Could it be a lare card. Matbe a defender made a bog tackle,advantage was played,then purplsely played over the backline.so a pc for playing over the backline and a late yellpw gor an earlier tackle? Im just speculatimg i dpnt knoe the context og this match/situatiom
I don't think so Crux. There is no indication of any stick or body contact prior to what was a clean tackle. That tackle was extraordinary difficult to make, the timing had to be perfect. To suggest, that at the same time, the tackler had the ability to intend to put the ball out of play over the baseline is 'gilding the lily'. That the umpire instantly decided on a card, he immediately indicated a time stoppage, (some time before he remembered to indicate a penalty corner), suggests he thought he saw something which did not in fact occur, something that actually angered him. Nothing about this makes sense, it's almost as if the umpires were under instruction to make an example of a defender who put the ball out of play over the base-line. The other umpire made a very dubious 'intentionally played out' decision earlier in the match.
@@ZigZagHockey The defender who plays the ball over the backline is number 17 (Lopez). He's not the player that gets sent away with a YC10 is he? Just looked up the stats on the FIH site and Lopez wasn't carded. So I'm with Crux 11 that this must have been a delayed card for a previous infringement.
@@berendbroerse7483 There was no previous infringement. I think what happened was that the umpire immediately stopped play with the intention of awarding a card for the knock off. Then, presumably the unfortunate player who was sent off, said something to him that upset him, so he doubled the card length (assuming the initial card was to be a yellow and not a green) and sent the 'talker' off, leaving everyone baffled. Not good umpiring. If he though the ball had been knocked out of play intentionally he should have awarded a penalty corner and left it at that. But even that decision would have been contentious, the tackle was a difficult one to make. The only other thing I can come up with as a possibility is that the umpire though the tackler hit the stick of the attacker, but there is no evidence for that. I stay with my original observation, this is a silly and unnecessary 'restart', far too harsh when the ball is knocked off during a tackle: a restart from the 23m line would be appropriate.
I was wrong to say there was no previous infringement by ARG team. There was a previous infringement near the half line. A shoulder contact tackle that did not disadvantage the NED team. The umpire gave no signal, play just continued with the Dutch in possession. If it was the ARG No.5 who was sent off then this muddle of non-communication begins to make sense - a very long advantage played - good decision, poor communication.
If you watch the game again you'll see that one of the umpires (jakub mezlik) has warned the Argentina capt i.e. Pedro ibarra (who got the card) for two things... First is the Argentina players are shouting at the umpires whenever there's an opposite decision and secondly for the stick tackle in 23....so in my opinion if any player had been summoned by the umpire more than once he's in his books for sure.... And this is what exactly happened here as Pedro INTENTIONALLY played the ball over the back line and had been warned twice so it must be a yellow card this tym as the umpires are also required to maintain the discipline and decorum of the game and by giving this card they just set the tone to the other players that no such nonsense should be entertained however I personally believe than a 10minute penalty is pretty harsh and the Argentina had lost this game in the shoutout.... So there will surely be questions about this card but fir me it's 50 50 situation and at the end the umpires has to make their decisions within 4-5 seconds so considering this in mind I don't think that it's a wrong decision
The card had nothing whatsoever to do with intentionally playing the ball off the pitch - an action which is not even an offence. It was awarded for an earlier contact tackle near the half-way line. Two things then confused the situation for viewers. Firstly the umpire gave no indication at all that he had seen an offence and was allowing advantage. The commentator (who was typically ignorant of the Rules of the game) assumed that the card and been awarded for intentionally putting the ball out of play and announced that as the reason for the card. He then went onto praise the fact that the umpire told the ARG Captain to "Go away" when the captain, very reasonably went to inquire what the card had been awarded for (he was not summoned to the umpire). The card was not awarded to the ARG Captain. As I wrote previously, the yellow card (awarded to the player who made the contact tackle - I think the #5) was the correct decision in the circumstances, but the umpire's lack of communication, initially with hand/arm signal as play was allowed to continue (because the side offended against had advantage), and then verbally, was abysmal. His treatment of the ARG Captain was so unnecessarily disrespectful that it came across as a display of arrogance (and as if the ARG Captain had committed an offence).
@@ZigZagHockey Here I also want to criticize FIH for sending inexperienced umpires like Steve and jakub who didn't even officiated in 70 odd games in the international circuit... This was the game between world no. 3 and world no. 4 and the game was in Argentina as well.... As we all know they can be really passionate and possessive as it comes to winning in front of their home crowd..... So for me FIH is faulty to send such inexperienced and unqualified umps for this match and for your reply I would say that yes it was an infringement by the Argentina player near the half line and if you would see the replay again it looks horrible the Holland player goes to ground and when the Argentina player made the tackle he loses the ball completely and ran into the player thus causing dangerous play which can lead to grevious injury for the player and rules clearly states that if the defenders stick is in the air because of his own choice then leading to fall of the attacker it's a straight penalty.... However if it's a 10 min or 5 min it doesn't matter as it was the 57th min of the game..... And yes you can not tackle the ball intentionally over the back line leading to a break down in play (I am clearly mentioning this that break down play on a possible goal scoring shot or opportunity can only lead to PC) ..... So that's my point of view it could vary depending upon the interpretations
@@ZigZagHockey if you see the video only one side the ball could go and that is end of the back line and the umps these days are really really sensitive in such deliberate break downs which could possibly lead to a shot at goal
It is necessary to constantly expand the pool of experienced umpires If only the most experience are appointed to officiate important international matches the FIH will end up with a very few very experienced umpires while others have little experience of pressure matches. Eventually the very experienced umpires will retire. Then what happens? I don't in any case accept that an umpire who has officiated 70 international matches (and no doubt a great many National League matches between teams containing international level players) is not experienced enough to competently handle any matche between the top six nations. As to breaking down play. It is the job of a defender to break down opposition attacks and it is not an offence but a high level skill to be able to do this legally. I repeat it is NOT an offence to intentionally play the ball out of play over the back-line (but the Rules stipulate a restart with a penalty corner) I think that absurd and unfair. In this case the defender made a difficult tackle very cleanly, knocking the ball away from the possession of the attacker. That he should be punished for this fine skill is ridiculous. When the ball is played out over the base-line the restart ought, in my opinion, to be a restart to the attackers on the 23m line whether or not it is played out intentionally. We already have far too many penalty corners awarded for trivia or awarded when they should not be. A defender knocking the ball out over the baseline happens comparatively infrequently but we could still do without the unjust penalty corner awarded when it does occur.
@@ZigZagHockey when you say the word intentionally it means the player intended to play the ball deliberately over the back line.... Although there's no such rule specifying such event (or if it is then I don't know probably) but what I have learnt as an umpire in the national championship games here in India is that the umpire managers and even Raghu prasad(3 world Cup and 2 oly games) and javed shaikh (2 wc and one oly games) had taught us to make sure that the defender won't do a deliberate break down.... The defender indeed is to allow the break down of play but only when it is not deliberate or not leading to dangerous play.... However if he\she made deliberate offense only then penalize him or her ...... In that case as an umpire I totally agree with the decision because the attacker had been prevented to take a clear shot at goal and thus in such situations you have to be clear with your calls...... And on the other hand I'm not saying that FIH should not give chances to inexperienced umps but if you're looking the consequences after the game they were pretty high.... After losing this game Argentina lost their 4th position in world ranking and it does matters for the players as well as it can also affect the sponsorhips.... In this game FIH is required to at least appoint a well experienced umpire like Adam kearns or any other umpire with a less experienced umpire..... It would be helpful for the players in games like these in which so much is at the stake
Go away!! The ref is correct. What's the point with all yapping? And why should the ref give any weight to the team's captain in such situations? All the players are same to him. Secondly, I know Argentinean players very well. They can be very argumentative. The players in this game have already made the ref tired of them.
Yes I could see he was tired,he didn't have the energy to signal when he allowed advantage and could not be bothered to communicate with the team Captain when he was very properly asked why he had awarded a yellow card. He ought to retire from umpiring and do something he is good at and can enjoy.
I have played hockey once or twice a week for almost 50 years. It’s as clear as mud as to what the yellow card is for. I would have thought the umpire was a responsibility to communicate his decisions clearly. There should not be a need for this guessing game. To be honest I have never really understood the need to award a penalty corner for deliberately knocking the ball off the end of a pitch. Tends to be awarded fairly commonly at low levels of hockey but rarely at international level
Totally agree with your comments. The yellow card was correct but communication of the reason for it (a physical contact foul on the half-line) was absent, and player management, particularly the response to the ARG Captain, was appalling.
A penalty corner is correct, it’s seen as deliberate. Any deliberate foul with in the 23m area = pc. A yellow card may or may not be appropriate. It’s difficult to prove BDOP. I do disagree with a yellow 10 minute card. A yellow 10 should be used in cases of physical foul play whereby a opponent goes to the ground, or even if the opponent keeps standing but the foul play was with enough force that it’s a miracle that the opponent still stands.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Could it be a lare card. Matbe a defender made a bog tackle,advantage was played,then purplsely played over the backline.so a pc for playing over the backline and a late yellpw gor an earlier tackle?
Im just speculatimg i dpnt knoe the context og this match/situatiom
I don't think so Crux. There is no indication of any stick or body contact prior to what was a clean tackle. That tackle was extraordinary difficult to make, the timing had to be perfect. To suggest, that at the same time, the tackler had the ability to intend to put the ball out of play over the baseline is 'gilding the lily'. That the umpire instantly decided on a card, he immediately indicated a time stoppage, (some time before he remembered to indicate a penalty corner), suggests he thought he saw something which did not in fact occur, something that actually angered him.
Nothing about this makes sense, it's almost as if the umpires were under instruction to make an example of a defender who put the ball out of play over the base-line. The other umpire made a very dubious 'intentionally played out' decision earlier in the match.
@@ZigZagHockey The defender who plays the ball over the backline is number 17 (Lopez). He's not the player that gets sent away with a YC10 is he? Just looked up the stats on the FIH site and Lopez wasn't carded. So I'm with Crux 11 that this must have been a delayed card for a previous infringement.
@@berendbroerse7483 There was no previous infringement. I think what happened was that the umpire immediately stopped play with the intention of awarding a card for the knock off. Then, presumably the unfortunate player who was sent off, said something to him that upset him, so he doubled the card length (assuming the initial card was to be a yellow and not a green) and sent the 'talker' off, leaving everyone baffled.
Not good umpiring. If he though the ball had been knocked out of play intentionally he should have awarded a penalty corner and left it at that. But even that decision would have been contentious, the tackle was a difficult one to make.
The only other thing I can come up with as a possibility is that the umpire though the tackler hit the stick of the attacker, but there is no evidence for that.
I stay with my original observation, this is a silly and unnecessary 'restart', far too harsh when the ball is knocked off during a tackle: a restart from the 23m line would be appropriate.
I was wrong to say there was no previous infringement by ARG team. There was a previous infringement near the half line. A shoulder contact tackle that did not disadvantage the NED team. The umpire gave no signal, play just continued with the Dutch in possession. If it was the ARG No.5 who was sent off then this muddle of non-communication begins to make sense - a very long advantage played - good decision, poor communication.
@@ZigZagHockey that does make make much more sense
If you watch the game again you'll see that one of the umpires (jakub mezlik) has warned the Argentina capt i.e. Pedro ibarra (who got the card) for two things... First is the Argentina players are shouting at the umpires whenever there's an opposite decision and secondly for the stick tackle in 23....so in my opinion if any player had been summoned by the umpire more than once he's in his books for sure.... And this is what exactly happened here as Pedro INTENTIONALLY played the ball over the back line and had been warned twice so it must be a yellow card this tym as the umpires are also required to maintain the discipline and decorum of the game and by giving this card they just set the tone to the other players that no such nonsense should be entertained however I personally believe than a 10minute penalty is pretty harsh and the Argentina had lost this game in the shoutout.... So there will surely be questions about this card but fir me it's 50 50 situation and at the end the umpires has to make their decisions within 4-5 seconds so considering this in mind I don't think that it's a wrong decision
The card had nothing whatsoever to do with intentionally playing the ball off the pitch - an action which is not even an offence. It was awarded for an earlier contact tackle near the half-way line.
Two things then confused the situation for viewers. Firstly the umpire gave no indication at all that he had seen an offence and was allowing advantage. The commentator (who was typically ignorant of the Rules of the game) assumed that the card and been awarded for intentionally putting the ball out of play and announced that as the reason for the card. He then went onto praise the fact that the umpire told the ARG Captain to "Go away" when the captain, very reasonably went to inquire what the card had been awarded for (he was not summoned to the umpire). The card was not awarded to the ARG Captain.
As I wrote previously, the yellow card (awarded to the player who made the contact tackle - I think the #5) was the correct decision in the circumstances, but the umpire's lack of communication, initially with hand/arm signal as play was allowed to continue (because the side offended against had advantage), and then verbally, was abysmal. His treatment of the ARG Captain was so unnecessarily disrespectful that it came across as a display of arrogance (and as if the ARG Captain had committed an offence).
@@ZigZagHockey Here I also want to criticize FIH for sending inexperienced umpires like Steve and jakub who didn't even officiated in 70 odd games in the international circuit... This was the game between world no. 3 and world no. 4 and the game was in Argentina as well.... As we all know they can be really passionate and possessive as it comes to winning in front of their home crowd..... So for me FIH is faulty to send such inexperienced and unqualified umps for this match and for your reply I would say that yes it was an infringement by the Argentina player near the half line and if you would see the replay again it looks horrible the Holland player goes to ground and when the Argentina player made the tackle he loses the ball completely and ran into the player thus causing dangerous play which can lead to grevious injury for the player and rules clearly states that if the defenders stick is in the air because of his own choice then leading to fall of the attacker it's a straight penalty.... However if it's a 10 min or 5 min it doesn't matter as it was the 57th min of the game..... And yes you can not tackle the ball intentionally over the back line leading to a break down in play (I am clearly mentioning this that break down play on a possible goal scoring shot or opportunity can only lead to PC) ..... So that's my point of view it could vary depending upon the interpretations
@@ZigZagHockey if you see the video only one side the ball could go and that is end of the back line and the umps these days are really really sensitive in such deliberate break downs which could possibly lead to a shot at goal
It is necessary to constantly expand the pool of experienced umpires If only the most experience are appointed to officiate important international matches the FIH will end up with a very few very experienced umpires while others have little experience of pressure matches. Eventually the very experienced umpires will retire. Then what happens? I don't in any case accept that an umpire who has officiated 70 international matches (and no doubt a great many National League matches between teams containing international level players) is not experienced enough to competently handle any matche between the top six nations.
As to breaking down play. It is the job of a defender to break down opposition attacks and it is not an offence but a high level skill to be able to do this legally.
I repeat it is NOT an offence to intentionally play the ball out of play over the back-line (but the Rules stipulate a restart with a penalty corner) I think that absurd and unfair.
In this case the defender made a difficult tackle very cleanly, knocking the ball away from the possession of the attacker. That he should be punished for this fine skill is ridiculous.
When the ball is played out over the base-line the restart ought, in my opinion, to be a restart to the attackers on the 23m line whether or not it is played out intentionally. We already have far too many penalty corners awarded for trivia or awarded when they should not be. A defender knocking the ball out over the baseline happens comparatively infrequently but we could still do without the unjust penalty corner awarded when it does occur.
@@ZigZagHockey when you say the word intentionally it means the player intended to play the ball deliberately over the back line.... Although there's no such rule specifying such event (or if it is then I don't know probably) but what I have learnt as an umpire in the national championship games here in India is that the umpire managers and even Raghu prasad(3 world Cup and 2 oly games) and javed shaikh (2 wc and one oly games) had taught us to make sure that the defender won't do a deliberate break down.... The defender indeed is to allow the break down of play but only when it is not deliberate or not leading to dangerous play.... However if he\she made deliberate offense only then penalize him or her ...... In that case as an umpire I totally agree with the decision because the attacker had been prevented to take a clear shot at goal and thus in such situations you have to be clear with your calls......
And on the other hand I'm not saying that FIH should not give chances to inexperienced umps but if you're looking the consequences after the game they were pretty high.... After losing this game Argentina lost their 4th position in world ranking and it does matters for the players as well as it can also affect the sponsorhips.... In this game FIH is required to at least appoint a well experienced umpire like Adam kearns or any other umpire with a less experienced umpire..... It would be helpful for the players in games like these in which so much is at the stake
Go away!! The ref is correct. What's the point with all yapping? And why should the ref give any weight to the team's captain in such situations? All the players are same to him.
Secondly, I know Argentinean players very well. They can be very argumentative. The players in this game have already made the ref tired of them.
Yes I could see he was tired,he didn't have the energy to signal when he allowed advantage and could not be bothered to communicate with the team Captain when he was very properly asked why he had awarded a yellow card. He ought to retire from umpiring and do something he is good at and can enjoy.
That's not a yellow card right there just a penalty corner
The yellow card was for a prior foul on the half way line but the umpire gave no advantage signal, so nobody knew what was going on.
I have played hockey once or twice a week for almost 50 years. It’s as clear as mud as to what the yellow card is for. I would have thought the umpire was a responsibility to communicate his decisions clearly. There should not be a need for this guessing game. To be honest I have never really understood the need to award a penalty corner for deliberately knocking the ball off the end of a pitch. Tends to be awarded fairly commonly at low levels of hockey but rarely at international level
Totally agree with your comments.
The yellow card was correct but communication of the reason for it (a physical contact foul on the half-line) was absent, and player management, particularly the response to the ARG Captain, was appalling.
A penalty corner is correct, it’s seen as deliberate. Any deliberate foul with in the 23m area = pc. A yellow card may or may not be appropriate. It’s difficult to prove BDOP. I do disagree with a yellow 10 minute card. A yellow 10 should be used in cases of physical foul play whereby a opponent goes to the ground, or even if the opponent keeps standing but the foul play was with enough force that it’s a miracle that the opponent still stands.