Being the numbers guy I am ...

Here is an interesting article from FIFA that details the 2010 World Cup "by the numbers".

Full article here, courtesy of FIFA.

PAUL HOFFMAN: Beneath the glow of Fifa’s untaxed empire

THE general euphoria and feelings of thankfulness following the 2010 World Cup have seemingly precluded anyone from now assessing Fifa’s role in the tournament. Gratitude for cracking the nod from Fifa to host it should not blind the South African public to the less attractive features of the World Cup — those for which Fifa is responsible.

On the field, these manifested themselves in palpable unfairness in the decision making for which Fifa’s match officials are responsible. Fifa claims they got it right 96% of the time. The problem is that when they got it wrong, they did so spectacularly. As a consequence of refereeing errors, it can be argued that England bowed out early and Mexico lost a match it could have drawn. Fifa president Sepp Blatter apologised, but whether corrective action is taken remains to be seen.

Had Fifa put in place a simple review system using modern technology, a far fairer outcome was easily achievable. There has been a chorus of criticism of the antiquated way in which the process of adjudication of the matches is still carried out 10 years into the 21st century. If Fifa does not take steps to improve this situation soon, one can expect to hear cynics claim there are murkily suspicious reasons for keeping the current system of refereeing in place.

It is, however, off the field that Fifa’s role is open to even more criticism. The process by which Fifa selects the country in which the tournament is held every four years is both opaque and unaccountable.

Full article continues here at Business Day.

Refeerees Get an "A" in World Cup 2010

Referees were right 96 percent of the time at the World Cup, according to a study by FIFA's referees' committee.

The study looked at key decisions such as free kicks, penalties and goal decisions but did not examine minor rulings such as throw-ins.

The data was collected by video examination carried out by referees committee members and FIFA instructors, Jose Maria Garcia-Aranda, head of refereeing for the sport's governing body, told Reuters.

Full story continues here, courtesy of Reuters.

Gotta love Wikipedia ... Unless your Sepp

See why here courtesy of ESPN.

Football + Money == World Cup in the US

U.S. World Cup bid for 2018 gets boost

The 2010 World Cup is history today, leaving behind a checkered legacy.

This latest World Cup was not the international draw FIFA and South Africa had hoped it would be, and fans worldwide saw tracts of empty seats throughout the Cup.

But what was bad news for FIFA and SAWOC might turn out to be very good news for the United States’ hopes of landing either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. Because this past World Cup failed to meet financial expectations, the United States -- which no one doubts can sell can sell out every World Cup game -- suddenly looks like an even more attractive option.

Full story here, courtesy of Fox Sports.

Side by side analysis of WC Final is up on www.massref.net

Check it out here.

Full unedited versions will be posted here at Kicking Back in the days ahead.

Unsung hero award: Héctor Vergara

The other day I was gently reminded by a comment here (thank you CWY2190) of the storied career of this man, Héctor Vergara (FIFA bio here).

His contribution to GER v. URU in the 3rd place match was his third game as an assistant referee at the 2010 World Cup and with the appearance, Vergara will set a FIFA record for most World Cup games as a combination of referee and assistant referee with 14.

A FIFA referee since 1993, Vergara has quite a list of laurels to his name including the following:

International Tournaments Refereed

• 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa
• 2010 FIFA World Cup Qualification Matches
• 2010 UAE Games
• 2009 FIFA Club World Cup
• 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup
• 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany
• 2006 FIFA World Cup Qualification Matches
• 2005 FIFA Club World Cup Japan 2005
• 2004 FIFA Athens Olympic Games
• 2004 FIFA Athens Olympic Qualifying Tournament - Mexico
• 2004 FIFA Toyota U-23 International Tournament - Qatar
• 2003 Football Confederation (CONCACAF) Gold Cup - Mexico
• 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan
• 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan Qualification Matches
• 2002 Football Confederation (CONCACAF) Gold Cup
• 2001 FIFA U-20 World Youth Championship
• 2000 Olympic CONCACAF Qualifying Tournament
• 1999 CONCACAF Club Championship
• 1998 FIFA World Cup France Qualification Matches
• 1995 FIFA U-17 World Championship
• 1993 FIFA U-17 World Championship

FIFA Referee Profile 2004

• 1999 CONCACAF US Cup
• 1998 CONCACAF U-20 World Championship Qualification Tournament
• 1998 CONCACAF Caribbean Shell Cup
• 1997 CONCACAF US Cup

This will be Vergara’s last World Cup for certain, and perhaps his final elite matches. He’ll turn 44 in December, and as we know FIFA’s mandatory retirement age is 45. In addition to the above, he has worked 130 internationals, and now 14 of these at the World Cup, breaking a record.

Like almost all of his colleagues, this is a part-time dream as his day job is executive director of the Manitoba Soccer Association. Recently he stated in a recent interview with a Canadian newspaper, “I just want to make my family and friends proud.”. Well sir, I do believe you have accomplished that, and so much more.

I wonder what Newton thought?

Well friends, now comes the hard work. Work where we take apart a match and see what we as referees could have done differently, or better.

As before I am not going to share an opinion here about how Webb did specifically. I will reserve this one for a piece I am writing side by side with a National coach that will be posted on www.massref.net in the days ahead breaking down the final (report here). Today, I will ask a simple question, with what I believe is a very complex answer.

Do the laws of physics change for matches like these? In other words is a foul in a "regular game" the same as a foul in a "big game"? Should these matches be called the same way?

Take the following example:
I was sitting in Fat Patty's last week with the whole Region I crew after a steamy week of matches. We were having lunch and watching the URU v. NED match (report here). At one point in time, a NED player bicycled a kick and cracked a URU player in the mouth. Almost immediately there were cries of "RED CARD", "SEND HIM OFF". In reply there were cries of "WHAT, ARE YOU KIDDING? THIS IS THE WORLD CUP".

Now here was a group of very experienced referees who saw the same incident and came to two very different conclusions. Some, wanted to apply the laws as they exist and deal with the player for what they did. Others saw the pageantry in the match and just assume let the player off with a caution. What is a referee to do?

I would opine this is an untenable position for a referee at times. While the referee is certainly charged with applying the Laws of the Game in Law 5, and is also impliedly charged with upholding the Spirit of the Game, where are referees charged with upholding the pageantry of the Game? When is a foul not a foul, or a misconduct not a misconduct for the entertainment value of the game?

Granted I am oversimplifying an extraordinarily complex answer at levels such as the World Cup. I do believe however these answers become simpler the further down the "food chain" the match is. Let me use it as a spring board to make a point about matches we do everyday.

With the incident above from the World Cup final, I believe Webb painted himself into an untenable corner. For those players in that match, the bar was set that the foul in the above picture was a caution. So anything up to and including repeat offenses of this foul would receive no more than a caution. I believe the players responded accordingly in this match.

Take the incident local now. Would you allow this as a caution? Why or why not? As a referee you must always be aware of what the "tone" or "level" the match is at. There is a line that you draw as referee that if players dance over it, action must be taken. Depending how far over the line they go, will dictate the response from the referee.

A minor incursion may provoke only a mild rebuke, a look, a quiet word. A more substantial one, an "ass chewing" or misconduct. Go way over the line, and you have little choice in the matter. As referee, YOU set where that line is and how to deal with folks who go over it. Note that the line can and does change from match to match, and can even change within a match depending on how things are going. Sometimes the players need the ball taken away ... sometimes they need the ball more.

Understand that the tools you have such as cautions and send offs give cues to the players as to where that line is, and what the "tone" of the match will be. Players are looking for these cues from you, just like you as referee are looking for cues from players. Work with the players to help them understand where your "line" is, and your match management will show well for it.

Do I believe the laws of physics change for matches such as the World Cup Final? Yes I do. But I also believe that all the way up to that point everyone did just fine with the Laws as they were meant to apply. For a match, this single match, to contort the Laws, and the person charged to apply them, certainly did defy physics. History should remind us however, as it did here, that funny results can occur if we defy the Laws of Nature, and the Game.

Referees leap to Howard Webb's defence

Former Premier League referees have defended Howard Webb after criticism of his display during Spain's 1-0 World Cup final win over the Netherlands.

Webb booked 13 players and sent off Dutchman Johnny Heitinga in a fractious and incident-packed game on Sunday. ...

Full story here, courtesy of BBC Sport.

Ladies and Gentlemen ... Howard Webb

Howard Melton Webb, born 14-JUL-1971, hails from Rotherham, South Yorkshire England. Web has been a referee since 1993 and a FIFA referee since 2005. His FIFA bio is here, and Wikipedia page is here.

Webb will be joined by Darren Cann and Mike Mullarkey as his assistants for the final. No information at the time of this writing is available for the alternate referee, or alternate assistant referee.

Howard Webb's father was a referee and it was he who made his son aware of a referee's course. Howard passed the course when he was 19 years old and started refereeing locally. He became a referee in the Northern Counties East League in 1996. In the year 2000 he was included on the National List of Football League referees. By then he was only 29 years old. Three years later he was selected as a Premiership referee. In 2005 at the age of 34 he received his FIFA badge.

Webb will be the first Englishman sine 1974 to preside over a World Cup final where Jack Taylor was the last who refereed the Dutch loss to West Germany.

Webb is also the youngest at 38 to referee a World Cup final in 72 years, the last being Pierre Capdeville. 

During this time he has accumulated quite a record of matches as noted here by WorldReferee.com. Also of note is his discipline record statistics listed below:

Year	Games	Total	per game	Total	per game
2000–01	26	58	2.23	1	0.04
2001–02	32	69	2.16	5	0.16
2002–03	39	145	3.72	4	0.10
2003–04	34	92	2.94	9	0.26
2004–05	34	100	2.94	2	0.06
2005–06	47	117	2.49	7	0.15
2006–07	43	151	3.51	9	0.21
2007–08	38	128	3.37	2	0.05
2008–09	40	132	3.30	6	0.15
2009-10	35	124	3.54	4	0.11
Overall	368	1116	3.03	49	0.13

Webb's style is seemingly one of presence and communication, not strict discipline. This would seem to be emphasised in a recent BBC interview where Howard notes that, "being a good referee all comes down to the way you manage people and how you communicate with them".

NED v. ESP will be a significant test of that style as he leads us into the closing match of this quadrennial festival.

Your Referee for the 3rd Place Match - Benito Archundia

I must say I do like this assignment, but did hope Benito would be doing the final, not the 3rd place match. See his official bio here, and a pretty good Wikipedia article here.

Archundia with this match will have a total of (8) at World Cup Tournaments, making him the referee with the 3rd most matches in World Cup history.

An economist and lawyer by trade (a man after my own heart), he is a tremendously experienced referee as noted by his match experience shown here, courtesy of WorldReferee.com.

While (possibly incorrectly) seen as one of the "lenient" referees for only averaging less than (4) cautions per match, he certainly is no pushover. Statistics below are instructive.

Statistics

Totals:	Home	Away	Total
Penalties	7	4	11
Red	15	12	27
Yellow	162	186	348

Averages:	Home	Away	Total
Penalties	0.08	0.04	0.12
Red	0.17	0.13	0.30
Yellow	1.82	2.09	3.91

based on 89 international matches

He certainly is no stranger to controversy as noted by his dealing with the Canadian national team, and the two incidents that have occurred with them. These are detailed in the Wikipedia page above. I do have to say though while every referee has detractors from one point or another, Archundia has a set of particularly vitriolic fans as indicated by their facebook page: The Benito Archundia Hate Society | Facebook

I for one am excited about the appointment, and look forward to Archundia working this last match of his World Cup career with the flair and professionalism he has put into his whole career.

Arivaderchi Rosetti

I Did Not Quit Refereeing Because Of World Cup Mistake - Roberto Rosetti

World Cup referee Roberto Rosetti has blown the whistle on his career, but said his mistake during the Argentina - Mexico clash did not influence his decision.

Full story here, courtesy of Yahoo sports.

The World Wide Webb

World Cup 2010: England's Howard Webb to referee World Cup final

England will have a representative at the World Cup final after all with Fifa confirming that Howard Webb is to referee Sunday's showpiece event between Holland and Spain.

Some four years after English refereeing was ridiculed in the wake of Graham Poll awarding Josip Simunic three yellow cards in Croatia's 2-2 draw with Australia in Stuttgart, Webb will become the first official to oversee both the Champions League final and the World Cup final in the same season. The 38-year-old Yorkshireman, who is currently on a five-year break from South Yorkshire police where he serves as a sergeant, will be assisted by Darren Cann and Michael Mullarkey.

Full story here, courtesy of guardian.co.uk.

More details and a referee analysis coming soon.

No Vuvuzela for you!

Here today, gone tomorrow. While the debate rages on about if vuvuzelas should be allowed for the remainder of the World Cup, broadcasters have taken the matter into their own hands.

Earlier I shared (2) opinion pieces with you about why or why not the vuvuzela should be allowed at the remainder of the World Cup. For now however several broadcasters are filtering out the noise with specially designed filters, apparantly to the liking of their viewers.

Broadcasters Filtering out World Cup Vuvuzelas

By Scott Roxborough

June 17, 2010

COLOGNE, Germany (Hollywood Reporter) - Around the world, broadcasts of the football World Cup have been accompanied by the same, annoying drone ... of commentators complaining about the vuvuzelas.

The plastic horns are a traditional noisemaker in South African sports stadiums, local officials claim. But the sound of thousands of vuvuzelas honking has commentators, networks and audiences at home raising their voices in protest. ...

Complete story here courtesy of ABC news.

Hot off the presses from one of our FIFA friends who wanted to make sure this got out to everyone.
My very best regards to the provider of the info.

FIFA drops refs who made biggest mistakes

PRETORIA, South Africa – The World Cup’s worst referees were sent packing on Tuesday as soccer’s governing body tried to cut down on the glaring errors that have plagued the tournament. ...

Full story continues here, courtesy of yahoo sports.

President: FIFA will consider refereeing questions

FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter stated at a 2010 FIFA World Cup media round table today that the file on goal-line technology would be reopened. President Blatter also gave his views on the standard of football so far and the FIFA World Cup’s lasting legacy in South Africa. 


Full story here, courtesy of FIFA.com.

Bye - Bye Uruguay?

We've all see this image or some form of it by now in the refereeing world from the GER v. ENG match (report here). A relevant question may be, is this the end of the Uruguayan penta-refereeing team? (All 5 are from Uruguay) Will we see them again in this World Cup?

Similar to before, I'm not going to answer, nor am I going to go into (right now anyway) the howls for technology to become more a part of the modern game. I will also not go into depth of some of the absolute ludicrous commentary that is floating around. One piece of note is here. There were two quotes from this article that I found interesting.

Fact: Espinosa should have seen it. Practically everyone else did, without the need for video technology. It was visible with the naked eye. 

Okayee ... the juxtaposition of "Fact:" and "... should have seen it." are odd to me as clearly the JAR did not see that the ball crossed the line. I would be interested to know where the author was sitting for that one. Granted the ESPN coverage I was watching did clearly show it, but you had to be looking for it.

The non-goal was also edited out of a 2-minute highlight reel of the match on FIFA's website.

Ewwww ... I am with the author on that one, I don't like that at all. Yeah the refereeing team got it wrong, but hiding it does not help.

In the spirit of learning, what could we as referees change in this case?

When the ball was played the JAR was in the exact correct position, level with the second to last defender just about on the edge of the 18 yard box. The referee too seemed to be in a good position, with the play mostly penned in between he and his AR, trailing about 10 yards behind when the ball was struck.

It was at this point that LAMPARD struck the ball which rang off the crossbar, the ball deflected down, over the line, by about the diameter of a ball ... or about 9 inches, maybe a smudge more, but not much, then right out to the goal keeper.

Now the timing. The clock at the shot was at 37:43. This was when the JAR and referee were in the positions see above. By the time NEUER had the ball in his hands after bouncing out of the net, it was 37:45 as see below.

So, the JAR had to travel 18 yards in 2 seconds ... that is about 18.41 MPH or 29.63 KPH, faster than the fastest player on the ENG side, which happened to be LAMPARD at 29.41 KPH (report here). Keep in mind, this is from a dead stop as the JAR was in exactly the correct position at the taking of the shot. Is this even possible? Also, the time the ball was over the line was about half of that 2 seconds, really meaning we are talking about an AR moving 18 yards in a second, or at about 60 KPH to be in the perfect position. Now THAT is not possible. From the tape and the commentary the JAR was able to get about 10 yards from the goal line by the time the goalkeeper had the ball in his hands.

The referee was about 25ish yards back when the ball deflected down over the line and back out. He was also coming in straight on and had the worst possible angle.

So what do we do here?

Here is my prophetic answer ... I don't know.

This is tremendously unlucky for ENG and the refereeing team, and tremendously lucky for GER ... and honestly extraordinarily well played by NEUER to not let on at all what may, or may not have happened. I don't think that even he knew where the ball had been.

To me this is the ARs call all day as the referee has to trail the play here. If this was off a corner kick or other close set piece, my answer is very different, but quick counter attacking play moving forward like this, it is the ARs call.

This is, in my opinion, the single hardest and consequential out of bounds decision an AR has to make. Goal-line in/out is fairly routine albeit consequential, but ball struck on a rope 18 yards away, no defenders nearby and make that call in 2 seconds or less ... well that changes things. All the AR can do is run as fast as they can to the goal line while looking inside the field and see if you can catch a glimpse of the ball going over the line.

We know the AR can not give up his offside position. They have to follow the ball, so the JAR was where he was supposed to be. This leaves it to getting in the correct position just as quickly as possible and hope to get lucky. I'm sure the AR was trying to read the keeper to help determine if it was in or not ... and as stated above NEUER played it perfectly from that regard.

A guess then? No way. You have to be sure. Unlike the offside decision which I would opine has a preponderance standard (if there is doubt, let them go), a goal has a higher standard to bear and must be beyond reasonable doubt. Very plainly the JAR had doubt, so he had to not call it a goal.

Now a further note on mechanics for the referee. If a ball gets played deep as it had in this case, and the AR follows the ball, as they need to, it is imperative that the referee follow up and cover the offside, and remain there until the AR resumes their position. The team can not leave the offside position uncovered at any time in the match when the ball is in play. If the AR is otherwise engaged, the referee must cover.

So back to the match at hand. Was it a goal? Yes. Should the AR have seen it? Tough to say. One thing I know for sure, is that he is going to be thinking about it for a long, long time.

... and the winner is ...

... Viktor Kassai?

Yes. His performance in USA v. GHA was very good in my opinion. Let's take a closer look.

One of the first things I noticed in looking at the report (here) was the number of fouls ... 30 to be exact. Mind you, this was after 120 minutes of play, not the typical 90.

Also of note was that there was only 5 cautions and no send offs in the match. Again this is over the 120 minute span in a knock-out round of the biggest tournament in the world.

Here is the timeline courtesy of FIFA.com:

Each caution was very good and served a purpose. Kassai did not "throw any away". Of particular note was the caution to BOCANEGRA in the 68'. While the foul seemed fairly innocuous, and was his only one of the match, take a look at the position on the field ... it was right in front of the benches ... and KASSAI wanted to make sure that one was taken care of for sure.

Decisions on fouls were accepted by players on both sides. There was not obvious dissent ... there was discussion. Players were talking to the referee and vice versa. Many cut away scenes were of the referee talking or communicating without talking, with a stern look, or a "knock it off" gesture, to players who were accepting the decisions.

Case in point, and the referees moment of truth ... the USA penalty. There was no drama, no whining, no acting from anyone. It was a foul, they went to the spot, and everyone lined up for it. Simple, right? Right! (There is that luck is the residue of hard work thing again) Simple foul, simple call. Had KASSAI not called that one, the match was over, as was his World Cup I would opine.

KASSAI is a players referee. He talks, and works with the players to manage them through the match. He is proactive about dealing with issues (like the caution to BOCA) before they become an issue. He was fit, he was close to play, and he let them play ... can't ask for anything more than that.

Finally he protected the integrity of the game by allowing for extra time when it was being wasted by GHA. Imagine, here is a referee who gave +3 in extra time after 120+ minutes with the losing team pressing hard. GHA may not have liked it, but fans of the game did. KASSAI gave all the players a full opportunity that day.

So for all this was there anything at issue? My big picture answer is no, he was excellent. There were a couple of minor, one very minor things that caught my eye.

First, in the 63' DONOVAN and PRINCE (really BOATENG) were really going at it and in a series of back to back fouls pretty clearly kicked each other pretty freaking hard. Did the players accept it, yes. Did the referee need to get involved more than he did, no. Could it have gotten worse, I though so. This was right in front of the JAR and may have been worth a word, maybe he did. Either way, the decisions were accepted and the players dealt with it.

Second, KASSAI was in a passing lane more than a few times. Don't get me wrong, his fitness was excellent ... maybe too good as he was able to get in behind the play fairly easily. A few players had to either pass, or make a run around him to get at the ball. This seemed to happen most in the middle 1/3 as play was settling in around the 18 yard box. Not a real effect, just noted ... as did the fact that he was not hit with the ball.

Third, I would have *loved* to see KASSAI get more animated when the GHA players were slowing it down or lying around in the 2nd ET. While they likely would not have picked up the pace, and it would not have changed the amount of extra time given, a more public gesture may have gone that much further.

Finally, and I am picking nits here, why were the ARs wearing long sleeves, and the referee short? I know, I know, silly little point and certainly does not take away from anything ... it just looked weird to me and would have expected the ARs to follow the referees lead. Those guys were working hard too, figured they migh enjoy the shorter sleeve. This from a guy who always wears long.

All and all, KASSAI was very good, and I believe he secured himself a place in the 1/4 finals with that performance. While to me he has only an outside shot of doing the final for reasons I will share later, he has certainly done well to advance himself on the world's stage.