at least there'll be one englishman on the pitch on sunday..
Discussion
bbc said:
Englishman Howard Webb has been chosen to referee the World Cup final between Netherlands and Spain in Johannesburg on Sunday, Fifa has confirmed.
The 38-year-old Yorkshireman has had a good tournament so far, as have his assistants Michael Mullarkey and Darren Cann, who will join him in the final.
Webb is the first Englishman to referee the final since Jack Taylor in 1974.
He has refereed three World Cup matches in South Africa and has neither shown a red card nor awarded a penalty.
However, Webb has handed out an average of 5.67 bookings per games - the second highest tally in tournament.
The 38-year-old Yorkshireman has had a good tournament so far, as have his assistants Michael Mullarkey and Darren Cann, who will join him in the final.
Webb is the first Englishman to referee the final since Jack Taylor in 1974.
He has refereed three World Cup matches in South Africa and has neither shown a red card nor awarded a penalty.
However, Webb has handed out an average of 5.67 bookings per games - the second highest tally in tournament.
Mike Mullarkey's a decent bloke - I met him a while back when his lad was playing on the pitch next to mine - plus, which is obviously to his advantage, he's a keen Exeter City fan too.
And to think he gave up his job to take up officiating full time - I mean, Champions' League Final in May and now the World Cup final, plus a whole host of Premiership and Champions' League games last season!. Good luck to him.
And to think he gave up his job to take up officiating full time - I mean, Champions' League Final in May and now the World Cup final, plus a whole host of Premiership and Champions' League games last season!. Good luck to him.
sjc said:
Typical, an Englishman was the worst one of the pitch!
I think he did ok in the circumstances.. What else could he do when Holland were determined to kick lumps out of Spain... Webbs biggest mistake was not to send off 2 Dutchmen before halftime, but how was that going to help the game?Give him a break, not his fault the players acted like 5 year olds
harry010 said:
sjc said:
Typical, an Englishman was the worst one of the pitch!
I think he did ok in the circumstances.. What else could he do when Holland were determined to kick lumps out of Spain... Webbs biggest mistake was not to send off 2 Dutchmen before halftime, but how was that going to help the game?Give him a break, not his fault the players acted like 5 year olds
He had a shocker, unusual for him.
Legend83 said:
jbi said:
I think he just wanted to keep the game going.
Agreed - in the back of his mind must have been the throught that he could easily be blamed for blowing for everything and slowing the 'spectacle' down.Republik said:
The karate kick was a red card but I can see exactly why he didn't send him off. It would've ruined the World Cup final.
Although ultimately, you could say the decision not to give him a red ruined it anyway. One less defensive stopper on the pitch might have opened it up a bit.
Republik said:
It would've been too one sided. That 'tackle' was around the 25 min mark wasn't it?
So basically you can high kick your opponent in the chest if it's early enough in the game? That's the dilemma facing the referee - on reflection i think he should have sent the player off - he went too far. Perhaps another reason to have a sin-bin (for a half instead of the whole match).Edited by fido on Monday 12th July 13:10
fido said:
Republik said:
It would've been too one sided. That 'tackle' was around the 25 min mark wasn't it?
So basically you can high kick your opponent in the chest if it's early enough in the game? That's the dilemma facing the referee - on reflection i think he should have sent the player off - he went too far. Perhaps another reason to have a sin-bin (for a half instead of the whole match).Edited by fido on Monday 12th July 13:10
Kicking someone in the chest is a red card in the first minute the same as it is in the 90th minute.
Of course not. In any other game it would've rightly been a red card.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Republik said:
Of course not. In any other game it would've rightly been a red card.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
It wasn't just the Dejong incident, Van Bommels lunge on a standing leg was a shocker. If he'd gone with a straight red Dejongs probably wouldn't have happened later, and it was Dejong who effectively put Alonsso out of the game. The booking/non booking as I mentioned earlier for kicking the ball away was inconsistent, the corner that wasn't when the Dutch free kick hit the wall AND Casilla's hand etc etc. By the end, Webb looked moments away from a 2 yellow but no sending off moment.It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
The Dutch were thugs, and got away with murder. What spoilt the final was Van Bommel staying on the pitch, not him being sent off.
Republik said:
Of course not. In any other game it would've rightly been a red card.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
OK, so you have license to break a striker's leg in the first 20 minutes and you won't get sent off? At what point do you say it's a red regardless of when the foul is committed?It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Bing o said:
Republik said:
Of course not. In any other game it would've rightly been a red card.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
OK, so you have license to break a striker's leg in the first 20 minutes and you won't get sent off? At what point do you say it's a red regardless of when the foul is committed?It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Republik said:
Bing o said:
Republik said:
Of course not. In any other game it would've rightly been a red card.
It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
OK, so you have license to break a striker's leg in the first 20 minutes and you won't get sent off? At what point do you say it's a red regardless of when the foul is committed?It was the world cup final, at the risk of spoiling the game in front of millions of fans he took the decision to keep him on the pitch. It was brave not to send him off but I think he did the right thing under the cirumstances, even though it was a blatent sending off.
He had a real tough game to referee and regardless of the outcome, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
2-The fact that Van Bommel didn't break someones leg is not irrelevant at all, it was pure luck it didn't happen, and is still as bad a tackle with either result.
3- If Spain had won 3/4 nil and the Dutch had had 2 sent off I wouldn't be complaing at all. I'd be saying what a brave tough no-nonsense ref Howard Webb was and that Holland got what they deserved.
Republik said:
I'm saying I can see why he did it. At the risk of spoiling the most important game of any footballers career. He didn't break his leg so that's irrelevant - if he had then I wouldn't be arguing my case. If we were sat here now and Spain had won 3 or 4-0 after Holland went down to 10 men, we would be complaining that the referee spoiled the game. Like I said, damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
FFS Webb wouldn't have spoiled the game, the guy who kicked Alonso in the chest would have spoiled it. The referee is not a judge who awards marks out of 10, he is there to punish unfair and dangerous play.For me as the game wore on Webb was slowly starting to lose control.
Towards the end he'd complately lost it. De Jong should have been red carded for his kick on Alonso and by doing this it would have kept the rest of the Dutch team on their toes. I can understand why he choose not to send De Jong off but it was the wrong decision and a top class referee would not make this mistake.
Towards the end he'd complately lost it. De Jong should have been red carded for his kick on Alonso and by doing this it would have kept the rest of the Dutch team on their toes. I can understand why he choose not to send De Jong off but it was the wrong decision and a top class referee would not make this mistake.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff