³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Chris~That's a good idea...Took much hassle in becoming a refereee..

(d)

I tend to find the older I get the less exciting World Cups become. In fact this one for me was a mixed bag but there were too many poor teams/performances and a feeling that in the group stages not losing was seen as a priority. There were a few memorable games and Germany contributed to many of them. Spain most skillful, Germany most refreshing to watch. If Webb had sent off De Jong just maybe th Dutch would have calmed down...but I agree, never become a referee.

I noticed Howard Webb was very media-friendly, very FIFA-friendly, always said the "right" thing & toed the party line.

I reckon he had his sights set on doing the final right from the outset, and he made all the right political moves to get it - to the extent of being a bit annoying.

And then - when he got the final - he made a pig's ear of it. How De Jong and Van Bommel were both on the park fter the first half is a mystery to me.

Anyway, on a lighter note:

What's the difference between St. Andrew's and Ibrox?

There's some chance of seeing Eagles at St Andrews. : )))

does anyone else think that Iniesta might have been flagged for offside...

Nope, replays showed he was onside when the first ball was played in... and in any case, he wsn't technically "interfering with play"

I'm not Howard Webb's #1 fan, but I genuinely pitied him in the WCF. The Dutch clearly went out with the cynical attitude in mind that Webb would try very hard to keep the game 11 v 11, meaning they'd not pick up red cards for niggling fouls, even though they'd pick up a lot of yellows. With hindsight we know that Webb was willing to tolerate any fouls in terms of keeping the red card pocketed, at least until extra time.

How much of this is down to real or imagined FIFA pressure? Or the TV companies? Webb is clearly very media-savvy, and probably a good guy to wheel out when there are refereeing issues. He handled questions on the England and Mexico events very well (in FIFA terms), for instance. Did he go out in the Final with a "no reds" policy because he thought this was what the competition and media expected?

Personally I don't know why this notion that sending someone off kills the game is so widely and unquestioningly accepted. Maybe it is true in the very shortest of terms, ie that game. However, with hindsight it is obvious that the game generally would have been better served had Webb sent off van Bommel and de Jong, and then Puyol for his professional foul later. I suspect that Holland would have been destroyed if they'd had to play for 65 minutes with only 10 players, and possibly over half the game with 9. Had Spain hammered them by 4 or 5 goals it might have provided the type of humiliation that makes players and coaches reassess their most basic approach to the game. In other words, next time they face Spain they might try and "do a Paraguay". That might still result in defeat, but at least one with dignity and respect. Losing 1-2 players and getting hammered would result in neither. The problem post-WCF is that the Dutch approach was almost rewarded. Robben had two great chances, and Puyol was lucky himself to stay on the pitch. He probably only did so because Webb could not send him off for something so innocuous when van Bommel and de Jong were still on. The Dutch can moan that they only lost because Webb gave a goal kick not a corner, and then didn't penalise a foul on Elia. Instead they should be reflecting on a hammering because they were cynical and properly punished. I don't know a single person who thinks de Jong should not have been sent off. The last time I saw a challenge like that was by Eric Cantona on a fan at Selhurst Park, for which he got community service and a 12 month ban.

Webb did football a longer term disservice by trying to ensure short term entertainment. It's not his fault that he failed to provide the latter. The message needs to go out, though, that a similar approach to Holland's will, in future, see the red card being wafted around much earlier in the match.

I agree with you Chris, and most definitely disagree with "Spoonmehead."
I´ve seen the incident several times on TV, and Iniesta WAS offside when the ball was first passed forward, but NOT offside when it was passed the second time.
I also feel that if Howard Webb had sent off De Jong for his outrageous and cynical kick on Alonso, it would surely have made the rest of the Holland players realise that the referee was not going to tolerate such behaviour. Van Bommel was very lucky to start the second half.

My only comment about the England "performance":

What´s the difference between the England team and a tea bag?

The tea bag stays in the cup longer.

I found myself distinguishing in the final between "rough", which I thought was how Chile played against Spain, and "dirty", which is how I thought the Dutch played--and being annoyed the rough team was destroyed by cards and the dirty team wasn't. I'm not inclined to blame Webb too much, as a lot of people including me wanted to see an 11 vs. 11 final. But I found myself wishing there were alternative penalties available, so that the poor choice he had could have been improved. Or maybe he simply needed to give out more yellow cards, and/or say, look, one more and I'm sending players off...

Anyway, I thought the final was awful. Very dull. So stop and start it resembled American sports. The rest of the tournament was worse than most as well. The pressure on everyone keeps building, and there's more and more negative football. Also, the Jubilani ball resulted in fewer good spot kicks and spectacular scores. Though I did find myself wondering if Forlan and maybe Hondo and a couple of others had been the only ones to have spent hours practicing spot kicks with it.

I have to say that Webb's performance wasn't his best but I can't think of a more difficult game to officiate what with the negative tactics. I would call the final more like babysitting than refereeing, as all he was doing was looking after a bunch of listening to 22 players moaning about everything. I'm an official myself here in the US and I question why I ever got involved (other than the good money). However, there is nothing better than players, coaches, spectators, etc coming up to you after a game and saying what a great job you have just done. It almost makes the games where everyone is having a moan (see WCF) worth it!

6. At 4:52pm on 19 Jul 2010, James Taylor wrote:

My only comment about the England "performance":

What´s the difference between the England team and a tea bag?

The tea bag stays in the cup longer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the difference between Scotland and England?

England made it to the cup...........

8. At 5:32pm on 19 Jul 2010, pittowl wrote:

I'm an official myself here in the US and I question why I ever got involved (other than the good money)
----------------------------------------------

Ha, people like you make me laugh, it is a well known fact that being a referee or linesman pays very poorly (which is one of the main reasons for the lack of consistency and poor performances), unless you are one of the few full-time officials in the world such as Howard Webb, if you are at the level of these referees we must have seen you at the world cup or officiating in the champions league?

You are also certainly not well paid for being an official in a country where football/soccer is still a relative minority sport, so please stop creating fantasies on this site.

James Taylor #6 - While it's nice to agree with Chris, you really should listen to what 'Spoonmehead' says and then you would actually be right.
No matter how many times you use capital letters, you will always be wrong if you continue to say Iniesta should have been ruled offside when the first attempted pass to him was made.
Yes he was in an offside position (fractionally), but in the modern interpretation of the offside Law (which is all we can fall back on, not what you or anyone else 'thinks') he was not interfering with an opponent, nor did he play the ball (as it never reached him), nor did he 'gain an advantage' from being there (again in the quite strict interpretation of what that means in the Laws of the game).
Argue all day about whether these interpretations are good or bad - but in simple terms, the official got his call absolutely and 100% correct according to the Laws of football.
And yes, I am a referee - the clue's in the name....

Actually Van Bommell should've been sent off in The Quarter-Finals too when he could've been booked about 15 times - I dont think I have ever seen a match with so many fouls - the whistle was blowing literally every minute! I thought Webby actually gave a pretty good performance relative to the standard of the rest of the tournament...I am amazed that more has not been made of the appalling refereeing this tournament. I have been watching World Cups since 82 and have never been into 'ref-bashing' but I have for the first time been left gob-smacked by the number of appalling critical decisions this time round. I am amazed that there hasnt been more of a fuss in the media. It seemed that pretty much every second game had a crucial incorrect decision that critically affected the course of the game - meaning goal related or sending off. The England 'Goal' was just one of many - just ask the Yanks (2 in successive games) and the Italians (2 in 1!) and they will give you similar tales of woe - and there were a host of shocking offside decisions throughout the tournament - what ever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team? Every time a a player was level he was given off (have they changed the rule!?!?)....Then there were the number of really bad Red cards....apparently the refs had been pressured on this - most comical Kaka's (ok, 2nd Yellow) for walking into another player with the ball miles away.
I was never a fan of technology, but after seeing the number and magnitude of game-changing decisions would have to revise my opinion - why not just have a 3rd official check 'live' any sending off/Goal related decision - it would have certainly meant a few more goals in this World Cup!
Also the other thing that FIFA need to look at is the Handball rule - the application of which was becoming farcial....any accidental handball is apparently a Yellow at least - doesn't matter if the ball in kicked at your arm at great speed or if it happens in the centre-circle, apparently it warrants a card - as young Mueller got when both those things happened
(keeping him out of the SF)...In the Australia/Ghana match, the Aussies lose their Best player (Kewell) after 10 minutes after the ball hits him partially on the arm when he is on the goal-line - and the Ghanians score from the spot...ok maybe fair enough...although it was not clear that Kewells offense was certainly deliberate or whether his chest wouldn't have been enough to deflect the ball away if his arm hadn't been there.
The point is that Uruguay (the Biggest cheats throughout the tournament) and the Cheater of the Tournament (the number of dives that lad took) Suarez deliberately stop a certain goal only to have their man sent off for 1 minute and the penalty saved.
My advice would be to change the rules so that the card is linked to the intention of the player - i.e. clearly accidental no card; Clearly deliberate Red; Unclear - Yellow. Moreover Goals should be able to be awarded by the Ref - whilst this may come across as a great Taboo in soccer I cant see what the problem is with the Ref awarding goals when he has so much power to and frequently does disallow them. It should only be done in rare and extreme cases such as the Suarez incident where the ball is 99% sure in the back of the net.
With these rules it would've meant Kewell Yellow not Red and a penalty (but with him on the pitch the Socceroos would've won) and (not that Ghana would've still have been in it if they had!) Suarez off (and banned a few games) and an automatic goal given

theMightyAndyGray
Get over it mate. Suarez broke a rule and got punished. Happens all the time in football, at lest 50 times in the final rules were broken.

I just do not understand those who have sympathy for Howard Webb. Why did he not send DeJong and v Bommel off during the first half? For me, Mr. Webb deliberately turned a blind eye to those who broke the rules. He commited a fraud, and should never ref another international match.
Howard Webb should have sent v Bommel and DeJong and Puyol off. It is as simple as that. The Holland side had a plan that they executed to the letter - to kick the hell out of the Spanish players, or as you say in England, 'get tight, close, physical', or whatever. That is not allowed in international football, and Howard Webb clearly is not fit to ref international matches.

For the millionth time, Iniesta was not offside for the first pass from Torres! Go look up "active play". FIFA actually has some very easy-to-understand animations explaining every aspect of the offside rule, but the gist of it is that one can be in an offside position, like Iniesta, but not cause an infraction if s/he is not involved in active play. Iniesta was not in a position to get the ball - it was half-cleared by a defender - and he was not in the line of sight of the goalie or defender. Therefore he was in an offside position but not offside.

A ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ football writer should know it. I remember a poll from a few years ago showing most football fans not knowing the rule - men were actually worse than women, I think - but I expected better from pundits.

Suarez got the same punishment as Heitinga, who didn't change the match result (at least in his team's favor!). Is that fair? The Croatian coach was banned for three more games for blaming an incorrect, match-changing decision on referee bias. Is that fair?

49 and thats a wrap
How about the Holland goal against Uruguay. Was it offside? I remember v Persie clearly in an offside position and going for the tap in but he missed and the ball went into goal anyway. The goal was given and there were no shouts about it, but a little confusing for me..

Also the other thing that FIFA need to look at is the Handball rule - the application of which was becoming farcial....any accidental handball is apparently a Yellow at least - doesn't matter if the ball in kicked at your arm at great speed or if it happens in the centre-circle, apparently it warrants a card - as young Mueller got when both those things happened
(keeping him out of the SF)...

***

Lots to comment on in this post.
First, let's talk handballs. Yellow cards were issued, in my view pretty consistently throughout the tournament, for yellow cards that disrupted an attacking opportunity... call it the handball version of the 'professional foul'. (And professional fouls were also consistently called as yellow cards in the tournament, which might confuse some as to why some 'hard' tackles were not called as yellows, when 'soft' tackles that were 'professional' in nature were). Mueller was unfortunate, but in the replays, especially one from behind, you can see the he flinched his arm towards the ball, and not away from it, when he made contact. AND, he was about 10 yards outside his own penalty area, and Lionel Messi was lingering with intent behind him. I think a very good call by the official - much that I would have liked to see Mueller in the SF.
2nd, referees DO have the option of not red carding handballs that prevent a goal - because the red card is NOT for handball, but for 'deliberately denying a goal-scoring opportunity' (either by handball, or by a foul). I agree that Harry Kewell was unfortunate. It was a powerful shot that hit him very quickly; he clearly tried to block it with his chest, and missed and it hit his arm. BUT, and you can say this with just about any handball - did he have the opportunity to get out of the way of the ball, or did it hit him before he had that opportunity. If he had the opportunity to get out of the way, and chose not to, then that is handball.