Saturday, 22 June 2019

2019 FIFA Women's WC - Referee appointments for Round of 16 (I)

Referee appointments for round of 16 at 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup. 
Match 37 (Nice)
22 June 2019, 21:00 CET
Norway - Australia
Referee: Riem Hussein (GER)
Assistant Referee 1: Kylie Cockburn (SCO)
Assistant Referee 2: Mihaela Tepusa (ROU)
Fourth Official: Jana Adamkova (CZE)
Fifth Official: Maria Sukenikova (SVK)
Video Assistant Referee: Felix Zwayer (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Sascha Stegemann (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Katrin Rafalski (GER)

Match 38 (Grenoble)
22 June 2019, 17:30 CET
Germany - Nigeria
Referee: Yoshimi Yamashita (JPN)
Assistant Referee 1: Naomi Teshirogi (JPN)
Assistant Referee 2: Makoto Bozono (JPN)
Fourth Official: Casey Reibelt (AUS)
Fifth Official: Maiko Hagio (JPN)
Video Assistant Referee: Carlos del Cerro Grande (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: José María Sánchez Martínez (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Mayte Chavez (MEX)

Match 39 (Valenciennes)
23 June 2019, 17:30 CET
England - Cameroon
Referee: Liang Qin (CHN)
Assistant Referee 1: Yan Fang (CHN)
Assistant Referee 2: Kum Hyo Hong (PRK)
Fourth Official: Hyang Ok Ri (PRK)
Fifth Official: Kyoung Min Kim (KOR)
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Mohammed Mohammed (UAE)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Michelle O'Neill (IRL)

Match 40 (Le Havre)
23 June 2019, 21:00 CET
France - Brazil
Referee: Marie-Soleil Beaudoin (CAN)
Assistant Referee 1: Princess Brown (JAM)
Assistant Referee 2: Stephanie-Dale Yee Sing (JAM)
Fourth Official: Esther Staubli, (SUI)
Fifth Official: Susanne Kung (SUI)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Christopher Beat (AUS)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Oleksandra Ardasheva (UKR)

199 comments:

  1. Interesting: Riem Hussein 3 appointments, Bibiana Steinhaus only 1 game.
    Question to German readers: would you have expected that?
    To add, Bibiana Steinhaus for some reasons was not appointed in CL KO stage in the second part of 2018-19 season.
    I don't know, maybe she is close to retire at international level, after a so long time, I have this feeling.
    About the rest of appointments, surely Marie-Soleil Beaudoin with the best game so far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not surprised about a R16 match for Hussein and I don't think, the fact, that it's her 3rd match is so important. We have to wait, whether Steinhaus also gets a R16 match (or even more). If not, it could only be explained by some injury problems, I think.
      It is possible, that she will retire on Women's international level after the tournament, because she has achieved everything there. I wonder, whether there is any chance to see her in men's international competitions. She has completed two Bundesliga seasons and is already on the FIFA list. So I think, technically there would be no obstacles. Some female FIFA ARs have also been used in men's competition.
      The question is, whether UEFA wants that or not.

      Beaudoin had the U17 final, so one could maybe expect a good tournament for her. But honestly, I did not expect it.
      Yamashita and Qin both had solid first matches, so a second match was expected. Let's see, whether the Australians are also appointed again or FIFA is focussing on them for the last rounds (as AFC representatives).

      Delete
    2. Agreed, Philipp. However, one can say that it is a very successful first WC for Hussein considering the three assignments. But overall nothing very surprising. There are rumours that Steinhaus suffered a minor injury after her first game, but nothing confirmed yet. If that is true, it is likely that Steinhaus will get another game in the next stages of this WC.

      Delete
    3. It's quite simple really. Riem has been better than Bibiana at this tournament. And she's rightly being rewarded. Names shouldn't matter only performances.

      Delete
  2. With 'fifth official' you mean the reserve assistant referee, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Temporary dispensation: no cautions for goalkeeper encroachment during Kicks from the Penalty Mark at the FIFA WWC 2019.
    Source: IFAB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank goodness

      Delete
    2. They realized that this was something very excessive. I praise this decision.

      Delete
    3. but that only applies to penalties

      Delete
    4. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Surely we would have penalty shootout in the knockout phase and would see a lot of goalkeeper seeing Red cards for technical infringements which was very harsh to say the list

      Delete
    5. The ripple effect of this is that the door is opened for persistent infringement.

      Delete
    6. "No VAR for keeper encroachment at penalties in Premier League"

      https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48703852

      So enforcement is already beginning to be selectively used and/or enforced.

      Delete
    7. Pierluigi Collina interview:
      https://www.fifa.com/womensworldcup/news/collina-talks-var-penalties-and-refereeing-at-france-2019

      Delete
    8. It's important to note that the dispensation is only for kicks from the penalty mark when deciding a match, i.e. after extra time. For Penalties during play the caution still applies.

      Delete
  4. Holand v Canada
    38th minute

    Frappart made a terrible to decision play the advantage. A Dutch player fouled at the top of the penalty box. In a position that would have led to an excellent spot for a free kick. But Frappart plays advantage even though the ball actually gets played away from the goal. Not surprisingly nothing developed for the Dutch team. She did however correctly caution the Canadian player. But she deprived the Dutch team of an free kick in a scoring position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why do referee's seem to always have a look of disgust and/or dejection when they're waiting on VAR to do its thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No data to support this hypothesis. This should just be read as an(other) attack on ALL elite referees that gives the impression of a bitter and envious person.

      Delete
    2. Lol sheriff you read to much into very little things

      Delete
    3. Mikael, I hope your day is as pleasant as you are.

      Chiagozie, I just find their facial gestures interesting and intriguing. If a referee were to ever speak about what is going through their head when VAR is intervening in their match. That's a conversation I'd love to hear.

      Delete
  6. WOMEN'S WORLD CUP
    GROUP STAGE / 3RD MATCHES

    SOUTH AFRICA vs GERMANY
    Sandra Braz (POR)
    Clément Turpin (VAR)

    (+) 27.33 The ball hit the referee and correctly restart with dropped ball
    (+) 48.45 Correct play on for penalty appeal (GER).Defender touched the ball
    (+) 52.12 RSA 4 yellow card for reckless (step on foot)/SPA
    (+) 52.50 GER 20 yellow card for dissent.Difficult to understand reason on tv
    (+) 55.35 RSA 3 yellow card for reckless
    (+) 65.15 RSA 22 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
    (+) 75.15 GER goal correctly disallowed for offside (AR1)
    (+) 83.00 GER goal correctly disallowed for offside (AR1)

    CHINA vs SPAIN
    Edna Alves Batista (BRA)
    Mauro Vigliano (VAR)

    (-) 21.30 CHN 11 should recieve yellow card for reckless (tackle)
    (+) 61. 57 CHI 16 yellow card for reckless (step on foot)

    NIGERIA vs FRANCE
    Melissa Borjas (HON)
    Danny Makkelie (VAR)

    (+) 26.50 NGA 4 yellow card for SPA
    (+) 44.47 FRA 13 yellow card for reckless (high leg)
    (+) 72.00 Correct penalty kick was given (FRA) after good intervention,OFR.NGA 4 (second) yellow card for reckless (tackle) and send off. Then penalty kick retaken by VAR and yellow card to GK (NIG).It was unfortunately wrong intervention by VAR which was changed the result of the match.On the other hand,According to the protocol you can not intervene since the ball went out after hit the goal post without touching GK
    (+) 97.23 FRA 10 yellow card for reckless (tackle)

    SOUTH KOREA vs NORWAY
    Marie-Soleil Beaudoin (CAN)
    Christopher Beath (VAR)

    (+) 2.58 Correct penalty decision (NOR). KOR 8 yellow card for holding
    (+) 45 +1 Possible penalty situation (NOR).Both players are challenging with the ball so no punishable contact.
    (+) 48.25 Correct penalty decision (NOR).Tackle/clear contact
    (+) 66.35 Possible penalty situation (KOR). Correct play on decision (soft contact)
    (+) 84.39 KOR 13 yellow card for reckless (tackle)

    JAMAICA vs AUSTRALIA
    Katalin Kulcsar (HUN)
    Jose Maria Sanchez (VAR)

    (+) 22. 50 Possible penalty situation (JAM) Play on was the correct decision (normal challenging body to body)
    (-)36.05 JAM 11 should recieve yellow card for reckless tackle
    (+) 70.15 JAM 5 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
    (+) 75.15 JAM 10 yellow card for holding
    (+)77.05 Possible penalty situation (AUS). In my opinion GK step on the ground, attacker initiated the contact unintentionally. So correct play on.No intervention even you think it is penalty

    ITALY vs BRAZIL
    Lucila Venegas (MEX)
    Carlos del Cerro Grande (VAR)

    (-) 2.55 ITA 7 should recieve yellow card for reckless (tackle)
    (+) 11.46 BRA 13 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
    (+) 14.30 ITA 13 yellow card for reckless
    (+) 28.15 ITA goal correctly disallowed for offside (AR2)
    (+) 37.40 Possible penalty situation (BRA) for handball. (short distance/natural position). correct decision no penalty
    (-) 71.50 Wrong penalty decision (BRA) in my opininon.Normal contact in football shoulder by shoulder.VAR can not intervene this since there is a contact to support
    (+) 84.30 Possible penalty situation (ITA).No penalty for me (player already felt down before the contact).
    (+) 93.40 BRA 14 yellow card for reckless

    RF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JAPAN vs ENGLAND
      Claudia Umpierrez (URU)
      Carlos del Cerro Grande (VAR)

      (+) 65.05 Possible penalty situation (JPN).correct play on. Defender touched the ball clearly.
      (+) 70.10 The ball touched the referee. The game stopped and restarted with dropped ball

      SCOTLAND vs ARGENTINA
      Hyang Ok Ri (PRK)
      Bastian Dankert (VAR)

      (-) 13.20 SCO 10 should receive yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (-) 37.00 SCO 3 should receive yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (-) 57.55 ARG 19 should receive yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (+) 74.45 ARG 19 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (+) 84.20 SCO 22 yellow card for delaying the restart of play
      (+) 84.45 SCO 9 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (+) 86.00 Correctly penalty was given (ARG) after OFR. Penalty missed but retaken after VAR intervention and yellow card to GK.But It was wrong intervention by VAR because goalkeeper's one leg was touching line

      NETHERLANDS vs CANADA
      Stéphanie Frappart (FRA)
      Felix Zwayer (VAR)

      (+) 1.00 Penalty decision for (CAN) changed after VAR intervention.The faul committed just outside of the penalty area.OFR was wrong since there is a factual decision
      (+) 21.15 CAN goal correctly disallowed for offside(AR2)
      (+) 22.10 NED 6 yellow card for SPA
      (+) 37.50 CAN 3 yellow card for reckless (it was shown after good advantage)
      (+) 47.35 player accidentally step on hand.Correctly No faul
      (-) 71.25 Goal kick was retaken for what? It was correct restart
      (+) 79.45 CAN 5 yellow card for illegal use of arm
      (-)88.50 Early whistle inside the penalty area for offensive faul. Referee must delay the whistle like ARs delay flag for offside
      (+) 89.35 NED 19 yellow card for reckless

      CAMEROON vs NEW ZEALAND
      Kateryna Monzul (UKR)
      Massimiliano Irrati (VAR)

      (+) 56.50 Correct goal decision (CMR).No handball
      (+) 60.50 Possible penalty situation (CMR) Play on was the correct decision.(No punishable faul)
      (+) 67.00 NZL 3 yellow card for holding
      (+) 68.35 CMR 21 yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (-) 76.00 Incorrect offside flag. No interfering (AR2)

      SWEDEN vs UNITED STATES
      Anastasia Pustovoitova (RUS)
      Danny Makkelie (VAR)

      (-) 2.40 Incorrect goal decision. USA goal has to be disallowed for offside.Var must intervene.Clear interfering with GK
      (-) 49.20 Incorrect goal decision (USA).USA goal has to be disallowed for offside.VAR recommended OFR but Referee gave the goal after watch it.interfering with opponent
      (+) 58.10 USA 5 yellow card for reckless (it was shown after advantage)
      (+) 86.00 SWE 10 yellow card for holding

      THAILAND vs CHILE
      Anna-Marie Keighley (NZL)
      Paolo Valeri (VAR)

      (-) 3.35 THA 5 should receive yellow card for reckless (tackle)
      (-) 11.10 Possible penalty situation (CHI) for handball.Referee said no penalty but Penalty should have been given.Var has to intervene for this punishable handball
      (-) 43.10 CHI 9 should receive yellow card for reckless
      (+) 58.50 THA 19 yellow card for reckless(tackle)
      (+) 82.10 Correct penalty was given to (CHI) after OFR. THA goalkeeper yellow card for reckless

      RF

      Delete
    2. Frappart
      37.50 CAN 3 yellow card for reckless (it was shown after good advantage)

      IMO, that's not a "good advantage". Nothing developed or was gained by the advantage. The more advantageous play would have been the free kick for the affected team.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your feedback Sheriff. I agree with you. Please avoid the word “good”!! Have a nice day.
      RF

      Delete
  7. Well, two US assistant referees for Canada in KO stage, with all the referees you have...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nigeria with fouls here and there disrupting the flow of the match. No serious foul yet to warrant a yellow card but Yamashita could do well to caution persistent infringement rather than the foul itself

    ReplyDelete
  9. Possible active offside for 1-0 by Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For me this time it is offside (obstructing keeper's line of vision) and goal should be disallowed. Let'see the decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, she allowed the goal. I disagree.

      Delete
    2. Penalty surely for germany

      Delete
    3. Could be a red but precedence suggest otherwise

      Delete
    4. According to the laws of the game the first goal should not stand because she was in line of sight but it would be very harsh because she made no attempt for the ball

      Delete
    5. For me offside, because she is in the line of vision. An attempt to play the ball is not required.

      Delete
    6. The law is "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or" - the GK was not getting to that ball whether she had a clear view or not so I don't see how there can be an offence.

      Delete
    7. Good point. The interpretation, which I know, is that being in the line of vision is sufficient. But indeed the LotG don't support that.

      Delete
  11. Clear penalty missed and now another OFR.
    It can be RC for SFP, but given the trend of this tournament, she will show yellow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why is this a penalty? Of course she strikes the German player, but German player goes in with open studs first, and Nigerian player touches ball first. It’s just like that silly penalty after VAR in the opening group stage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the light touch with the ball doesn't excuse everything and a strong kick against the knee follows.
      In the (I think, there were even two) situations in the group stage, the defender at least fully played the ball first. So today, it's even a clearer penalty IMO.

      Delete
  13. 33': VAR check for mistaken identity but Yamashita didn't change her decision. I didn't understand what happened there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She gave the card for dissent not for the foul I guess

      Delete
    2. Indeed it should be that she booked another player for dissent and VAR thought she had booked a wrong player. However, the challenge deserved YC so I think VAR was allowed to have doubts.

      Delete
  14. Another silent check by VAR in 45'+4 for a possible penalty. Play was allowed to continue. The busiest first half ever in this competition for VAR officials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes VAR seem irritating not against it but it stops a lot of play

      Delete
    2. The no penalty decision was clearly correct here (but needed to be checked, of course).

      Delete
    3. I must say very good work by the VAR team in Paris. Correct intervention after 1-0 as it was not clear whether the goalkeeper’s vision was obstructed. In my view, the referee was correct to validate the goal. Considering the reaction of the goalkeeper, I do not think that the attacker had an impact on the goalkeeper.
      Then, only few minutes later, correct intervention leading to the penalty decision. Probably hard to perceive the contact on the pitch in real speed. And last but not least del Cerro Grande was very concentrated in identifying the mistaken identity.
      Overall, I would not blame the Japanese too much.

      Delete
  15. How was this a clear and obvious mistake?
    I am in a room with 8 people and we still can’t say for sure whether it was handball, shoulder or breast. The logo on the arm sleeve moves, so I lean towards handball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I was under the impression that as handball is down to the referees on field interpretation that VAR will only intervene in situations like this if the ball clearly doesn't hit the hand.

      Delete
    2. Question I have is why was it only shown in slow motion, and not slowed down even further to frame by frame to get the exact point of contact?

      Delete
    3. The camera angles and lack of slow motion might be the real limitation of VAR.

      Delete
  16. It seemed to depend on the camera angle. From from the front view, it did appear to hit the chest and not the shoulder, so that is probably why VAR intervened.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Riem Hussein seems to have the clearest and crispest hand signals, and this gives an air of great confidence. Other than the reversal on her penalty kick, all of her decisions seem correct, so she looks the best of all referees I've seen so far in this tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, she has been excellent all match. I just disagree on the penalty reversal

      Delete
    2. ...and now Zwayer and Hussein just ruined their match. Clearest penalty I have seen all World Cup.

      Delete
    3. ...now a push in the back against Kerr...Australia should have had 3 (!!) penalties by now

      Delete
  18. How in the world is that not a PK? Or at the very least an OFR? Are there any merits for that not to be a PK?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hussein and her VAR teamteam plain refused to make the hard but correct decisions. Just because it's late in a match and the score is tied. You can't swallow your whistle and ignore something so obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very strange that VAR didn't intervene on either non-PK calls. Inconsistency of application, either in PK encroachment by the goalkeepers or VAR intervention, hurts the credibility of referees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd understand if either play was doubtful. But I mean c'mon now, those were so obvious

      Delete
  21. I'm starting to watch now, it would be interesting to see the incident you mentioned.
    Now 91' - 92' a possible penalty but correct no VAR intervention for me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. VAR did a great intervention in the 1st half on the handball, however before stopping time it was a clear penalty missed because of a charge.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is not a red card for me. Speed of the ball, no control of the ball and the distance to the goal with the keeper coming close.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Now RC for DOGSO...difficult

    ReplyDelete
  25. 104': RC for DOGSO by Hussein, holding outside the box.
    In my opinion, it was quite unlikely for attacker to reach the ball, but I think that VAR should support because there is a small chance that can't be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her VAR backed her unexplainable no PK calls. So they were never going to speak up. They're going to blindly follow Hussein's lead

      Delete
  26. Red? From bad to worse. Was the Norwegian player in control of the ball? Was she going to get to the ball?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem here is that RC is not 100% wrong, but surely the worst decision. As long as there is a 15% - 20% about the chance to control the ball (and you can't deny that), VAR can't overrule.

      Delete
  27. I would have prefer a YC here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, no. Didn't look possible for possession after the foul. YC for tactical foul would have been better call IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I can understand her dogso decision from her spot live. But on replay it looks pretty clear there was no way she would have gone to that ball before the GK. VAR should have changed it to a yellow 100%.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I love Hussein's manner, despite some questionable calls. She is so firm in all her signals, has a very loud, sharp whistle, and deals very firmly with players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great optics, poor decisions. Not a great trait

      Delete
  31. Why VAR didn't give the referee the opportunity to rewatch it again? I am sure she would have changed her decision after seeing the replay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her VAR's are going to go with whatever she decides. Nobody on the Ref team wants to take any sort of responsibility in the outcome of the match.

      Delete
    2. YC is preferable but RC no clear error as there was still a small chance of reaching that ball without the foul. Nothing to do for VAR here.

      Delete
    3. Even if there was. They showed earlier on the 2 Aussie PK appeals. That they were not going to question Hussein's decisions. They didn't want anything to do with responsibility

      Delete
  32. That verbal warning is nonsense. If the player is already on a caution and she does something else dumb. Don't talk, send her off. Hussein's own actions are making her look impartial.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So far AUS lost a PK that was a bad replay segment from VAR, with a player obscuring, a handball in the penalty area missed around min 50 and a clear leg chop was ruled no PK by VAR. And now this RC that should have been a YC. That the misses by referees and VAR consistently seem to be to AUS disadvantage is surely a coincidence but clearly doesn't look good at all. German referee and VAR-team should not be biased towards NOR over AUS but this game has been a disaster..

    ReplyDelete
  34. Many VAR's are doing a bad job this WC. In the Germany match the 1st goal should have been disallowed for offside. Line of vision and interfering with the GK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Germany - Nigeria final decision was taken by referee on the pitch, VAR did his job to report the possible offside, then I agree with you it was punishable but goal was allowed...

      Delete
    2. See discussion above: There really seem to be different interpretaions regarding such situations around the world...

      Delete
    3. It starts with the referee! VAR could help indeed afterwards.

      Delete
  35. I made this video of 16 whistles. Many FIFA whistles and some very cheap to show how they compare with each other. If you want to see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8P6lzUmQuU

    ReplyDelete
  36. Qin started her game with a mandatory YC (very blatant reckless use of arm).

    ReplyDelete
  37. 12': Qin assessed a deliberate backpass to keeper who saved by hand and then an indirect free kick was whistled. I'm not so much convinced, it looked like a wrong control of the ball by defender that became a pass to keeper, but there wasn't any intention by defender. I was never convinced by this rule, to be honest, in my opinion it should be whistled only in case of 100% clear situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm surprised nobody brought this up but there was clear red card missed in this incident when a Cameroon player SPAT at an England player and you could see the spit on the arm. Several replays shown. IMO a clear red card.

      Delete
    2. Add to the long list of things that Qin and crew missed.

      Delete
  38. 45'+3 disallowed goal by AR1, player was ONSIDE, VAR corrected the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  39. After the 2-0 allowed by VAR, Cameroon made something like a protest, they didn't want to resume the game. Now referee and fourth official are busy to convinvce them. Very strange scene.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I would sdo: fine, no more additional time and we go to the dressing room! If you don't want to play, than me neither. What a behaviour of Cameroon?!

    ReplyDelete
  41. 50': now another VAR decision against Cameroon with an extremely tight offside disallowing a goal, AR1 had allowed it. Cameroon want to leave the pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This behaviour is really unacceptable and bad for the image of football! I hope FIFA disciplinary will impose fines to Cameroon so badly!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the most disgraceful scenes I've seen at a professional tournament. As far as I'm concerned THROW THE BOOK AT THEM. They should be banned from the next world cup!

      Delete
  43. I just hope after the game Cameroon will be fined, this behaviour is shocking and unaccaptable...

    ReplyDelete
  44. #10 from Cameroon pushed from behind with a certain force referee.
    If this is not RC... I'm shocked.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Minute 67 reported that a Camerun player intentionally crashed into the referee. You can see it on the offside replay. This is what I heard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deliberate act, she wanted to hurt referee. I'm shocked this went unpunished, even by VAR.

      Delete
    2. Yes I saw the replay now and it's deliberate. It's out of frustration because of the late offside goal call and in general the long ''wait and see'' offside calls in the match. Not acceptable.

      Delete
    3. Violent conduct can be visited anytime but I doubt it will

      Delete
    4. I am not sure, that it's deliberate by seeing the one replay.
      I mean, it is quite possible, but not guaranteed IMO.

      Delete
  46. You can't decide not to play anytime a decision goes against you. Honestly I don't blame them. CAF should take sole responsibility because they set the precedence here. After they willed into EL Tunis action of refusing to play after a wrong decision went against them even after the CAF President even begged them and now the final is to be replayed. A terrible precedence set

    ReplyDelete
  47. Now OFR for a possible penalty to England. NO PENALTY was the final choice. Well in case of penalty I think game could have been definitely stopped, can't imagine reacttion by Cameroon...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with play on. Ball was already passed, no penalty for me.

      Delete
    2. Agree with Qin’s decision. Common sense here. Very convincing performance by Chinese crew IMO.

      Delete
    3. Does it matter if the ball was passed? I think clear stamp on the foot, good intervention from VAR.
      She is just afraid of taking decisions against Cameroon now...The reaction of her after the possible red card, just a smile...so weak personality..
      I have the feeling we see a sunday league game...

      Delete
    4. Ball being passed shouldn't mean anything to be honest. We should hide behind the he played the ball or she had passed the ball. If it's a late challenge it should be punished even now defenders can't even hide behind making contact with the ball or playing it the follow through will be taken into account because a lot if terrible challenge gas gone under the radar because the attacker had played the ball. But I support Qin decision not because it's common sense but because the was nothing there really

      Delete
  48. Well if she gave a penalty there hell would have broken lose there

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cameroon very unlucky in this game, with a controversial indirect free kick decision, two borderline offside situations (1 goal allowed for England, 1 goal disallowed for Cameroon), but this can't be a strong argument for what they did all game long. This is unacceptable behavior, referee's decisions must be accepted, in the specific case regarding the two offsides, it was 100% surely the right choice, so absolutely shocking to see that. #10 should have been sent off for deliberate violent conduct against referee.
    However, I think Liang Qin didn't want to exasperate the situation and one must admire her. Minute 85' and she is still smiling... but for sure this was one of the most difficult and challenging games of the tournament.
    Assistant referee 1 with two crucial mistake, but both very difficult decisions, as said...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Video:
    https://streamable.com/7pixg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The referee could not know if it was deliberate but VAR should have intervene.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, I agree. Referee couldn't know. But VAR... no courage there?

      Delete
    3. Unbelievable YC here. Cristal RC. No braveness. Qin’s WC finished here for me.

      Delete
    4. It's not thier protocol to intervene for indirect free kick

      Delete
    5. As said above, the video doesn't prove it for me. It's still possible, that she did not look into the direction, where she was running. And then it's a reflex to put your arms in front before a collision. That would be reckless, but this is not punishable against the referee.

      Of course, it probably was intentional, but probably is not enough for a RC or OFR, I think.

      Delete
  51. 90'+7 this game should end soon. Now a SFP close to benches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, Liang Qin with common sense (YC).
      I would never write such comments, and I always think referee takes decision based on what he / she sees, but in this case it is impossible to apply LotG. Moreover, the final whistle should have occurred before that... no need to have a so long added time.

      Delete
    2. Correct VAR intervention but Qin refused to have a serious look on the monitor. Clear SFP.

      Delete
    3. Disagree. Shame and personality lack just with thks YC.

      Delete
    4. To be honest, it would have been a miracle to see a RC for such a foul in a FIFA tournament, but yeah, I'm not even surprised that Qin only went for a yellow. Dankert did his job, Qin has to take the final decision.

      On the foul itself, I'm sorry but that's a red card all-day long. If I don't give that on grassroots level, the observer will come with a 7.9 in my report (and is fully entitled to do so!). It's not the first time that fouls potentially causing injuries are not sanctioned as they should be at a FIFA tournament. Sad!

      Delete
    5. Totaly disagree she would have given red which was the last kick of the game what could possibly go wrong after the final whistle. Common sense would suggest do the right thing and blow the final whistle

      Delete
    6. Well now it is too much, the referee is here to protect the players. She should have gave a RC here and at least a YC wihout VAR...

      Delete
    7. I‘m sorry, but I disagree. I think most of the referees would have given a RC for SFP. However, Qin did not take the time that was necessary to assess this incident. She had one eye on the monitior, one eye on the pitch, stepping back without having seen a replay in real speed. In my view, that‘s the mistake here.

      Delete
  52. How is that not a red card. Even as an African I am ashamed of this behaviours from Cameroon endangering thier opponents safety and even the referee. Shambolic from Qin for not given a straight red card

    ReplyDelete
  53. Can’t believe what I’ve witnessed here.... Only words I want to spend on the Cameroon team this afternoon: disgrace for football

    ReplyDelete
  54. I know expext always unexpected scenes. But this tolerance to Cameroon players is just week refereeing without authority. That's not common sense just being afraid of crucial decisions...
    Unbelievable the last possible SFP not Ar1, 4O or Qin thought initially at least to give a card... And then the protest and gestures while the English player is on the ground...
    That's just a poor and weak performance. It was hard to control the players but she didn't even try It...only smiling and small talks...against a team who behave terrible. Sorry for harsh words, but I can't say this was refereeing a game..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That no.7 for Cameroon should have been sent off after all the things she did during that game. What she did during the last minute of the game was unacceptable.

      Delete
  55. A small matter here us that everyone here over in Africa feels it's intentionally done against them and I have to explain it's just a coincidence that most decision are going against African teams and it's right decision most of the time by the rules. Nigeria south Africa and Cameroon feel hard done by

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. If anything they should thank the referee for not giving England that penalty. Not giving a red card for violent conduct for the clear push, not giving a red card for SFP for that clear tackle on the shin/foot in the last seconds.

      Delete
    2. Also, after 4 minutes, the reckless use of the arm could be perceived as VC, as the Cameroon player strikes the opponent with force using the elbow. In reality, Cameroon got off lightly and the ref took pity which is exactly what Phil Neville the England manager said and I totally agree with.

      Delete
    3. Yes. We are talking about the World cup here with a referee who has been doing this for many years. She is not alone at night in a division 6 match. She was afraid to make the right decisions multiple times becuase of one team.

      Delete
  56. Miunte 12, IFK given by Qin L.: Cameroon player was spitting against English player. Where was VAR???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't look deliberate to be honest. She didn't look at the arm.

      Delete
    2. Knew exactly what she was doing. That's a red card!

      Delete
    3. Completely intentional. English player lifts her arm and places it at chest height of the Cameroonian player. Who then proceeds to spit on her.

      Delete
  57. I would love if someone could post the links of the incidents.

    Spitting.
    Penalty VAR review
    SFP tackle at the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here you are:

      12’ Spitting incident
      https://streamable.com/

      76’ OFR - penalty
      https://streamable.com/ohvc3

      90+8’ OFR - SFP
      https://streamable.com/3zhjq

      Delete
    2. Retry for the spitting incident (12’)
      https://streamable.com/0lztj

      Delete
    3. links for pushing the referee that will be lovely

      Delete
    4. Referee Push by Cameroon Player.
      https://streamable.com/g85tj

      Delete
    5. I have another version of the spitting incident. IMO clearly should have been a red card.
      https://streamable.com/gc0pu
      She knew the player was in front of her and chose to spit in that direction. Spit makes contact with the player. Should have been a send off.
      I've seen less than this end up in VAR review and send off. In the A-League there was one and the player got an 8 match suspension.

      Delete
  58. Sometimes it is possible to change idea. I wrote the post about "common sense" during the game because I was feeling "too much" it. But now I must ABSOLUTELY correct myself: referee MUST always take the appropriate decision in all situations. I didn't say that YC was OK for that foul, I said that choice by referee in such circumstances was clever. But then now I realized that you can say this maybe at lower and amateur level, where you are not protected in case of attack by players. At World Cup a referee must be always focused and concentrated. We have a missed clear RC for SFP, but for me even more unacceptable is the violent conduct against referee.
    Ending this game with only two yellow cards is definitely not good, referee was too much passive.
    Sorry for my previous comments, I hope you understand my feeling and I must agree with most of you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This is nothing but a RC. Not even SFP anymore, it is assault. Getting screamed at by one of the opposing team as well and the referee does NOTHING. This is an utterly gutless performance. This isn't some grassroots match where you have to fear for your safety if you apply the LotG. This is simply, and I rarely use such a word, disgraceful from Cameroon and from the referee that she decides to allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. BTW: It is not the first time Cameroon has shown unsporting behaviour in this tournament: https://ultragooner89.tumblr.com/post/185618641679

    Pinnacle FIFA refereeing we see here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the same player as well. No.7 who was the captain. She is a disgrace. I don't know how she didn't get multiple yellow cards in this match against England.

      Delete
  61. Marie-Soleil Beaudoin disallowed 1-0 goal scored by France after OFR.
    Very long review. This can be discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very difficult decision agree but wrong decision IMO. No fault here, goalkeeper is responsible for the mutual contact. Ball wasn’t in control. Very severe to cancel this goal.

      Delete
    2. For me this is "safe" but not correct refereeing. During the World Cup it has become the practice that if an OFR takes place then the referee will change the decision given on the field of play.

      For me this is a goal, watching replays I can see no obvious reason to disallow it.

      Delete
  62. Not sure if it was reversed due to foul on keeper or handling by French player.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sorry but why this is a foul??? Correct goal disallowed! VAR want to be a superstar. Attacker didn't do anything wrong in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, normal collision on 50-50 ball so more likely reversed due to handling.

      Delete
  64. Kick in stomach or hip on French player no where close to ball was possible YC.

    ReplyDelete
  65. harsh decision for me, because simply the touch of the goalkeeper wasn‘t really controlling the ball. but if the goal was scored with the arm, it is the right call to disallow it

    ReplyDelete
  66. Again a big mistake by the VAR this World Cup. Irrati missed a handball for Scotland and now he disallowed a valid goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did not disallow the goal (Irrati) it was the referee no one else

      Delete
    2. Sorry but if you send the referee for nothing you put pressure! And we have seen that women referees dont ignore the men VARs. Why you send the referee for something that's not a foul or even not clear and obvious?

      Delete
    3. Hey anonymous remember that final word is always up to referee.

      Delete
    4. Ok than lets send the referees for everything and forget the impact, the minimum interference and clear and obvious!

      Delete
    5. Have you forgotten the earlier match today were VAR suggested a penalty and red card and Qin rejected both calls. Please spare me the lecture on putting pressure on the referee. The pressure is disallowing a goal against the host so I don't get the logic. It's her decision and no one else

      Delete
    6. Qin was never going to give anymore decisions against Cameroon. She was weak willed and allowed herself to be bullied into becoming a referee who trampled on the LOTG. Shame, shame, shame.
      #gutless

      Delete
  67. I am really pleased with her so far. Really active from her and the disallowed goal was the ball being taken off the hand of the goalie. Imo she was n3ver in control but the wordings of the law will disagree
    If someone can bring that particular law for the gialuw and when one can challenge the goalkeeper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was disallowed for hitting the hand of the French player not because the goalkeeper was in control.

      Delete
  68. TV commentator said foul on keeper was confirmed by VAR. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 35': possible SFP by #3 FRA.
    Referee wanted to book her but she ran away, not nice to be watched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear SFP...and what a passive way with brazilian attitude against her. Missed YC now and error from throw in...not convinced at all...

      Delete
    2. Looked like a red to me. I can sort of understand why no VAR intervention though.
      https://streamable.com/zttoc

      Delete
    3. https://streamable.com/zttoc

      Delete
  70. Hum hum...No VAR here ? IMO red card missed against French player Wendy Renard. Serious foul play...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly possible red card with studs up hitting shin of Brazillian player, but because it wasn't hard contact, I would have gone with YC also.

      Delete
  71. Sorry is a player allowed to play with lipstick (Marta)?

    ReplyDelete
  72. There are really no words left. That's such a clear case of SFP. Is this a clear pattern we are seeing? Be strict in the group faces but lenient in the playoffs? Seems like this is what they told them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were never strict in group stages.. never a straight red card

      Delete
    2. Okay then lenient all the time then.

      Delete
    3. Victor, I saw your referee whistle video review you linked to yesterday. I had seen it before and think it's great. I have the Fox Sonik Blast and like the sound it makes in the video compared to the others. One problem is that it hurts my ears and players' ears if I blow it at full strength. What do you think of it compared to others and what's your favorite whistle?

      Delete
    4. Than you for the comment. I ahve to say my ears also hurt after using the Blast. For the test I was using earplugs for protection but without it no whistle hurt as much. My favourite is still the Valkeen but from the Fox 40 versions the Classic and the Epik impressed me a lot.

      Delete
    5. Welcome. I don't like the idea of spending so much on a whistle, but I may have to buy the Valkeen just to see if it lives up to its reputation.

      Delete
  73. I think we shoundt bother for straight Red cards for SFP at FIFA tournaments it's quite autrosious. We have missed Sheriff because Liang Qin won't rest... lol

    ReplyDelete
  74. Tell me please, we send the referee for an OFR while it's not a foul or nearly a foul, and for something that is more to red or even red we dontd send the referee. Can somebody explain this to me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on an overall speech: more and more we see many controversial reviews for alleged fouls, penalties and so on.
      But clear SFP are very often left unpunished. I know that VAR job is very difficult but believe me, I would prefer all interventions in situations like these and less interventions in controversial incidents, like the disallowed goal for 1-0 today. VAR spirit should be oriented more on obvious things.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Chefren. Goal should stand without an OFR. The potential red card could should be an OFR.

      Delete
  75. I think the VAR reversal is a good time to discuss possible differences in referees of women's football vs. men's football. The type of collision between the Brazilian keeper and the French player is quite common on the men's side but perhaps seen less often on the women's side. This may lead referees in women's football to call smaller fouls. I find myself doing this when I referee women's football. This might just be sexist thinking, but I think there might be something to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even in men's Football keepers get a very lenient treatment

      Delete
    2. Good point.

      Delete
  76. Wrong offside flag by AR1, this time I must say quite poor decision there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But thank God she delayed the flag which was quite a long delayed flag we often complain of

      Delete
  77. VAR's redemption.

    ReplyDelete
  78. On french TV they said goal has been stolen!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Called a foul against Brazil in the corner of France's defensive half in which I didn't see any real contact and seemed to miss foul against Brazil just now, as French player extended her arm throwing Brazilian player to the ground, using her arm as a weapon, not a tool.

    ReplyDelete
  80. YC for Brazilian player grabbing French player from behind was warranted in 102". I can understand not giving her second yellow, but she should have at least been warned.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Fifa will be relieved with the victory of France, especially after a debatable goal scored disallowed. I am happy :-)

    ReplyDelete
  82. I'm glad France won. First VAR intervention was too controversial today.

    ReplyDelete
  83. A lot has been said about Qin officiating in a manner in which she applied a "common sense" approach to quite a few situations in her match. Some of you then retracted your sentiment. But hey that's cool.

    However, I feel that she missed the biggest opportunity to use "common sense". Had she simply gone and done an OFR of England's 2nd goal. I have a strong feeling that a lot of what occurred after that moment would have been prevented. Most of you will say counter by saying that an OFR was not neccesary and I agree. But as we saw with Jarred Gillette in an A League match this past season. He chose to go over to monitor to "sell the call". And I think that is all the Cameroonian players wanted. For the referee herself to go over to the monitor and simply take a look. Had she done this simplest of things. She would have appeased the Cameroon players and would like have prevented the mess that ensued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She signals to the center circle at 49:20. But play doesn't restart until 52:17. That is almost a whole 3 minutes. It would have taken her less time to trot over to the monitor, take a look, trot back onto the pitch and signal goal.
      #sellthecall

      Delete
    2. I see your point Sheriff. But it is still no excuse for the awful behaviour of the Cameroon players. And the Jarred Gillett one you refer too is a little different as yes he wanted to sell it, but it also involved interpretation of whether the ball had been deliberately played by a defender not the simple and clear interfering with play seen in this womens world cup match.

      Delete
    3. I agree. But as referee, player, coach and fan. I am also well aware of the "in the heat of the moment" acts and reactions. So I am not at all surprised by how Cameroon reacted, rightfully or not. They felt hard done by the referee team and the referee team did little to nothing to ease the tension. And not correctly sending off the Cameroonian player doesn't do Cameroon any favors. All it means is that she missed the Reddest of Red Cards.

      And yes, I know that the A-League incident was different. But by Gillette going to the monitor. He appeased the defending team. Who was then more open to actually hearing him out. Had Qin done the same today. Cameroon would have also been more receptive to her explanations. In their minds, how could the referee explain the situation if she hadn't actually taken a look at it. They didn't care what the booth said to Qin.

      Delete