Monday, 18 June 2018

2018 FIFA World Cup Match 14: Tunisia - England (discussion)

Let's discuss here the performance of Wilmar Roldán in Tunisia - England. Good luck to the officiating team! 
Match #14
Volgograd, 18 June 2018 20:00 CET
Tunisia - England
Referee: Wilmar Roldán (COL)
Assistant Referee 1: Alexander Guzmán (COL)
Assistant Referee 2: Cristian de la Cruz (COL)
Fourth Official: Ricardo Montero (CRC)
Fifth Official: Hiroshi Yamauchi (JPN)
VAR: Sandro Ricci (BRA)
AVAR1: Gery Vargas (BOL)
AVAR 2: Emerson de Carvalho (BRA)
AVAR 3: Tiago Bruno Lopes Martins (POR)

169 comments:

  1. OT expect for tomorrow, and sorry for the delay, full results of MD1 in our predictions game.

    ReplyDelete
  2. German TV starts by making fun of Roldán for the mistaken identity case at the Confed Cup and the offside goals in MEX vs CMR back in 2014. Classy as always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The circus of the England team begins also on television here

      Delete
  3. Two good offside calls by AR2 early on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially the second call was a great one!

      Delete
  4. Elbow to the head,Rildan with verbal warning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Missed YC in 7‘. Reckless usage of elbow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why yellow? It’s violent conduct. My opinion.

      Delete
    2. I beg to differ. A „simple“ reckless usage of elbow. Nothing more, in my view.

      Delete
    3. Yes... Never a violent conduct IMO

      Delete
    4. Fully agree with Ref_1707. AR1 should’ve spotted it IMO

      Delete
  6. Our Ref’ missed the voluntary elbow of the English player who would have deserved a yellow card

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like the way he has allowed the game to go on after minimal contact (for both teams). If the arm was reckless then missed by AR1 not the referee

    ReplyDelete
  8. Touching referee and protesting.Someone should have been booked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Too weak reaction against the protests at 30' IMO, Roldan not arousing a high self esteem

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now penalty and yc for elbowing Tunis player.Good decision.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This penalty, mmmhhhhhh. I don't know. Maybe supported but very soft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was a brave and correct decision IMO

      Delete
    2. Absolutely no need for the English defender to raise his arm/elbow and play in that manner at that particular moment.

      Delete
  12. Well done Roldan. No VAR needed for you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow PK??? I think that was not enough but I fully understand Roldan from my first view...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ask, what was the need for the English defender to raise his arm/elbow in that manner on that particular play in that particular moment?

      Delete
  14. Great PK ! Nobody wants such a use of ellbow in football

    ReplyDelete
  15. My opinion missed penalty minute 38 Kane clearly taken down.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Missed penalty by VAR, unbelievable

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Compared to the first PK for Tunisia this has to be and there's another later.

      Delete
  17. Missed PK for England maybe and after that very demonstrative Roldan grabbing player.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ooh, Roldán just aggressively grabbed a Tunisian player at the arm and turned him around. No go.

    Penalty acceptable for me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It‘s going to be a tough game for Roldán. Now England aims to get a penalty - and they have a point there...

    ReplyDelete
  20. In german TV Slowmotion review of foul in tunesian box against Kane. Massive holding. Clear PK !

    ReplyDelete
  21. For me it is mutual pulling and holding. Correct no penalty IMO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolute rubbish my friend. Defender never looks at the ball. Blatant a penalty as you should see

      Delete
  22. Ricci whistled a penalty for holding in Croatia v Nigeria which was IMO much less than this... And today he doesn't intervene as VAR in a situation that is more blatant holding and bringing down the player... That was a clear penalty and England has every right to be annoyed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mutual holding by both players. Much like the Ramos Salah incident in the UCL Final. A situation where Mazic didn't blow for a foul either. And a decision that 99.999999% of the people here agreed with. "Mutual holding" thus it's a "supportable" decision.

      Delete
  23. Roldan needs to calm down Tunisian players otherwise game can get ugly.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It looked as if Roldán let play resume, while the VAR review was still in process. Indeed, the TV split view indicating VAR review had appeared, but play was immediately resumed.

    This would be an explanation for why the holding was missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then that is irresponsibility on the part of Roldan something that is completely unacceptable at the World Cup game!

      Delete
    2. He did not. Play was obviously stopped then restarted with a throw-in.

      Delete
    3. Soham, you seem to think to be a personified tribunal. You're very quick with your judgements or, even better suiting, 'verdicts'.
      Keep calm, observe attentively, and see: Roldan stopped and blocked the throw-in for around 10 seconds, then very probably the signal came 'go on' (mutual holding, but if it was missed, an OFR would create more acceptance).

      Delete
    4. He stopped the game after ball went out and waited for restart

      Delete
    5. I made an observation that "it looked like" this for me at the time, to check whether anyone shared that view. I can absolutely accept if that view was wrong, as it seems to have been.

      I agree that such heavy statements such as Soham's should not follow from my comment.

      Delete
    6. I agree Thomas. Everyone saw your genuine effort to find a (generally really) possible explanation.

      Delete
    7. Roldan is not one of his "favorites", thus the harsher criticism and lack of favorable reasoning and excuses that he only uses with those that he does like.

      Delete
    8. That's it. We can never know absolute reality, but we get closest if we listen to each other's views ;-)

      Delete
    9. Sheriff funny seeing you here today after your conspicuous absence after Ramos’ performance yesterday, no?

      Delete
    10. My statement starts with a 'then' and that of course means if the above statement is true... If the statement isn't true my line is not even needed to be read... Whatever heavy statement etc that's based on that assumption that was reported... The construction of the statement clearly shows that! Once that statement is found to be wrong my line must be ignored!

      Delete
    11. But why always oversizing things which are not confirmed? Reminds me on dailymail style. If you don't want that 99% of the readers here skip your statements always and 'are not even to be read', you should work on your composure my friend. Always pulling off 3 superlatives does not make you smart.

      Delete
    12. As I explained to Soham. It was Sunday, so I was on the pitch working a few matches. Hard to watch Ramos live and comment in real time when I'm running a middle or on the line. But as I said before, based on what I've read here and from the clips I have seen. He fell flat yesterday. I'm not at all ashamed to say it nor will you find me making excuses for his failure. Words like "supportable" "grey area" and "not enough there" will definitely not be used to gloss over his mistakes. Now if more could express themselves in a similar matter. That be great. But I'm not holding my breath. As too many on here allow their "fandom" to cloud their objective view.

      Delete
    13. And of course Roldan will never be my favourite because he is poor consistently at the FIFA. I don't need to say anything, his below par performances speak for themselves and most on here clearly concur. Now this blog is a place where readers can share their views. Whatever I write about a situation of refereeing is my opinion, judgement, verdict or whatever one may choose to call it and I'm fully entitled to writing that as long as it is not offensive or out of limits. In case that happens I always change my comments. Other than that anybody who doesn't like it is free to ignore it. I'm sharing my views and opinions as per my perceptions and it is never mandatory for anyone to agree or share my views but at the same times no one can ask me to stop... Not that I care but still it's necessary to mention that I do not need certification from anyone! Let me share my views on performances, ignore it if you don't like it because I can't praise poor displays just to make other defensive people happy... Please feel free to ignore my verdicts, judgement or anything that you find pointless... It's thaaaat simple!

      Delete
    14. But the main problem with this “verdict” imo is that you jumped the gun. You didn’t confirm it for yourself or wait for someone else to confirm the op. Also, the op didn’t say “Roldán didn’t wait for var” but rather “it LOOKS LIKE...”

      Delete
    15. To that my reply started with "Then....." so when the statement was not correct my reply can be automatically considered invalid and worth ignoring... And even leaving that out, Roldan has been a disaster!

      Delete
    16. Soham, if your comment is possibly "invalid and worth ignoring", then you could wait a moment and consider. After all, you can always comment in this way after my original statement has been confirmed.

      A bit like the assistant referees waiting for offside at this tournament ;-)

      Delete
    17. Yes that's a point for improvement! ;)

      Delete
  25. Kane was also holding the defender though. As Filip said there was mutual pulling and holding. No call acceptable IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The problem with Roldan the same as always: His lack of natural authority, many little and some serious mistakes and the missing of a clear line in foul detection.

    ReplyDelete
  27. On Roldan : How much ever he may try to bring out an authoritative personality by chewing gum and all sorts of aggressiveness, he just never exudes any confidence of players or viewers in any FIFA tournament... Today is no exception and he is below par at the moment!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I‘m not a fan at all. It will be very difficult for him to keep match control if the game becomes more tense.

      Delete
    2. Thx Soham. You bring it to the point:-)

      Delete
    3. Roldan is a typical example of aggression without skills... Players also don't really respect or accept him much... He has single handedly heated up an easy match and it's nothing new... He has always fallen short of the required personality or skill at the FIFA level!

      Delete
  28. Most challenging game in terms of refereeing on the tournament so far

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe, but why? Because our personified tribunal Soham :) is right: He is not displaying authority, he did not contribute to an easy game, on the contrary: By not having the grip, not identifying key players, not being attentive for arm usage, and so on, he makes the game more difficult than needed. Along with Mr Diedhiou and Sikazwe, for me no 'World Cup format' on a personality level.

      Delete
    2. Never in a million years... It's Roldan who is responsible for making the players excited with his aggressive approach minus quality... Any other referee like Pitana, Ricci, Cakir or Kuipers would made this look like cakewalk!

      Delete
    3. I did not see Sikazwe SO negative. For me even Rocchi was under par.

      Delete
    4. Refinho, to be honest, I think Diedhiou and Gassama were much better than Roldan. At least more consistent.

      Delete
  29. We had 8 bookings in Belgium-Panama match,but it wasnt as challenging as this one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not convinced by Roldan. Sad, because Aguilar and Sikazwe were good.
    But too much things missed, and aboce all no authority. Have a look f.e. at the assumed handball from Tunisia. He was surrounded by agressive Tunisian players and did nothing. Also, pulling a player towards you is never a good thing.

    PK okay, YC not really needed IMO. One of the weakest performances so far - but hopefully it will improve!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO also Aguilar and Sikazwe had not the best game ever. Many points for improving, especially I think Sikazwe presented the weakest performance so far in this tournament.

      But also Roldan is struggling and he is a little bit proving why he is very far from Ricci or Pitana in CONMEBOL. He will have a very tough second half...I am really surprised that Tunesia is still without an bookings. I think far the least fair team.

      Delete
  31. Good evening am from nigeria

    ReplyDelete
  32. Imo I guess roldan has been above average except for the missed penalty to eng which var missed

    ReplyDelete
  33. I never liked Roldan, this evening it is the same. In my opinion, even the given penalty given is harsh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chefren this was a clear use of the arm imo totally spot on from roldan

      Delete
    2. What's the need or reason for the English defender to raise his arm/elbow in that manner at the particular moment? I'm just curious.

      Delete
    3. Exactly he didn't even try to nod or head the ball

      Delete
    4. Exactly he didn't even try to nod or head the ball

      Delete
  34. @ refinho : I read your posts with great interest, you are very precise and your opinions are always explained with great professionalism. I would say that you show that you have a lot of experience.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Chefren, what do you think about refinho?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent contributions by almost all readers.

      Delete
    2. I agree! I have been a long time reader of this and the previous blog and the level of discussions during this WC in comparison to the 2014 WC is far more sophisticated!

      Delete
  36. Minute 51 Kane in another penalty situation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO penalty kick. If the situation vom Ricci's game was a correct penalty call - which I think it was - this one should be a penalty too

      Delete
    2. English journalist from Telegraph is outraged: ”Kane's been wrestled to the floor again. That's incredible. Honestly it's shocking - what is the VAR doing?”

      Delete
    3. I think not a penalty. Diffrence from Croatia situation is that this time it was far from the ball and Kane could not get it anyway

      Delete
    4. How many games that guy refereed? I know, none 😂

      Delete
    5. Agree with Johannes. Wrestling from behind, defender is facing own goalkeeper, brings Kane down.

      Delete
    6. To make it clear, I referred to the Telegraph reported.
      No PK for sure. Happens all the time. It is a contact sport .

      Delete
    7. Niko, I understand your point and up to a certain point contact has to be allowed! You always see some kind of pushing or pulling going on. But what's different here is that the Tunesian players hugs Kane from behind and won't let go during the whole corner. It's interesting though that not one English player really complained about the decision

      Delete
    8. @Niko Then Ricci's call in Croatia v Nigeria was plain wrong, isn't it??

      Delete
    9. I said before. This is not the same situation as with Croatia. There ball was going on Mandzukic and defender illegally prevented him for reaching it. Here it was far from the ball and it did not influence the game

      Delete
    10. Ricci's call was correct. But more importantly, Ricci's call was a brave and "ballsy" one. A call that too many referee's have for too long simply chosen to ignore. And thus the reason why all this WWE type of wrestling happens on each and every corner in each and every game. The referee's themselves (past & present) have only themselves and their lack of courage to blame for how widespread this problem has become.

      Every so often you hear "in the box holding/wrestling will be a point on emphasis". The words sound nice and all. But the actions on the pitch fail to match what the big talkers say.

      Delete
  37. 52' that is what I call wrong offside

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AA2 was so late with positioning, and instead keeping the flag down and let VAR check it, he made a guess.

      Delete
    2. He looked so uncertain. One of the England's defender seemed to be very frustrated too about the delay aswell, but yes, it wasnt an offside at first place. When in doubt, flag should stay down, especially in this tournament.

      Delete
  38. @ refinho I'd like to have your point of view on the episode of yesterday afternoon when Alireza Faghani dismissed with his arms Kroos that was stuck to him. And in general what do you think about Faghani?
    Thank you if you will answer me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pleasure on my side, appreciate if I can give value.

      Let me copy and paste:

      I think Faghani mainly profits from a high level of displayed authority and confidence, he makes a 'superior' impression. A huge risk: This can make him seem arrogant, top-down and supercilious from time to time. In Kroos example, I think of course Faghani was right to insist on necessary distance, and demanding respect. But the way he did it was rather 'I am higher than you - go away. Then I talk with you'. This can be done, in other cultures it is accepted. In Western world and refereeing not so much and modern. Therefor, my thought is that as long as FIFA is happy with his rather 'cocky' approach with the underlying philosophy 'referees must be authorities in a hierarchical setting ''ref > player'', then Faghani has excellent chances for refereeing one of the last 4 games in this competition. I see him in a quarterfinal, minimum. Rather semifinal and maybe more. Because: there is a man standing on the pitch, a character, a personality. Something rare outside Europe and Latin Americas. On a decision level, he is as good as his colleagues from other confederations.

      Delete
    2. And I forgot to include: This supercilious impression maangement can make him appear not approachable. A danger in some games, a key success factor in many others.

      Delete
    3. Totaly and completely agree with you. Demanding respect from players is a must and if you have strong personalities you can do it as Alireza did. I loved that gesture. The player knows he can't stand so close. Let's see the next game, it will tell us a lot. But he's a serious candidate for the latest matches.

      Delete
  39. My view on the possible Harry Kane penalty via VAR:

    John Stones clearly pushes his marker in the back right before the Kane incident. As that comes first it negates a penalty appeal that follows and therefore VAR would not review.

    According to Dale Johnson of ESPN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not seen that, but it would indeed be a valid explanation.
      But in that case, FIFA should really think about ways to communicate this.

      Delete
    2. I agree completely. This is where rugby has got its communication right, all the discussions can be heard. You may still disagree but at least you know how the decision was reached

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately FIFA is a very "un-transparent" organization. Who deals in secrecy and confusion. With the short term and long term hopes that people simply forget and move on from incidents and situation. An Organization that chooses to remain in the Stone Age even with all the technology that abounds and is available.

      Delete
    4. I don't want to be FIFA's advocate here, but some things you said seem to be definitely wrong. Talking about an "un-transparent" organization is in my opinion now wrong. FIFA has opened to a clear transparency with the VAR innovation. Of course, there are even points for improvements, but you can't write "Stone Age" when we are experiencing the first world cup with this technology and the explanation for all reviews and most of the decisions taken. You should be patient, maybe we will also manage to know why for some situations VAR didn't call the referee, maybe Busacca or Collina will talk in a conference press about that. In other words, if you want to talk negatively about something just to do that, you will find always a pretext, but everything must be always taken into account.

      Delete
  40. In my opinion not an expected level by both assistant referees, only the calls at the beginning of the match were right, but then...

    ReplyDelete
  41. 78'surprised there was no booking for TUN player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two fouls at the same time, Roldán had just to select which one was more convenient to be whistled for England. Very interesting situation.

      Delete
  42. One thing I noticed today, all referess had special attention for corner kicks and set pieces. A lot of preventive action in the penalty box, sometimes even too much. Aguilar, Sikazwe and Roldan were all had special attention to that today. Maybe that's something the refs were called to pay attention after the first days? (especially after Ricci's penalty I think that)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s clear the refs got directives on:

      Being preventative on corner kicks and free kicks.

      Telling the players getting subbed to jog instead of walk.

      Being precise where the throw ins should be taken.

      Only call penalties they are 100% sure of otherwise wait for VAR.

      Only call offside after a goal chance has ended or always keep the flag down even if they are sure on a goal chance.

      Delete
    2. Somehow it was just so visible today. Sometimes it seemed unneccesary.

      Delete
  43. But then not actually give a decision, had little or no affect on players

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mr Roldan adds four minutes. England then makes a substitute, slowly. No extra time is added, Mr Roldan simply stops game at 94:00. What is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One goal was scored so celebrations plus one substitution at snail's pace and Roldan's at 5 seconds past 4 minutes... Just about the ending one could expect... Quite an amount of dross served up from start to finish!

      Delete
  45. I don't want to criticize Roldan personally, but I think his display was not OK tonight. He did not fulfil the role of a referee on level of impression management. Three examples:
    1< described above by Rik B, handball free kick, many players protesting, he does nothing
    2< described above, pulling arm of a player
    3< minute 85 I think, free kick at AR1, Tunisia #12 disrespecting distance of the free kick. No reaction to staying only 5m away! Completely apathic.
    4< minute 90+, the way he accompanied Lingard to the outside, by jogging next to him, chewing gum in his mouth. Not the image a modern FIFA ref with World Cup format should sell to the world.

    Combined with a lack of authority, confidence, presence and energy, by far the weakest performance so far, and I think not enough for a 2nd game. Only the name and Mr Ruiz in FIFA can now safe him for a 2nd game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always find that chewing gum habit very annoying... For sure I hope Julio Bascunan gets a game instead of Roldan getting a 2nd one... Roldan's Confederations Cup was absolutely poor and today he continued just from there!

      Delete
    2. We saw the same thing but you described much more articulatly :-)

      Delete
    3. A little harsh, refinho. Yes, he wasn't good. But we have performances with crucial mistakes so you can't call that one the weakest.

      For me, he is on the 8.0 mark.

      Delete
    4. Roldan kind of missed two penalties... One is absolutely certain and the other is close but still penalty... So if both are evaluated as wrong, it's two crucial mistakes!

      Delete
    5. 8,0 is my observation also

      Delete
    6. 7.8 the most, and I would go with 7.2 because IMO he missed 2 penalties. One of them absolutely clear, and there were no mutual holding as someone reported here - I re-watched it several times. Ricci also had to be blamed.

      Delete
    7. 8.0 if we are in UEFA modalities, I agree.

      And yes it stays the weakest one in my opinion. We have a VAR, so quality of decisions in key situations is not so important anymore to say who is the best for the further WC games. Of course also a criteria, but we can focus more on what I call 'WC format'.

      And in this (and only this regard), I experienced him as the weakest, and greenest. Even Mr Sikazwe and Diedhiou convinced me much more in personality matters, 2 refs who also can work on this field.

      Delete
    8. Personality aspect is not the only one when you have to assess a performance. That's my point.

      It's certainly an important factor on the report but you can't stay only on this. That factor makes the performance weak. But in the whole?

      Delete
    9. In the whole I'd say he did not manage to establish a clear line in the game. It's not only about personality, it's authority and control here.

      My point is we have similar level of decision-taking, positioning and so on by strong instructions given to all refs, but what you can't instruct is personality, control, authority. Roldan did not have this. So I think, as all refs had the same level of decisions approximately, this point stands out here, and makes the performance the weakest one. Where do you think Roldan did better in yesterday, in what sector?

      Delete
  46. We didn't see a modern referee tonight, we rather saw a 'policeman'.
    He failed to arouse respect and failed in the crucial moment of the game (30'). Many seconds of playon gestures in the midfield at one moment, and then nothing for more important situations. There were no clear targets behind those gestures.
    Not prevention, no reaction on protests, no charisma.
    Penalty is okay for me, and not formulating my criticism, but I wonder if there'd have been big criticisms if he played on.

    First performance that is far away from WC level IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You found the word I was lacking.. charisma. Thank you Mikael, exact. Natural radiation, charismatic, visionary approach, driving the players to a fair game. This was missing. He seemed apathic, lethargic, sometimes even bored. My impression, and I am sure of course Roldan did not want to sell this impression. But if this is what the wide audience gets he must start to wonder what he has to change to avoid it.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't he just like that four years ago? Because then it's very questionable his presence at this World Cup. Really I don't see development in his leadership style.

      Delete
    3. I NEVER saw him different. That is why I am sure his problem is the lack of natural authority - and behind that a lack of true selfconsciousness. That's why he PLAYS (not is!) the policeman. Normally we would see him with dark sunglasses: He tries to hide himself behind a mask of played authority. His way of refereeing is just a fake.

      Delete
    4. Many here are experienced refs or are still in charge.
      If you had read more than this thread you would have recognized that 80 % of the performances at this WC were appreciated by us here. So in future first check the facts before judging by following your prejudices!

      Delete
    5. @Andrasch that's spot on!
      His personality on the pitch seemed rather an act, sometimes very unconfident and passive, then very angry and then laughing with the players.
      "Fake" was the perfect description.

      Delete
  47. Replies
    1. Charisma = self-confidence + assertiveness (result of knowledge & experience)

      There are some other referees exuding charisma on a pitch beside Pitana :-)

      Faghani has left the best impression until today to my taste.

      Delete
    2. In Europe alone there are many... Brych, Kuipers, Mazic, Cakir to name a few who are always pure class... Marciniak, Mateu, Turpin, Skomina all have great personalities too!

      Delete
  48. So much negativity here! The negative opinions about the referees here far outnumber the positive ones! It's a reason why these referees are refereeing the world cup. Has anyone of you refereed professional or semi-professional level senior football before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I have and had I performed as he did I would not have lasted as long as I did. Man management was poor at times

      Delete
    2. @norwegianref there were also many positive comments for other referees here on the blog. So, I think that it is normal to have some criticisms if they are not exaggerated. If we want to follow what you say (not entitled to write because we never experienced what these referees achieved), then this blog should close. If we allow positive feedbacks, we should also allow negative ones, of course everything must be written with always a big respect for the referees involved.

      Delete
    3. I have too but I don’t critisize charisma and such. I look at the decision. I think Kane deserved a penalty.

      Delete
    4. You can't criticize charisma because either you have or you don't have it. Nobody is fault for this. But it's associations who must select the right ones for the right competitions. That's what you can crticise.

      Delete
  49. After the first round......in the seven last matches (4-semi-final) : Pitana, Faghani, Marciniak ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just based on performances on MD1, one should add Kuipers, Cakir, Gassama, Ricci, I think.

      Delete
    2. Marciniak absolutely not if his first performance is anything to go by... Other than that the rest 6 names are spot on! Cunha can also achieve more... I'm very excited to watch Cáceres tomorrow and really hopeful of a good display from him!

      Delete
  50. As an England fan the referee got the first pen 100% right and was a good decision, but I would love somebody in charge of VAR to explain why the 2 holds on Kane in the penalty area didn't result in fouls. They were clear and obvious as they are playing football, not wrestling and it is clear that on both occasions the Tunisia player is making no attempt to play the ball. Overall, I totally agree Rolden lacked Charisma.

    ReplyDelete
  51. So far 0 red cards and already 8 penalties in 14 matches.
    In Brasil 8th penalty arrived at 25 match, in South Africa in 35 match, and in Germany in 40 match!
    And here in Russia, we should see at least 5 more. Only today 2 very clear penalties were missed in favor of England (so blatant holdings that I can not believe someone can justify no PK), and 1 in favor of Sweden in 1st half. Incredible that VAR didn't intervene there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_disciplinary_record the first three red cards early on were for a kick, headbutt and striking an opponent (all spotted by the referees though).

      Maybe this time players know they won't get away with those kind of things due to VAR, and aren't even bothering to try?

      Delete
  52. The arguments about VAR will continue throughout the tournament. It’s a work in progress, I hope they can find their line soon.

    I have been generally impressed with the standard of refereeing but tonight I struggled to find a way to support this performance.

    The most irritating point? 85’ and the number 12 if Tunisia delaying the restart and disrespecting the officials. This is a standard I expect at an inexperienced youth tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, agree on 85'. Display of tolerated loss of authority. Player made ref look like ridiculed. AR1 not intervened, ref not intervened, impossible.

      Delete
  53. And here the link to the compilation of clips from this match:

    https://vimeo.com/album/5238856

    ReplyDelete
  54. One of the worst refereeing displays thus far. Two clear holds on Kane (PKs) that went unnoticed. VAR failing to intervene yet again. Two crucial mistakes, authoritarianism instead of authority, incoherence in foul detection. Roldán, who has never been a convincing official, is doomed to go home before long.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Always surrounded by controversy Roldan was very poor for the game

    ReplyDelete
  56. I don't want to go on user level again, but I feel I have to.

    What we see in the videos is at first a push and then Kane is pulled to ground. The VAR review in the room maybe produced this impression. If Roldan had given penalty to England upon VAR intervention, people like Mr Steve Smith would be the first ones pointing out "pushing before! how dumb can the VAR be?".

    Lesson 1: VARs have a tough job and some people will always genuinely think they are wiser.

    Then Ricci, if he detected a push before, could do three ways: 1< No VAR intervention, as he was not able to intervene because there was a foul in the attack possession phase (the push - and yes, it will shock some people, but indeed a offensive push MUST be treated differently than the defensive push we saw in Switzerland goal! Welcome to real top refereeing).
    2< VAR intervention with the planned outcome: Penalty. Then public would say: there was a push.
    3< VAR intervention with the intention: 'Roldan, look at it, there is holding, but also a push. Check what you like to do with it.' Outcome could be a free kick for Tunisia here. Roldan could go back from the monitor, indicate VAR TV signal, point towards midfield, and make push gesture. Everyone knows, a penalty was reviewed, but he gave free kick for pushing before as the VAR outcome (Yes, this is possible, for all like Mr Smith who don't understand the VAR system and modalities). Risky, this 3rd alternative, but possible, and maybe leading to more acceptance.

    Can we seriosly think Ricci can, within high pressure, and short period of time, weigh these alternatives in the always best possible way? In my opinion, he did - minimum interference is the safest option. If you disagree with this, please acknowledge at least there were colliding opportunities all with advantage and disadvantage.

    Lesson 2: The life of a VAR seems to be grey, and not black and white.

    Lesson 3: Some people moving around here don't know much of refereeing. I read Teo claiming a penalty for Sweden in 1st half in Aguilar game. My friend Teo, do you mean where ball was played first and then sliding tackle hits the attacker? If yes,
    95 out of 100 top referees will never even CONSIDER a penalty there. Some people who very obviously lack in expertise however are criticising VARs - experienced, trained people with 20 years of ref experience in stadiums like Giuseppe Meazza or Borussia Dortmund Park - the whole day long. Much negativity here, as Norway referee pointed out. Please everyone start to consider YOU are the one who is not right in your opinion. It might be the case! As much as I can err in this long (sorry) statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, sometimes all that is necessary is to accept the reality and criticise the referees where it is due... There is no use in finding defensive excuses to protect and justify the indefensible, whatever might be the reasons a wrong decision is a wrong decision - as simple as that... The VARs are there for doing a job and when in anyone's opinion the VAR has failed in his job, that person is absolutely entitled to criticise that and deserved criticism doesn't fall under negativity... Before taking up the job the refs all knew about the pressure of the job, they knew about their responsibilities and that's what they are there for to deal with that so just because it's a high pressure job it doesn't mean no one can question their performances... It's not always right finding excuses to justify and hiding behind grey areas, supportable etc to create a false sense of positivity or support or whatever for the referees and please allow other people to think in their way... You said that I'm a living tribunal and I pass my verdicts etc but here you are doing exactly the same now... You are pointing out users by their names and the entire content of your post means to say the opinions are wrong and needs a change... You absolutely can't do that, anybody can write whatever he or she feels as much as you are entitled to your views... But to dictate others to think or write in a particular way that IMO is not acceptable!

      Delete
    2. Opinions can never be wrong my friend Soham, you are right, and everyone may say it. Most of you argue in a way like 'how can one not see this or that!`?', and this equals 'all other opinions than mine (= ref/VAR was dumb or wrong) are wrong'.

      When it comes to refereeing situations then there are some decisions or views we must identify as clearly wrong. It's nice everyone has opinion but that doesn't mean he's always right in judgeging situations. Clearly wrong 'opinions' in meaning of 'assessments' must be addressed clearly.

      Aside this my goal is to seek different explanations for what happened. Doing verdicts in a right-wrong-scheme is oldschool, not uptodate. We know referees make mistakes. Our task is to seek explanations why they are made. I am not saying at all that a penalty could be the better alternative in the Roldan case. But I say there are reasons for decisions. By only always saying 'ref is wrong' or 'VAR is wrong' we learn very little.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. In this case Roldan was wrong and VAR was wrong as far as my opinion goes... Plain and simple! Any other discussions will not be before I acknowledge this fact... Why it happened is of course wortwo of discussion but not before II acknowledg that it is a clearly wrong decision... This is what the approach of many readers are, and I see no reason why one should change it... You can of course discuss in your own favoured way, but you cannot expect or dictate others to go down that very route... What you perceive as negativity, is just honest amd deserved criticism for another person so no intervention is necessary there! 😉

      Delete
    5. Soham, it is not plain and simple! There was a pushing! VAR may not intervene in such a case, potentially at least. All I wished is before speaking your verdicts, you would take some minutes, relax, see the push, and then reflect your assessment. Still you say 'simple and plain' - this situation is everything but simple, it's complex. 2 potential offences in one, the offensive foul ocuring before! And, ball even not close, which sometimes makes FIFA say holdings should not be punished as ball is not able to be controlled. You see, plain and simple it is not!

      And deserved criticism, well, at first try to reflect this situation, and then you can of course give your 'deserved' criticism... but don't you see that Ricci had many reasons for not touching this situation?

      Delete
    6. No! In my eyes Ricci had no reasons for letting this go... This is football, not wrestling and that is a 100% clear penalty missed whatever might be the proximity of the ball... The push was absolutely insignificant to consider and the holding was absolutely clear and punishable which Ricci himself did in Croatia v Nigeria... Your explanations cannot convince me to think otherwise! Again this is just my view and I shall stick with it, at the same time no disrespect to your opinion either! :)

      My opinion : 2 quite clear penalties missed by Roldan and the VAR... Plain and simple IN MY EYES!

      Delete
    7. Refinho, you are really an outright joke. I should say I had never read so much bullshit. You don't understand beans of refereeing nor VAR (remember everyone, VARs don't have to seek the best possible decisions ahahha), but this is even more serious. You seem to have cognitive issues. You simply don't have a point. So many lines and you just talk nonsense.

      What is it that you can't make out about yesterday's incidents? There are two clear pushes on Kane in the penalty area. Roldán didn't spot the fouls. Electronic review shows Kane is WRESTLED into the ground in both situations. There's no room for doubt. VAR intervention is, then mandatory.

      Another thing you fail to get a grip on: the VAR job can be grey, but it can also be black and white. In Brazil-Switzerland (1-1), Portugal-Spain (Diego Costa) and England-Tunisia (Kane), it was absolutely black and white. VAR had to step in. Period. Because VARs exist to right wrongs and make sure the final outcome reflects the truth of the game.

      As Soham correctly points out, the proximity of the ball is irrelevant because most of the times that (pseudo) argument is nothing but interpretation based on mere speculation. If a player pushes his opponent, he's going against the rules. Unfair action that has to be penalised.

      No, you don't try to come up with different explanations. You just can't see the obvious. Again, either you have a hidden agenda or you've lost your brain somewhere.

      Your hazy and empty reasoning is a massive embarrassment to yourself but you're not aware of that, which is even funny.

      Delete
  57. Former referee Jerome Damon from South Africa in Twitter on yesterday's match : "Based on what we have been shown on international TV; I am not sure why the #Ref has not penalised nor #VAR intervention for the holding of #Kane at corner kicks. Do they see something we don’t see or is it a bad day at the office? #ENGTUN #VAR #WorldCup"

    So that's a former World Cup referee thinking that the referee and VAR were clearly wrong... Mr. Steve Smith has some of the more eminent people siding with his views!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tweet 2 : "Just like woeful match officials on a night, we also get woeful VAR on a night. Tonight #VAR was it. (maybe using one poor performance by #VAR to cement your anti-VAR stance there mate 😂)"

      Tweet 3 : "Why is holding not being penalised? #VAR intervention in penalty area required. No forthcoming... #NotwinningVARfans #ENGTUN #WorldCup"

      Mr. Steve Smith seems to be rather correct and is completely justified in his criticisms where it is due!

      Delete
    2. Again, simple-structured-thinking. One World Cup ref coincidentally supporting the view of someone means he is absolutely right. Very unreflected. For a moment, try to imagine that FIFA - including all refs in Russia and the whole instruction panel - GENUINELY and HONESTLY believes this decision was rather correct. This would be 50 views or even more against Damon. Are they automatically correct? Of course not. Don't overvalue single tweets. Such people doing that also listen to Mr Trump and believe everything he says. The result of this trend is known and will go into history books.

      Delete
    3. Exactly so... Just like you writing a long comment to highlight the negativity in this blog and defending Roldan and Ricci "MIGHT" be totally wrong!! Why do you expect me or anyone to consider only your points listed as 1,2,3 and so on as the only correct interpretation when you are the only one saying it?? You were talking about pointing out clearly wrong opinions in terms of assessment now a big question is how can you be sure that the reader you have pointed out by taking names are the ones wrong and you are always correct?? You may call others personified tribunal and such names but what I can observe is that is you who can't accept other people's views and try to impose your own way of thinking by hook or by crook... And anybody not complying comes across to you as negative... Anyway I'll stick to my own ways and let's not drag this discussion anymore as other readers will be bored! Have a nice day! :)

      Delete
  58. Both England goals came from quick flags providing corner kicks, on the game winner there was also a push into the back of the defender shielding the ball just prior to the corner kick and under the AR's nose. For some reason the tv production ignored proper replays of the corner kick terminations, but I have reviewed with the poor looks from the live feed and I would bet a dollar against a dime that a proper look down the lines would show that each AR got it flat long. The second one is easy to me as a frame by frame look never exposes the white line disappearing and the ball was flat to the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I came to this blog and it helped me to add few new points to my knowledge. Actually, I am trying to learn new thing wherever I find. Impressive written blog and valuable information shared here.
    เรียนพิเศษที่บ้าน

    ReplyDelete
  60. Share great information about your blog , Blog really helpful for us . We read your blog , share most useful information in blog . Thanks for share your blog here .
    สอนภาษาอังกฤษตัวต่อตัว

    ReplyDelete
  61. I am thankful for this blog to gave me much knowledge regarding my area of work. I also want to make some addition on this platform which must be in knowledge of people who really in need. Thanks.
    igcse

    ReplyDelete
  62. Detailed and descriptive articles written in this blog is really very helpful for me as well as for other who seeking such kind of knowledge. It is definitely going to become useful in coming future.
    เรียน ged ที่ไหนดี

    ReplyDelete
  63. It is really a helpful blog to find some different source to add my knowledge. I came into aware of new professional blog and I am impressed with suggestions of author.
    a level

    ReplyDelete