Blatter praises World Cup refs

[Grizzly]

Now we see why WC reffing is so bad. It is clear why he is praising them because they influenced the outcome of games the way they were told. Any non-corrupt soccer official would have been horrified by the level of reffing displayed in this WC.

Blatter praises World Cup refs

Tue, October 24, 2006

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter praised the performance of officials at this year's World Cup despite some contentious decisions and a referee showing a player three yellow cards.

"I am very satisfied with the referees' performances at the 2006 World Cup. They achieved more than their counterparts in Korea/Japan in 2002," Blatter said Tuesday at a meeting of FIFA's referees committee.

The referees were congratulated for their consistent punishment of foul play, especially the use of elbows, which had reduced the number of injuries from the last World Cup.

But FIFA chief medical officer Jiri Dvorak said that feigning injury was rife, pointing out that 58 per cent of those treated on the pitch carried on playing.

There were still some controversial rulings in Germany.

Australia was furious when Spanish referee Luis Medina awarded Italy a penalty in the 90th minute after Lucas Neill's challenge on Fabio Grosso. Francesco Totti scored to knock out Australia.

English referee Graham Poll showed Croatia's Josip Simunic three yellow cards before sending him off in a group game against Australia. The error prompted Poll to retire from international soccer.

Russian referee Valentin Ivanov was criticized for showing a record four red cards and 16 yellow as Portugal knocked out the Netherlands in a round-of-16 match.

However, the biggest incident was seen by a fourth official and led to Zinedine Zidane being sent off in the World Cup final for head-butting Italy defender Marco Materazzi in the chest.

"The referees and assistant referees fulfilled the high expectations placed on them and complied with the instructions to protect players and thus the game better," FIFA referees committee chairman Angel Maria Villar Llona said. "The preparation period of almost four years for the World Cup in Germany paid off."

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Now we see why WC reffing is so bad. It is clear why he is praising them because they influenced the outcome of games the way they were told. Any non-corrupt soccer official would have been horrified by the level of reffing displayed in this WC.

Blatter praises World Cup refs

Tue, October 24, 2006

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter praised the performance of officials at this year's World Cup despite some contentious decisions and a referee showing a player three yellow cards.

"I am very satisfied with the referees' performances at the 2006 World Cup. They achieved more than their counterparts in Korea/Japan in 2002," Blatter said Tuesday at a meeting of FIFA's referees committee.

The referees were congratulated for their consistent punishment of foul play, especially the use of elbows, which had reduced the number of injuries from the last World Cup.

But FIFA chief medical officer Jiri Dvorak said that feigning injury was rife, pointing out that 58 per cent of those treated on the pitch carried on playing.

There were still some controversial rulings in Germany.

Australia was furious when Spanish referee Luis Medina awarded Italy a penalty in the 90th minute after Lucas Neill's challenge on Fabio Grosso. Francesco Totti scored to knock out Australia.

English referee Graham Poll showed Croatia's Josip Simunic three yellow cards before sending him off in a group game against Australia. The error prompted Poll to retire from international soccer.

Russian referee Valentin Ivanov was criticized for showing a record four red cards and 16 yellow as Portugal knocked out the Netherlands in a round-of-16 match.

However, the biggest incident was seen by a fourth official and led to Zinedine Zidane being sent off in the World Cup final for head-butting Italy defender Marco Materazzi in the chest.

"The referees and assistant referees fulfilled the high expectations placed on them and complied with the instructions to protect players and thus the game better," FIFA referees committee chairman Angel Maria Villar Llona said. "The preparation period of almost four years for the World Cup in Germany paid off."

I have to agree The refs were "Amazing" but they were an improvement from the 2002 World Cup. There is still a lot of improvement needed I'm afraid.

[RJB]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Now we see why WC reffing is so bad. It is clear why he is praising them because they influenced the outcome of games the way they were told. Any non-corrupt soccer official would have been horrified by the level of reffing displayed in this WC.

While the refereeing may not have been the greatest, I have to ask what you mean by this statement? What games were influenced by the referee's? I thought that the refereeing was at least equal in the games I saw (keeping in mind that I didn't see all games).

[loyola]

I can't remember one game that was influenced by a ref 2nd phase of the tournament.

Maybe Italy vs Australia where the ref try to influenced the game by giving a straight red to Materazzi on a challenge that warranted a free kick only?

Yes there's always bad decisions in sports, but I don't think this WC was that bad for the refs, they did an honest job. Of course the diving is always there but that's up to the players to stop it.

[amacpher]

The refereeing was horrible in 2006, but I have to agree with Blatter when he says it was "better" than in 2002. Then again, that's not saying much.

quote:Originally posted by loyola

"I can't remember one game that was influenced by a ref 2nd phase of the tournament.

"

Memory refresher:

- World Cup final (bogus penalty call)

- Italy v Australia (bogus penalty call)

- Holland v Portugal (Boulahouz should've received a straight red. And later Figo dived which drew a red, when it wasn't even a foul)

- Argentina v Mexico (ARG scores a perfectly good goal that should've made it 2-1. It was ruled offside)

- Spain v France (winning goal scored on a free-kick awarded from an Henry dive)

[loyola]

He said "influenced the outcome of a game" so only Italy vs Australia and Spain vs France in your list were really influenced by the refs. And both are very debatable, Italy had an undeserving red against Australia and Henry was fouled but embellished it.

The dive in the final was tough to spot, I don't think it's a clear ref mistake.

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

He said "influenced the outcome of a game" so only Italy vs Australia and Spain vs France in your list were really influenced by the refs. And both are very debatable, Italy had an undeserving red against Australia and Henry was fouled but embellished it.

The dive in the final was tough to spot, I don't think it's a clear ref mistake.

Both the red card and penalty were debateable. not clear cut ref mistakes but understandable. I think they cancel each other out

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

He said "influenced the outcome of a game" so only Italy vs Australia and Spain vs France in your list were really influenced by the refs. And both are very debatable, Italy had an undeserving red against Australia and Henry was fouled but embellished it.

The dive in the final was tough to spot, I don't think it's a clear ref mistake.

True. I missed that. I only read your post saying that no game was influenced.

Although in judging the quality of officiating, the eventual outcome of the game doesn't really matter, IMO. A bad decision made in the 5th minute doesn't become less bad just because the team that the call went against winds-up winning anyway.

[marktci]

Blatter apologises to Aussies over World Cup exit

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/print?id=388416&type=story&cc=5901

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SYDNEY, Oct 29 (Reuters) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter has apologised to Australian fans over the dubious penalty that knocked the Socceroos out of the World Cup in Germany.

Blatter said Australians had every reason to feel aggrieved by the manner of their exit when they were beaten by eventual champions Italy 1-0 in the June 26 second round encounter.

Australia looked to be in control of the match with Italy reduced to 10 men and extra-time looming when Spanish referee Luis Medina Cantalejo awarded the Europeans a hotly-disputed last-minute penalty that they converted for the win.

The Australian players and millions of fans were furious at the decision because of what appeared to be a blatant dive by Italy's Fabio Grosso when he was confronted by Socceroos defender Lucas Neill.

'I agree with them and I would like to apologise (to) our fans in Australia,' Blatter said.

'The Socceroos should have gone into the quarter-finals in place of Italy... because they were up to beating Italy.'

Australia were among a number of countries at the tournament who were victims of poor refereeing and cheating from players taking dives or feigning injury.

FIFA has been reluctant to speak out on the issue but Blatter, who has admitted he used to dive when he was a player himself, said it was clear there was a major problem with both referees and players.

'I think the referees were not at their best,' he said.

'I think they were too well prepared or not looked after the right way. They were in a military camp situation...

'And I think there was too much cheating on the players' side.'

Football Federation of Australia (FFA) chief executive John O'Neill's welcomed Blatter's belated apology but said it was of little real comfort.

'The position he's stated is what all of Australian football fans felt at the time,' O'Neill told reporters.

'It's now four months after the tournament. It's a nice gesture, but it doesn't change the result.'

[loyola]

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/oct30k.html

Now he backtracks.

[loyola]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PgG8j0gyQ

First time I see that video, it seems to me that Neil is grabbing Grosso's left foot. Not 100% sure but the movement of Neil's left hand look suspicious to me.

[RJB]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

The refereeing was horrible in 2006, but I have to agree with Blatter when he says it was "better" than in 2002. Then again, that's not saying much.

Memory refresher:

- World Cup final (bogus penalty call)

- Italy v Australia (bogus penalty call)

- Holland v Portugal (Boulahouz should've received a straight red. And later Figo dived which drew a red, when it wasn't even a foul)

- Argentina v Mexico (ARG scores a perfectly good goal that should've made it 2-1. It was ruled offside)

- Spain v France (winning goal scored on a free-kick awarded from an Henry dive)

The Italy v Australia penalty was a penalty. Even Craig Forrest agreed with it. In the World Cup Final, while the first penalty was a poor call, one was missed later in the game (so if the ref was trying to influence the game, he'd have called the second one). And the dives are a nightmare in the game, be it internationally or at club level. They are what is wrong with the game, and face it, the players are damn good at it, so you can't exactly blame the ref.

[Grizzly]

quote:Originally posted by RJB

While the refereeing may not have been the greatest, I have to ask what you mean by this statement? What games were influenced by the referee's? I thought that the refereeing was at least equal in the games I saw (keeping in mind that I didn't see all games).

What we saw in this tournament was in my opinion extreme diving by European teams, not only those from Southern Europe, ie. the usual culprits Spain and Portugal, but also the northern European teams who were if anything worse, Germany, Holland, Ukraine and Sweden. Is it just a coincidence that the refs bought most of this European diving? Strangely enough the usually blatant South American divers and Mexico completely cleaned up their act and played fair. Did they do this out of fair play or because they knew what was up? I think the latter. I think if one goes over most of the controversial reffing decisions one would see that most favoured European teams over teams from other confederations. The decisions don't necessarily have to be game deciding in themselves but many such decisions can greatly influence the outcome of a game. If you play on a slightly tilted field you can still win but it is harder than on a level field. I think that FIFA really wanted a European team to win this WC and tilted the playing field accordingly. I don't think they necessarily decided Italy should win, Germany probably would have been just as good, but a European team was definitely favoured. This is similar to the last WC where it was definitely decided that the host nations should do well. In this WC I thought the reffing was even worse (3 yellow cards is something one doesn't see even in the CSL) but unlike in 2002 it was the favourites not the underdogs who benefitted so noone complained as much.

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

What we saw in this tournament was in my opinion extreme diving by European teams, not only those from Southern Europe, ie. the usual culprits Spain and Portugal, but also the northern European teams who were if anything worse, Germany, Holland, Ukraine and Sweden. Is it just a coincidence that the refs bought most of this European diving? Strangely enough the usually blatant South American divers and Mexico completely cleaned up their act and played fair. Did they do this out of fair play or because they knew what was up? I think the latter. I think if one goes over most of the controversial reffing decisions one would see that most favoured European teams over teams from other confederations. The decisions don't necessarily have to be game deciding in themselves but many such decisions can greatly influence the outcome of a game. If you play on a slightly tilted field you can still win but it is harder than on a level field. I think that FIFA really wanted a European team to win this WC and tilted the playing field accordingly. I don't think they necessarily decided Italy should win, Germany probably would have been just as good, but a European team was definitely favoured. This is similar to the last WC where it was definitely decided that the host nations should do well. In this WC I thought the reffing was even worse (3 yellow cards is something one doesn't see even in the CSL) but unlike in 2002 it was the favourites not the underdogs who benefitted so noone complained as much.

Blatter is a goof and he has his favorites. Its funny how he never presented the world cup to Italy himself. Its also funny when Italy lost to Brazil in Penalty shootouts that it wasnt a "Tragedy" then.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Forza_Italia

Blatter is a goof and he has his favorites. Its funny how he never presented the world cup to Italy himself. Its also funny when Italy lost to Brazil in Penalty shootouts that it wasnt a "Tragedy" then.

Didn't Al Gore present the trophy to Brasil back in 1994?

Yes, if you look hard enough you'll probably conclude that the entire world is Anti-Italian. []

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Didn't Al Gore present the trophy to Brasil back in 1994?

Yes, if you look hard enough you'll probably conclude that the entire world is Anti-Italian. []

That wasnt my point we are talking about Blatter, and the whole world is not anti Italian, but I know on this messageboard who are..... hint anyone?

[loyola]

Grizzly said this in another thread:

"Not sure if the first sentence is directed towards me or amacpher. I think your video shows even more clearly that the contact is very minimal whether from the hand or any other part of the body. There is minimal contact but not enough to cause Grosso to fall if he doesn't want to fall. First of all Neill misses not only the ball with his tackle but misses the player as well. It is not a crime to lie on the field, if someone trips over you that is their own fault. Neill does not take Grosso's legs out at all. Grosso could have either gone around Neill or jumped over him but he was looking for the penalty so he tripped over him. It is similar to the handball rule, hand to ball not ball to hand. In this case it is Grosso to Neill not the other way around which would have been a penalty. Neill makes a missed tackle and then Grosso chooses to trip over him to draw a penalty. Further proof of this is that Grosso dribbles the ball to the right to go around Neill which was his initial reaction. He then decides against this in favour of tripping over Neill to draw a penalty. Any decent soccer player will follow the ball when he dribbles it in one direction. Why does Grosso let the ball go where it may and go in a different direction which allows him to trip over Neill? The video shows clearly Grosso has no intent to play the ball after he moves it to the right."

Neil left hand clearly grab Grosso's foot which cause the fall, even if it's minimal you see Grosso foot movement being block by Neil's hand (there's no fluidity in the movement, something is blocking his leg, you cannot create that, it's not a dive). I don't know why you're pretending that he isn't following the ball, the position of his right foot indicate that he's going in the direction of the ball, that's not even a question.

As for a player having to jump over another player that's true in certain instance but when it happen so quickly I think it's an indirect free kick (assuming Neil didn't grabbed Grosso's foot, which he did). It's the same thing when a plyer beats his defender and the defender place his body in the way of the attacking player, that's obstruction. But in the end like this video showed Neil grabbed Grosso's foot, so it's a foul and a PK, no question.

I know that you have use this example of bad refering for a long time and it must be tough for you to admit it but it was a PK. At first I tought it was a terrible call, but after seing it over and over again and now this video, I'm sure it was the correct decision.

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by loyola

Grizzly said this in another thread:

"Not sure if the first sentence is directed towards me or amacpher. I think your video shows even more clearly that the contact is very minimal whether from the hand or any other part of the body. There is minimal contact but not enough to cause Grosso to fall if he doesn't want to fall. First of all Neill misses not only the ball with his tackle but misses the player as well. It is not a crime to lie on the field, if someone trips over you that is their own fault. Neill does not take Grosso's legs out at all. Grosso could have either gone around Neill or jumped over him but he was looking for the penalty so he tripped over him. It is similar to the handball rule, hand to ball not ball to hand. In this case it is Grosso to Neill not the other way around which would have been a penalty. Neill makes a missed tackle and then Grosso chooses to trip over him to draw a penalty. Further proof of this is that Grosso dribbles the ball to the right to go around Neill which was his initial reaction. He then decides against this in favour of tripping over Neill to draw a penalty. Any decent soccer player will follow the ball when he dribbles it in one direction. Why does Grosso let the ball go where it may and go in a different direction which allows him to trip over Neill? The video shows clearly Grosso has no intent to play the ball after he moves it to the right."

Neil left hand clearly grab Grosso's foot which cause the fall, even if it's minimal you see Grosso foot movement being block by Neil's hand (there's no fluidity in the movement, something is blocking his leg, you cannot create that, it's not a dive). I don't know why you're pretending that he isn't following the ball, the position of his right foot indicate that he's going in the direction of the ball, that's not even a question.

As for a player having to jump over another player that's true in certain instance but when it happen so quickly I think it's an indirect free kick (assuming Neil didn't grabbed Grosso's foot, which he did). It's the same thing when a plyer beats his defender and the defender place his body in the way of the attacking player, that's obstruction. But in the end like this video showed Neil grabbed Grosso's foot, so it's a foul and a PK, no question.

I know that you have use this example of bad refering for a long time and it must be tough for you to admit it but it was a PK. At first I tought it was a terrible call, but after seing it over and over again and now this video, I'm sure it was the correct decision.

Next he is going to say that the Matrix deserved a straight red car on his tackle during the same game WHEN teh reply shows he didnt even touch the player.

[Grizzly]

quote:I know that you have use this example of bad refering for a long time and it must be tough for you to admit it but it was a PK. At first I tought it was a terrible call, but after seing it over and over again and now this video, I'm sure it was the correct decision.

I stand by my opinion that Grosso was looking for the foul. However, I prefer not to discuss this incident because 1) although it was a very important decision in deciding who won the game it is still probably not even near the top 10 of bad calls of the WC (although the 3 yellow cards in the same game would be a possible number 1 even though its impact on the outcome was minimal) 2) everytime we discuss an incident involving Italy this gets into so much bull**** that doesn't seem to occur when discussing another country.

The Grosso incident is not crucial to my argument that there was an enormous amount of bad calls in particular with regards to diving and that these almost always favoured the European team. Not all of these calls were game deciding, many only resulted in free kicks but they definitely gave European teams an advantage. Some incidents that particularly stick in my mind are the blatant Shevchenko dive against Tunesia, the almost constant diving of Ibrahimovic and Larsson for Sweden and yes the Malouda dive against Italy in the final.

[Forza_Italia]

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I stand by my opinion that Grosso was looking for the foul. However, I prefer not to discuss this incident because 1) although it was a very important decision in deciding who won the game it is still probably not even near the top 10 of bad calls of the WC (although the 3 yellow cards in the same game would be a possible number 1 even though its impact on the outcome was minimal) 2) everytime we discuss an incident involving Italy this gets into so much bull**** that doesn't seem to occur when discussing another country.

The Grosso incident is not crucial to my argument that there was an enormous amount of bad calls in particular with regards to diving and that these almost always favoured the European team. Not all of these calls were game deciding, many only resulted in free kicks but they definitely gave European teams an advantage. Some incidents that particularly stick in my mind are the blatant Shevchenko dive against Tunesia, the almost constant diving of Ibrahimovic and Larsson for Sweden and yes the Malouda dive against Italy in the final.

Copied from Diplacido topic

AS for your other topic with Grosso.. From an Italian, I dont think it was a 100% penalty NOR do I think it was a blatant dive, it was more or less he fell over him and the ref game him the penalty, maybe the ref decided to square up for the red card to the matrix I dont know. Its one of those calls that could have gone either way.

He did make an effort to go around him and neil did stick out the arm a little. But like I said I am not 100%