Thank to Árbitro Internacional, we have the appointments for the competition.
Women's tournament
Matchday 2, 24 July 2021
Esther Staubli (SUI)
A1: Katrin Rafalski (GER)
A2: Susanne Kueng (SUI)
4: Maria Rivet (MRI)
VAR: Muhammad Bin Jahari (SIN)
AVAR: Abdulla Al Marri (QAT)
Melissa Borjas (HON)
A1: Shirley Perello (HON)
A2: Chantal Boudreau (CAN)
4: Lucila Venegas (MEX)
VAR: Abdulkadir Btgen (TUR)
AVAR: Nicolas Gallo (COL)
Edina Alves (BRA)
A1: Neuza Back (BRA)
A2: Monica Amboya (ECU)
4: Salima Mukansanga (RWA)
VAR: Tiago Martins (POR)
AVAR: Mahmoud Ashour (EGY)
Anastasia Pustovoitova (RUS)
A1: Ekaterina Kurochkina (RUS)
A2: Sanja Rodak (CRO)
4: Ndidi Madu (NGR)
VAR: Bibiana Steinhaus-Webb (GER)
AVAR: Chris Penso (USA)
Kate Jacewicz (AUS)
A1: Kyoung Min Kim (KOR)
A2: Seul Gi Lee (KOR)
4: Yoshimi Yamashita (JPN)
VAR: Erick Miranda (MEX)
AVAR: Pawel Raczkowski (POL)
Stéphanie Frappart (FRA)
A1: Manuela Nicolosi (FRA)
A2: Michelle O'Neill (IRL)
4: Laura Fortunato (ARG)
VAR: Marco Guida (ITA)
AVAR: Adil Zourak (MAR)
Men's tournament
Matchday 2, 25 July 2021
Georgi Kabakov (BUL)
A1: Diyan Valkov (BUL)
A2: Martin Margaritov (BUL)
4: Hiroyuki Kimura (JPN)
VAR: Abdulla Al Marri (QAT)
AVAR: Chris Penso (USA)
Kevin Ortega (PER)
AR: Michael Orue (PER)
A2: Jesus Sanchez (PER)
4: Leodan Gonzalez (URU)
VAR: Andres Cunha (URU)
AVAR: Marco Guida (ITA)
Orel Grinfeeld (ISR)
A1: Roy Hassan (ISR)
A2: Idan Yarkoni (ISR)
4: Christopher Beath (AUS)
VAR: Roi Reinshreiber (ISR)
AVAR: Benoit Millot (FRA)
Ismail Elfath (USA)
A1: Corey Parker (USA)
A2: Kyle Atkins (USA)
4: Srdjan Jovanovic (SRB)
VAR: Edvin Jurisevic (USA)
AVAR: Mahmoud Ashour (EGY)
Bamlak Tessema (ETH)
A1: Gilbert Cheruiyot (KEN)
A2: Mohammed Ibrahim (SDN)
4: Hiroyuki Kimura (JPN)
VAR: Bibiana Steinhaus (GER)
AVAR: Muhammad Bin Jahari (SIN)
Artur Dias (POR)
A1: Rui Barbosa (POR)
A2: Paulo Santos (POR)
4: Dahane Beida (MTN)
VAR: Guillermo Cuadra (ESP)
AVAR: Adil Zourak (MAR)
Romania - Korea Republic
Jesus Valenzuela (VEN) A1: Tulio Moreno (VEN)
A2: Lubin Torrealba (VEN)
4: Ivan Barton (SLV)
VAR: Mauro Vigliano (ARG)
AVAR: Wagner Reway (BRA)
Victor Gomes (RSA)
A1: Arsenio Marengula (MOZ)
A2: Souru Phatsoane (LES)
4: Matt Conger (NZL)
VAR: Fu Ming (CHN)
AVAR: Tiago Martins (POR)
Where are men's MD2 appointments
ReplyDeleteGames are planned for 25 July, so the publication not earlier than tomorrow.
DeleteBrazil vs. Germany, Ivan Barton [VAR: Fù Míng]
ReplyDelete26' - SPA vs. DOGSO?
https://streamable.com/91w59l
35' - Violent Conduct?
https://streamable.com/p7icq9
+46' - Penalty to Brazil (handling)
https://streamable.com/7id9li
63' - Second Yellow Card to Germany no.8 (SPA/Reckless)
https://streamable.com/yt6atl
89' - Potential penalty to Brazil (tripping / charging)
https://streamable.com/3zrs6s
The VAR was Marco Guida, I think. Fu Ming was in MEX-FRA.
DeleteThanks, Mikael. IMO
Delete26' YC (SPA) quite clearly correct for me, the ball is too far away from the attacker for DOGSO.
35' Correct decision, as the stamp looks totally undeliberate; the GER player looked in the other direction since the contact.
+46' Actually, that's a wrong decision for me. The position of the defender's arm can be justified by his movement. Both arms are outstreched similarly due to the jump movement.
63' Harsh 2ndYC for me. The contact is more or less accidental and the GER player makes no deliberate active movement to stop the BRA player unfairly.
89' Seems correct, but difficult to assess with that angle.
Indeed, Philipp; Guida was VAR - apologies!
DeletePK at 46' is correct in my oppinion. If the ball flies over the defenders head and he does not have a real chance to head the ball, he has to be a lot more careful with his arm position.
Delete26' - Correct YC. No control of the ball, both GK and attacker have similar distance to the ball, ball going wide.
Delete35' - I have some doubts. GER player should know where is an opponent but of course impossible to find proofs of deliberate action.
45+1' - As we know, LotG say one thing and the other thing is still expected by the powers that be (TURITA at EURO2020) Widely outstretched arm is almost always a penalty nowadays.
63' - Maybe not 100% wrong but harsh, indeed. Not clearly reckless, not clear SPA. As we know, referees should avoid such 2nd yellow cards.
89' - Impossible to judge without replay. But it looks like a fair challenge of GER player and foul by BRA player afterward.
26' never a DOGSO, clear YC and nothing more, attacker had to reach the ball, not central position, quite unlikely to see a OGSO in a few time.
Delete35' One can't say that player did that deliberately, correct by VAR to support, RC should have been backed as well. I'm oriented towards an unintentional action, so OK YC.
45'+1 Penalty that must be whistled, however in reality we have the attacker heading the ball on the arm of defender, the latter took a risk by acting in this way with both open arms.
If we don't whistle penalty in this situation, it becomes difficult to assess a punishable handball.
63' wrong YC for me, not clear situation, whistling without card would have been better, careless challenge, but maybe not 100% wrong decision. However, for sure very soft for me.
89' I think supportable, more replays would be good for a proper assessment, but based on what we can see surely never a crucial mistake and referee had his reasons to play on.
Barton's movements and body language when he has to show cards after fouls reminds me of a certain referee. Can you guess who? :)
My views:
Delete26' - correct, 'last man' alone isn't enough of course.
35' - on balance, it is more likely that Arnold deliberately stamped on Richarlison than not. He was already annoyed as 32' showed, and the Brazil striker had scored a hat-trick too.
However, we are referees, not mind-readers, so I think it is better to give the players the benefit of the doubt in such scenes. Also - one can debate if that is actually VC nowadays.
45' - I agree with both Chefren (to paraphrase - "too clear to not be given, rather than the other way around") and David. Penalty is the better choice IMO.
63' - this collision wasn't an accident, I am quite sure that Arnold impeded his opponent on purpose. So the foul call is quite correct; should it be a SYC though?
I very rarely see any kind of line from referees generally on deciding whether impeding fouls like this are SPA or not; to me anyway, it seems like essentially it is a question of tactical value.
Having watched the match in full, in terms of managing the game, Barton actually couldn't keep this player on the field, at that moment, for that challenge.
Arnold had already riled Brazil up (32', 35'), the match was ready to boil over at that moment, his foul was deliberate, and kind of 'reckless' in a way (of course not in the sense of a YC), looking at the result.
Euro Soccer Ref is quite correct though - while en praxis Barton had to send him off, this challenge is neither clear SPA or reckless, so the powers-that-be surely won't be very happy with the ball.
Simply don't understand the complaints that he showed the cards to a floored player, in this scene, showing the cards instantly was 100% required - well done to the Salvadorian referee for being practical, not ideological, about it.
89' - impossible to assess from the live sequence. Can you imagine if he gave a penalty for the later handling?
MtG: Barton managed to avoid a Brazil vs. Côte d'Ivoire repeat with his smart officiating c.30' - sure, he whistled more pedantically in some scenes, but this was actually to football's, the game's benefit this time.
The ref from El Salvador was in a lose-lose position, and managed to not lose very much. A total brawl was actually possible here with another (poorer) referee.
I see what ron_referee is saying with his comment, but I disagree with him on this occasions - not everyone is Viktor Kassai in Mexico vs. Uruguay and can turn a match with such undercurrent into a brilliant spectacle, and I'm quite convinced that the attitude of the Germany team made doing that actually impossible in this tie.
46’ never handball. He attempts to head the ball and therefore uses his arms in a completely natural way. Handballs like these need to stop being whistled. No player in the world jumps with arms down.
Delete@Mikael: Why was showing the cards instantly required in 63'?
DeleteIMO, he should have at most taken the cards into his hands, if there was danger of too much protests by the Brazilians (I am not sure, whether they were that demanding about the 2nd YC).
Actually, Arnold accepted the card much better than his teammates, so from this point it would have been better to wait.
I preferred Conger's handling of his sending-off today.
I had the strong feeling that Barton needed to take instant action in that moment, or the game might have boiled over, and indicate the cards straight away.
DeleteSo it was worth indicating the cards to a floored player in this particular moment IMO.
I disagree, Mikael, I think the approach that Barton took wound up looking frantic, rushed, and panicked. I think this strategy was actually more risky in terms of keeping the match under control because of how frantic it looked. I think a better approach would have been to get there quickly and then hold both cards in his hand until the player got up. But, this discussion is more art than science so everyone can have their own opinion on his stylistic decisions.
DeleteIf a ref takes out his cards,it is still a sign. So no need to rush.
DeleteIt is also no matter of theory but of respect. A referee like him which do not respect players cannot expext respect by players.
The handball penalty is against the new law.
What are kit suppliers for referees for this tournament? I watched today SPA EGY and didn't recognise kits, although i really liked it
ReplyDeleteFilip, there are still Adidas 18 referee kits.
DeleteFull sequence of both YCs to Francisco Ortega in the Argentina vs. Australia match:
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/1fzo31
To be fair, I feel a bit sorry for Jovanović here - the first YC is correct (SPA/reckless) and the pair of cautions which result in the SYC is also an example of what would otherwise be good refereeing IMO.
DeleteDerek Rae sums it up perfectly, the duels before that freekick were "getting comical" and the Serbian ref wanted to make a clear gesture against that with a pair of yellows.
Another verbal warning would have been weak, and he acted decisively for the good of the game, fostering fair play, encouraging the players to restart.
However, of course the result (SYC) in the big picture is a disaster, and does show the danger of instant decisions in (modern) refereeing - they can bite you on the a**e.
And of course one could (justifiably) critique that it is Jovanović's job as an event manager to be aware of the YC he just issued before instantly showing two in such a manner.
Hmm, isolatedly the SYC is of course supportable, but the behavior of the players before the corner is a kindergarten...
DeleteHis idea to issue a double sanction (in order not to lose credibility) but when he already issued both and realized that it is the second one, his face and gestures scream: "Oh shit!" ..
Excellent analysis Mikael, I agree. Basically you can't blame the Serbian for both decisions, but the final outcome of sending off looks really a trouble in the game. How to prevent that? Maybe not being so much particular before the execution of free kick?
DeleteThat's for sure a big point for discussion.
And yes, I have a certain feeling he didn't remember that player from Argentina was already booked! Despite of having done that a few before!
DeleteTerrible SYC! He was annoyed so he made a big mistake, this shouldnt happen to top class referee.
DeleteNothing so special happened, I agree with the tv commentators on this one.
Flip perfectly described what I think, obviously the referee did not think about it would be the second YC for this player. Terrible decision IMO
DeleteThe yellow cards are fair and correct, in my opinion. Jovanovic’s only mistake is in giving off the appearance that he forgot that Ortega was already booked! If he runs in there and goes yellow-yellow-red boom boom boom, I have no problems with that. This decision was taken in a sloppy way, but it was correct.
DeleteI definitely don’t subscribe to the belief that the referee should consciously spare a player if a yellow card just because he is already on one! Ortega earned both his bookings; he deserved the send-off.
I said as much on the previous blog post. It's not that the decision is crazy wrong, it's just that it's crazy dumb. It represents bad management. As one of my previous coaches said, never show a card before you know exactly who the player you're showing it to is.
DeleteWhere to watch matches?
ReplyDeleteHi Grisha ;) (I recognize you from refcoach on fb).
DeleteTry this site: https://sportsbay.org/sports/football (works well for me, I have an adblocker on all the time)
Steinhaus as Main VAR, a big step for FIFA
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting to note: as Chris Penso is the AVAR on that game, he'll be working alongside his boss's wife!
DeleteSteinhaus is one of the most experienced VARs in the squad, with about 50 VAR matches in 1.Bundesliga. So it would have been weird not to use her.
DeleteAnd indeed some pressure there for Penso, you wouldn't want that situation in your own work life. ;)
Hahah^^ Good remark there smala - no room for error then :)
Delete@ Phlilipp S the difference is that UEFA has refused to take this step even in the women’s game!!! With all her experience they had the perfect opportunity to appoint her as VAR the UWCL final especially as a German was referring the final but still went ahead to appoint Bastian Dankert!!!
DeleteYes, I agree with that.
DeleteSteinhaus is one of very few women who has a FIFA VAR badge. In Europe, I know Frappart, Staubli, Sian Massey-Ellis have it too, but Staubli and Frappart are on the field (and Massey was not selected). As I was saying earlier in the tournament, UEFA really failed in developing women VAR. While Steinhaus' success is to be celebrated, it's also clear that it's due to her being exceptional, not because UEFA/FIFA made a conscious effort to train and promote women.
DeleteOFR from the Egypt vs. Spain game for a challenge incident (41'):
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/9804t5
Oh my God, the commentators are really lost at what was going on there!!!! There thought it was meant to be a card for Ceballos, all this commentators needs to be trained on referees and referee perspective!
DeleteVery interesting situation, thanks for this video!
DeleteIn my opinion the foul occurred in a totally unexpected circumstance, the fact that it was not deliberate is in my opinion more than clear there, we can exclude the violent conduct for this reason. Then, assessing it as foul play, I must say that looking at consequences, it should be a clear red card, but indeed I think that Makhadmeh made this reasoning: the player who committeed the foul couldn't expect in any way this contact and therefore he decided for yellow. I can agree, but RC shouldn't be questioned as well.
And I think that VAR was even more allowed to intervene because referee had missed the severity of offense (missed incident).
I am not too convinced by the VAR intervention, as I think that it is a quite clear YC. The red player was in no way able to expect that the white player was there. His foot/studs aren't too high/dangerous to justify a sending-off IMO.
DeleteI'm shocked by this OFR. The Spanish player charged the Egyptian from behind with little opportunity to okay the ball. The fact their feet ended up in the same place is a freak accident. I think him getting a yellow is unfair. How did he recklessly challenge an opponent with disregard for the consequences. His opponent challenged him!
DeleteThat was a surprisingly long review by Staubli at 55'-56' in the Canada-Chile game (second OFR of the game). The contact was clear, and it was clearly inside the penalty area. Not sure what took so long, unless she suspected a dive by the Chilean attacker. In the end, correct decision to award the penalty.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the first OFR? What happened?
DeleteThere was a clear shove in the back of Christine Sinclair, off the ball. It was hard to see in real time (as it was off the ball), and the review proceeded normally.
DeleteI think that Staubli wanted to stick to her guns. And keep her initial on field call. Because she sure did waive off the clear penalty in quite a confident manner. But the images of the crystal clear foul were so obvious that she had to give in.
DeleteAt 41' in SWE-AUS, an Australian attacker is clearly seen making the 'VAR Screen' signal at the referee. Referee didn't sanction it (don't know if she saw it).
ReplyDeleteLooked like a clear penalty though, even as a Swede
DeleteIndeed. The contact was light, but there was contact.
DeleteI've been chomping at the bit to get to my computer to comment on the no pk call against Kerr at the end of the first half. It reminds me a lot of the Sterling pk call in the Euros. Yes, there was probably enough contact to against Kerr to justify a pk call, but this is what I think the referee may have been thinking and probably how I judge a potential pk call: 1. was the offensive player playing for the foul, perhaps purposely putting his / her body between the ball and the defender (sometimes at the last minute) to bring about the contact and the foul, or did the defender legitimely create the contact by themselves with no entrapment, so to speak, by the offensive player, and 2. if the offensive player is playing for the foul, do they show any signs of diving or going down very easily at the onset of contact? If yes to either question, then a no pk call is oftentimes justified. And by the way, the Sweden-Australia match is cracking!
DeleteIndeed, "Commenter", it's a great match. I'm sympathetic to your argument, although I see more contact here than in the Sterling case. I would have been fine with a penalty. Yes, Kerr falls perhaps a tad easily, but it's hard to say she really dives/exaggerates a small contact. With Sterling, I feel you could see him actively look for contact; here, Kerr welcomes it, but it's clearly the Swedish defender who engages in the tackle and makes the foul IMO.
DeleteNow an OFR at 68' for a penalty, play was stopped in neutral zone. Correct procedure, correct penalty decision, great save by the Swedish GK (ok, I'm biased on that last one :)).
It was a pretty amazingly acrobatic save.
DeleteYeah, kick saves are so cool. And good analysis, Emil. Can't wait for Brazil-Netherlands!
DeleteIt's Korea Republic (South Korea) who is playing against Romania. Not Czech Republic.
ReplyDeleteWow, amazing to see a VAR penalty reversal when VAR intervention was so rare in the Euros! Very interesting!
ReplyDeleteGood to see some organization properly using VAR to its full potential. CONCACAF and UEFA should take notes of how it's done.
DeleteYes, I wonder if some committees want to downplay the use of VAR either so there aren't time delays in a match or to keep referees from "looking bad" or keep controversy at bay in the case of VAR reversals. Hard to say.
DeleteBased on what I've seen at the current CONCACAF Gold Cup. I am left with absolutely no idea how CONCACAF intends for VAR to be used.
Delete95th minute
ReplyDeleteThat was an ugly challenge (stamp) by the Australian player. Crystal clear foul and mandatory Yellow Card. Alves doesn't even bother to whistle a foul.
It irks me that Alves then hurries the clearly injured Swede to get off the field. Unacceptable!
Missed seeing that one, but doesn't sound good. And I have to go out until Brazil-Netherlands game, but I wonder if Frappart is at the this Olympics. I love her refereeing.
DeleteFrappart will be in action later today. She got the USA vs New Zealand match.
DeleteIndeed, clear YC minimum, even possible RC. She clearly missed that. I don't blame her for asking the player to leave. Players should not receive treatment on the field, and at 95' she understandably wants play to resume. That's within normal procedure (I'm more annoyed at the opposite, when players could easily leave the field and get treated on it).
Delete"Players should not receive treatment on the field"
DeleteI disagree with this blanket statement. Referee's are not physios nor are they Doctors. As such, referee's have no idea of the severity of a players injury. Nor if they should or shouldn't be moved.
What the referee can do is control his/her watch. If time is lost. Guess what? Simply add that time. Done, problem solved.
“An injured player may not be treated on the field of play” is a direct quote from Law 5. A player may be quickly evaluated on the field, but the referee should insist on the player being moved as soon as possible. Indeed, in general I find referees too lenient with that, so I was glad to see Alves be quite insistent.
DeleteHad Alves done the right thing, called the foul and correctly cautioned the Aussie player. The Swedish player would have been allowed to receive treatment on the field and remain on the field. Alves messes up initially and then compounds her error with her poor attitude.
DeleteSo, having watched two morning games (yay Canada, yay Sweden!), a few thoughts:
ReplyDelete- Staubli didn't have her best performance. Needed two OFR, and while the first one was off the ball, the second one should have been spotted in real time. I've written above about the oddly long review. Quite a few YC, and while they were all correct, it still felt like quite heavy-handed for the game. No major errors, however.
- Edina Alves had a tough match and did well. Good use of GLT on the first AUS goal (I can't see the AR on TV, so I assume it was GLT as the AR was not on the line). Brushed off one potential penalty at 41' (see above), good, correct review and penalty at 68'. Overall, good control, and a good performance by the two ARs as well. She missed a pretty bad stomp at 90+5' though - at least YC worthy, possibly even a RC (no OFR).
The problem I saw with Staubli in missing the Chile PK. Is something I saw throughout the match. Most of the time, she was left too far from play.
DeleteOn the Chile PK incident. She is far off from play. And only when she see's that there might be a challenge in the box. That's when she tries to speed up, but it's too late.
A RC and two penalties are reported for CHN-ZAM. Does anyone know what happened?
ReplyDeleteOh my, 4-4 is a huge score. I'm just watching the highlights.
Delete41' Clear trip by a CHN defender. She does touch the ball first, but then trips the attacker. Referee awards the penalty immediately, no protests, no VAR.
83' OFR and penalty. Zambian player handles the ball (her hand is raised next to her head, on a shot on goal she heads the ball onto her hand to deflect it). The handling occurs at 80:15, GK takes the ball, play continues and is stopped at 80:42; referee announces OFR at 81:02. Penalty signalled at 82:04. The handling was very difficult to see (and indeed I missed it on replays until VAR showed the exact point of contact). SO, all in all, understandable miss by the referee, and good use of VAR to remedy that.
85' Very good delayed offside flag by AR2.
86' RC for DOGSO to a CHN defender. Very clear foul (pulling by the shirt), very clear DOGSO decision (one attacker running on goal, defender behind her), the referee does not hesitate. Good decision.
VAR also disallowed a goal at 17 for offside. And canceled a penalty at 52, after an OFR, because there was no foul.
DeleteThe situation mentioned by Arbiter, from Sweden - Australia, minute 90'+5
ReplyDeletehttps://streamja.com/EZMJ7
It sure looks like an intentional act by the Australian player.
DeleteBasically, I assess that as SFP situation. The AUS player stamps on the foot/ankle of the SWE player with high intensity, while the ball is not significantly moving. There is no need to go in that duel with such open studs. The AUS player endangers the health of her opponent and should be sended off IMO. The point of contact is the biggest argument against a RC and is the reason, why I think that the VAR was right in not intervening.
DeleteYes, hard to watch the Swedish player's ankle bend under the pressure of the Australian's player's studs stepping on it. RC would have been appropriate.
DeleteThis is just a YC for me.In the recent uefa RAP, I think hard contact on the foot is defined as YC6, so VAR would intervene in case of a RC. I don't see the contact being on the ankle, nor do I think it was dirty play, as she tried to shield the ball.
DeleteYou can debate whether the contact is reckless or endangering the safety of an opponent, but I think this whole challenge being in any way a foul one is actually a total accident.
DeleteAs David says - the intention of the fouling player is actually to shield the ball. However, her balance skills are obviously weaker than what we saw at eg. the EURO, so she has to do that by transferring almost all her weight onto that leg. The result is that accidental challenge.
For this reason it's understandable that Alves Batista missed it on an expectation-perception-recognition level, and I would be in favour of a YC.
So far 4 goals have been disallowed for Offside in the USA v New Zealand match. 3 leave no doubt. But the 4th in the 34th minute seems wrongly disallowed. But VAR in what IMO was a check that was done too quickly. Upholds the offside call.
ReplyDeleteOnly one replay was shown by the TV broadcast. So we're left having to trust the VAR with no actual proof (images) shown.
DeleteYes, the fourth one did look like it might not have been offside. Very difficult to see in the replay because the offside player was running past the defenders. Also, I wonder if all VAR crews have the same technology at their disposal. With the vertical and horizontal lines on a replay screen showing which part of a player's body might be offsides that I think they use in the Premiere League (see an image of those lines at https://www.sportbible.com/football/news-calculations-show-how-var-is-not-suited-for-tight-offside-calls-20190922), it is very difficult to eyeball on a screen even when a replay is stopped.
DeleteI meant without the vertical and horizontal lines, not with.
DeleteI know what you're talking about in regards to the VAR lines for Offside decisions.
DeleteHere in CONCACAF, the VAR system that's in use doesn't have the lines. And needless to say. Quite a few goals have been disallowed for questionable Offside calls. And the VAR can only "eyeball" the screen to decide.
Hate to think that technology determines a call, but somehow the technology must catch up with the complexities or should I say difficulties of an offside call.
DeleteTV broadcast stopped at the wrong frame, long before the ball left the American's foot. That's why the offside is correct.
DeleteFair enough. Do you have any still images or video evidence to back up your claim?
DeleteJacewicz is having a terrible game. First time VAR saved her, now he doesn't...
ReplyDeleteIs that the Brazil-Netherlands game? My broadcaster didn't show it and couldn't find a working link anywhere on the net for it.
DeleteYes. First penalty correctly cancelled, at the second one the contact was clearly out of the box but VAR didn't intervene...
DeleteSorry but if contact was outside the box, VAR had to intervene. There should be a different reason.
DeleteThe foul was not in the feet below, it was with the arm that reaches the belly, which was inside the box.
ReplyDeletebut the first contact was on the feet, right?
DeleteYes, there is a small foot contact, but from the gestures she makes I think she marks the foul with the arm, I believe the VAR must have asked which foul she whistled.
DeleteThe Brazilian player trips because of the foot contact, so that's the first contact. Because of that, incorrect penalty IMO.
DeleteFirst contact doesn't matter since there is another foul after when she clerly uses her arms inside the penalty area to take down the attacker. Correct penalty.
Delete6 OFR in 6 games is a pretty high average compared to other tournaments.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely too many OFR! Still, I can't watch any single game, but when you have so many VAR interventions it means that something is going wrong.
DeleteIt is a lot but I am not surprised to be honest. In last women's WC, there was also a high amount of OFR. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to say that the female referees perform worse than male referees or something like that, but we could see a lot of OFR there. Speaking about the male referees, and I say that with all respect to the referees who attend Olympia, they are not the best referees of the world. Only some of them would have been chosen for a WC. So, we could expect better performances there but it is not so surprising to see a lot of OFR in my view.
DeleteI think the problem lies in the fact that female refereeing has not kept up with the level of play of the female football player. The level of play around the world for female football has grown in leaps and bounds in a very quick and short period of time. Unfortunately, the majority of referees are being left behind (with a few exceptions of course).
DeleteHere is a good source to rewatch a game from Olympia (men), if you missed it: https://matchesofweek.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteLooks like a push just before the own goal here, no? https://youtu.be/mnAPW5Uc9ho?t=412
ReplyDeleteClips are too short and quick to really judge the incident. But the USA player definitely had her hands all over the New Zealand player.
DeleteFor me it's definitely a foul, maybe even something for VAR. Holding the arm like that, causing the defender to loase balance and an own goal. Did the defender appeal for a foul?
DeleteYes, in real time it is hard to see what's happening, but click on the gear icon in the lower right corner to open the settings, and the speed can be lowered to .25 or 25%.
DeletePredictions MD3
ReplyDeleteCHI-JPN: Venegas (MEX) - Borjas (HON) - Miranda (MEX), Raczkowski (POL)
CAN-GBR: Jacewicz (AUS) - Alves (BRA) - Ming (CHN), Martins (POR)
NED-CHN: Mukansanga (RWA) - Rivet (MRI) - Zourak (MAR), Ashour (EGY)
BRA-ZAM: Yamashita (JPN) - Staubli (SUI) - Bin Jahari (SGP), Al Marri (QAT)
NZL-SWE: Fortunato (ARG) - Madu (NGR) - Vigliano (ARG), Gallo (COL)
USA-AUS: Monzul (UKR) - Pustovoitova (ROC) - Cuadra (ESP), Millot (FRA)
FRA-JPN: Gonzalez (URU) - Ortega (PER) - Steinhaus (GER), Bitigen (TUR)
RSA-MEX: Conger (NZL) - Kabakov (BUL) - Raczkowski (POL), Reinshreiber (ISR)
ROU-NZL: Makhadmeh (JOR) - Gomes (RSA) - Al Marri (QAT), Reway (BRA)
KOR-HON: Jovanovic (SRB) - Beida (MTN) - Martins (POR), Millot (FRA)
AUS-EGY: Barton (ESA) - Soares Dias (POR) - Guida (ITA), Miranda (MEX)
ESP-ARG: Elfath (USA) - Kimura (JPN) - Jurisevic (USA), Ming (CHN)
KSA-BRA: Tessema (ETH) - Grinfeeld (ISR) - Ashour (EGY), Zourak (MAR)
GER-CIV: Beath (AUS) - Valenzuela (VEN) - Penso (USA), Cunha (URU)
You must have not watched Jacewicz in Netherlands - Brazil to give her such an undeserved "sonorous" match. A match that will determine who finishes first in the group.
DeleteCorrect. :)
DeleteBut there are also not many alternatives, if one wants to respect confed neutrality, not to repeat referees for the same team and not appoint a referee in the group of her country.
Time and time again, FIFA has shown that "Confederational Neutrality" isn't an obstacle to assigning UEFA referees to matches in which a UEFA team is involved. Of course this "courtesy" is only extended to UEFA referees.
DeleteAdmins, can we have a new Gold Cup thread? The old one isn't allowing comments anymore.
ReplyDeleteThey already made a new one.
Deletehttps://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/07/2021-concacaf-gold-cup-refeere.html#comment-form
12' DOGSO by Brazil. Elfath gave yellow initially, which made no sense because the player clearly had an obvious goal scoring opportunity. I haven't seen a replay showing very clearly whether or not there was a foul at all (I'm assuming there was) but YC was definitely the wrong decision. After an OFR, Elfath produces the red card.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I saw, contact was not that harsh but there was defo contact. In that case, right decision, but Elfath and his assistant should have seen this themselves.
DeleteI'm not sure what the 18' YC is for, SPA? Seemed a bit harsh especially considering a foul earlier in the game that was more SPA than that, IMO. By comparison, the foul 21' looked certainly reckless but escaped a card. Not really Elfath's best start in my honest opinion, even as his compatriot
DeleteYeah, I agree. Especially not consistently enough IMO.
DeleteVideo of the DOGSO incident.
DeleteThe position is not central, attacker will reach ball for sure, yes, but then after, that, he has still to change direction and go towards the net In this case, as VAR, I would have had a 5% - 10% of doubt, to be honest.
Also, the foul seems very soft... I didn't find other replays.
https://streamable.com/v8qbb8
Now a second yellow for an Ivorian player, definitely a reckless challenge and good decision by Elfath.
DeleteBefore I go to bed, some fun facts about Elfath’s appointment:
DeleteFor Brazil, both their referees have been from Concacaf.
For Ivory Coast, both of their referees have (technically, at least) been American!
If foul whistled (I assume, we can back the referee here?), I definetly strongly prefer a RC here, as the BRA player is by far the last defender and the attacker surely reaches the ball before any other defender.
DeleteBut I question the VAR intervention at this point: The attacker is not in a central position; his movement is rather in the direction of the corner and he still needs a turn towards the goal to create a real scoring opportunity. I agree with Chefren: As a VAR, I would have some little doubts, whether the sanction is clearly and obviously wrong.
The Red given by Elfath is rather confusing!!! The player was definitely run sideways and not directly running towards goal but actually going away from the goal!!!
DeleteI could only watch last 15' of Kabakov in EGY-ARG, three cards given in last stages: For ARG17 in 83' (reckless challenge), ARG15 in 84' (dissent after a possible missed YC for a reckless ARM, assessed as careless), and ARG2 in 86' (SPA, close to DOGSO, correctly outside of the box)
ReplyDeleteDidn't watch the rest of the game and don't know about possible KMIs, he seemed to be fine.
Wow, quite early YC for ESP18 in 2' for persistent infringement (2 fouls in 30")
ReplyDeleteI love the unexpected results in the Olympics: Mexico beating France 3-0, Ivory Coast tying Brazil 0-0, and Australia tying Spain at halftime. It's great to see unexpected outcomes rather than the same countries and (richer) club teams always winning.
ReplyDeleteNot really unexpected. These are U23 teams. Can’t compare with the real teams.
DeleteWatching Tessema Weyesa refereeing is... hilarious.
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with the gestures, face expressions and sprints in almost every foul (I like diversity of referee styles, and if it works for him...), but I find too annoying the 'whistle concert' he gives. Also LMAO at him putting himself at the middle of confrontations (like the one in 90 between AUS3 and Spanish goalie, correct YC for the latter) despite his height, reminded me of SRB-CRC of 2018 World Cup when he was 4th official.
He seems to whistle more loudly for a throw in than some fouls.
DeleteCorrect RC for MEX5 (DOGSO) by Soares Dias.
ReplyDeleteHad another upgraded red card in the Germany Saudi Arabia match. There seems to be a trend of going yellow and waiting for the VAR to upgrade.
ReplyDeleteLink: https://streamja.com/BBM3k
DeleteThanks for this video David, I think this is a situation in which you have to go directly and without hesitation with a RC from the pitch. Central position, attacker stealing ball after a missed control by defender. Then, replay could suggest that maybe it is not 100% sure (but let's say 95%) that he will reach ball before keeper, but nobody will question a RC.
DeleteI think most of referees would have issued it immediately after the foul, not a good OFR for Gomes.
In this regard, I would have to agree with CWY2190, here expected decision is red.
To be honest, I’m not really so convinced of the criterion of likelihood of control of the ball. The touch is really hard. I think he’s probably going to get there first but there is some room for doubt, IMO
DeleteI have the impression that VAR are using a different approach to potential DOGSO situations compared to potential or doubtful penalties or potentials SFPs.
DeleteIt can hardly be a missed incident, if a referee decides for SPA, where DOGSO was possible. So the YC should be clearly and obviously wrong, if the VAR recommends an OFR for DOGSO.
However, we have already seen several OFRs for DOGSO, where it was more Red than Yellow, but still room for interpretation, whether the attacker would have reached the ball first and in a good enough angle.
It somehow makes sense to act that way, because DOGSO can be better assessed with a wide-frame picture and by stopping the video. However it is not really in line with the general application of the VAR.
I know that the VAR and Gomes are looking at the incident in reference to DOGSO. But IMO, in this incident, there are 2 different reasons why a Red Card could be issued.
DeleteOne of course being for DOGSO. And the other being for SFP. In the challenge, the studs make contact high up on the shin with some significant force.
As I said in another post. I like how VAR is being used at these Olympic games. The bar is definitely not set ridiculously high. And that IMO, is good for the game in the spirit of fair and clean play in accordance with the LoTG.
2 times VAR for Staubli. Two times penalty decisions she should have seen. For the rest an easy match. Should be end of the tournament.
ReplyDelete