Question Number: 19473

Mechanics 6/21/2008

RE: rec Adult

Alex Wong of richmond hill, ontario canada asks...

What can be the reason behind the referee in the Russia/Netherland game to take back the second yellow card to the Russian player.

The commentator said the referee, after consulting with the AR, decided that the ball crosses the goal line before the foul. As the ball is out of play first, the yellow card should not be issued.

The referee must felt the kick from the Russian is reckless in the first place to warrant a yellow card. Does it matter if the offense happens after the ball is out of play? I personally do not think the 7 yellow card offenses require the ball is in play.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

No one can know the reason the match referee acted the way he did. We just aren't in his head to follow the chain of thought. Besides we don't usually touch a referee at that level of skill, we just aren't equipped to do so.

We do, however, like to call attention to the words in Law 12: "A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:" Does this not establish a chain of events that would have precluded what we saw happen from actually happening? When the referee speaks to the player to caution him he should notice the fact his name already appears in his book. Right then and there the referee can decide is what he saw merits another caution or just a strong talking to. AND this method is absolutely fool proof. It prevents what happened in World Cup 2006 and what we think we saw today.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Alex,
the mechanics of this are not good and we again point out why cards are not required to be so quickly shown. Kolodin's challange could not have occurred if the referee was more aware of the situation and the whistle to stop play had sounded!
At this time, in this incident the referee was so keen to allow play to continue he had a non AR eye contact missed moment. Given the fact the referee is miked and rigged with buzzer signals it is hard to fathom him not catching the fact the AR (right or wrong) decided the ball HAD gone out of play as he had raised his flag in the far corner and was indicating a goal kick, BUT that is a FACT of play . Play has not restarted thus a referee can change a decision based on accepting the new information by the AR!
It is true that if MISCONDUCT occurs after a ball out of play a player may still be held accountable but only the referee is aware of what it was he was showing the card for. If it was for the USB of breaking up attacking play there was no attack possible.
I look forward to the explanation by the match authorities if one is forthcoming.
Cheers