2021 FIFA Arab Cup will be used for testing preselected WC referees. These are the referees in charge of group stage games.
30 November 2021
1 December 2021
Algeria vs Sudan
Referee: Ryuji SATO (JPN)
Assistant Referee 1: Jun MIHARA (JPN)
Assistant Referee 2: Osamu NOMURA (JPN)
Fourth Official: Fernando HERNANDEZ GOMEZ (MEX )
Video Assistant Referee: KIMURA Hiroyuki (JPN)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Abdulla AL MARRI (QAT)
Offside VAR : PIRES Bruno (BRA)
Support VAR : ESCOBEDO Adonai (MEX)
Egypt vs Lebanon
Referee: Daniel SIEBERT (GER)
Assistant Referee 1: Rafael FOLTYN (GER)
Assistant Referee 2: Christian GITTELMANN (GER)
Fourth Official: Andres Matias MATONTE CABRERA (URU)
Video Assistant Referee: Christian DINGERT (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Kevin BLOM (NED)
Offside VAR : LISTKIEWICZ Tomasz (POL)
Support VAR : TRACI Rafael (BRA)
Morocco vs Palestine
Referee: Matt CONGER (NZL)
Assistant Referee 1: Tevita MAKASINI (TGA)
Assistant Referee 2: Bernard Alu Paekera MUTUKERA (SOL)
Fourth Official: Said MARTINEZ (HON)
Video Assistant Referee: Shaun EVANS (AUS)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Juan SOTO (VEN)
Offside VAR : BRAILOVSKY Ezequiel (ARG)
Support VAR : AQUINO GAONA Eber (PAR)
Saudi Arabia vs Jordan
Referee: Bakary GASSAMA (GAM)
Assistant Referee 1: Djibril CAMARA (SEN)
Assistant Referee 2: Elvis NOUPUE (CMR)
Fourth Official: Wilton SAMPAIO (BRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Jair MARRUFO (USA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Fernando GUERRERO RAMIREZ (MEX )
Offside VAR : SOKOLNICKI Pawel (POL)
Support VAR : KWIATKOWSKI Tomasz (POL)
Alireza faghani iran will referee the final if ksa not reached the final because political relationship between iran and Saudi Arabia
ReplyDeleteSorry to ask, but what exactly is the situation with Alireza Faghani? Is he back to Iran? Or he stayed on the list despite being in Australia?
DeleteAccording to what I read, he is on the list, to referee, in the A League season
DeleteHe's refereeing in Straya' mate.
DeleteVery strange situation, Maresca is appointed for a serie A game as VAR on next Thursday, for some reasons he didn't attend this FIFA tournament.
ReplyDeleteLAZIO – UDINESE Giovedì 02/12 h. 20.45
PICCININI
PAGLIARDINI – ROSSI C.
IV: RAPUANO
VAR: MARESCA
AVAR: DI IORIO
OT:
ReplyDeleteIsidro Díaz de Mera Escuderos (1989) has been appointed for Real Madrid-Athletic on Wednesday, his first 'big' match since his promotion in 2020.
His season start has been pretty sound so far so I'd say that it's a deserved appointment as a test for more important games.
OT Bas Nijhuis ended his international carreer after clash with Rosetti about his tv appearences. In dutch:
ReplyDeletehttps://m.voetbalzone.nl/doc.asp?uid=397033
If translate not works well iam happy to help even my English is not perfect ;)
Although I know that it is a uefa guide line not to show up in tv-shows I think it as policy of the middle age century.
DeleteI like it very much if a respected referee in his or her country joins a tv program to explain why certain decisions are being made by the referee team. Not as a critism but to inform the public / fans.
Question is, who will be the replacement of Nijhuis as international ref? Dutch referee team with a big problem in relation to succession planning. Only Makkelie in Elite, only Gozubuyuk in First. Can’t see Higler going to first following his appointments so far. So that leaves three refs in third with Lindhout, Kamphuis and the new one…
Actually 4, because Kuipers' spot will be filled as well. Gözübüyük may have chances to be promoted, but I agree that Higler doesn't (as he shouldn't). Internationally, Kamphuis seems more appreciated (possibly due to VAR), but nationally Lindhout has been getting better appointments recently. Kooij should be a safe bet for one of the spots, I'm interested to see who the other will be.
DeleteFor me, Kooij, Van der Eijk and Dieperink have a good chance. They should be promoted to senior though. However, it's ridiculous how Nijhuis is treated. On national level, he's having a good season with no controverse. After his career, he at least deserves a good farewell match.
DeleteMust be Kooij and van der Eijk, who acted as 4th official on international level.
DeleteIndeed, Nijhuis is having a great(!) season in Eredivisie. He is well known for his lenient style and in Eredivisie, it works. Players adapt to his style. If you look at statistics, he whistles max 12 times in a full game for a foul. Nijhuis is the master of advantage play. It is great when a game flows, is full of pace and a referee is not fooled by players falling over. In my opinion, Internationally there are only a few elite refs who are capable of doing that.
I also like Nijhuis' appearances in TV shows. He is a great personality who can avoid critism with humour, doesn't say a bad word about his colleagues and he can explain he rules which is IMO good.
In an interview with Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, Nijhuis himself confirms that Van Egmond & Kuipers have together decided to nominate Joey Kooij and Sander van der Eijk for the open spots.
DeleteThanks! Not a surprise.
DeleteNijhuis himself is not in charge of a game next weekend. Not even as VAR. I can see KNVB punish him (again) for his statements.
@Unknown He officiate Feyenoord-Heracles on 1 december
DeleteFor me Kooij and Van der Eijk are indeed the best options for international list, Dieperink for me failed the test at Heerenveen-Groningen, where he lost control completely because his own leniency!
DeleteI also spotted a future international team involving a woman:-)
Sander van der Eijk now second time also appointed with Franca Overtoom (she is for the second time in erdivisie only), but twice with Sander van der Eijk, so might Franca Overtoom considered as a regular assistant off Van der Eijk when he goes international probably? for me it's no coincidence :-)
Kevin Blom is among the officials not reported by FIFA, I think he replaced Maresca.
ReplyDeletePlease chefren i need the full referees list for arab cup
Deletehttp://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/10/2021-fifa-arab-cup-selected-officials.html
DeleteIt was posted on the blog when released!
Semi-automated offside technology will be used at FIFA Arab Cup
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fifa.com/news/semi-automated-offside-technology-explained-ahead-of-fifa-arab-cup
Predictions MD2
ReplyDeleteBHR-IRQ: Hernandez (MEX), Barwegen (CAN), Diaz (MEX), Gassama (GAM) - Guerrero, Escobedo (MEX)
OMN-QAT: Tello, Brailovsky, Chade (ARG), Conger (NZL) - Aquino (PAR), Soto (VEN)
MRT-UAE: Matonte, Soppi, Barreiro (URU), Sato (JPN) - Gonzalez (URU), Cuadra (ESP)
SYR-TUN: Sampaio, Simon, Pires (BRA), Siebert (GER) - Traci (BRA), Dingert (GER)
JOR-MAR: Marciniak, Sokolnicki, Listkiewicz (POL), Siebert (GER) - Kwiatkowski (POL), Blom (NED)
PLE-KSA: Faghani, Mansouri, Abdolfazli (IRN), Sato (JPN) - AlMarri (QAT), Kimura (JPN)
LEB-ALG: Martinez, Lopez, Ramirez (HON), Conger (NZL) - Marrufo (USA), Soto (VEN)
SDN-EGY: Sikazwe (ZAM), Siwela (RSA), dos Santos (ANG), Gassama (GAM) - Evans (AUS), Jiyed (MAR)
I would prefer AFC referees for all-African matches and CAF referees for all-Asian matches as on matchday 1.
DeletePeter/Vienna
Are there any fidings about the new Fifa Referees in Germany?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dfb.de/fileadmin/_dfbdam/247934-OM_09_2021_Final.pdf
DeleteDFB agreed on the following changes:
... referees leaving FIFA list:
- Felix Brych
- Marco Fritz
... new FIFA referees:
- Sven Jablonski
- Daniel Schlager (both 31 y/o)
... FIFA Assistent Referee leaving the list:
- Thorsten Schiffner
... new FIFA Assistent Referee:
- Robert Kempter (33 y/o)
... FIFA Video Match Officials leaving the list:
- Bibiana Steinhaus-Webb
- Tobias Welz
... new FIFA Video Match Officials on the list:
- Riem Hussein (41 y/o)
- Daniel Schlager (31 y/o)
Thanks,i was able to come over here and find somthing
DeleteApparently, Arab Cup operates with 4 instead of the 2 VARs FIFA mentions. Nomura Osamu (Japan, Offside VAR) and Fernando Guerrero (Mexico, Support VAR) were those for the Faghani game.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct, the Arbitro Internacional twitter has the full designations.
DeleteTUNMTN (Alireza Faghani)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
26' Penalty incident: pushing (no replay)
https://youtu.be/bOeOnj4OvMY?t=2251
45+9' Penalty for handball awarded after OFR
https://youtu.be/bOeOnj4OvMY?t=3969
52' YC Ben Romdhane (TUN); using arm as a tool or weapon?
https://youtu.be/bOeOnj4OvMY?t=5520
55' Penalty incidents: handball, tripping
https://youtu.be/bOeOnj4OvMY?t=5721
72' Penalty incident: pushing (no replay)
https://youtu.be/bOeOnj4OvMY?t=6748
Thank you!
DeleteMy views:
26' OK to play on, never penalty, not enough in my opinion.
45'+9 excellent spot by VAR, I needed to rewatch many times before coming to conclusion that ball was touched by arm of defender before the head of attacker, this was very difficult to spot, I would say most of VARs could have missed this incident because in the live sequence you can't have any clue of that, you just think about a header, I praise Al Marri.
Do you know why 8 minutes of added time in first half?
52' YC is OK, there isn't any evidence of a possible RC.
55' Handball, no replay, but I think rather not punishable, tripping is surely very interesting to analyze, indeed, penalty could have been whsitled, but again perfect work by VAR, the slight touch on the ball and the gesture by Faghani to have assessed it as fair, makes it as supportable decision, but maybe in reality penalty would have been more appropriate, because very risky action for defender. I must say excellent work by VAR in this game. In FIFA tournaments very often we see a more "open" use of VAR, this wasn't the case.
72' Impossible to say in this case without replay, differently from 26', but if only upper contact and player falling down, as it looks to be, definitely OK to play on, again, correct by VAR to support.
@Chefren the long added time in 1H was due to the injury and subsequent replacement of Mauritanian goalkeeper in 12'
DeleteThank you ESR
Delete45+9: For me not a clear error by the referee team. The defender has his arm in a natural heading position. Still, if the ball is long in the air, it is punished. But, just before the 'handball', the defender tries to get his arm away from the ball. The striker jumps into the arm and redirects it back in the direction of the defender and this brings the contact. Quite a deep analysis, but even without this knowledge, a handball PK seems harsh (natural heading arm, under pressure from striker, no appeal for PK)
55' We had a similiar incident on the 26. july 2021, China vs. Zambia. For me in both cases, the defender gets enough on the ball for it not to be a PK. IMO in this instance even clearer than China vs. Zambia.
(https://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/07/2020-fifa-mens-and-womens-olympic_25.html?showComment=1627277227354#c1760001325851756124)
I want to add, after having read David's message, that indeed my assessment about the handball is the "Italian" one and I agree with the call, but I can understand why some people can have a different idea. However, when arm is open and ball is hit, preventing a player from opponent, I repeat myself, this should be enough to whistle, otherwise we enter in a too wide discretion's field.
DeleteI completely agree with David on the handball penalty.
DeleteMy views:
Delete26' Everything's okay here; penalty would be technically supportable (actually looks like a clumsy, man-focused action) but the referee clearly took the more sensible, 'intelligent' choice to not overcomplicate those scenes.
45+9' I agree with Faghani and VAR here. The defender starts with a normal header movement, yes, but his arm is stuck in this widely opened position even when the neutral movement of raising the arm for a header should already be finished; due to the severity of the arm position (on/above shoulder level and increasing the body surface), penalty should be given.
I can see, however, that there are numerous other ideas; handballs remain quite a difficult subject.
52' Action looks very dangerous, but I can't really see intent with force; YC for using the arm as a tool looks correct.
55' Clumsy action by the defender, but I think he gets just enough of the ball to tolerate it; no conclusive replay re. the handball appeal, looks supportable.
72' Looks like an easy fall.
Can you post streamable links instead? These FIFA full match videos are not available in my country (USA) due to a broadcaster owning the rights to these games.
DeleteHow are we serving the game with the handball called via VAR at 45+9?
DeleteIf it needs to be "rewatched several times" before you can even determine it hit the hand, and no one on the field appealed or expected it, and the defender's arm is quite literally hit by the attacker prior to the handball contact...
Who--other than some referees--wants that penalty to decide a big match? This will be forgotten because it was a 5-1 game in the Arab Cup. But when a penalty like this happens to decide a WC semifinal 1-0, the outrage across the world is going to be massive.
I'll say this as clearly as I know how: incidents like this are NOT what VAR was invented for.
Alas, we are in a world where referee instruction has made them very likely, if not guaranteed. That's not a development that should be celebrated.
I think, part of that problem is that "missed incident" clause. While many would agree, that this is not a clear and obvious mistake, one can hardly deny, that it was an incident (very likely) missed by the officials on the pitch.
DeleteOf course, it is still up to instructions, whether an intervention is correct, but it gives at least a justification by the protocol.
The second part of the problem is the big grey area for handball, which seems to be desired based on the latest LotG change (making it less precise again).
@Usaref, I understand your point of view, the detection of this handball is not immediate therefore not a clear and obvious mistake for some people. But... what is your solution?
DeleteSince VAR has been introducted in football, we are seeing many and many different applications of it. I can say, as I already reported, that as example in my country this is perceived as clear handball. Maybe this was the same for the VAR from Qatar, I definitely can't blame him. So, what to do? Since in my opinion it is impossible to have objective criteria for handballs and many other grey areas, we should only draw the final conclusion that VAR should be removed from penalty incidents and maybe RC aas well? Because, believe me, you will have always debatable calls, as long as there will be a human person using it. I think that, also for this reason, when you have a tool like VAR and such offences are committed without being noticed by referee, it is a good thing to invite them to rewatch.
Also, if this is a mistake for VAR to intervene, why he wasn't instructed about that before the start of the tournament?
DeleteIf we assume that what you are saying is right, then I don't understand why football refereeing heads are going on without any single specific instruction to VAR officials. Because, if what you say is how it should be, a VAR with such experience must know that. So in my opinion we have two options:
1) stopping VAR use for grey areas
2) accepting that it will be always a second officiating and never something objective, and then let's use it in all different ways.
I think this is a very serious problem, now I'm not talking against you, but I just used this discussion for some personal remarks.
@Chefren - I don't think there is a solution. But I would say that most governing bodies have seemed to instruct that almost every "ball-to-hand" contact in the penalty area has an objectively right or wrong decision. Whereas with foul play, we often here things like "probably a penalty, but never VAR stuff" on this blog, we never seem to hear that about handballs. So, for me, that would be the first step. An acknowledgement that, on situations that clearly are debatable or could have multiple interpretations, the VMO doesn't go looking for a sure answer that doesn't exist.
DeleteRemember, when addressing the phrase "clear and obvious," David Elleray said something at the beginning of the VAR experiment along the lines of "95 out of 100 stakeholders (fans, coaches, referees, players, etc.)" would identify it as a mistake. The bar for intervention is supposed to be extraordinarily high. Do you think 95 out of 100 people see that as a handball? 85 out of 100? I think you'd be lucky to get 15 out of 100, to be honest. And if the number isn't well above 50--again, in theory--then it's not a clear mistake.
As to your question about instruction, I think that's a big part of the problem. There ARE instructions around handball relative to VAR. I know what they are in MLS, I think most of us learned what they were in EURO, and I'm sure you know what they are in Serie A. I think the problem is that the instructions around handball are too rigid and, well, some VARs are too active.
This is an absolutely excellent and detailed answer, discussion has been very interesting and I indeed agree with you, at least we share the same doubts here.
DeleteSeems like a pretty eventful game for Martinez is IRQ-OMA, does anyone have clips?
ReplyDeleteI am watching it now with delay, so I will post the links when I finish. :)
DeleteSorry I post it in the wrong position
ReplyDeleteOFC preliminary competition to determine the participant to FIFA WC 2022, will be played in a mini tournament in Qatar from 14 to 30 March 2022.
I'm interested to know if only OFC referees will be selected for such tournaments or referees coming form the rest of world
It should be OFC Referees for an OFC Competition with OFC teams. Furthermore, no Confederation has used "foreign" referees in their qualifying matches so far. So why should it be any different for OFC? I get it that OFC is the weakest and least represented confederation in all of FIFA. But their referees deserve respect and as such should be the only ones who handle these matches.
DeleteFIFA is already "screwing over" the OFC by forcing them to play part of the qualifying tournament outside of the FIFA play date window.
I agree with you especially on the fact the OFC referees deserve respect and more consideration, but.... watching on FIFA list I founded only 9 referees belonging to OFC: HOPKEEN (Vanuatu), CONGER, WALDROM and KAWANA-W (New Zealand), LACOUR (New Caledonia), YAREBOINEN (Papua NG), HAUATA & ZITOUINI (Tahiti) TIME (Solomon Island), while Tonga, Fiji and Cook Island don't have any international referees. Nobody of them is in tile to act as VAR or VMO.
DeleteI guess that the list is too short for 12 group stage match plus semifinal, final and preliminary round.
Since the tournament is played in Qatar I would add at least Al Jassim and Beath as main referees in addition to the following VARs: Ewans, Shukrallah, Faghani, Makhammed, Mohammed, Al Marri
Does it make sense for you @anonymous and all?
My prediction would be:
DeletePRELIMINARY ROUND:
TONGA - COOK ISLAND
EVANS (IV; CONGER VAR: FAGHANI)
BEATH (IV; WALDRON VAR: AL MARRI)
GROUP STAGE first two match days:
SOLOMON-T/C: YAREBOINEN
TAHITI-VANUATU: CONGER
FIJI- NEW ZEALAND: HAUATA
PNG-NEW CALEDONIA: AL JASSIM
TAHITI-T/C: WALDRON
VANUATU-SOLOMON: LACOUR
FIJI-NEW CALEDONIA: BEATH
PNG-NEW ZEALAND: ZITOUINI
I don't expect the matches to be played with VAR - unless FIFA uses them as further training for some WC candidates.
DeleteI think, it would be possible to cover the matches only with the OFC officials - they managed that in the past - even if that means multiple appointments for the same referee.
However it is equally possible, that some AFC referees (especially from the Arab countries) will help out due to the location. I don't see, why it should especially be Australians in Qatar.
Or FIFA brings in referees (WC candidates?) from all over the world, but I think that's the least likely option.
I agree with Philipp. The OFC has managed multiple club and national team competitions in the past using only their referees.
DeleteSecondly, VAR is not a "must have" for world cup qualifying.
Again I'll focus on showing and giving OFC Referees the respect they deserve and that they've earned by attaining their FIFA Badges. Bringing in foreigners diminishes and denigrates OFC referees even further than FIFA already does.
Madden match in Greece, he had to take players off in stoppage time after flares thrown on the pitch and a crowd invasion. Game finished with no crowd.
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dY6O3zitZy8
Very poor images from Greece football.
DeleteUnfortunately, as a Greek, I am used to such scenes.
DeleteSo Clatts using foreign referees isn't the answer either. Interesting.
DeleteIRQOMA (Said Martínez)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
01' Penalty incident: charging
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=805
53' Penalty incident: handball
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=4956
68' Second YC Yasir Qasim (IRQ) for reckless kick
1YC: https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=4778
2YC: https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=5866
74' Possible second YC (OMA) for reckless use of arm
1YC: https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=1527
POT 2YC: https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=6233
76' Penalty awarded for tackle (ball not played vs creating contact by attacker)
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=6349
82' Goal disallowed due to offside (AR1)
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=6671
84' Tackle by Shirku Karim (IRQ); reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=6835
86' Penalty incident: handball (no replay)
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=6920
90+1' Penalty incident: tackle
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=7233
90+3' Penalty for holding awarded after OFR, then repeated due to encroachment by goalkeeper
https://youtu.be/xG_pDATbCzs?t=7382
WOW what a game full of incidents.
Delete1' for me not enough for a penalty and play on would be OK but what about this foul by Martinez? I can't see any argument for supporting it, but indeed correct that VAR didn't intervene.
53' correct decision to play on, head and then maybe body of teammate, but referee didn't give the idea of being focused on a possible incident in the wall, he should have shown a more focused approach to that. Correct by VAR to stay silent.
68' no discussions, both YC very clear decisions, both reckless challenges.
74' first YC absolutely correct, reckless, second one I can accept no card, but issuing it would have been OK. Borderline action with arm between careless and reckless.
76' Penalty must be accepted, indeed, you explained it very well, not a very clear penalty because there is time for attacker to avoid contact, of course he is not obliged to do that, but it is rather an "easy use" of the tackle by defender, who however didn't play ball, so penalty OK, but not among the situations that I like to be whistled, correct by VAR to support.
82' correct decision by AR, expected in a free kick scenario, with the required positioning at the execution.
84' extremely borderline, in this case I think that VAR was in trouble to decide whether to intervene or not. I think the point of impact would talk in favor of RC, but the intensity is not high. I would have been very happy with RC, but I can't say this is a 100% clear RC. Then, of course missing YC by referee is very important mistake, but it is very clear that he totally missed the point of contact, indeed it was not easy, very quick action, maybe this was an argument for VAR to force an intervention?
86' Impossible to say without replay, however the movement is weird, I think that there wasn't any touch by arm at all, otherwise, based only on my perception, rather punishable action in that position.
90'+1 here I like to give you my first impression during the live sequence, without replay, clear penalty. Then, watching replay I say that penalty could have been whistled, the action by defender is very uncoordinated, he manages in a way to capture the ball, yes, but with a too obvious impact on attacker. Still, not VAR stuff and I agree with NO INTERVENTION.
90'+3 And here we have the first case of VAR intervention in the tournament that is totally wrong, in my opinion. As first remark, just let me wish that the minute of the game didn't play a role in this call, then referee had to see that by himself. It is true that holding is blatant, but what about the real effects on attacker? I don't even think this was a missed incident. The attacker, to say it in other words, would have made the same things without the holding. I understand it is unfair to say, but with a referee in visual control, I rather think this is a wrong call. Would have been extremely discussed in Italy where, you know, holdings are less punished than the rest of Europe. Still I can't perceive this as clear and obvious mistake by referee... what is the difference with a handball? I must want to add this further remark, the touch ball - arm in a handball is objective, so a VAR intervention can be more expected, but in this case on the pitch you think that referee has already assessed that by himself.
However, an extermely challenging game and a performance that is very difficult to assess, for sure this could stay for the whole tournament as the most difficult game, given also the way of playing of both teams, more based on making fouls than playing football. I'm not fully convinced by Martinez.
Also, after VAR ordered a retake due to encroachment, the Iraq coach walked onto the field and was even inside the penalty area to tell which player should (re)take the penalty. He has not been booked for this.
Delete@Chefren, this is not meant as a slight at you, but I just don't understand the logic of being okay with the handball intervention but not okay with this one.
DeleteThe hold is blatant. The shirt is pulled tight around his neck. And--most importantly--the fouled player is the one who headed the ball. He headed a shot wide? The hold was forceful. How do we know the hold didn't affect the goal-scoring opportunity? I would say it most certainly did, in fact. I'm not suggesting a goal would definitely be scored. But an attacking header was affected by clear and deliberate foul action.
In the handball scenario, we have at most accidental contact that does not affect the play.
But because the ball-to-hand contact is objective and the holding is subjective, we use VAR to punish the handball but not the blatant and cynical hold?! What is the virtue of VAR if we are using it to punish accidents but not intentional foul play?
I fully understand an argument that BOTH interventions are wrong. I'd disagree, but understand it. I cannot understand an argument that the handball intervention is good but the holding intervention is bad.
I could argue to your last question that Faghani didn't see the handball at all, 100% sure, while Martinez had this holding in front of hie eyes and he decided to play on... I see a clear difference there!
DeleteBut, I guess the obvious counter to that is to ask if it is necessary for the referee to see every ball-to-hand contact?
DeleteThe protocols talk about "missed serious incidents." I would strongly suggest that the ball contact a hand is a relatively normal event and not inherently serious at all. It's only serious when it rises to the level of an offence.
Of course, it is necessary, that's why a referee is appointed: "to see" and then decide based on what he saw.
DeleteIn my opinion when handballs happen and referee doesn't see them, it is a good thing to use the technology because, differently from other infringments, they are the most difficult incidents to detect. Then, for sure there are many handballs not punishable at all, but the problem is how handballs are perceived country by country and you answered in the other post. Here I must agree, and the problem can't be solved.
Delete@Chefren At 53' Do you not think it is a clear offense if the ball strikes the arm? I watched it at 0.25 speed and I'm pretty sure it hit the arm which was IMO very unnatural away from the body. For me PK
DeleteVery eventful match for the officials, my views:
Delete1' Player goes down easily, no penalty seems correct; indeed Martinez' choice is wrong nonetheless.
53' Correct call, no offence.
68' Two very reckless fouls, the referee's decision is right without doubts.
74' While the booking in 1H is more than correct, the second incident is very borderline; I can see why the referee didn't issue this YC, amount of reckless action and intent seems little.
76' Here, I think the call is completely correct. The defender's action is very risky, he totally misses the ball and brings down the attacker; I don't see enough active 'creating of the contact' by the attacker to acquit the defender with his movement.
82' Expected to determine this offside infringement.
84' The pictures aren't conclusive re. the actual tackle and its intensity, but the point of contact looks quite bad; no YC is a big error whatsoever.
86' Impossible to judge properly, probably no contact with the arm.
90+1' I agree with the VMOs, but the challenge is very clumsy; the ball is touched, so I would support the referee in total.
90+3' Wow, that's an interesting scene. Penalty is the clearly 'better' call for me; the attacker who goes for the header is excessively pulled down with a totally unfair and man-focused intent. The defender actually prevents the attacker from jumping properly with a serious chance to fairly head the ball (you can only speculate on how severe the actual impact on the header is, maybe he wouldn't have scored anyway but this shouldn't matter).
I personally like the intervention but, as Chefren's answer shows, there are other understandable views; is it a clear and obvious error then? What about the perception? Difficult scene ideed.
@Anonymous30 November 2021 at 21:34 -
DeleteDoes that mean referees throughout the ages were failing every game until VAR arrived?
I just reject the philosophy here. VAR came about to prevent tragedies. The "Hand of Frog." The Argentine goal that ruined Rosetti's WC. Things like that. Things that were an affront to the integrity of the game or were so glaringly wrong that they simply had to be fixed.
The idea that the referee needs to see every potential ball-to-hand situation in the penalty area is just bizarre to me. I'm sure all of us have refereed without VAR. How often have you told plays "no, not deliberate!" or "his arm was tucked!" or "he was too close." Or anything alone those lines? Referees are able to manage ball-to-hand contact--whether real or alleged--at every level below the top. So why does the top suddenly need to be different?
VAR was supposed to improve the game. Not change the game. It was supposed to help identify severe offences that were typically called but were missed on-the-field. By calling incidents like this, it is identifying offences that were never called in the history of the game. I don't think that's what most of the people who watch this sport want.
The idea that all handballs must be rewatched to get the "right" answer leads down a very slippery path where one day everything will be rewatched to get the "right" answer. And at some point, the pleasure and enjoyment of the sport will be sucked out of the game.
usaref: "to see" does not mean "to call", unless there is another definition for the verb "to see" that those of us who are not English native speakers are not aware of... In the examples you mentioned I assume the referee "saw" the handballs, but decided not to call them due to "not deliberate", "arm tucked", "arm too close". I said the referee should "see", not "call" every handball.
DeleteWish I could see these clips in my country but they're blocked. :(
DeleteI find it peculiar that you only focused on my examples in that one paragraph and did not address the rest of the comment.
DeleteBut, specifically to your point about the examples, they are not exhaustive. They are just examples. I said "whether real or alleged." My implication is that we also get through incidents where there WAS likely contact that we couldn't see by managing the situation. Not every ball-to-hand contact is this controversy or tragedy that must be subject to more analysis and a second look. The sport has survived for decades upon decades understanding that not all handballs should be punished and that even the punishable ones are debatable. Suddenly, the introduction of VAR is supposed to change that? Why?
I feel like the people on the other side of this debate are dedicated to making refereeing a science more than an art. And if that's your perspective, fine. But I just come at it from a fundamentally different approach. The game is not served by over-precision. It's less fun. It's less enjoyable to watch. It will become less popular. 100% accuracy in every decision is not a virtue, yet the powers that be seem to pretend or assume that it is.
The game has grey areas. And refereeing should, too. The idea that handball--the greyest of grey areas historically--should suddenly become black and white is something I reject. I particularly reject it because no one every made the argument for VAR in order to better adjudicate "accidental" or "dubious" handballs. Again, it was about preventing travesties like in France v Ireland or Argentina v Mexico. And it was introduced as only being about "clear errors" (I point again to the Elleray statement).
So back to the point I was trying to make, the handball penalty for Mauritania just doesn't fit with what VAR was allegedly introduced to do. If FIFA is instructing its referees to call handball this way via VAR, I cannot fault the referees. But I can fault FIFA for abusing the technology. They--and other governing bodies--are playing a dangerous game. Because I'll ask again... what do people think the reaction would be if a WC semifinal or final was decided on a call like this? Do people honestly think that would be good for the sport?
Sometimes I think many of us, thinking only as referees, miss the proverbial forest for the trees.
@David if the ball after the header by teammate goes directly in the arm, I think at least we can use the first deflection as criterion for assessing the ball as very unexpected, but in the wall maybe this could be less important... after a deliberate play by teammate, the instruction in Italy is to play on in all situations because the player would never commit the infringment in that case, this is rather a deflection, but still one could use this argument.
DeleteMy opinion in all cases is that referee was not so much focused about what could have happened in the wall.
QATBHR (Szymon Marciniak)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
36' Penalty incident: charging
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=5165
40' FK vs PK, YC Sayad Ridha (QAT) for SPA-holding
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=5422
48' Penalty incident: handball
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=6901
53' YC Assim Madibo (QAT) for a tackle; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=7154
82' Penalty incident: tackle
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=8916
36' this should be at referee's discretion, no preference in my opinion, OK to play on, absolutely correct VAR work to support.
Delete40' very good decision with free kick outside and YC for SPA, holding ended outside.
48' that's a more than obvious handball with open arm, and I would add, Marciniak didn't see anything, so now if we compare with the one in Faghani game I must say again that there isn't any consistency at all. Why play on? The ball can be expected, I don't think that the movement by the other defender was a reason for assessing the ball as not expected. This can be the only argument for playing on. To be honest, it is better to give up with handballs!
53' kind of scissor tackle, but YC can be definitely supported, RC only to be issued in case by referee from the pitch, to me however still more YC.
82' Very risky tackle but we can accept this action by defender without talking about a mandatory penalty, so OK by Marciniak and VAR, never a clear and obvious mistake.
In my opinion, situation in 48' stays as the only one without explanation.
48' clear in expected ball, because the another teammate didn’t kick the ball and it suprised him. Besides both defender and attacker were in contact, both didn’t see the ball, because of the defender so play on is a correct decision
DeleteIMO
Delete36' Not enough to whistle for a spot-kick for my taste.
40' Correct decision, well seen.
48' Never-ending story: handballs... in this case, the defender 'shields' the attacker with the arm outstretched; the contact with the arm, however, is very avoidable. The defender sees that the ball is coming, there is no significant influence by another player, he acts careless with remaining in this arm position. Penalty would be at least supportable and is clearly my preferred option. For the VAR, that's a bad scene; with the circumstances I explained, I understand their reserved reaction, however, I think an OFR would be sensible as well (given that Marciniak probably didn't percieve anything).
53' Dangerous tackle, but giving a YC for reckless challenge is enough for me.
82' The ball is hit and intended to play; enough to support the on-field decision, but I think penalty would be at least possible, the defender's action is full of risk and potentially dangerous.
@Chefren - we agree on 48'!
DeleteI don't necessarily think it MUST be a VAR intervention. But it is far, far, far more obvious of a handling offence than the one sent down to Faghani. In this instance, as @Flip points out, the defender is shielding his opponent with his arm, so he has conciously chosen to put his arm in that position. It's not natural. It makes him bigger. It's outside the silhouette. Per all our instructions, it's a handball.
The inconsistency here is maddening. VAR was supposed to help eliminate controversy. I feel like it's only adding it around handballs right now. In the "old days" we'd have played on in both situations. While perhaps not objectively correct, at least it would be accepted. But to intervene at the same tournament in one dubious situation but then, on the same day, to not do so in a much clearer situation? It's not a good look.
Exactly usaref, so the quality of VARs must be questioned here, one would expect similar instructions at least to be applied in the same tournament. It looks to me that modern FIFA instructors don't care so much about that. More focused on how VAR should work in a general context, but then they are not able to explain to referees to have consistency and calling such infringments or not. This at least could be avoided... then, into a more detailed speech, again, one must admit, impossible to have 100% uniformity.
DeleteOne more key match incident
Delete90+6' Possible second YC Sayad Ridha (BHR) after off-the-ball impeding
https://youtu.be/8HDLsS0dS78?t=9760
I've watched some Arab Cup
ReplyDeletematches for semi-automated offside technology, but it seemed the delayed is not gone.
※delayed the flag
DeleteWhy would the delay disappear? The signal is first sent to the VAR for interpretation. I'm not entirely sure how this is all working, honestly. But I've heard no scenario where information is relayed from the semi-automated technology to the AR in what would be classified as quick fashion. So the mechancis for the delayed flag around VAR situations shouldn't necessarily be changing.
DeleteBut, on this point, we really should know more about how this is working. Which offside decisions are subject to the technology? All of them? Only those relative to VAR protocol? That hasn't been made clear.
UAESYR (Janny Sikazwe)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
14' Penalty incident: tackle
https://youtu.be/qctNOenTvq0?t=1506
22' Penalty incident: charging
https://youtu.be/qctNOenTvq0?t=1951
88' Possible 2nd YC Mahmud Khamis (UAE) after kicking an opponent
1YC: https://youtu.be/qctNOenTvq0?t=6693
POS 2YC: https://youtu.be/qctNOenTvq0?t=6918
90+4' Second YC Mahmud Khamis (UAE) after tackle; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/qctNOenTvq0?t=7292
14' Typical situation in which attacker is able to kick ball but then there is contact by defender, the overall perception is that penalty should have been whistled only by referee, no VAR stuff for an intervention, and indeed I agree, despite of the fact that the action by defender can look reckless, not a full reckless one. Personally, I would't have whistled.
Delete22' Again, penalty to be whistled only by referee, correct by VAR to support, not a crucial mistake in any case.
88' First YC is OK, second could have been given but in my opinion not a 100% clear situation. Let's back referee.
90'+4 Mandatory YC, I think VAR was right in supporting. Borderline YC - RC. The action is very reckless, but the effects are even worse due to movement of opponent who is making a tackle as well. Low studs.
My views:
Delete14' As the ball is already shot on goal, it's supportable to assess this challenge still as careless, but there are also arguments pointing towards a reckless character of this tackle what would make it a penalty.
I prefer the decision taken by the officals, no need to produce controversies where they aren't necessary; VAR shouldn't get involved in either way.
22' Actually quite an interesting scene IMO; the defender acts quite clumsily, no realistic chance for the ball in this charging movement. But the attacker is also not in the best position and 'overtakes' the defender on his right side with quite a lot body contact; when he passed him he falls down - Sikazwe's decision should be definetly supported.
88' Not a clear case, we can back the officials here I think.
90+4' Completely correct YC, player is sliding recklessly into his opponent - not enough for SFP IMO, as both players take a risk with their sliding tackle, not a high force by the player sent off and no overly high studs.
Just a hint for @smala017: try to instal the new Opera browser and there should be a VPN tool available for you already in the software. Turn it on and it should work.
ReplyDeleteFor Jackson, smala017 and others who can't watch the games on YT, but also for those who are interested in other scenes from the games like (possible) yellow cards, etc.
ReplyDeleteTUNMTN: https://we.tl/t-lqaNRO6q5i
IRQOMA: https://we.tl/t-rJbQEWaxoI
Thank you so much for your work.
DeleteTo those who can't watch games on youtube due to country restrictions: the absurd thing very often is that the broadcaster that should air the games in the respective countries, don't do that... well... for me it was the same in past for other competitions (Olympic tournament).
QATBHR: https://we.tl/t-WIP0w1KXsW
DeleteAs ESR said previously, if Arab Cup is geoblocked in your country, you should try using a VPN, there are tons of them downloadable for free.
DeleteHere in Spain the tournament is available on Youtube so if your VPN can 'put you' in Spain, it should work.
Regarding all the handball situations on the first Arab Cup day, I think, that the big grey area is the bigger reason for the controversies than the VAR.
ReplyDeleteIt just can't be right, that we have different opinions by referee experts (like us here) on nearly every handball decision. And with good arguments for both sides.
Surely, there will always be some situations in the grey area. But in most (say >75%) of the cases, there should be a correct and a wrong solution to it, which is known by all referees (and ideally most of the players and spectators). So that a clear decision can be made at latest, when watching the replays.
Besides a more detailled law, it would help, if we get to know the correct interpretations for controversial handball situations by the authorities to be able to work with precedents and base the decisions on them.
As for VAR at handball situations, IMO there are two possible approaches:
1) The VAR asks the referee, whether he has seen the hand contact.
If yes: Intervention only, if the VAR thinks, that the situation is completely clear. This probably would be quite rare and mostly for deliberate hand to ball movements.
If no: Intervention, if the VAR thinks, that he personally would give the penalty. (And this should include, that most referees don't give penalties for 50/50 situations, but only for relatively clear ones)
2) Get rid of the "missed incident", but lower the line for intervention a bit.
I.e., the VAR intervenes, if he thinks, the referee's decision is not correct. Without the condition, that it needs to be completely clear, so if there is a small argument supporting the referee, he can still intervene.
But still with the idea, that interventions can be done for 90/10 incidents, but not for e.g. 70/30. (In the sense, that 9 resp. 7 out of 10 referees would decide differently.)
But again, any VAR approach would be helped a lot, if there are clearly correct decisions in the majority of decisions - which doesn't seem to be the case right now.
What you write here makes some sense, BUT the problem remains if they dont adapt grading system logic. How it works now is that the referee makes all decisions and hence those missed incidents are preferred because they decrease a direct influence of VAR room.
DeleteAnd again, in the case when the referee says that he saw everything and still makes the wrong decision, it is very unlikely that we can have a system that he will be invites to rewatch if VAR "would make a different decision" but its not blatant mistake.
*By preferred I mean preferred in some countries and some tournaments or with some referees, not a general rule (as we could see on last EURO)
DeleteHello Philipp. I would like to talk about refereeing with you in chat, I think we would have interesting conversations and I want to learn from you. Please contact me at becomereferee (at) gmail.com. I also speak german.
DeleteAlgeria - Sudan
ReplyDeleteNo penalty decision by Ryuji Sato(JPN) and VAR supported. For me, this is a supportable decision, but if give a penalty, what card should be shown?
https://streamable.com/5vnxp8
An extremely interesting case in which there is a mix of "everything" to be discussed :)
DeleteAt first I agree with VAR, no intervention, the original play on the ball "CAN SAVE THE REST". But well, this was a very dangerous action. In the context of the action, it would be a clear and classic DOGSO, with a genuine attempt to play ball, so YC. But of course RC can be discussed for SFP. It is always the same speech, the fact that ball was clearly played before and the contact with opponent can be assessed as unlucky consequence, without a real intent, could talk in favor of YC, if you want to punish the foul.
So, basically, genuine DOGSO, YC.
RC possible for the studs hitting opponent in that way.
Overall, not a 100% penalty.
Interesting. Eerily reminds me of Mateu Lahoz's no-PK call in Olympiacos-Fener (follow-up incident, defender making studs contact after fairly clearing the ball),
DeleteTbh if the contact after clearance is potentially dangerous I'd prefer a PK there.
** PK, and YC should be awarded. VAR would intervene because of high leg (there is a proof). Sorry Chefren but DOGSO is not possible, because defender played the ball first.
DeleteYes thanks for clarification, indeed I was wrong or not 100% accurate in my comment, I needed to specify that in case of disponibility of the ball by attacker, in such scenario, DOGSO, but then having played ball before and making contact with opponent when ball away, indeed isn't DOGSO anymore.
DeleteIMO, we shouldn't use "touched the ball" to accept such dangerous challenges; the defender takes the risk when he lunges into the opponent with open studs. A RC would be harsh IMO, it's a 'follow-through' incident, so the dangerous-looking contact is also an unlucky consequence; but to not even whistle a foul for that, no matter if it's a penalty or FK, is a mistake for me.
DeletePersonally, VAR should get involved; but there is probably no chance when the referee said sth like: "Ball first"... but still, penalty in my view.
Here I disagree with Chefren that VAR shouldn't intervene. On contrary, I think the no intervention is a very big mistake. Clearly reckless (if not more) action. Penalty and YC to be given.
DeleteAlgeria - Sudan
ReplyDeleteThe goal was disallowed for offside after VAR only-review.
The assistant referee is Osamu Nomura(JPN).
https://twitter.com/kogekidogso/status/1466003131876052993?s=21
ALGSDN (Ryūji Satō)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
42' Penalty incident: follow-through tackle by 6SDN; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/_u-agrfT7cU?t=3199
51' After VAR intervention, goal disallowed due to offside (AR2)
https://youtu.be/_u-agrfT7cU?t=4904
LINES: https://youtu.be/_u-agrfT7cU?t=5062
67' Following OFR, penalty kick awarded for step on foot; missed YC?
https://youtu.be/_u-agrfT7cU?t=5894
73' Penalty incident: kicking
https://youtu.be/_u-agrfT7cU?t=6250
In general, I didn't like this performance. Apart from the missed two penalties (a pity that only one was corrected by VAR), he was far too lenient, not trying to limit fouls of SDN players. Missed yellow cards to 9SDN and 19SDN at the end of the first half were really bad image of refereeing and it definitely came from lack of strong reaction against several fouls earlier in the game. Satō refereed this game like his goal was to end up without yellow cards (not caring about cynical fouls, persistent infringements, also no YC at the penalty given in 67'). And he succeeded in this regard...
Having already commented on the first two situations, here the rest (thanks again for your work):
Delete67' Here no doubts, clear penalty, but how many times referee watched it during the OFR? I think this was a very clear situation, more reaction was needed, also, it looked like he was about to smile all time long while watching video, or is that just my wrong impression? And yes, missed YC as it is clearly expected for such fouls.
73' it is OK to play on in this case, overall not the percetion of a clear penalty, better decision to continue the game, correct by VAR to support.
Yeah, Satō was smiling all the time. This combined with his leniency reminds me Svein Oddvar Moen...
DeleteIMO
Delete42' With the angles here, it becomes even clearer for me: penalty to be whistled.
51' Correct to disallow that goal, good VAR procedure; AR could have detected that offside himself, but everything went good.
67' Clear step on foot, missed YC for this reckless action.
73' Not enough to whistle a penalty, offence is not clear for me.
Thanks, @Euro Soccer Ref, for your amazing work! :)
Can I ask that people, going forward, try to post streamable links instead of of FIFA's youtube links for these matches? Sadly the FIFA full matches on their youtube channel are not available to American viewers. I know I'm not the only one affected by this. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI post the links to key match incidents after I watch the game. Downloading a game and cutting clips takes some time. I will upload videos from each game but it will be with some delay. So far, I can recommend to download the clips from three yesterday's games:
DeleteTUNMTN: https://we.tl/t-lqaNRO6q5i
IRQOMA: https://we.tl/t-rJbQEWaxoI
QATBHR: https://we.tl/t-WIP0w1KXsW
Btw, by using VPN (it's built-in in Opera browser) you can bypass the regional restrictions.
EGYLBN (Daniel Siebert)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
45+3' YC Akram Tawfik (EGY) - tackle; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/XeNAJqXw6r0?t=3546
70' Penalty awarded for tripping
https://youtu.be/XeNAJqXw6r0?t=6170
The least challenging game of the tournament so far. A stonewall penalty correctly given (70') and overall lenient approach combined with good rapport with players and several good warnings (one or two more would be perfect). Siebert has the ability to slow down the game when it gets heated up too much. It's an invaluable tool regarding game control.
45'+3 Supportable YC, same speech as the situation in 90'+4 from UAE - SYR . RC wouldn't have been questioned by VAR, but in this case both players try a tackle and so the contact happens on several parts of opponent's body.
Delete70' In my opinion still a clever behavior by attacker, with a rather unnecessary and blatant fall, but yes, correct penalty, because defender put leg there. Very often we see attackers going against defenders to create contact. This is not the case, a clearer penalty, but to me still a bit of "opportunity" used by attacker. Then this habit of celebrating a whistled penalty, I would ban players for that... because it sounds like they would easily deceive a referee to reach that aim. However, good decision by Siebert, genuine SPA in the box, no card.
Nice to read that he had a good game in occasion of his first appearance in a FIFA tournament. The choice of a German referee for 2022 WC can be only between him and Zwayer.
45+3': Contrary to the UAE-SYR situation, here it's not even that clear, who commits the foul, because the Egyptian player touches the ball slightly first. And both players act equally reckless somehow. But I think Siebert's decision is the expected one and I don't see room for SFP here.
Delete70': I agree with Chefren.
I agree regarding Siebert and Zwayer.
But it's actually Siebert's second FIFA tournament after U20WC 2019.
IMO
Delete45+3 I agree with Philipp, theoretically this isn't even a clear offence, but with the knee-to-face contact, YC for reckless tackle is the expected call.
70' Correct decision, even though the way the attacker goes down as if thunderstruck... not a good picture indeed; but with the defender putting his leg there, awarding a spot-kick is unavoidable.
Thanks for the remark about Siebert, Philipp, I didn't remember that!
DeleteTierney with 2 bookings for simulation in 1st half of Merseyside derby.
ReplyDeleteRefreshing to see something like that form referee, wish we can see more refs punishing dives and cheating like that.
Frappart again with below average performance no match control at all.
ReplyDeleteIMO she should not be in charge of potentially hot clashes.
"Again", why? Tell me more about her previous games you didn't like.
DeleteOk maybe I was wrong for using word "again" cause I didnt watch her that often but matches that I saw were disappoiting:Braga-Midtjylland, Lyon-Monaco, Granada - Omonia.
DeleteNo clear line, too much leniency and wanting to prove a point that she has everything under control.
MARPLE (Matthew Conger)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
06' Penalty incident: GK's tackle
https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=1073
40' Following OFR, YC Muhammad Shibi (MAR) for tackle confirmed by the referee; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=3053
56' Onside by AR1 at 2:0
https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=5220
LINES: https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=5363
70' After VAR intervention, 4:0 goal disallowed due to offside (AR1)
https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=6062
85' Penalty awarded for pushing, most likely after advice from AR1; missed YC?, management of dissenting behaviour against AR1
https://youtu.be/F87wLNznULY?t=6978
In general, I very much liked Conger's performance. Talking to and with the players all the time, gesticulating, living and breathing the game. It's clear that refereeing is a real passion of this man! As for the KMIs, correct penalty for pushing (most likely signalled by AR1 who had this incident in front of his eyes) and controversial incident with possible SFP - I think a RC would be more adequate but maybe not a clear error? I was quite surprised that the referee sticked to his original decision after OFR though. Very difficult onside/offside decisions for AR1 to take. He can't be blamed for the missed offside in 70'. One YC for holding missed in 35', the rest on a very good level.
6' Correct to play on, keper hit ball before opponent.
Delete40' Differently from the other similar incidents, here we have a clear foul with a player very late and a contact on upper body of opponent, but still, both players are trying a tackle. I think that this was the reason for which Conger didn't change idea after OFR, I would add the the rather low intensity as other argument, but surely in this case RC should be considered before YC. Not a 100% clear RC so I also think that OFR is rather forced, and we could have seen something similar in other games. That's why I go on to say that VAR is difficult to use, we have many different choices when there are grey areas and it is impossible to find consistency. In this case one could say that OFR was used in "FIFA style" for allowing a better assessment of the incident by referee, differently from FIFA.
In UEFA we will rarely see a referee confirming his original decision.
56' Good ONSIDE decision.
70' Impossible to see for AR1.
85' Very clear penalty, maybe with the help of AR1, indeed. Good reaction for the behavior by player against officials.
I agree that it should have been YC, there was the likehood of controlling ball. Not sure, but in such context YC is expected. Here the card is something more, spotting this penalty in my opinion is already something very positive. Of course more than correct by VAR to support, never RC.
As both of you describe, 40' is not a clear SFP and therefore I would say, the OFR is just wrong (as it is probably no missed incident as well).
DeleteIn 85', no YC is OK for me as it seems unlikely, that the attacker could reach the ball, which is too high.
In my view:
Delete6' Risky challenge but ball is played fairly in the end; correct play-on.
40' For me, this a SFP offence! The MAR player knows and cleary sees that the PLE player is going into a tackle as well; with that, it's not acceptable to still have the right leg lifted dangerously and hit the opponent multiple times (leg, breast) with open studs - he seriously endangers his opponent's safety. I'm surprised that Conger sticked with the decision, probably because of the other player taking an 'equal' risk with that slide (?!)... as explained, I disagree with that.
56' Good call by the AR.
70' Impossible to determine that on-field.
85' Well spotted, correct call. YC not technically necessary but the expected decision I think.
CLIPS - 30/11/2021
ReplyDeleteTUNMTN - Faghani: https://we.tl/t-lqaNRO6q5i
IRQOMA - Martínez: https://we.tl/t-rJbQEWaxoI
QATBHR - Marciniak: https://we.tl/t-WIP0w1KXsW
UAESYR - Sikazwe: https://we.tl/t-4NiVxXcCwI
Thanks so so much for these HL! I will present my views below.
DeleteFaghani
KMIs:
26’ - actually more of a foul than not on an objective level, but everyone expects play on
+54’ - I’d be much more comfortable with go on here, accidental handling from a normal jump for the ball describes what I see much better than ‘open arm, long time to see the ball’ etc; maybe my ‘Englishness’ is talking there too :D in any case, if FIFA put a tick next to this intervention, EXCELLENTLY spotted by Mr A. Al-Marri, well done
52’ - Kuipers and Marković anyone? ;) both the strike and the charge are reckless IMO
55’ - crucial factor in these such incidents for me is, “does the defender get the ball far away enough so that the attacker can no longe reach it after the challenge?”, in this case yes, so 100% correct play on
72’ - probably actually a foul as the defender randomly compromises the attacker’s position by running into him… but again everyone expects play on
MtG:
I guess the Iranian was happy to blow the final whistle having avoided big problems. The kind of game where you can only lose as the ref, and Faghani didn’t. I guess he feared a bit at the start (uneven teams, lots of fouls, big pitch, etc.) and hence he wanted to save his energy/munition with all the Mauritania fouls at the start, 5’ being the most tactically relevant.
His disciplinary was more reactive than proactive, but it did show very good game-feeling. Cautions at 27’ and especially possible at 29’ would have irritated Tunisia after all those fouls so Faghani followed through on 30’, to give MTN the first booking. Like the 54’ booking, here the ref punished reckless intent more than reckless action. Foul recognition was again reactive, and not more than solid, but okay. Players respected Faghani all the while, even when he dealt with them distantly, even angrily -> experience(!).
Balance:
Faghani ‘escaped’ a potentially troublesome game with few blots, so I guess he was pretty happy with his performance. Not the best level, but far away from bad, and I’d prefer to judge him more critically in a higher challenge game.
-> 7
S. Martínez
DeleteKMIs:
1’ - attacker backs into defender, so correct play on, actually att. prevents def. from reaching the ball so defensive fk is PERFECT
53’ - interpreting the law as a text, a crystal-clear penalty; distance doesn’t matter, arm is enlarging the body surface, clear penalty; common sense says sth quite different though
68’ - very good SYC, well done
74’ - such a thing as careless striking does exist(!!); very good no SYC IMO, close-ish but still definitely not reckless for me
76’ - correct penalty IMO, even if the attacker did look for the contact, the defender’s tackle puts his legs where the attacker wanted to go (-> no choice but to ‘dive); at non-elite level, YC for reckless to follow, but understand why the ref wanted to save his card munition
82’ - correct and expected offside by Walter López Ramos
84’ - missing the hitting point is no excuse for Martínez, he HAD to detect how dangerous this tackle was just by it’s flying nature (no surprise that CONCACAF education misses that…); at home in Honduran Primera this is SFP, for elite FIFA level, caution + STRONG warning is most appropriate
86’ - looked like a penalty from the live sequence so probably the ball hit the chest no arm
+91’ - very weird challenge; in part one, defender cleanly plays the ball but still in the attacker’s reach; part two, defender manages to play the ball with his left foot but with a careless-reckless treading foul; part three, defender curiously manages to trap the ball between his feet, successfully controlling it -> correct play on at the end
+93’ - I agree with Chefren, this holding had no real impact on the attacker’s ability to head the ball; BUT, I see this situation the same as usaref, given it had no real impact, what a stupid and blatant action by the defender(!); away from our referee sphere, +90% of non-ref football people will say “finally, a brilliant intervention”, we shouldn’t forget that… Marrufo did exactly what I’d have done; yellow card and (smiley?) warning would perfect for the crazy (…) coach, but no action at all shows that Martínez had lost control of the event…; and of course retake correct
MtG:
I liked Martínez style a lot! He responded de facto perfectly to disciplinary matters until 80’-ish (minus the underpunished stamp at 29’; missed reckless strike at 24’ was an extreneous incident tactically). But after that, he lost it a bit, with this very reckless foul missed at 84’, blatant dissent(s) with no reaction at 88’, and the penalty series in additional time. Still, wholly a good performance (say 8,3 level) for me.
I think this Honduran referee suffers a bit from what I’d call the ‘(Byron) Moreno syndrome’ - he looks less convincing than he actually is to the untrained eye. His warnings (excellent English speaker!) and general manner (perfect admonishment in every way at 36’) were really good! But his facial expressions said sth else I guess. So I don’t want to disagree with Chefren too disagreeably, but saying that Martínez didn’t convince him might be partly for this reason and is a bit unfair IMO!
Balance:
After everything, Said Martínez scuppered what would have been a very good performance at the end. Still, a convincing impression taking everything into account I’d say.
-> 7
Marciniak
DeleteKMIs:
48’ - I like play on here because, 1) defender was doing normal defensive play, with his arm out, checking where attacker was, and, 2) what happens if there is no handling(?), well the ball richochets off the attacker, the ball is going too fast for him to control; when you add “unexpected ball”, a penalty would be too harsh for me
82’ - I had in mind a situation from 2013 Schalke vs. PAOK w/ Lannoy (should be somewhere here: https://ok.ru/video/585742223907) at first, but having opened up my eagle eye (;D) replays showed this scene was different, no studs hit, only the shin made real contact; you could go deep on the bottom leg of the defending player and maybe it hit standing leg of attacker but that would be too much IMO; correct play on
The other scenes mentioned by ESR were solved 100% correctly IMO.
MtG:
At his best, Marciniak is one of THE best. It is remarkable how quickly his refereeing brain works, he visibly manages to compute so many things so quickly (what is the best decision?; how do I communicate this decision most effectively?; what is the best position to be in?).
When we compare to eg. Taylor, who takes soooo lonnggg to decide what is a foul, what is a caution, always having to think about the big picture before taking his calls, it is so refreshing to see the Pole, who instictively KNOWS how each decision will work in the big picture, and decides instantly. I don’t want to write against the Englishman btw, he is a very good ref too(!), just for comparison I write about him here.
Very good rigorous disciplinary for this game, which actually put the players in focus for this kind of match. Two ‘grey area’ cautions, possible to ‘activate’ if they had tactical value (6’ and +96’), didn’t have tactical value, and rightly remained as freekicks only, the latter being a potential SYC in front of the benches.
Balance:
Very good, it seems Marciniak is back.
-> 7
Excellent analysis as always Mikael, I understand what you mean about Marciniak indeed, the talent he was some years ago before the very poor period he lived, but now it seems he is back and I'm more than happy. However, still a remark about handball from my side... :D I'm sorry but my Italian point of view takes control of me:
DeleteRegarding the situation in 48', the fact that you have opponent behind the open arm of defender, shouldn't be an argument at all, this criterion should be valid only in case of the same player committing handball then having another part of his boby behind and so the ball wouldn't pass. But... in my opinion we can't use the presence of opponent as argument here. I'm not talking against you but handballs, let me repeat that again, are a real problem. Also, the ball was not unexpected there, it was unexpected the fact that teammate with that movement would have allowed it to pass... well... I really would like to read Collina, Busacca, Rosetti, Dallas and all the big heads of refereeing opinions about this matter! Because it seems to me that on this blog we, as refereeing experts, are even more worried than them about that! :) Also, absolutely no responsibility for Marciniak in this regard, as this was rather impossible to see and the full assessment has been made by VAR.
Sikazwe
DeleteKMIs:
14’ - hmmm, on an objective level, more of a penalty than not (could have even been terrible injury if the attacker planted his leg a bit differently), but on the other hand, the common sense-type arguments point more to an unlucky careless collision
22’ - correct play on, attacker wanted to be charged to ‘win’ a penalty
88’ - borderline and per se acceptable caution for this action, but rather unlucky and careless kick so no (S)YC preferable for me; wrong freekick to UAE makes it clear that ref failed on an exp-per-recog level here
+94’ - rather SFP than reckless tbh, but moreover I’d praise Sikazwe for not being fooled by the UAE player’s ‘injury’ which he invented to murky the waters (these scenes are easy to misassess on an E-P-R^ level, but the ref was bang on here)
MtG:
I didn’t like this performance. Zambian ref responded well to discip incidents in the 1H (warnings at 6’ and 42’ were both appropriate to their action and proportionate in terms of MtG), but actually lost control of the players actions in the 2H, and it was by more luck than skill that the game didn’t go seriously south.
The key moment was the not given LoR holding card at 52’. Syria no.2 took the p*ss out of the game, the ref, with such a blatant holding, and Sikazwe should have sensed the atmosphere on the pitch had changed and instantly awarded a caution. Instead, nothing.
Then with the off-the-ball charge, the ‘pretending to be ready to kick the ball away and then not’, and finally the clear SPA foul, the players had gotten the message at 52’ that Sikazwe was going to allow too much. It is fortunate that scenes like 62’ were not more repeated and with worse consequences (both for match control and players safety).
The caution at 84’ was a good refereeing card of tactical value, but by then it was too late. I think we can even say that the crazy tackle which resulted in a SYC was a result of Sikazwe’s too lenient approach. However, he delivered the game in the final reckoning (-> passed the test).
Balance:
I was disappointed by Janny Sikazwe to be honest, not taking action in the key management scene of the game (53’) and generally being too lenient (-> losing control of the players actions) made this a not-satisfying performance in my eyes.
-> 6
(again, thanks so so much for your hard work Euro Soccer Ref!(!))
OT. Bas Nijhuis reacts towards a not 'clear & obvious' VAR-intervention and confesses he was really, really angry with that call. Interview in Dutch.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ESPNnl/status/1466156845870067717?s=20
As Dutch, for my taste Bas Nijhuis talks too much.
DeleteUnacceptable behavior. KNVB has to stop this inidividualist attitude.
DeleteFor my taste Nijhuis is absolute right in what he said, why should a referee lie about what he feels and about what he thought before, tha var in this case is absolutely wrong, and i can understand why Nijhuis is annoyed about this interruption bij var, because everybody on tv can see the var is wrong, just like Nijhuis said.... this is a 50/50 situation so the VAR should not interrupt
DeleteAs a Dutch, I watched the game live. Mixed feelings.
DeleteIt took more than 2(!) minutes before VAR decided to call Nijhuis for an OFR. I agree that it is not a clear and obvious mistake. One can say: obstruction and therefore a foul, or: player is running into the Feyenoord player and falls down easily. Typical grey area. The referee Nijhuis already evaluated the incident on the pitch and decided to play-on. It is his style to apply a high line of physical play. Fair enough.
VAR decided to request an OFR and Nijhuis saw a LOOP (the slowmotion a few times in a row) and started to doubt. And he disallowed the goal.
After the match, he gave an interview in which he stated that this is never a Clear & Obvious mistake. I have to agree, but still, he is the one in charge and he COULD choose to follow his own direction. Also, one can suppose that the reaction towards his VAR-colleague in front of the camera is (maybe) too honest and not very nice. It would be better to discuss this internally.
A shame that this happened because Nijhuis was having a really good season.
So here's my issue with Nijhuis: he completely lacks self-criticism.
DeleteWhen asked about a second YC for protesting, he said: They should know not to protest when I'm the referee.
When asked about a given goal after a foul on GK, he said: Well no one protested so how should I know?
When asked about a penalty not given, he said: Maybe start scoring goals yourself before I give a penalty?
Just like here, it is everyone's fault but Nijhuis'. Joey Kooij was called for an OFR this season and he kept his decision. If an unexperienced referee who, according to many, lacks in personality can do it in a full stadium, why can't the experienced Nijhuis who is often praised for his personality not do it in an empty one?
To basically tell that VAR is responsible for this is so easy (but also so wrong) to do. Even if you think so, do it internally, as he has now personally ensured that the VAR standard is higher in his games compared to others.
I do not agree with you Leekens, Nijhuis iff you listen carefully to his statement was angry at himself to follow the VAR, when he came in to the dressingrooms at half time, he said i saw again the video and thought by myself i shouldn't have cancelled the goal, he was pissed at the var because he followed the wrong procedure, and pissed at himself because he should have validated the goal
DeleteNijhuis said that we was angry at himself for following VAR. Great, he should have stopped talking there. If there is any referee in the Netherlands who knows how showbizz / news channels work, it's Nijhuis. So why make statements like "they can be happy I didn't kick down the door"? With Nijhuis you really have to wonder whether he makes statements to actually clarify something or to get the attention and be a talking point in the Netherlands yet again. This seems to be the latter.
DeleteI'm actually happy we have a personality like Nijhuis who dares to talk about mistakes and about what he think about it, why should referees come on tv as long as they can't give their free comment? making mistakes is human, also showing some caracter is human, we are no robots, and yes Nijhuis is a bit more flamboyant then others, but i don't see reputation damage for knvb or other collegues, so whats the problem??
DeleteKSAJOR (Bakary Papa Gassama)
ReplyDeleteKEY MATCH INCIDENTS
31' Penalty incident: tripping (no replay)
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=2499
31' Penalty incident: GK's tackle
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=2550
39' Goal disallowed due to offside (AR2); teamwork
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=3025
LINES: https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=3167
46' Possible RC 8KSA after kicking the ball at a lying player; violent conduct?
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=4430
51' YC 4JOR for a step on Achilles tendon; reckless vs SFP
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=4707
53' RC 23JOR for a studs tackle
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=4830
73' 2YC 3KSA for SPA-tackle
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=6031
87' Penalty incident: kicking
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=6834
90' Penalty incident: illegal use of arm
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=7034
90+4' Goal disallowed due to foul on GK
https://youtu.be/sibH2-KsWys?t=7294
My views
Delete31' Impossible to determine properly, play-on seems correct.
31' Oof: technically, with the leg lifted, I see a penalty here; but with the ball being in his hands already, Gassama's decision is the expected choice.
39' Correct decision.
46' What a disaster! There isn't really a 'big mistake' in this scene, but the referee didn't appear as he knew what he's doing; 8KSA commits an unsportsmanlike infringement that should result in a YC + strong warning IMO - but the player goes as far away as possible and after issuing a (correct) YC for the tackle, Gassama seems totally lost.
51' Quite Borderline actually IMO, but the decision can be supported.
53' Totally correct sending-off after this dangerous studs tackle.
73' Again, correct call for me, simply a stupid challenge.
87' Supportable in my view.
90' Missed penalty in my book; the arm is used in a reckless manner and I don't really see any different choice but to award a spot-kick, so I would like VAR to intervene.
90+4' Good delayed whistle, correct decision, clear foul on GK here.
CLIPS
ReplyDeleteALGSDN: https://we.tl/t-jEzC7ad06C
Thank you for your work Euro Soccer Ref.
DeleteSince I can't watch most of the matches, these clips are very helpful.
0-1 by Smith Rowe scored while De Gea is down injured. IMO, the goal is definitely valid (De Gea 'fouled' by own teammate). Atkinson was very lucky that he blew his whistle after the ball crossed the line!
ReplyDeletehttps://streamwo.com/file/61a9283aaefbb
I am really curious about the procedure that Martin Atkinson followed in allowing that goal for Arsenal. It’s a correct and valid goal but???
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to suggest he was going to disallow the goal, and opted not to after consulting with the VAR. The Premier League twitter suggests that, along with Atkinson's gestures and body language, despite not making a 'TV' signal afterwards
DeleteOr scrap that. It is being reported on the BBC (from the PL) that Atkinson was waiting for VAR to see if there was a foul on De Gea before awarding the goal. So sounds like he knew by not blowing prior to the ball crossing the line he had to give it (which he did).
DeleteHe spots the injury to the keeper late, and with an immediate goal-scoring opportunity, correctly delays the whistle due to the VAR protocol. Once the goal is scored, the check is carried out to confirm if there's any reason to not give the goal and then he signals to confirm it.
DeleteTJ, don’t exaggerate. This is the PL. Atkinson didn’t know what to do.
DeleteHmm yeah, I think Atkinson looked a bit lost in that situation. Awarding the goal was the only correct outcome though.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, there was a clear holding by Maguire that should have led to a penalty in my opinion. I'll see if I can find a video.
https://streamable.com/e7pd27
DeleteNow a penalty given after OFR; crystal clear.
Deletehttps://streamwo.com/file/61a93b2290d7d
IMO the holding is borderline. And often in those situations, if the striker is not in a dangerous position, it is ignored.
DeleteI'm actually astonished how he did not give that penalty right away. Not a very good day for Mr Atkinson
DeleteWhat a game Lazio-Udinese! 3 red cards shown by Marco Piccinini.
ReplyDeleteCLIPS
ReplyDeleteALGSDN: https://we.tl/t-jEzC7ad06C
EGYLBN: https://we.tl/t-5UVeGnr3hX
MARPLE: https://we.tl/t-J9eEFomfAp
KSAJOR: https://we.tl/t-PfwcpfucPz
Btw, I recommend to open a new post about the second matchday in order to have enough space for comments (150 already here).