Welcome to the New World, Fellers!

What follows is the text of a blog I have written for The Oakland Tribune.  I reproduce it here without shame, because it introduces a theme that I will elaborate on exclusively for The Integrity of Soccer, a theme about refereeing in the U.S. (surprise!) 
[Also, I will be away from Davis for the next week or so, taking care of my daughter who is trying to deal with the sudden death of her fiance, and I don't have all the time to myself I normally have.]

I watched (happily) the telecast of the tense and exciting Italy/USA game today, and listened (unhappily) to the bleatings of the team of commentators—Alexi Lalas, Eric Wynalda, Marcelo Balboa—about some of the refereeing decisions.  Yes, I know that Dave O’Brien was there, too, but in my opinion he doesn’t qualify as a commentator on soccer, and certainly not as a pundit (Learned Teacher).
    What bothered me more than anything about their commentating was not the obvious chauvinism, for the three of them have made no secret that they were supporting the U.S., but the fact that they were wrong, simply wrong.  And since they are well-known retired professional and national team players, their words can have an influence upon many, many young and impressionable soccer players.  You don’t spread worthwhile knowledge by having the ignorant teach the naïve.
    Let’s take four decisions: the three sendings-off and the disallowed goal by Beasley.  And in order to keep you reading, let me say at the start that in my opinion, all four were correct.
    Everyone seemed to agree that the young Italian De Rossi deserved to be dismissed after his elbow split and bloodied McBride’s face, and as I saw it, the foul was a deliberate act.  But even if the contact had been entirely accidental, he would have been sent off, because FIFA has decreed time and again that they are trying to eliminate from the game any contact with the elbow.  So a careless act, a reckless act or a deliberate act involving the elbow should get an expulsion.  The difference would be in the punishment the player gets, for a deliberate act might get more than one game suspension.  We’ll see.  But none of the “commentators” mentioned any of this, during the game or after.
    In the final minute of the first half, the referee evened things up by sending off Mastroeni of the U.S. for a challenge on Pirlo.  That’s what the commentators thought: a “pay back” call.  I’ve never known a referee make a call to even things up, but I do know that some players talk about it.  But let’s look at the foul, and see what a nonsense the commentators put about.
    Mastroeni goes in for the challenge and gets there late.  When he made contact with (that’s polite talk for kicked) Pirlo, the ball was 5-6 feet away, Mastroeni’s studs were exposed and they caught the Italian just above the ankle.  If you think that such a foul is not worthy of a sending-off, what on Earth is?  Mastroeni knew he was not going to get to the ball first or at the same time as Pirlo; that’s one of the first skills you learn in competitive soccer.  He chose to keep going, and he was rightly punished for the foul.
    Not three minutes into the second half, a rather worn red card was raised in the air again to let us know that Eddie Pope was leaving, for a foul from behind on Gilardinho.  Was it worth only a yellow?  Not in my book, but that’s not the point.  Pope already had a caution for clobbering an opponent earlier.  The first caution was a statement to him that he would not go unpunished for something similar.  It was an official warning about his conduct!  Now, Balboa thought that the referee should have talked to him and told him to knock it off.  But Marcelo, my boy, the referee did that when he gave Pope the yellow card in the first half.  ‘Nuff said.
    And finally the goal disallowed after DaMarcus Beasley drove the ball into the net.  The description from The Independent in England is accurate, succinct, in other words, right on.  “DaMarcus Beasley actually had the ball in the net with a fine angled drive, but McBride was in an offside position, right in front of goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon.”  Balboa got this one right, but Bruce Arena yelled out: “That’s impossible!”  Although he still shouts and gesticulates about decisions, he has learned, after being sent off in international matches in the past, to temper his remarks and behavior.
    I’ll have more to say about commentaries, and I’ll have more to say about why the commentators get things wrong, and why players do the foolish things they did today.  But in the meantime, I’m happy to say that a referee did what he was supposed to do, without fear or favor.  I disagree again with today’s commentators, for I believe he will have another game in this World Cup.

Comments

[John M]

Only one word Bob:

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO!

or is that 4? Thank you Bob for your analysis.. Referees, if you want to keep this game beautiful ...understand what Bob says!!!!!

[Giancarlo]

I have to say your analysis was spot on. It's nice to come to referee's opinion on this and find I'm not a minority on the game whereas where I was watching the game, I was the only one who supported the referee's decisions 100% I'm sure the referee will get another game.

[Rick Gamboa]

Thank God I am not the only one on earth that believes the referee did his job!

After listening to the commentators, I had to explain the events to my wife, got a long distance phone call from my daughter and son in law, and was accosted on the way out of church by a fan.

These fans had been brainwashed by the drivel put forth during and after the game by the commentators.

I hope that FIFA will now back the referee and have him do another game.

That would truly be "FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME".

[Joe]

I can't go along with those saying the referee did his job. He whistled every trifling thing for the first 20 minutes to the point the players had no clue what he would call. Combined with the foul count being 20-7 at the half against the US he looked very biased. And, he bought every single Italian dive.

Then in the second half he practically swallowed his whistle. There was virtually no fouls called for the last 30 minutes.

Bottom line he should have used his "personality" more to manage the players instead of slap everybody with cards and whistle ticky-tack touches. Pablo's card was harsh within the context of the World Cup games as a whole as other similar tackles have either gone unpunished or only drawn a caution.

He also clearly forgot he had cautioned Pope as he had to look in his book before pulling out the red.

The referee did a terrible, unbalanced job that destroyed the game. The fact there is so much discussion about it proves this - the best referees are not noticed. This guy got noticed. A lot. I would be happy to see him suspended ... again!

[Richard Tyrrell]

I agree with the assessment that Mr Evans has given here. I think Bob is saying (insunuatung at least) that Pope was a victim of a low standard for the first yellow card.

I thought the US fouled naively and were overly agressive. This was evident very early. Any seasoned player knows that when a player has a fist-full of jersey you do what you must to show it to the referee, particularly when it is at mid-field on the sideline.

I wrote my assessment here.

http://www.writingup.com/rtyrrell3/red_cards_galore_but_all_deserved

[chuck stuart]

Couldn't agree more. I had been, more or less, impressed with Balboa's commentary - up to that point. How can anyone seriously think that FIFA's mandate to crack down on shirt pulling "is going to ruin the beautiful game"? That's not part of the game that I ever considered "beautiful".

Mastroeni's tackle? Allow those tackles as "part of the game" (Balboa's opinion) or punish them and see players like Marco Van Basten actually play out their career as healthy, creative players? Not a tough choice for me!!

[Dan]

Mr. Evans,

I agreed with the cards, however, there is a chance the referee will not see another game. Not for the cards, but for failing to give Italy a penalty late in the game. I'm a US fan, but Conrad fouled the Italian attacker late in the game.

[Eric]

I agree with your assessment of the first two send-offs, but I cannot agree that Pope's second tackle deserved a yellow card. The studs were not exposed, in fact he didn't even make contact with his foot, the contact was simple leg on leg tripping. The argument that it was from behind is valid but when Pope started sliding he was not coming from behind, so the Italian should have seen the tackle coming. The only argument I can really see is that this could be a tactical foul, but I still don't believe it required a caution from the referee.

Also, to add one thing to the discussion of Mastroeni's send-off, it appeared on the TV that his knee was locked as well, making this a worse tackle than what was described in the article.

[roy shepherd]

For those who disagree take a lesson from past broken legs, ankles and a game mared by rough nasty thuggish behevior from so called professionals, one of who is Balboa. This official was doing what he should. All cards were deserved, all warnigs were given in a professional timely manner and if players can't cope with a ref that applies the rules then on their head be it. Too many MSL standards in the responses for my liking.Spot on Mr. Evans.

[TH]

2 points.

One poster complains about the 20-7 foul disparity, the USA unfairly penalized. Yet, we all know that the USA came out with the intention of being more physical and aggressive than in their first game. Contrary to what millions of basketball fans, and evidently soccer fans too, there's no rule or requirement that states the number of fouls called on each team must be equal. Teams/players play different styles, with different levels of intensity. Each play should be judged on it's on merit.

Idiot commentators are give an audience that they address with no personal responsibility whatsoever. One of them stated, "There's two types of referees, bad ones and worse one." How totally irresponsible can anyone entrusted with such an opportunity be?

Kudos Bob.

[Joe]

I only comment on the foul disparity because the referee rewarded the Italian diving, and they are just as physical as the USA. USA went out aggressive, but not 20-7 aggressive. The Italians were playing just as physical, the USA just didn't dive as much so the fouls didn't get called.

I don't necessarily disagree with the cards, but the constant whistling and fussiness of the referee really PO'd the players.

How many times are we taught the game is for the players/fans and that we need to adjust our judgment of a foul accordingly? Both teams showed they wanted to use their arms and bump a lot and they were ok with that. But Larrionda decided for them this would not be ok. On almost all of the fouls for the start of the game had the players not even recognize the foul occurred. They would be playing along but then the referee whistle would blow for some reason and they had to stop.

After awhile they just got pissed and you start seeing things like elbows, studs up tackles, and Pope smacking into everything. The players are responsible for their actions and should be punished accordingly, but the referee shouldn't be igniting the emotions in the first place!

[Bob Wertz]

Well, FIFA must have thought highly of this referee who made courageous decisions under a global microscope. Mr Larrionda will be in the center of Togo-France World Cup (Match # 45)on Friday 6/23/06.

[Babu]

Mr. Evans is correct in his comments. The send-offs were more than appropriate as were the cautions. The US team came out with one strategy - to foul. It was evidenced by what you saw on the field. It's one more reason US Soccer should get rid of Arena. The commentators claimed the red card for Mastroeni was a "make up call" but what it really was was Pablo getting some payback for McBride...taking out Pirlo, Italy's best player at the tournament so far. Bravo to Larrionda...he did the right things.

[Pat Smith]

To expect these soccer coommentators to be fair and balanced,especially those that have played the game is like whistling in the wind.Many of them have the mentality of a recreational coach"No disrepect intended" THey have no conception of Intentional hand balls,Interfering or not interfering,The beauty of Advantage when excercised correctly.Tackles from behind,I could go on and on about their deficiencies in the real aspects of this game.THeir mentality is centered around the rule book,and not about common sense approach,They may have played at a high level but they have never refereed at a high level

[Babu]

Thanks, Mr. Smith. You are one of the wisest, respected around. ;-)
Hope you are well in sunny FLA.

[Chris H.]

I was listening to Marcelo today for the France v. Togo game and he kept sniping at the Uruguayan referee who had previously done the US v. Italy game. It got so bad that late in the second half Dave O'Brien had to ask Marcelo if the referee had gotten better for the second half of the France game because Marcelo had stopped sniping on him so much. Marcelo finally ended up saying that the Uruguayan official was doing "OK", but it seemed as if Marcelo was grudgingly saying it...

The leads me to something I noticed very early on (and probably most of you did too), the referees at this tournament must have been told to CLAMP DOWN on the fouling. As soon as I saw our Mexican colleague blow a foul for the goalkeeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds (and this within the first 5 minutes of the game with no previous verbal warning!), I realized that the officials here were going to attempt to be rather tight with their calls.

And, in fact, that's what has happened. At no other tournament have I ever witnessed a higher ratio of "player goes to ground, player wins foul" than I have at this one. Light (incidental) contact will certainly get you foul and even a caution (e.g. Zidane's second caution vs. S. Korea).

I presume that this clamp down was done, in part, to limit the number of hard fouls and injuries that arise when tempers rise and tackles come in harder. To blow every foul and to let the cautions loose a lot more freely has certainly had its desired effect -- I have seen very few really hard fouls compared to the last Champion's League campaign -- but on the other hand, the players have learned and adapted their tactics accordingly.

Players now go down with the slightest contact, stay down for 30 seconds or so (until the stretcher comes out at which time they manage to get to their feet) then "hobble" off only to want back in ASAP having recovered.

Reigning this post back to the original subject of the Italy v. USA game -- what would the foul count have looked like if the US adapted their game to the way the laws of the game were being applied by the officials? While the US certainly wanted (and did) play aggressively, it seemed plainly obvious to me that many other teams in the tournament were losing players to accumulated yellows for the (seemingly) silliest things. To go all out 'war' on Italy doesn't seem the soundest strategy when the match officials were (consistently from what I've seen) calling fouls just about every time someone went down.

Italy's a smart team. They adapted. We didn't and it hurt us.

-Chris

[Amin Shakill]

A small and contrarian view of the referee in the US vs. Italy

At the onset, anyone who disagree with the referee’s decision to give the red cards would have be feebleminded enjoying buz-kashi (a game played by horse riders trying to pick a dead Bull and carry around, while get beat up on the hands by the opponents (with the horse whip) in an attempt to get the rider to release the bull – just a brutal game).

If we think the ABC announcers (the old players) are worth lessening to we need our soccer mind examined and we are just wasting our valuable time. After I heard Eric Wynalda making the statement that there is only a “bad referee and a worst referee”, I knew he does not have the knowledge or the credibility to be worth hearing (I wrote ABC about it). Although I do not know much Spanish, but I turn the ABC off in favor of the Spanish TV Station whose commentators are at least sound nicer and exciting. (They may be saying the same things for all I know).

Now, hypothetically, what would have happened if the referees in the USA/Italy and Netherlands /Portugal games did not jump to the yellow cards at the early stages of the game? Could some of the red cards (not due to the second yellow) been avoided?

I am sure there are those who think the referees are not the cause of any mishaps in the game. I beg to differ. The referee brings justice. If the players continuously think that there is no justice they become more and more unhappy and become irrational. it appeared to me that the referees in the US vs. Italy and the Netherlands vs. Portugal games, may have gone to their pockets a bit too soon and became a part of stirring the emotions. Would these high emotion and state of the players mind could have caused the more serious fouls?

I wonder what would have happened if the referees in these two world cup games used their personalities and presence more; used a few verbal messages early on in the game, and tried to create a cordial and happy atmosphere. Would the vicious fouls requiring red cards could have been avoided if such an environment existed. I remember in one of the games, the referee was smiling and the player receiving the yellow card shook his hands and run away smiling (not many yellow cards and no red card in that game). There was a point in the Netherlands /Portugal game where I was talking to my TV screen asking the referee to cool it (man) and stop giving the yellow cards; bring the temperatures down. It appeared to me that the referees in these two game did not make their yellow cards count or have any meaning. The players become upset, emotions stirred up and bad fouls followed. An expected outcome?

[PAT SMITH]

I agree with the majority of the contributors to this section of the blog.I personally dont believe the referee in the Portugal Netherland game was quite ready for the stupidity and uselessness of the fouls in that game. I do believe the key in that game was the nasty foul on Ronaldo that on;y got a yellow, and the head buut that only got a yellow.unless he got bad information. Ronaldo is the STAR of that team, and it seemed to me that the fouls by Portugal after that was retribution on the Ronaldo foul. Had he dealt.It was my feeling that generally with that esrly he may not have inherited the whirlwind that followed It was my feeling generally that the refereeing may not have been the best i have seen in a World Cup THere seemed too much BEWILDERMENT in the decision making by certain referees but again some lived up the reputation of the best in the world.

[Mark Arblaster]

Archundia gets a Semi-Final.

Bob, on June 27, regarding the Switzerland vs. Ukraine game you wrote "the referee on Monday gave none (cards) for some of the most ferocious and illegal tackles I have seen in the World Cup" and you predicted that he would "not be doing the final". Well, you were correct. He will not be doing the final. But, I don't think you meant that it was because he would be doing a SEMI-FINAL !!

What do you think of this appointment? Purely political or performance based?

Personally, I enjoyed the way Archundia called that game. He was allowing two HONEST teams to bang away at each other (old school soccer). But, what was impressive to me was that the PLAYERS were accepting it and they weren't embellishing every heavy challenge like so many of the countries do these days.

Clearly, some countries play like honest men, while others have embraced a strategy of cheating. Sr. Archundia will have a challenge when he tries to separate reality from fiction when the Italians play. Not that Germany don't have their share of actors (Klinsmann himself had a knack for theatrics, didn't he).

My non-soccer friends point to this as a problem in our sport. It's true.

It's a man's game -- play it with honor.

[John Parkyn]

Fortunately, Canadians didn't have to put up with the incessant chatter, over-the-top chauvinism, and questionalble soccer knowledge that Americans had to, unless they were smart enough to hit the mute button.

No sir, up here we've been blessed with the British feed, BBC or ITV I'm not sure.

The commentators (John Helm et al) have been a delight. First off, they speak English; some wonderful turns of phrase. Secondly, they don't state the obvious; they actually believe viewers can see for themselves. They know when to shut up; they actually pause. It's pretty clear they want England to win, but that doesn't blind them to England's errors or the virtues of the opponents.

Their knowledge of the Laws is sound and they're fair when it comes to assessing the performance of referees.

They enjoy what they're doing. They truly enrich the viewing experience... A sheer delight!

[John Parkyn]

A case in point re: British commentators ... This two-thirds the way through the Italy-Germany semi-final and juxtaposing the domestic (Juventus) scandal with the on-field beauty before him, the commentator comes up with:

"It's Machiavell at home and Michelangelo here."

I rest my case.

[Ken Auerbach]

Let's face it most of the gripes about refereeing in this WC are really gripes at how stupid the players were. Did you have to be an international pro player in US-Italy to know that a studs up over the ball tackle will earn a red card? Did it take years of international experience to know that if you've been given a caution for a reckless tackle maybe just maybe you have to be careful next time--which at a minimum means no desperate challenges from the rear of your opponent?

And please let's not talk about the Netherlands-Portugal match--how much idiocy is there on a soccer field? Apparently limitless.

Didn't the players get the memo from FIFA about intolerable behavior this time round? I guess not--or did not believe it if they did.

Today's Italy-Germany was wonderful and in part I attribute it to the players learning a lesson about what would be tolerated.

[David Lakin]

There are two major world sporting events taking place at the current time - The World Cup and Le Tour de France. For those critical of the commentary provided by ESPN/ABC of World Cup please compare and contrast to that provided by OLN on le Tour. I suggest therein lies your role model. If only we had access to the likes of Paul Sherwin and Phil Leggett what a wonderful world it would be! Vive le Tour!!

[Mark Arblaster]

Could someone post the email addresses for ABC and ESPN so that we can all bombard them with our complaints about how inferior their commentators are. I'm told that if few complain that they think they got it right.