Why is the officating in soccer so horrible?

[jstnrgrs]

I know that the major American sports have thier problems, but I just watched USA vs. T&T, and I think the refferee was actually trying to slant the game in T&T's favor.

[mjm]

It's because in soccer the game doesn't stop every 30 seconds for 5 minutes to disect it from every angle. Otherwise it would be boring.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It's because in soccer the game doesn't stop every 30 seconds for 5 minutes to disect it from every angle. Otherwise it would be even more boring.

[/ QUOTE ]

[KDawgCometh]

that offsides call on twellman was just criminal. I don't think that it was slanted one way though, cause the red card that the T&T player got on the harsh side

[bernie]

Don't know. I'm usually too asleep to notice.

Ants chasing an aspirin = watching soccer.

I used to love playing it though.

b

[wayabvpar]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that the major American sports have thier problems, but I just watched USA vs. T&T, and I think the refferee was actually trying to slant the game in T&T's favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slant it in T&T's favor? He gave one of their defenders a red card for barely impeding Landon Donovan. He didn't even fall down, for Christ's sake. That was a horrible call...yellow card infraction all the way.

I was pretty impressed with T&T's keeper in the 2nd half- he made some nice saves.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
that offsides call on twellman was just criminal. I don't think that it was slanted one way though, cause the red card that the T&T player got on the harsh side

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the only bad call. It seamed to me that anytime a foul might have been called against T&T, they played on, but the ref would call fouls against the USA if they breathed the wrong way.

The call that I thought was really teribble was in the second half, T&T had a goal kick. The ball cleared the box, and a USA player caught the T&T defense asleep and intercepted the kick. He had a good chance as there was only the golie between him and the goal, but the ref blew the wistle and the did the goal kick over. I never heard any explaination for this.

As for the red card, I agree it was harsh, but if there was ever a situation that deserved a penalty kick, that was it. But I guess my problem here is with the rules, not with the officating.

[Voltron87]

i didnt watch the game in question, but on another note, the us has a ludicrously easy WC qualification regimen. its a joke.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt watch the game in question, but on another note, the us has a ludicrously easy WC qualification regimen. its a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]


they can only play the nations in their region. CONCACAF isn't that much of a jopke to be honest. There are some good teams, and some of the away grounds are very hostile enviroments

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt watch the game in question, but on another note, the us has a ludicrously easy WC qualification regimen. its a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]
Concacaf is probably 3rd in terms of difficulty after Europe and SA.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i didnt watch the game in question, but on another note, the us has a ludicrously easy WC qualification regimen. its a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]


they can only play the nations in their region. CONCACAF isn't that much of a jopke to be honest. There are some good teams, and some of the away grounds are very hostile enviroments

[/ QUOTE ]

please, qualifying for the usa is a cakewalk. its a gimme. there are 3 spots, mex, usa, next best, then i think they even get a playoff.

[jstnrgrs]

The real joke is the number of spots Europe gets.

[Voltron87]

you think that compared to concacaf, uefa is too generous?

LOL

[jstnrgrs]

In UEFA 14 out of 51 teams qualify (27%). In CONCACAF, 3.5 out of 34 teams qualify (10%). So yes, I think UEFA is generous compared to CONCACAF.

For comparison, here's how I would rate the regions form most generous to least:

1.South America (45%)
2.Europe (27%)
3.Asia (12%)
4.CONCACAF (10%)
5.Africa (10%)
6.Oceiana (4%)

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
In UEFA 14 out of 51 teams qualify (27%). In CONCACAF, 3.5 out of 34 teams qualify (10%). So yes, I think UEFA is generous compared to CONCACAF.

For comparison, here's how I would rate the regions form most generous to least:

1.South America (45%)
2.Europe (27%)
3.Asia (12%)
4.CONCACAF (10%)
5.Africa (10%)
6.Oceiana (4%)

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, what percentage of teams qualify?


could you pick a worse statistic to evaluate this by?

[jdl22]

Percentage of teams doesn't really matter. Europe should get more if you want the tournament to feature the best teams. It has been suggested that they scrap regional qualifying. I think this would be bad because the world cup would basically be only the host nation, European teams, South American teams and maybe a few other nations. If the US tried to qualify in Europe we would need to get a good draw and play extremely well to make it. Europe is unbelievably strong. Comparing Euro 2004 and Korea/Japan 2002, Euro 2004 featured a much higher level of play overall. If they did spots by number of countries in your federation then the level of play at the world cup would be crap.

[AngryCola]

NBA and NFL officials are generally much worse.
Obviously some refs are better than others, though.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
NBA and NFL officials are generally much worse.
Obviously some refs are better than others, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you about NBA officials, but basketball is stupid, so I don't care.

I think that NFL officials are generally very good. I don't know why people complain about them.

[KDawgCometh]

yeah, the percentage thing is kinda weak, but oceania should have a garunteed spot and africa should have another spot or two. NOw I don't know to take the the spots away from, but it is silly that oceania has never had a garunteed spot

[Voltron87]

well in one sense its the world cup so i think it should be more than just teams 1-32, if you know what i mean. you want teams from every continent, culture, thats what makes it such an amazing sports event.

the only region that really should lose a spot is concacaf. 3 spots plus a playoff is skewed IMO.

[2+2 wannabe]

current CONCACAF world rankings:

Mexico - 5
USA - 6
Costa Rica - 21
Honduras - 39
Jamaica - 41
Trinidad and Tobago - 53
Guatemala - 59
Cuba - 74
Panama - 77
Canada/Haiti/El Salvador/Barbados/etc. - eleventy billionth

[Voltron87]

those rankings are a joke.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
those rankings are a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed - but at least they give some sort of idea where the teams are

i don't know how USA is possibly 6th

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
those rankings are a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate the fifa rankings as much as anyone, but overall, concacaf is a stronger region then the AFC and is on par with CAF

[jdl22]

I agree with this. Just to emphasize how much better the European and South American confederations are here are all the winners of the world cup:
Conmebol:
Brasil 5 times
Argentina twice
Uruguay twice

UEFA:
Italy 3 times
Germany 3 times
England once
France once

other:
none

Similarly let's look at the semifinals of the last 6 cups:
2002 - Korea, Turkey, Germany, Brasil
1998 - Brasil, Netherlands, France, Croatia
1994 - Bulgaria, Italy, Sweden, Brasil
1990 - Italy, West Germany, Argentina, England
1986 - France, West Germany, Belgium, Argentina
1982 - Poland, Italy, France, West Germany

Of the 24 semifinalists 18 have come from Uefa, 5 from Conmebol and 1 from AFC.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. Just to emphasize how much better the European and South American confederations are here are all the winners of the world cup:
Conmebol:
Brasil 5 times
Argentina twice
Uruguay twice

UEFA:
Italy 3 times
Germany 3 times
England once
France once

other:
none

Similarly let's look at the semifinals of the last 6 cups:
2002 - Korea, Turkey, Germany, Brasil
1998 - Brasil, Netherlands, France, Croatia
1994 - Bulgaria, Italy, Sweden, Brasil
1990 - Italy, West Germany, Argentina, England
1986 - France, West Germany, Belgium, Argentina
1982 - Poland, Italy, France, West Germany

Of the 24 semifinalists 18 have come from Uefa, 5 from Conmebol and 1 from AFC.

[/ QUOTE ]

really good post jdl.

i generally like the idea that it is not just the top 32 countries getting into the world cup, that its an actual world cup with every continent etc, but just looking at concacaf there should not be 3.5 spots there.

[jdl22]

I actually like the system as is. It's difficult because FIFA needs to strike the balance between making the quality of play high while keeping it so small countries have a chance to make the finals. This is going to get easier since the quality gap has diminished and will continue to do so. There are more teams that are good and the difference between the good and great teams is not as high.

As for Concacaf getting 3.5 spots I think it's ok. It makes it very easy for the US and Mexico to qualify but at the same time there are normally one or two other teams that are decent. The extra half slot allows the bubble team to get another chance. I like this system because it will be a smaller country that is playing well making it through. I would also be ok with making it 2.5 or 3 spots and giving the extras to UEFA or Conmebol which would make the finals more interesting. I don't think it matters much one way or the other.

[SossMan]

fixed your title.

[Wyrm2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that offsides call on twellman was just criminal. I don't think that it was slanted one way though, cause the red card that the T&T player got on the harsh side

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the only bad call. It seamed to me that anytime a foul might have been called against T&T, they played on, but the ref would call fouls against the USA if they breathed the wrong way.

The call that I thought was really teribble was in the second half, T&T had a goal kick. The ball cleared the box, and a USA player caught the T&T defense asleep and intercepted the kick. He had a good chance as there was only the golie between him and the goal, but the ref blew the wistle and the did the goal kick over. I never heard any explaination for this.

As for the red card, I agree it was harsh, but if there was ever a situation that deserved a penalty kick, that was it. But I guess my problem here is with the rules, not with the officating.

[/ QUOTE ]


The ref called the play dead because the goal kick did not leave the penalty box, and was therefore not legal, and must be rekicked.

[KDawgCometh]

3.5 is perfect for concacaf, I really don't see voltron's point of it being so weak. there are solid teams outside of the US and Mexico. Jamaica is a good team, Costa Rica has done fairly well when they have reached the WC, and Honduras is a solid nation too.

ONe thing that I think should be done is to create a unified West Indies team like there is in cricket. I am not a cricket fan, but from what I have seen the west indies cricket team is one of the stronger ones in the world and they do great. I think a west indies football combined side would be very good for the region. Granted, it would basically consist of jamacian and T&T players, but there are also good players across teh west indies that play for small island nations that would be able to contribute big time for a windies team

I don't think a spot should be taken away from europe, but the fourth or fifth team that normally goes in from south america hasn't always been all that strong. Oceania needs a garunteed spot. Part of the point of the WC is to generate money and intrest in other regions, and having a garunteed spot would do this. Australia is now gonna be joining the AFC for the next WC and this is nothing but a bad thing IMO and now creates a bad situation for oceania and also creates a bad precedent for other nations, and FIFA has allowed this. This is all becasue they have never had a garunteed spot in the WC and have only qualified once. It isn't their fault that they play in an extremely uncompetetive region and they have produced players that play in some of the top leagues in europe

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that offsides call on twellman was just criminal. I don't think that it was slanted one way though, cause the red card that the T&T player got on the harsh side

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the only bad call. It seamed to me that anytime a foul might have been called against T&T, they played on, but the ref would call fouls against the USA if they breathed the wrong way.

The call that I thought was really teribble was in the second half, T&T had a goal kick. The ball cleared the box, and a USA player caught the T&T defense asleep and intercepted the kick. He had a good chance as there was only the golie between him and the goal, but the ref blew the wistle and the did the goal kick over. I never heard any explaination for this.

As for the red card, I agree it was harsh, but if there was ever a situation that deserved a penalty kick, that was it. But I guess my problem here is with the rules, not with the officating.

[/ QUOTE ]


The ref called the play dead because the goal kick did not leave the penalty box, and was therefore not legal, and must be rekicked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I don't know the rules of soccer that well, but I do know that a goal kick is required to leave the box (when I played in grade school, this was sometimes an issue). In the instance that I am refering to, the ball did leave the box, so that was not the reason play was stoped. (And I don't mean it just barely cleared the box, it was at least five yards outside the box.)

[ligastar]

[ QUOTE ]
that offsides call on twellman was just criminal. I don't think that it was slanted one way though, cause the red card that the T&T player got on the harsh side

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on. Twellman was ripped and that was a brilliant team goal taken away. I believe the T&T player deserved the red card b/c it was a very clear/excellent scoring opportunity. If you gave a team the choice of a player coming in one-on-one with your goalie or a yellow card they'll take the yellow card everytime ... you've got to be harsh when the rare soccer breakaway is stopped by a criminal defensive play.

Greg H.

[Michael Davis]

Just to clear things up (I'm sure many of you know this already), but the red card given to Trinidad & Tobago was absolutely automatic, and it was a great call that, frankly, a lot of referees would not have had the balls to make.

Donovan was on a clear break for a 1v1 with the goalie and the defender grabbed him from behind to slow his progress. A player doesn't have to fall. In fact, you can get red carded for STEPPING in front of a player without making contact if the ball is not within playing distance (this is impeding the progress, used to be called obstruction) if this player has an "obvious goal scoring opportunity." In this case, since there was no contact and the foul is impeding the progress, play would be restarted with an indirect free kick! Still, the offending player would be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The severity of the foul does not matter at all, and the call the referee made in that situation is exactly what FIFA wants. Donovan got held, the hold denied him an obvious chance to score-- I don't even think this is arguable, and in order to support a yellow card, you must argue that Donovan did not have an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Also, the referee correctly placed the free kick outside of the box.

I was not just responding to you, KDawg, but all in this thread. Clearly the offside call against Twellman was dreadful and I missed the goal kick situation. There are tons of bad offside calls and while I would like to see that remedied, I think it is unlikely, as it is near impossible to find humans who get that right 95% of the time at such a high level of play.

-Michael

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clear things up (I'm sure many of you know this already), but the red card given to Trinidad & Tobago was absolutely automatic, and it was a great call that, frankly, a lot of referees would not have had the balls to make.

Donovan was on a clear break for a 1v1 with the goalie and the defender grabbed him from behind to slow his progress. A player doesn't have to fall. In fact, you can get red carded for STEPPING in front of a player without making contact if the ball is not within playing distance (this is impeding the progress, used to be called obstruction) if this player has an "obvious goal scoring opportunity." In this case, since there was no contact and the foul is impeding the progress, play would be restarted with an indirect free kick! Still, the offending player would be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The severity of the foul does not matter at all, and the call the referee made in that situation is exactly what FIFA wants. Donovan got held, the hold denied him an obvious chance to score-- I don't even think this is arguable, and in order to support a yellow card, you must argue that Donovan did not have an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Also, the referee correctly placed the free kick outside of the box.

I was not just responding to you, KDawg, but all in this thread. Clearly the offside call against Twellman was dreadful and I missed the goal kick situation. There are tons of bad offside calls and while I would like to see that remedied, I think it is unlikely, as it is near impossible to find humans who get that right 95% of the time at such a high level of play.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

I know most soccer fans hate this idea, but I would like to see goal scoring situations reviewed on instant replay in a similar manner to what is done in hockey. I think that the delays would not be that long, and they would be infrequent, and when we're talking about a goal being scored or not, I think it's worth it.