Saturday, 16 June 2018

2018 FIFA World Cup Match 7: Argentina - Iceland (discussion)

Let's discuss here the performance of Szymon Marciniak s in Argentina - Iceland. Good luck to the officiating team! 
Match #7
Moscow, 16 June 2018 15:00 CET
Argentina - Iceland
Referee: Szymon Marciniak (POL)
Assistant Referee 1: Pawel Sokolnicki (POL)
Assistant Referee 2: Tomasz Listkiewicz (POL)
Fourth Official: Wilmar Roldán (COL)
Fifth Official: Alexander Guzmán (COL)
VAR: Mark Geiger (USA)
AVAR1: Pawel Gil (POL)
AVAR 2: Joe Fletcher (CAN)
AVAR 3: Gery Vargas (BOL)

163 comments:

  1. Big day for the baldy :) Hopefully it goes all well :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marciniak in the green kit as well

    ReplyDelete
  3. And this time there should be no discussions about it - clearly the best choice given the other colours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks great too this green kit when sunlight isn't falling on it.

      Delete
  4. Plenty small fouls from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very good Marciniak so far ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent onside prior to ISL goal !

    ReplyDelete
  7. He is tall, athletic, with significant arm muscles, that's the ideal mix between fitness and authority ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marciniak fouled a player from Iceland - impossible to whistle a free kick for that... :D

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marciniak stamped on an Iceland player :D Is that a RC? :D

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great Wait&See from AR1, no reason to flag it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. VAR supported Marciniak decision there (41').

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now handball. In my opinion grey area, OK to play on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me black and white. A penalty would have been wrong.

      Delete
    2. Why grey, neither one element for PK IMO? :)

      Delete
    3. I said "grey" just because I'm sure some referees would have called it. But for me, clearly not deliberate.
      In Poland they are very strict with that, RayHD can confirm...

      Delete
    4. In case Marciniak whistled it, would the VAR invite him to re-watch the incident?

      Delete
    5. I don't think so. Since the handball existed, that was maybe OK for a whistle, not an evident mistake...

      Delete
    6. Yeah so that kind of lies in a grey area then!

      Delete
    7. @Chefren Then it's grey :)

      About control of the match:
      For sure that guys like Pitana and Marciniak have natural authority they are using very well.
      Good first half

      Delete
    8. For sure natural authority is an asset... Something that Rocchi lacked yesterday in Sochi!

      Delete
  13. Good no penalty ! Natural falling hand position.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 42' Correct play on, no deliberate hanball.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Argentina putting much pressure on Marciniak and he dealing well with it!

    ReplyDelete
  16. 45', Iceland wanted a penalty. Correct by Marciniak to play on.
    Match is turning challenging.

    ReplyDelete
  17. First half by Marciniak can already justify a 8.5 for a very good control of a quite challenging game with some crucial decisions to be taken, but of course, let's wait...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Replies
    1. Was a pretty easy going first half... No big incident!

      Delete
    2. Easy? Oh, well...

      Then Chefren is watching some other match

      Delete
    3. Definitely not easy like most of the other games, Soham.
      Rewatch carefully the intensity of the play, the way of playing by both teams, the fouls and so on. Level was higher there.

      Delete
    4. It's still a normal difficulty match for me... Might go to the challenging category in the next half but not yet in the first half... Other games were more simple for sure but that doesn't automatically make this in the challenging category!

      Delete
    5. Plus latino-american team included, always hard to manage and control.

      Delete
    6. That's a separate issue... Every game in World Cup is important and has a challenge... Uruguay played yesterday too but still you see it was an easy game!

      Delete
  19. I would like to have another look at the penalty scene. To be exact, the scene before that, looked like an ARG foul.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Any info about referees for Monday?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still nothing. It would be interesting to know why some days FIFA is so quick while other days...

      Delete
    2. Maybe they want to await Geiger's VAR performance today before publishing the appointments for Monday.

      Delete
    3. I revealed the names in the earlier post but still waiting for confirmation from FIFA ;)

      Delete
    4. Roldan, Sikazwe, Aguilar?

      Delete
    5. Yes... Aguilar in Sweden v South Korea, Sikazwe in Belgium v Panama and Roldan in Tunisia v England... That's the preliminary information I have got!

      Delete
    6. Yes, Chefren, it`s not official.

      Delete
    7. Then they might wait until Roldan's work right now is over.

      Delete
  21. Clear missed yellow card to Iceland when Mascherano made the shoulder tackle in the penalty area. After the Iceland player fell into sn opponent he kicked out on him. Very obvious and something the AR should see.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Three key match incidents correctly assessed by Marciniak

    - Magnusson was turning back and Meza just ran at him, no deliberate interfering with an opponent, no foul
    - defender clearly plays the ball, but the goal kick should've been awarded instead of corner kick to Argentina
    - definitely no deliberate handball

    Well done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marciniak back in his regular form! That night in Turin cost him a lot...

      Delete
    2. It was in London as far as I can recall... He is a good referee and hat was a mere aberration that happens with all at some point... He has indeed recovered well :)

      Delete
    3. The night was in London, however, I was just thinking of that right now! A pity that his CL season ended in that way.

      Delete
    4. Such situations often make the good referees stronger than ever!

      Delete
    5. London, of course. Against Juve...

      Delete
  23. Another penalty appeal for handball, in this case for sure defender took a big risk. But distance was almost inexistent, it looked like attacker tried to hit on purpose the arm of the opponent... therefore OK no call for me...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could have been an on-field review there?

      Delete
    2. Yes, maybe Marciniak communicated that he had seen everything by himself...

      Delete
  24. Busy minutes for Marciniak now with 2 rejected penalty appeals.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What a game for Marciniak... whistled a correct penalty to Argentina and it was missed. Game is becoming even more challenging than Portugal - Spain if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sorry for Messi. Terrible shot, I can not believe he shot it in that way.

      Delete
  26. Well done, Marciniak. Very good performance so far.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 72' : Was YC necessary? I think rather no!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Missed penalty at 77'? Should've been at least an intervention?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An on-field review I mean!

      Delete
    2. I don't understand this "at least an intervention"... Was it an absolutely clear foul and an obvious mistake by Marcziniak? No... No VAR in that case...

      Delete
    3. Umm looking at replays it's a definite penalty!

      Delete
    4. Still disagree... There was contact, yes... Did it cause the player to fall? Not really, no reason to lift the left leg after the contact to the right one... Was it simulation and a YC? No, there was slight contact...

      Delete
    5. By your logic Rocchi's penalty award to Portugal yesterday is a mistake, isn't it?

      Delete
  29. Possible penalty in 77', VAR supported Marciniak... I have doubts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is the line here? Who defines the VAR penalty standards for Fifa. After Ronaldo's situation It seems really concerning there is obviously a contact here. It is a game changing situation.

      Delete
    2. Well the contact is crystal clear and that's a penalty on watching replays! Geiger had to intervene there!

      Delete
    3. There was a slight contract but ARG players are falling like flies 🇮🇸

      Delete
    4. But a trip or a clip is a foul, right?

      Delete
    5. Intensity, Soham... Not every contact is illegal -_-

      Delete
    6. Does that mean one can make any contact in penalty box provided intensity is less? The one Cunha had awarded after VAR intervention in the previous game had even lesser contact... Sorry but this was a penalty!

      Delete
    7. You can't compare sliding tackle and trip in a terms of a intensity.

      Delete
    8. Yes, absolutely! One can make almost any contact anywhere, not only in the penalty area provided that there's not enough intensity to call that contact a foul...

      Delete
    9. It's not about penalty or not, it's penalty, unfortunately.
      I'm speaking about comparing uncomparable.

      Delete
    10. Yep I understand what you say. This particular situation is just a penalty for me though. The earlier situation also was yep!

      Delete
  30. 77' Marciniak had a terrific position.Spot on imo

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

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. For me as well. Marciniak was well positioned, but he didn't see well.

      Delete
    2. But Marciniak's gestures and yelling made it look like he was 200% sure of his decision!!

      Delete
    3. I agree, I think its a penalty. The only reason I can see for no VAR intervention is that the referee told the VAR he was happy and was going to back his call.

      Delete
  32. Marciniak had a clear view on the - little - contact in the box. He seemed totally sure ... but Iceland was lucky here. Very near to a crucial mistake but I understand Marciniak and follow him with a little headache.

    ReplyDelete
  33. IMO, Marciniak overreacted by yelling at Pavón. After that, it would be difficult to change the idea, so in my eyes he just decided himself and even didn't want VAR's input. That's my feeling of the situation. It's Marciniak, he loves to be a boss...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed this kind of reaction, indeed he should have avoided that, this impeded him in eventually changing idea...

      Delete
    2. He looked in the last minutes after that situation slightly flustered... In case he has seen the replay in the stadium he must have realised he made a mistake probably! But Geiger had to intervene there for sure... They can't ignore a clear mistake just because main ref tells or something! But as Ray rightly points out Marciniak could avoid that in such a situation!

      Delete
  34. 90' and no cards until now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Record to be broken today?

      Delete
    2. Every time we say that...

      Delete
    3. Record broken... And the referee is... *Drumrolls* Szymon Marciniak :D

      Delete
    4. So he followed, what he told before the tournament.

      Delete
    5. which wc match was last without a YC?

      Delete
    6. I think, Germany-Spain (Kassai, 2010)

      Delete
  35. Not completely convinced, though that's hugely due to the foul detection, but that can be very easy to misjudge without looking at them closely. Still haven't seen a penalty replay. Pavón incident for me difficult, but he was very sure and the VAR did not interfere.

    Missed YC for Mascherano in 90+1 though. And maybe one-two for several players who made five or six fouls.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Very difficult to assess Marciniak's performance, for sure one can back him regarding almost all the incidents but the big doubt is about the possible penalty in 77'... Marciniak in my opinion was too convinced of himself, with a different approach, maybe VAR would have invited him to rewatch the incident.
    The fact that Polish was so convinced could have played a role in Geiger's mind, it was almost impossible, after that, to call the referee, inviting him in changing idea.
    Now, apart from the situation, penalty of not, this is a point for improvement for Marciniak... I can't see it in a different way.
    But at the same time, if he was sure, can we really blame him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I won't blame him at all... But what Ray said makes sense... The yelling was totally unnecessary and Marciniak must avoid that... Arbitro Internacional also analyses that wonderfully in Twitter... That was bordering on overconfidence and if that is what prompted Geiger to intervene then Argentina can feel very hard done by!

      Delete
    2. I think that the first 76 minutes were excellent. Marciniak correctly dealt with 4 different penalty appeals and did an excellent job with foul recognition and player management. Unfortunately, for me it is a clear penalty in 77' and a missing YC to Mascherano in 90+1

      Delete
    3. Good analysis by Arbitro Internacional on Twitter about this incident, but we must also say that nowadays a referee with such determination without technology is very rare to see... I mean, this is the essence of refereeing, having immediately an assessment about a situation, if we blame that, we go against the "human" refereeing and in favor of technology, this for some aspects is not good... I hope you understand what I mean.

      Delete
    4. He messed the situation at 77' up all by himself by shouting and yelling at the player... And Geiger should have intervened there, his non-intervention is just unacceptable! Before the tournament we were discussing how experience of US and Italian referees with VAR is crucial and funnily those are the two generating most controversy as VARs! On the other hand is Vigliano who has no VAR practice in his own league etc but made a fantastic intervention in the earlier game today!

      Delete
    5. When there is VAR you don't act like that! You simply don't because there is always chance that you didn't see well. The same happened in London - he didn't see well the incident and missed PK. So he did today. There was a MUST to go and review incident. We already have several situations where VAR had to intervene (not only Irrati, but several more, where refs could and should go to review the incidents. Why not if there is VAR?!

      Delete
    6. Soham - your pointless systematical criticism on the entire VAR method after only 6 (!) games and 2 (!) interventions is becoming a bit disgusting. Very populistic, not very reflected or differentiated.

      Delete
    7. It's pointless to you so feel free to ignore it... I'm pretty sure what I say makes a point and lots of people are sharing similar opinion too... This was a VAR fail and I never criticised the entire VAR method ever, probably you're reading through the lines a bit too much!

      Delete
    8. You are taking Irrati and Geiger as 2 individual examples and draw a generic conclusion that VARs exposed and familiar with the VAR system would be "funnily" worse than 1 individual case which has taken a decision better. This is what I mean with 'simple thinking'. I agree with your view that it should be a penalty but I encourage you for less sarcastic, populistic and unreflected statements. Your opinions would benefit from this and could even make more people share it if presented in a more composed way my friend :)

      Delete
    9. @refinho

      I'm speaking this for two days.
      It's not about opinion, it's about the way of expressing.

      Ironicly, I have the same opinion as Soham most often.

      Delete
    10. I'm afraid you're misinterpreting my words grossly here. I said that most of us (including me) were stressing on the fact that VAR familiarity will be a criteria in referee appointments this time. But it's a funny coincidence that the two referees with the greatest VAR experience has generated the 2 biggest talking points till now. That was my entire point and nothing more than that. And of course nothing against the VAR system at all.

      Delete
    11. @DrMr: Exact. The form determines how content is perceived.

      Delete
  37. Fully in control Marciniak,some moments were challenging but I think he deakt with it well.
    Also 0 cards,very rarely we see that.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I rewatched the penalty incident. I‘m sorry, but I cannot back the decision to play on. The defender was making the contact, not the attacker - and this contact was enough to make him fall to the ground. I do not understand why there was no VAR intervention at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly so! There had to be an on-field review!

      Delete
  39. I think we have some gap between top-level refereeing's view of such incidents and the crowd's wisdom. First of all: this was tripping, and I think we agree penalty is the better alternative. But: the descend was also a bit easy, and a bit cheap.
    If Marciniak was fully aware of this contact, and consciously deemed it as not enough in his personal line and approach, then it is only correct not to intervene! Geiger then was able to confirm that his perception ("light contact") was correct, and therefore he can confirm his live perception and decision. The main referee should stay the person who decides, this has been pointed out in all communiques of FIFA, Collina and so on.

    Therefor, everyone, keep calm, don't jump on the train of criticism on VAR (this is easy, but too simple here). A decision of the main referee you can criticize or accept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I would like to add: If Marciniak had gone out to the monitor to look himself, I would be very sure that he would stick to his decision. As he would not have seen new information (if my theory is correct that he perceived the light contact in the manner it happened).

      Delete
    2. Then the blame would be entirely on Marciniak... So if someone judges it as a clear penalty and the fact Geiger didn't intervene, then Geiger has to share the blame as well

      Delete
    3. No, he wouldn't. You must try to imagine the communication between ref and VAR. It could be like:

      Geiger: "Szymon, what did you see?" - Marciniak: "I saw a contact, but not enough, player fell easily. Not enough!" - Geiger: "I can confirm your perception, light contact. Ok, then go on."

      This is no one way route, VARs are clearly taught to listen to ref's perception and act on that basis!

      Delete
    4. First of all I am not buying the light contact theory so my discussion is on a completely different line... The VAR is there to judge what actually happened and not confirm any false perception the referee might have... And why VAR should what he saw and all that, once Geiger feels it's penalty he will recommend a review... Since he didn't he assrssed it as no penalty and as per my assessment that's wrong!

      Delete
    5. Your freedom to buy it or not, but this is FIFAs and IFABs approach.

      Delete
    6. I agree with refinho here.
      It is not enough that Geiger feels it's a penalty for him to intervene. He needs to be convinced that Marciniak would change his opinion after the OFR. Otherwise the OFR would just be an unneccesary delay.
      For me it was a penalty, but I don't think, we can put much blame on Geiger here.

      Delete
    7. I just asked an instructor from FIFA and he told me the VAR if he thinks that it's an error he can advise a review anytime he feels an error his made and then main referee would review pitchside... Geiger has no obligation to consider whether Marciniak will eventually change or stick with his initial call, it's solely Geiger's perception of the incident that would either lead to an intervention or the lack of it!

      Delete
    8. I have not said he may never "overrule" the ref's perception. But he must consider it. If the ref says: "I have recognized the contact, I am aware of it, but it is not enough for me", and if this is correct on a mere perception (not interpretation!) level, no intervention is what FIFA wants and supports.

      If he says "I have seen the contact at the knee, not enough for me" and the VAR sees "There was a contact at the foot, not at the knee", the perception does not match video footage and he can invite him to go to the monitor.

      Delete
    9. In case Marciniak says the contact isn't enough for a penalty, VAR can ask him to re-watch if the concerned official thinks the contact is enough, that's what I'm told. It was a clear penalty so we all were expecting VAR to intervene there!

      Delete
    10. I agree with Refinho. VAR could easily have asked what the referee thought and if the referee said there was contact but it's not a penalty for me, then the VAR has to back him and not waster time with an OFR. Remember that it is the referee that makes the final decision.

      Delete
  40. Penalty awarded is wrong. Either normal contact or initiated contact.

    Penalty not awarded is clear on replay.

    As expected VAR intervention is inconsistent. Nothing will surprise me as long as Bussaca is involved.

    Clear simulation and dissent being “accepted” to appease teams. What an image.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As expected VAR intervention is inconsistent" - please use wikipedia and search for 'confirmation bias'.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely agreed Gerry!

      Delete
    3. Wow. English lessons coupled with your valuable insight. Thank you.

      As usual FiFA will back slap and congratulate no matter what decision is given. All very embarrassing.

      You give small contact penalty, no problem. You don’t give small contact penalty, no problem. Just don’t upset the players. I can hear it now.

      Delete
    4. I just mean if you go into this World Cup with the mind 'VAR is inconsistent', you will find plenty examples to make your theory true. Maybe we can wait for all 64 games and then draw conclusion.

      Delete
    5. Everything is grey area and referee's discretiom so referee is always correct. And of course VAR is infallible. Let's move on. @Gerry

      Delete
    6. That's what I meant with 'unreflected' :)

      Delete
    7. My point is that they will most certainly support the referee no matter what decision is given/not given.

      I’m happy with intervention in FRAvAUS.

      People here said Ronaldo penalty was soft. It’s no more firm than ARG claim today. The penalty awarded for ARG is incorrect for me but I’m sure if it wasn’t awarded there wouldn’t have been intervention, similarly had claim been awarded there would have been no review.

      FOX sports commentators in post match analysis seem to have a similar opinion. The public will lose faith in the system. FOX also said that iceland had defeated Argentina 1-1.

      I now see on Twitter that Clattenburg is questioning both decisions.

      Delete
    8. I agree with your comment but if you want to please the public...
      You'll never succed :)

      But good point, anyway.

      Delete
    9. Now I can be convinced that our interpretation was correct... Clattenburg is a man who knows a thing or two about refereeing ;)

      Delete
    10. I think, we have to distinguish between the VAR supporting those decisions and FIFA (internally) supporting them.
      As the VAR should only intervene for clear and obvious errors, it is OK, that he confirms all those decisions.
      But nevertheless FIFA should talk with the referees about consistency to avoid such situations and to decrease the grey area.

      Delete
    11. Yes Phillip totally correct. But to be fair the second case at 77' looks a clear situation than a grey area!

      Delete
  41. When Messi kicks the penalty, Marciniak does not watch the ball, nor does he look at the goalkeeper. Instead he is engaged in making the field players stay outside of the box. Looks strange to me...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have VAR for that and the AR.

      Delete
    2. Don't know where you referee but that is how you are supposed to do it. AR looks for GK movement because he's the one in line. Otherwise why have him there for penalties.

      Delete
    3. @Jackson

      In Germany it would be -0,1.

      The Ref has to watch that no one crosses the line but as well that the kicker makes no offenses. (No matter, where you are referee)

      What Marciniak did was simply wrong, no excuses.

      Delete
  42. After Gerry's comment I rewatched the penalty awarded... There was even lesser extent of extent of almost zero intensity but that was whistled... So if we go by the less intensity contact theory then also one decision is clearly wrong... A referee cannot have different lines in judging similar kinds of situations!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen. That’s my point. I will back almost every referee’s decision but VAR has to find the correct line.

      Delete
    2. Yes that's my point. Where's the consistency? Either both has to be penalty or both has to be play on!

      Delete
  43. Excellent performance of Szymon. He and Nestor will be the protagonists to the end.
    @refinho, yesterday you used perfect words to describe nestor performance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I do not think we can blame Geiger here without knowing exact communication between them. As far as i know there is possibility that Geiger suggested OFR, but Marciniak declined. It is possible to do according to the protocol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? In that case that's even more outrageous by Marciniak :o I don't think any referee will hesitate to have a check in case VAR advises them. I hope surely that was not the case today because if it happens like that there were be more problems later!

      Delete
    2. I agree. But that is why i say you should not jump in crticising VAR immideatly

      Delete
    3. Exact, Filip. Reading the IFAB protocol can help, it is all laid out in it. All I also wanted to express before is: there can be many reasons for one or other decision. Always suggesting VAR is sleeping is too simple.

      Delete
    4. Ok I didn't take that into account. Apologies. But if Marciniak declined to review even on VAR's advice then that would be outrageous and appalling. That decision basically costed Argentina a win!

      Delete
    5. It's exactly my feeling that Marciniak didn't even want to hear about potential on-field review.

      Delete
    6. @Ray Do you think the bosses will appreciate that kind of attitude? What do you think? In an ideal world they shouldn't tolerate but with FIFA every incredible thing is possible!

      Delete
  45. VIDEOS

    Penalty incident #1
    https://streamable.com/rmr1o

    Penalty incident #2
    https://streamable.com/gj2yi

    Penalty incident #3 (handling)
    https://streamable.com/c7fay

    Penalty incident #4 (handling)
    https://streamable.com/wlmne

    Penalty
    https://streamable.com/8izts

    Penalty incident #5 (handling)
    https://streamable.com/nobx6

    Penalty incident #6 (tripping vs simulation)
    https://streamable.com/dmgfl

    Missed YC for reckless stamp
    https://streamable.com/oomho

    Funny
    https://streamable.com/m45i7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot the missed yellow card when the Iceland player kicked his opponent when the ball was about 25 meters away.

      Delete