Question Number: 25192

Law 5 - The Referee 7/10/2011

RE: World Cup Semifinal Professional

Mark Mayes of Sacramento, CA USA asks...

I am interested to hear your opinions of the controversial calls in today's ladies WC semi-final. When Buehler was sent off for DOGSO I thought Marta jumped feet first to get that call. Both had their arms on each other. On the ensuing encroachment call, the PK seemed to be a little doubtful. The encroaching player appeared to have a foot outside the PA and one in as the ball was struck. Gotta luv a frame by frame DVR. Would that be a common call at this level?

The superimposed offside line seemed to show Brazil was offside as the ball was struck when they hit the go ahead goal.

My impression of the center and assistants was that they were handling a match above their grade (been there). Harsh calls and cards, questionable player management.

Your thoughts?

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Having never done games at that level, I'm loathe to be too critical. It is very easy to second guess from an armchair with the additional help of instant replay in slow motion.

Angle of view for the referee is critical in these situations. I, too, thought the PK and DOGSO send off were a bit harsh, but again, I had the luxury of replay, angle of view, and didn't have to make an instantaneous decision based on what I thought I saw. Perhaps with a slightly wider angle, the referee would have had a similar view as the camera, which could have changed the decision. In all fairness, if the referee had made the call on Lloyd's handled ball, the US would have been playing with 9 players instead of 10. Again, I think that was an angle of view issue, and every game will have those moments when the referee can't see what needs seeing for any number of reasons (some unavoidable, some acceptable, some not).

We tend to forget when we aren't running the line how hard it is to make split second decisions at the speed at which this level moves. The fact that they get so many of them correct is a tribute to their training and focus. Yes, the replay showed the overtime goal by Brazil came from a cross from a player in an offside position, but the AR was out of position several yards up field, so from where she was, it looked like the Brazilian was onside. You can't make a call if you aren't sure anyway.

As for the call back on the PK, while as a USA fan I was upset, I know well that no matter which way the referee goes in these matters, you're ever only half right! And Solo should know better than to argue with a referee - she's too valuable a player to be running up unnecessary cautions. In these competitions, the referees are often given instructions on what they are to 'stamp out' or not allow, etc. There may have been instructions on encroachment at PKs, and each referee team will have had this discussion prior to the match to set their tolerances and procedures. Would this encroachment be called in every game? Of course not. Some would have called it trifling, some would call it doubtful, some would call it a violation of Law 14 requiring a retake - and all could be correct.

In the end, today, I think the better team succeeded, by hook or crook.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I will be critical as can be. Watch professional soccer almost any evening and on EVERY penalty kick 5 or 6 players are 5 yards inside the penalty area by the time the ball is struck and the keeper is at least 2 yards off his line and nothing is ever called. To allow a penalty kick to be retaken at this level for such a slight encroachment is ludicrous. Solo was on her line.
Her teammate that encroached was no more then a step ahead of the kick. Correct in Law? Sure. Definition of trifling? Absolutely. Did Solo deserve a caution? Yes and she needs to keep quiet but I agree it's very frustrating when after a great save, the keeper is not told why there's being a retake. Still, a second caution would have been disastrous.

Marta wasn't fouled and there was no DOGSO. At speed this was difficult to see but at this level of play the referee is supposed to be the best in the world and be in position to get these potential game changing calls correct.

Referee seemed out of position the entire game.

Lloyd's handling was not worthy of a caution. Score one for the Referee.

Marta's second goal should never have happened as her teammate was offside when she received the ball before passing it to Marta, but Ref McHugh is 100% correct that had Boxx had kept her head in the game and her arm down there may have been no goal by Marta who made an incredible shot. She is a joy to watch and it's frightening to think she's only going to get better. Reminds me of a young Mia Hamm (why isn't her jersey number retired?).

Towards the end of the second 15 minute overtime the Brazilian team embarrassed themselves with disgraceful time wasting tactics that were beneath a team with this much talent. Totally swayed the crowd and Abby Wambach's tying goal was just what the Brazilians deserved. Kudos to Referee Melksham for the caution to the Brazilian player for the most blatant faked injury seen in a long time. Brazil paid dearly when 3 minutes were added. Many referees would have added a minute, 2 max. It was clear Ref Melksham was fed up with the tactics.

Overall it was an adequate but disappointing job by the referee crew. Sure this was a tough game to run but any Brazil/USA game will be and the crew needs to be ready. Certainly there have been worse crews in World Cup games but also better ones.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

As a fan, I watch matches on TV with my heart as much as my head.

As a referee, however, I always remember 1998 France. 17 different television cameras all confirmed that the referee made a horrendous penalty kick decision. The referee was nearly sent home in disgrace when a lone still photograph showed the world what the referee saw: a shirt pulled out at least 6 inches.

What we see on television is only one angle. It is rarely the referee's angle.

IMO, however, it is well past the time for no one to hear from FIFA why the referee made a match critical decision. We ought not to guess (or bear the guesses of former coaches and players) whether the referee called the keeper or a teammate for infringement on a penalty kick. Moreover, IMO, there is no reason not to use two additional referees along the goal line to assist in goal/no goal; and penalty kick /dive calls. An extra pair of eyes along the goal line might not have improved the decision making by the referee team, but would have improved their information gathering. The game is too fast, and the players too bent, to rely on fewer referees on the world's stage.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Mark
As a neutral observer to the game which I watched live I would make the following comments
Referee Melksham is an experience FIFA official and has been since 2001. So she bring a wealth of experience to the games she now officiates. When assessing a referee's performance one of the 1st items the assessor has to decide is the degree of difficulty of the game. This was a difficult game given what was at stake and the teams. As it turned out is was an enjoyable, exciting game with the full spectrum of emotions, drama, excitement etc. The referee played her full part in this.
To consider the referee' s performance we would normally consider Application of Law, Match Control, Positioning & Work Rate, Alertness & Awareness, Communication, Team work and finally Advantage as the judging criteria. Application of the Law and Match Control would account for half the assessment marks with the remaining criteria accounting for the remaining 50%.
Now if we look at the key decisions.
Many biased comments felt that the foul call against Marta was unjustified. But when I first saw this I was of the view that she was taken down while heading for what seemed likely to be a goal, and many referees would have done what Melksham did and awarded a penalty kick. Once the penalty was awarded the referee had no choice but to issue a red card. The decision was within the bounds of normal refereeing and one that I would have awarded as well. From her starting position Beuhler had little hope of getting the ball without contacting the opponent first. So no issue there for me
The question of offside has been raised. The AR Allyson Flynn made the non call and from looking at the situation it would have been a very tight call and certainly not a glaringly obvious error. Anyone that has done AR duties know that there is a split second call and the AR does not have the benefits of freeze frame or action replay. Again a non issue for me. Perhaps if Boxx had got on with play instead of appealing for offside the goal might have been averted.
The next decision was the retaking of the penalty kick. Again the referee was entirely correct in law to allow another kicker which seemed to upset some? As regards the decision on the retake, yes it was a harsh decision but a decision which was adequate with regard to Law 14. Indeed I was amazed at the discipline of all the other players which leads me to believe that this was a FIFA match directive. If so its harshness pales into insignificance if that was the instruction given to the referee and player during the tournament. The caution for the GK was also correct for dissent.
The next decision was whether to caution Lloyd for a tactical deliberate handling. I am in the camp that only cynical handling should be cautioned and it should always be a matter for the referee to decide. She had to weigh up many factors here and she is not alone in perhaps being lenient on a questionable caution when a team is already playing short
I was particularly pleased with her cautioning of the Brazilian for feigning injury which many would not have done and she did play 3 added minutes which was key to the result. Many forget those two key decisions.
All told given the difficulty of the game the referee displayed effective management techniques with good law application and control with a score of 70 or thereabouts for her performance. That IMO is good for this game.