Saturday, 16 June 2018

2018 FIFA World Cup Match 5: France - Australia (discussion)

Let's discuss here the performance of Andrés Cunha s in France - Australia. Good luck to the officiating team! 
Match #5
Kazan, 16 June 2018 12:00 CET
France -  Australia
Referee: Andrés Cunha (URU)
Assistant Referee 1: Nicolás Taran (URU)
Assistant Referee 2: Mauricio Espinosa (URU)
Fourth Official: Julio Bascuñan (CHI)
Fifth Official: Christian Schiemann (CHI)
VAR: Mauro Vigliano (ARG)
AVAR1: Tiago Bruno Lopes Martins (POR)
AVAR 2: Hernan Maidana (ARG) 
AVAR 3:Jair Marrufo (USA)

153 comments:

  1. Now Maidana, an assistant referee, is reported as AVAR1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Maidana has been swapped from Croatia v Nigeria because of the obvious reasons!

      Delete
    2. If you're looking at the FIFA page, check out the previous matches because all are like that, but it's just a bad page layout that switches from AVAR 1 to AVAR 2.

      Delete
  2. Cunha wearing the new green Adidas kit!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now it was shown on tv that FIFA reported still Marrufo as AVAR.
    I give up, dear readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appointments and the comunication of the appointments is becoming a big joke

      Delete
    2. There it was AVAR1: Martins, AVAR2: Maidana, AVAR3: Marrufo
      - no Vargas

      Delete
    3. Yes, it was Marrufo standing behind the chairs. Chefren, I feel with you...

      Delete
  4. Green outfit looks terrible, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For anyone who has played any recent editions of Pro Evolution Soccer, Adidas 2018 looks the same as PES' unofficial kits :-D

      Delete
  5. So Marrufo is there. The only change is about Maidana and Astroza, they swapped their games.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This green of referee's kit can be also confused with Australia shirt. Not that different. For me, a wrong choice there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should've gone for the black one... Maybe they avoided it because of the heat!

      Delete
    2. I see no confusion, to be honest. Green is okay. I‘m sure black would have caused much more problems.

      Delete
    3. Red would be best option

      Delete
    4. Quite honestly, the shade of blue on the referee kits might have been better than green in this sun. Or even the red.

      Black wouldn't work here. I also think debuting a lime green shirt on a game with a yellow team was not smart.

      Delete
  7. Early and correct YC for a reckless tackle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. OT:

    VARs working with referee outfit look like my little cousin dressed like Elsa everytime she watches Frozen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) There was a specific question to Busacca and Collina during press conference about that.

      Delete
    2. I agree. Completely nonsense.

      Delete
    3. VARs are under a lot of stress and pressure... They also sweat a lot :D :D

      Delete
  9. Lime green colour is for cocktail drinks. Ref should have worn red today. Good start for ref, correct YC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red = Lloris
      Yellow = Australia

      France wearing dark blue makes both blue and black unsuitable...

      Delete
  10. They only have five choices:

    Yellow - no Bc of Australian colors
    Green - possible
    Blue - no Bc of French colors
    Red - no Bc of French GK
    Black - no too close to France

    Green is only logical choice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although he could’ve worn red and force Lloris to change before the match.

      Delete
    2. Or worn the blue. Honestly, the referee blue is further away from the French blue than the referee green is from the Australian yellow.

      Delete
    3. In the World Cup who makes that choice is FIFA, they have already chosen the uniform of the referees and teams of all matches in the group stage.

      Delete
    4. Of course. My point is that FIFA could have picked a different color.

      Delete
  11. There is something wrong with the balls

    ReplyDelete
  12. 17'
    Good no offside decision for AR1 and good teamwork. It wasn't clear who played the ball (attacker or defender)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Both AR1 and the referee gave a verbal warning to the same player in minute 39

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I like it, NO mandatory YC but strong verbal warning needed.

      Delete
  14. Good job by Cunha. Full match control and good foul detection.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 48' Possible missed 2nd YC for Leckie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my view a 50/50 decision, Lucas made a bit too much of it. I follow Cunha here.

      Delete
  16. First ON FIELD REVIEW.
    Possible DOGSO, I think.
    It was outside?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inside - Clear penalty and RC for DOGSO

      Delete
    2. It looked like a legitimate attempt to play the ball, so I think YC is the right choice.

      Delete
    3. He clearly got the ball... Can't be a RC

      Delete
    4. Ye, YC is right, he couldnt reach the ball anyway..

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

      Delete
    6. The VAR shows the touch on the ball by the Aus defender> Do it matter?

      Delete
  17. We have an on-field review for a penalty!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Perfect application of the VAR system. Correct penalty and YC awarded after an OFR. Hard to detect in live speed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. IMO correct penalty awarded by VAR.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This was definitely impossible to see without technology.
    But now big question is: Cunha had missed it, so crucial mistake in any case? Assigning marks becomes very difficult, it not impossible :) But well, that's not a problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That‘s why there is no marking in the German Bundesliga at all. Marking with VAR does not make any sense.

      Delete
    2. It's pretty simple... Referees need to be marked on the initial decisions they make! For ARs it's different as they are asked not to flag deliberately in close situations!

      Delete
    3. Well, if want to evaluate only the performance of the referee, it should be a crucial mistake.
      Then you could even discuss, whether the second penalty is a crucial mistake, if Cunha has missed it and only the AR detected it.
      If you evaluate the team performance, it can be ignored.

      So yes, very difficult. But as long as one is consistent in the assessment, I think, one can still give marks (and decide for one way of doing it).

      Delete
    4. Let's take the players' point of view. One referee whistles a penalty all by himself. Another referee first says "no offence" and then gives the penalty one minute later after watching TV. Which referee will the players trust more for the rest of the game? To me, Cunha's marks need to be lowered as he was not able to take the correct decision during play.

      Delete
    5. Correct decision to review, R was in poor position to see the incident. However, FRA7 was in the process of going to ground before contact, which FRA7 initiated. No simulation, no foul. Original decision (indecision?) to play-on was correct.

      Delete
  21. It was a rather quick TV review, which is positive. Having watched the Olympic ice hockey tournament where TV reviews lasted for ages, I was afraid it would be the same here. Well done ref and VAR team!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Missed booking for Umtiti.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  23. Maybe the penalty was awarded by AR2?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a rather late whistle.

      Delete
    2. Probably, it was 5-10s delay..

      Delete
    3. Maybe missed by Cunha, but AR2 was in an excellent position to stop the handling.

      Delete
    4. @Quilava Maybe that explains the slight delay in the whistle

      Delete
  24. Wow. What a stupid hand-PK committed by Umtiti. This looked like Volleyball...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is it true Umtiti got no YC? For me a clear mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No card in occasion of penalty to AUS can be supportable choice because it wasn't a clear pass to a teammate but just a long ball, however YC would have been OK.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This was a role model of VAR interventions. Perfect process. Fully transparent for everyone, good images shown in good speed and angle ... well done everyone, also FIFA.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, I'm not worried about VAR situation mistake. I'm worried about missed second YC for Leckie... (48')

    For me it's a mandatory YC, elbow in the face.

    What about VAR here, does VAR intervene for second YC situations?

    Red Card
    Penalty
    Goal proccess
    Mistaken identity
    (Does Red card means also second YC?)
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, it would be nice to hear your opinion about possible second YC :)

      Delete
    2. No, he is not allowed to intervene at 2nd YC situations.
      But it was reported, that the VAR actually checked that scene (probably for a potential direct RC).

      Delete
    3. Where it is reported?
      I didn't see in live broadcast.

      Delete
    4. Commentators have a screen, which informs them about VAR actions. And the German TV commentator reported, that a check had been done.

      Delete
    5. It is reported by commentaries as they get an info on it.
      But nothing surprising, VARs of course check every potential dangerous occasion like elbowing which could be a straight red. A normal check. Could have been a second yellow card/red, yes.

      Delete
    6. Thank you. Our commentator is sleeping, obviously.

      Delete
    7. No more than incidental contact. No intent, clumsy at very worst. Correct call, although have seen play-on many occasions at this level.

      Delete
    8. The Aus player was well in the air and eyes on the ball, the French player jumps with no eyes on the ball at the player. I can't see any problem.
      This blog sees my profile but puts Unknown in the name.

      Delete
  29. How would be Cunha's mark assessed about those 2 penalties? He missed first PK, but VAR helped him. He probably missed second PK, but AR2 helped him (he waited for 7-8 seconds, there were big protests from Australians...).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should be 7.9

      Second penalty was good teamwork with AR2

      Delete
    2. That's a trouble. Indeed, in case of the first penalty, 7.9 (crucial mistake) should be confirmed, because the officials on the pitch needed an external help. Without VAR, a clear 7.9. But, should we consider VAR as part of active refereeing as well? In that case, 7.9 wouldn't exist. I tend to think that marks should be always assigned as it was done before, so a crucial mistake, but then corrected thank to VAR.
      Second penalty, a teamwork, can't be questioned. Referee or assistant referee is the same, good teamwork.

      Delete
  30. Replies
    1. Luckily we have GLT. Impossible to detect without technology.

      Delete
  31. Wooow he have everything here: GLT, VAR, penalties... Without VAR and GLT it would still be 0-0 :-)))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not? Australia's goal needed neither VAR nor GLT :)

      Delete
  32. How much ignorant are commentators... they are paid so well, they don't know anything about refereeing. Here they reported that Cunha had detected the goal by himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cunha even pointed to his watch... Here the commentators clearly said GLT though!

      Delete
    2. Here they said that VAR told him:D

      Delete
    3. He would have hawk eyes if he had detected this one by himself ;-)
      It was really, really close as we could see only a few moments ago.

      Delete
    4. So, commentators are no professionals worldwide :)

      Delete
  33. Correct goal awarded by GLT.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Matuidi is playing with a ring on his finger... just saw ob the replay of the goal celebration

    ReplyDelete
  35. OT : Wilmar Roldan is most likely the referee for Tunisia v England!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When is deadline for MD2 predictions. Can we wait for appointments which will be announced today and then send you predictions?

      Delete
    2. As soon as Russia v Egypt appointments are out tomorrow, no further predictions will be accepted :)

      Delete
    3. Janny Sikazwe likely for Belgium v Panama and Joel Aguilar for Sweden v South Korea... Waiting for FIFA confirmation!

      Delete
  36. In my opinion, a really good performance by Cunha. I wouldn‘t care too much about the missed penalty and the needed VAR intervention. The contact was very difficult to detect in real speed, almost impossible. That‘s why we have VAR. Cunha can definitely expect to officiate another game.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Definitely, Matuidi was wearing a ring. Who should be blamed for this? Maybe the 4th official?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Matuidi was a substitute the FO should have checked it before the substitution. Before the game the AR should normally do this.

      Delete
  38. I know that some of you resent Jonas Eriksson becoming a TV commentator. And I agree that some of his pre-tournament comments were bitter and inappropriate. However, he does a very good job educating the viewers about the process of VAR. He also explained why the Aussie defender got a YC instead of a RC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But making a list of colleagues to show them red cards leaves a very taste I'm sorry to say!

      Delete
    2. Agree. He should have known better. However, that does not change my opinion on his TV performances. So far, he has contributed to spread "referee knowledge" to Swedish viewers. Besides explaining VAR process and LOTG in general, he shares inside info on communication skills, on dressing room talk etc. Very interesting.

      Delete
    3. Do you have a link to the video where he shows red cards to his fellow referees?

      Delete
  39. Cunha in FRA - AUS: the first crucial incident of the game was reported by VAR, who invited referee to rewatch the incident. A correct penalty was therefore whistled. Cunha had missed it, so for the referee it must be a crucial mistake. Of course, very difficult to spot live, but that's another speech. The second penalty is maybe the result of a teamwork, with assistant referee 2 involved, absolutely good cooperation in that case. It is supportable to whistle without issuing a card, even though a YC would have sound as more appropriate there.
    2-1 by France was a decision by GLT. The disciplinary control was overall OK, no blatant cards missed. The game, despite of the mentioned incidents, was not really challenging in terms of possible tension on the pitch.
    Marks:
    WITHOUT CONSIDERING VAR AS ACTIVE PART OF REFEREEING ON THE PITCH: 7.9 (8.4) Missed one crucial situation, the second penalty was too evident in order to assign a +0.1 so for me it stays as 8.4 without crucial mistake.
    CONSIDERING VAR AS ACTIVE PART OF REFEREEING ON THE PITCH 8.5 two correct crucial call, +0.1 for having spotted the first penalty.

    Which assessment do you prefer? Of course, in terms of a "serious" analysis, in my opinion it should be the first one. Refereeing from a remote room can't be part of an assessment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, I prefer to give no marks if there‘s VAR, however, if you like to, you should stick to the marking system we know. Nevertheless, I can hardly accept a 7.9 for Cunha in this game as, in fact, there was no crucial mistake at all. It‘s really hard to decide, that‘s why I would rather analyse the referees‘s foul detection, personality, management and so on than giving marks.

      Delete
    2. I would say the first one. Although I agree that the penalty was very difficult to spot. Cunha did a good job IMO, maybe a missed YC for SPA right before the final whistle.

      I am happy for Cunha because he was sent home at 2016 Copa America Centenario after not spotting a handball in Brazil-Peru, with the latter scoring as a result and eliminating Brazil. There was lots of protests but the referee couldn't do anything as he and the assistants didn't see the touch. Now he benefits from technology help and makes the correct calls.

      We will probably see him again later in the group stage.

      I also appreciated the calm attitude he displays

      Delete
    3. Of course the first analysis is preferred... Collina and Busacca both made it clear that referees have to make their own calls always and if wrong VAR will correct... Referee can't rely on VAR to correct him and so the main referee's decision on the pitch should be marked!

      Delete
    4. @Osborne I think it will be a shootout between Roldan and Cunha ultimately for who manages to get a 2nd game and who stays with one... My biased wish is of course Cunha for a 2nd game :D

      Delete
    5. @Soham yes I know you don't like Roldan :D it will also depend whether Bascuñan gets a game or not and how Caceres performs. So far the few games I saw from him he is a solid referee with a strong personality.

      Delete
    6. The first one, definitely.
      So, we all agree that Cunha didn't miss second YC? :)

      Great, then!

      Delete
    7. I think that traditional marking system with VAR does not make sense. If it must be that way than i would say 8.4. Penalty was given so i would not asses it as crucial mistake, but also no +0.1 because with VAR it was not that hard to detect. But, i repeat, my main point is that i do not think it is good idea to continue to mark referees like we used to, before VAR

      Delete
    8. @Osborne Yes right... Cáceres seems a very solid referee... Has had a couple of very successful seasons in CONMEBOL and then the excellent U-20 World Cup... I expect him to do well... Bascunan I think will remain only as reserve considering how favourite offside VAR Astroza seems to be!

      Delete
  40. Finally I feel like I’m living in 2018!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Agree chefren. For me, very convincing Cunha. Very good skills of refereeing and good and strong human management. Good disciplinary control. 8,5 for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8.5 is not possible with a missed penalty!

      Delete
  42. I am very positively surprised by this performance. Cunha had to be very carefull in a game involving hardly playing Australia and France who were passively mobbing referee to issue more cards. He succeed in that regard very well, in my opinion.

    I can't blame Cunha for missing the contact at the first penalty. VAR reacted quickly, the on-field review was also quick. Correct decision was reached: PK + YC for DOGSO in the box while trying to play the ball.

    The handball penalty was clearly indicated by Mauricio Espinosa, no doubt about it. No card is fully suportable here.

    To be fair, I liked this referee (team) performance most from all the games played already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is a very good referee in CONMEBOL too... Assured and composed man! So a good performance was expected and I'm very happy for him!

      Delete
    2. When I see Pitana and Cunha I see two very different styles, but both of them are very much acceptable. That's an example of how a world cup can have good refereeing and still leave room for personal style and human qualities. 

      In particular I mean Pitana's proactiveness and firmness vs Cunha's calmness and transparency (he reminds me of Atkinson for some reasons).

      Delete
    3. Variety is the spice of life :) and indeed each style has its own set of advantages and works really well in certain kind of situations... Even Roldan's style in CONMEBOL is really unique and works so well but when it comes to the FIFA tournaments, it's always a different Roldan that turns up... Hopefully the unique style will be on display in Russia this year!

      Delete
  43. Penalty for France is the perfect example for my theory about the difference between TOUCH the ball and PLAY the ball.
    The australian defender made a soft touch of the ball, but he didn't "play" the ball. The ball remained in the same position, in the forward's control area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Genuine attempt to play a ball, right??

      Delete
    2. It's about foul /no foul decisions.
      In similar situations you will see "no foul" decisions with the supreme argument that defender touched the ball. Yes, he touched it, but he didn't "play" it.
      In such situations the defender should play the ball in a clear manner (to remvoe the ball from forwards's control area) if he wants his intervention to be considered as accurate (no foul).

      Delete
    3. Yeah that's what I mean... He attempted to play the ball but did not play it eventually and that's why the penalty was assigned, is it??

      Delete
    4. Yes, the defender touched the ball but is not enough. He dodn't remove the ball from opponent's control area. Immedialy after he touched the ball the defender made a foul.
      In this kind of situation the correct decision should be foul, because the ball remain in the same position and the forward can control it.

      Delete
    5. Read your LOTG Glossary, a play is an action which makes contact with the ball.

      Delete
  44. Best performance of the tournament by referee so far

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Two penalties completely missed by the main ref and the performance is best :D Wonderful analysis :D

      Delete
    2. Soham, please respect the opinions of other readers, if you have a different idea, just have your say. But answering in this manner seems to me a bit disrespectful...

      Delete
    3. Sorry Soham, but you are becoming so irritating.
      Only your opinion is the right one and we are all not competent and/or biased.

      You call Sheriff 'Mr LoTG' but you are acting exactly the same way.

      Delete
    4. I shared my view in a tongue in cheek manner... Can't see anything wrong in that... Anyway I'm changing the comment, wait!

      Delete
    5. "Two penalties completely missed by the main ref. One of course picked up by AR2 and the other not picked up by anyone from the referee team and VAR intervention was necessary. Can that really be called as the best performance? I have my doubts!"

      Is this is a more acceptable version?

      Delete
    6. @DrMr It's the same thing as you are saying... There is no hard and fast rule right that my opinion has to be same as yours, right? So I am entitled to express it... I never tell others to change their views but yes I don't agree with some... What's the problem with that?

      Delete
    7. @Soham, yes the second one is an acceptable version.
      You should always write like that. No need to add, jokes and smiles, because people can have different habits than yours and then they can think you are kidding them.
      Hope it is clear, sometimes it is difficult to communicate on the internet :)

      Delete
    8. Yes that's why I opted for the change in version :)

      Delete
    9. If we merely speak about final decisions, yes, he did not whistle the penalties on his own. But I am not sure he "missed" both of them.

      The penalty for France was a very slight touch in the back of the foot right after a genuine attempt to play the ball, with the player very close to touching the ball, but neither touching the opponent's foot in the first place. As said he got Griezmann from the back with the other foot. This was quite difficult to detect and I do not know how many refs would have whistled that with a ggod understanding of the situation.

      In the second occasion it depends on how the ref and the assistant splitted the job in checking the players. Maybe Cunha was looking more to the lower body of the players amd those who were about to get that ball and did not see Umtiti's hand up high. Or he did see it but waited for a confirmation of the assistant.

      So I think that "two missed penalties" is a pretty harsh summary, as both episodes were not that immediate to spot

      Delete
    10. The second one is never a missed penalty. AR cooperation is part of the referee's gameplan and they are of course working as a team. The first one is of course a missed penalty because all refs on pitch missed it. Good performance for Cunha sure but whether the best till now? I'm not sure!

      Delete
    11. 'Wonderful analysis :D'
      Thats the problem.
      You are acting like the smartest one on this blog.

      Just to remember you, there are many visitors on this blog, ex Fifa and ex top division referees.
      And guess what, they don't reply everyone, they aren't ironic etc.

      Delete
    12. It's okay... Everyone's taste varies and I understand that! No problems! I changed my version you see!

      Delete
  45. A crucial mistake is still a crucial mistake... here the note system is too unflexible and does not give enough space for pluspoints ... for good disciplinary management, foul detection, communication, body language etc
    Following your analysis above I would vote for a 8.0(8.5)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In case you assign a crucial mistake, the mark cannot be more than 7.9

      Delete
  46. Pretty pretty solid display from Cunha. The fact that he did not immediately spot penalty for France is understandable, it does fall into the "grey incident" category. VAR worked to perfection. Besides, great fitness and excellent coordination with ARs (Australia's PK). It bodes very well for him moving forward. Definitely has a shot at performing in KO stage. I knew he's way ahead of Bascuñan, Cáceres or even Roldán.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cáceres I think is ahead of Andres but the other two refs mentioned not quite!

      Delete
    2. Can't agree with you. Have watched Cáceres perform many times and he doesn't convince me at all. He looks like he's never sure of what he decides. Let's see how he will fare at this WC. As to Andrés Cunha, he's always been quite underrated. He does have a lot in him, I think.

      Delete
  47. VIDEOS

    Penalty after an on-field review, DOGSO issue
    https://streamable.com/gsai0

    Penalty for deliberate handling
    https://streamable.com/1i05o

    Goal Line Technology
    https://streamable.com/ym2jw

    ReplyDelete