always closer to Messi. Second, while you are of course right that Messi's handball happened before Muller, you are absolutely wrong that the referee was advancing towards play. In fact he took a couple of steps back
The alignment is irrelevant, the time chronology is relevant. The referee's positioning (advancing or stepping back) is relevant only to the point that he picks up a play --he obviously picked up the Mueller infraction and missed the Messi one.
Assuming an absence of bias, the logical conclusion is that the time (Mueller later than Messi) and better positioning (whether accomplished by advancing or stepping a couple of steps back) allowed the referee to view the Mueller handball properly.
And unless you are arguing for the sake of it, or to establish a miniscule point which has an ever diminishing relevance to the topic at hand, I am missing the point about the relevance of the Messi non call to the Mueller handball and the merit inherent in the decision therein.
At best, you can claim the referee was inconsistent. And even under that assumption, it says nothing about the merit or lack thereof of his giving Mueller a yellow card.
I disagree. It could be intentional ... I would not be sure about it being unintentional. But not this certain either. I think you are being misled by the slow motion in the replays ... in real time all of this is difficult. There is a reason why the distance is considered important.
Maybe I am being misled by the slow motion replays. The same argument applies to you. Your certitude in declaring the yellow card a bogus one stemmed from the same footage (irrespective of whether you used slow mo replays or not) taken from an elevated angle from a camera situated 30+ meters away while the referee had the benefit of being on ground level and much closer to the action.
Absent incontrovertible proof of a referring goof up via replays, your certitude in denouncing the decision appears to be more untenable than my support for the decision, simply because one can see the validity of the referee's thinking (supposed) reinforced by the slow mo replays.
I am not sure what the distinction is between rules (which you can see at http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf ) and referee directives. The two have to match I would have thought. You cant tell a player the rules are such and the referee something else. Anyway ..."Deemed fit" rather subjective. I pointed out what is necessary ... you have to be blatant and do it to stop posession changing, scoring goals, or stopping goals (red like Suarez)
The rules define what constitutes legal and illegal. Directives constitute FIFA advisories to referees about how the same laws will be enforced or should be enforced in a game situation. This includes clarifiction of gray areas, strengthening of areas where enforcement (even via rules) has been lax in periods past or subject to too much inconsistency thereof. Whether such directives or advisories are eventually incorporated into the rule book in black and white --I dont know, and to be honest I have not checked.
A common sense application would suggest that not every advisory, especially those related to gray areas or ones providing contextual clarity to rules already on the books, are not further codified in black and white. Not in most spheres in life, it would stand to reason, not by FIFA either.
EDIT LATER: I just looked at the FIFA rules and it appears that the reaction to an intentional handball ranging from a caution to a send off has indeed been codified in the FIFA Rule book.And I believe that you are making a huge leap of faith in assuming that such directives are communicated to officials but not to players. The 2 directives that I remember the most (fouls from behind resulting in at least a yellow and the intentional handball resulting in a yellow) were communicated to referees / officials, discussed in newspapers across the world, and communicated to players all over. This was back prior to the 1990 WC -- 5 WC's have been played under these directives (that is not counting the current one) -- which means that 20+ years have passed and an entire generation of footballers have grown up under this interpretation of the rules.
Irrespective of whether this is codified in black or white or not, it is quite a stretch to argue its non awareness by players. And as one of the members of the public who was alive with a reasonable level of consciousness and memory, I can assure you that these directives / advisories were widely proclaimed and publicized by FIFA, and enforced by referees (within limits of prudent discretion) irrespective of whether FIFA followed it with a further micro managerial insertion in the rule book.
If the ball went in the direction it was going after his imperfect touching, it would go away from Messi ... and in between the other Argentine forward and the ball there was another German player.
I thought the German player was further away. Irrespective of that, doesn't the probability of the ball going to the opposition exist given the presence of 2 Argentinians in the area, i.e., wasnt a possible change of possession on the cards ? Not to mention Mueller being locked in position (feet spread apart) while Messi being ready to move (whether he would have made it to the ball would depend on the direction the ball fell, the pace of travel after falling, the spin on it, which in turn would determine direction)
Is your certitude about the ball going to the other German in the area eluding the other Argentinian based on some prescient view ? or are you assuming that the spin of the ball as well as the pace of movement (consequently distance) would preclude any possibility of Argentinian possession and leave a German recovery as the only option ?
I am assuming here that you are saying that the preponderance of probability outcomes points to a German recovery -- in which case, it would be fair to say that the referee (and the same goes for yours truly) did not see such a preponderance in probability outcomes favoring a German recovery simply because of so many unknowns involved.
In that case, the referee had to do what was needed --penalize the handball. Which is what he did --in accordance with what is now established practice.
Precisely -- if Mueller, loses control 2 Argentinians are waiting to pounce on it. The closest German helper is quite a distance away. Again, as you noted yourself, subject to referee's interpretation and as I noted earlier, referees have been given that carte blanche by FIFA advsiories and directives since 1986.
1st bold part: Wrong, explained above. second part: Not exactly ... latitude yes, carte blanche no.
While the idea of what constitutes loss of possession is subjective, there is precedence for what is considered worth a caution. So, a referee is not allowed to exactly dream up his own interpretation
I included my original quote above.
Waiting to pounce on it is not the same as guaranteed possession, which is the frame of reference you are attributing to me in attempting to show that I was wrong. In the very post you quote from, I had stated the following --
"His handball was interpreted by the referee (and myself) to have been undertaken in an effort to ensure control of the ball such that control was not ceded to the opposition. Ergo, possible change of possession preventing intentional handball. Hence yellow card."If I might point out, my statement was absent any certitude in soothsaying, something that I cannot say about your so called rebuttal -- again covered earlier above. I still remain flummoxed at what you proved wrong, given I had not made any statement of certitude.
Now to carte blanche -- I am sure you are aware of the concept of awarding a carte blanche within a narrowly defined subset of responsibilties. As in I can ask someone reporting to me a carte blanche in handling a particular issue as long as certain parameters are adhered to -- and that would not be in contradiction in terms or usage of English to either the concept of rules / regulations / policies that need to be followed ?
I thought I was rather clear about what I was saying --without equivocation or contradiction, i.e., that within the ambit of certain rules and directives (rules regarding intentional handballs, and directives regarding how FIFA wanted intentional handballs treated), referees were afforded a wide latitude (ergo, use of the term carte blanche) to brandish a yellow card -- this, from when the directive was first established around the 1990 WC.
Otherwise stated, FIFA allowed referees to use their discretion in calling yellow cards on intentional handballs. The wide latitude / carte blanche portion referring to the lower threshold being the part of the discretionary process).
I thought a contextual reading as opposed to literal interpretation of a sentence devoid of context would have avoided any confusion regarding whether I was advocating the outlandish concept of referees "exactly dreaming up his own interpretation".
In this respect, I must add that I was surprised by your comment, since that was the first such comment I had come across. Convention (not only in my admittedly limited experience, and every commentator I have heard, or every football fan I have talked to) seemed to suggest the converse of your point of view.
I am not sure, which respect you are referring to.
If the thrust of your pronouncement above is predicated on the literal reading of the words "carte blanche" and its consequent interpretation, then I believe I helped clarify both context and usage, and therefore interpretation in my response above.
If that is not so, then you need to provide further clarification as to the subject of your pronouncement.
I have explained my disagreement.
Noted -- As I stated in my prior post, we disagree.
There are guidelines for that too ... even though clearly they are not guaranteed to succeed. One of them is about time in hand of the player.
Perhaps you would enlighten me how many seconds of touch it takes to establish this. I searched the FIFA rulebook (thanks for your link) and I did not see it. Admittedly, I did not read line by line, so some clarification would be helpful
This was one such.
You are definitely entitled to your opinion.
I dont know about Mueller's first yellow card and whether it was a soft one or not, and frankly thats irrelevant.
However, the 2nd one (which is the one we are discussing --not his eventual missing the final due to accumulation) has very little soft about it.
As I had noted earlier,
a) prior FIFA advisories and directives allows issuance of a yellow card when intentional handball is detected.
b) FIFA also provided officials with sufficient latitude in application of their discretion in determing when such cards could be shown.
c) This principle has been in play for more than 20 years, with all the precedents (I provided you with one example of such precedent) - there is no surprise or anything new about it.
As it turns out, FIFA has also codified such directives in black and white (again, thanks for the link) in its rule book and with significantly narrower terms (narrower = making it amply clear that an intentional handball deserves at the very least a yellow card if one of 2 conditions are met). For your benefit -- please read
Disciplinary sanctions
The yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.
Handling the ball
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
Disciplinary sanctions
There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball,
e.g. when a player:
• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball I think the above codification shows quite conclusively that once it is determined that the handball is intentional, then the referee must issue a caution if he determines that the handball was intended to prevent an opponent from gaining possession.
The probability of a change in possession existed by virtue of field positioning, and presence of several Argentinian players in the area, 2 of whom were close enough (including Messi) to possibly gain possession.
The intentional handball is again within the referee's discretion. While you and I can disagree on that, the referee was closer to the action and his actions are not repudiated but rather supported by the specter of a player in a non shooting position bringing one hand closer to the side the ball is landing while the other hand stays outstretched for balance.
You and me, and fans all over the world may disagree with each other (taking opposing viewpoints) but nothing in either history, precedent, directives, codified rules, or action replay supports the certitude of your position that it was a completely uncalled for yellow card
There is just not enough incontrovertible evidence to support that stance, IMO.
I can easily see that some (perhaps including you) would prefer a higher threshold by the referee for a caution but I dont --simply because precedent over 20+ years and 5 WC's have laid the basis for a lower threshold application when it comes to yellow cards wrt intentional handballs. And with good reason I might add. Football refereeing needs to be stricter in many areas, not laxer because we live amidst a group of players who will do anything possible to win, i.e., cheat and that destroys the game. I have no tears to shed for people like Rossi, Mueller, Neur, Robben, Fabiano, etc.
Anyways, I have exhausted arguing this. Unless you are adding a new point to this argument, its fair to say that you are welcome to the last word, if you so wish. I for my part acknowledge your disagreement with my POV.
AuthorTopic: Current match discussions (Read 6801 times)
