Monday, 28 November 2022

Game 32 - Alireza Faghani in Portugal vs. Uruguay (discussion)

Alireza Faghani gets a second assignment, being the referee in charge of Portugal - Uruguay. Let's see how he will perform. 



Game 32 - Lusail (20:00 CET)
PORTUGAL - URUGUAY
Referee: Alireza Faghani (IRN)
Assistant Referee 1: Mohammadreza Mansouri (IRN)
Assistant Referee 2: Mohammadreza Abolfazli (IRN)
Fourth Official: Abdulrahman Al Jassim (QAT)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Saoud Almaqaleh (QAT)
Video Assistant Referee: Abdullah Al Marri (QAT)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Shaun Evans (AUS)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Anton Shchetinin (AUS)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Redouane Jiyed (MOR)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Ashley Beecham (AUS)

169 comments:

  1. I'm worried that the appointments are not yet...
    Who are they going to appoint, by God

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they are waiting for the final results of today's games, to have clear ideas about the next assignments for last MD3 matches?

      Delete
  2. SERBIA - SWITZERLAND - MD3.

    Buckle up, folks!

    Makkelie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makkelie, Marciniak or Taylor - I would choose the Pole at the moment.

      Delete
    2. "Makkelie, Marciniak ir Taylor" any surprise for this comment provenient of this euro referee club? It so funny...

      Delete
    3. @Fab GX You could chose to leave this blog any time you want to, nobody forces you to stay in this “euro referee club”

      Delete
  3. Absolutely correct YC to start, clear step on foot and maybe a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's really smart way like Faghani was explaining this YC to Godin.

      Delete
  4. Very busy Faghani, it can turn in an extremely challenging game.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unsurprisingly, Faghani is going to have his work cut out for him tonight.

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

      Delete
    2. Actually no, unless you consider Arbitro Internacional, contrary to our user That Guy, an official source ;)

      Delete
  7. Sure enough, this could be the most challenging contest of MD2.

    So far so good for Faghani.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No card to both 5URU and 16URU in 49' is scandalous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Argentina always have special treatment, to the point of leading Collina to break confed neutrality in group stage. Sad, suspicious and totally avoidable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. Sorry, shocking penalty decision for me.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree, support arm. Never VAR stuff imo

      Delete
  11. YC for Dissent for Dias.
    Now OFR for potential handball penalty but surely it's the supporting arm.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That is not a penalty. Ludicrous intervention

    ReplyDelete
  13. Faghani so good, but now this...??!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow... That's a terrible decision.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That is the definition of the supporting arm. Wow. I honestly can‘t believe this was called a penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  16. He destroys his so far good game with a PK which is simply ridicolous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. See Faghani body language after OFR, clearly he didn't want to whistle the penalty, but why he did that!
    BTW about handballs, this topic will stay as always the biggest issue in modern football, impossible to solve, I'm speechless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If whistled,YC to Gimenez????????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed! But no yellow shown. Referee was thrown off and didn't have the nerve to overrule the VAR and keep his on-field decision.

      Delete
  19. That should be the end of his (and the VAR's) tournament

    ReplyDelete
  20. Depending on what media will write in Uruguay and all over the world, this could be the end for Faghani‘s hopes to get the final. Never a penalty for me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm afraid this will cost Faghani final appointment

    ReplyDelete
  22. Incredible VAR-intervention. No OFR and if so, the referee on the pitch has to decide against punishable handball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raymys clear no penalty but mistake don't influence winner of match but result when decisive criteria is score in group stage of WC

      Delete
  23. Not an penalty in my opinion. Has this caused Faghani the final possible depends on how fifa Interpet the game.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You can argue for or against penalty kick. Gimenez's arm is indeed stretched out and stops the ball from going forward. I would not call it in the pitch but after OFR there's not much you can do. It is the so-called VAR penalty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For a penalty? Which are the arguments for penalty here? In future only teams with amputees

      Delete
    2. IMO it is a perfect example for support arm. The initial decision must stand, contact with the arm does not mean the handball is punishable…

      Delete
    3. Ref_1707, what about the hand wide open? You can argue for or against. Never a crucial mistake.

      Delete
  25. I was voting for Faghani for the final but after this...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VAR penalty. You can make the case the defender's arm is stretched out. No influence in the outcome of the match. Faghani is still the strongest name for the final.

      Delete
    2. After this call? "No influence..." Sure.

      Delete
    3. There were still 9 minutes left when the penalty was given. More than enough time for Uruguay to score a goal

      Delete
    4. They didn't score a goal, right? So yeah, absolutely no impact on the scoreline whatsoever. Plus, it is not a totally wrong decision. Hand and fingers wide open to conveniently block the ball.

      Delete
  26. Very poor decision for VAR and by Faghani. Never a punishable handball, clearly supporting arm. Sad to see a strong performance tarnished, Faghani did not seem sure either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Referee expert in Switzerland is suprised about the decision.

      Delete
    2. So in Austria as well. Blatand wrong decisision.

      Delete
  27. What a horrible VAR intervention. Could see Faghani was reluctant to give it too, should stick with his original decision

    ReplyDelete
  28. Can someone explain me why we had a penalty there? Isn't it supporting hand or they have changed the rules?

    ReplyDelete
  29. OFR is not mandatory call to change the decision. If he had courage, Faghani should stay with his decision and show everybody why is the boss.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why no retake with 3 Portuguese players clearly encroaching (and not a little)?

    ReplyDelete
  31. For me, that was most definetly the final gone for Faghani. I'm actually not sure I would even appoint him again at all considering it's still his responsibilty to overrule his VAR in case of wrong OFR

    ReplyDelete
  32. Definition of a supporting arm is correct. Hard to believe the VAR requested an on-field review. Then, if the referee awards the penalty, it has to be a yellow card for stopping a promising attack - handball which stops a shot, yet no yellow card shown. I don't think he's going to get a good assessment after this game.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Biggest mistake to watch that as slow motion, if it was watched on normal speech it would be much more clear that is supporting arm. When you watch slow it looks like he deliberately put his hand there. Unbelievable OFR and penaltı decision

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why I call it a VAR penalty. When you watch it in slow motion, you're forced to give the PK. It does look like deliberate handball on VAR screen.

      Delete
  34. Faghani got it absolutely right on the pitch. OFR leaves some room for doubt and sets the stage for PK. You can argue for or against. Anyway, it does not influence the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It definitely does! Every goal can be important for Uruguay. And you don't know what would have happened without the penalty in last ten minutes

      Delete
    2. This is never ever situation for the OFR.

      Delete
    3. Neunert, usually you are the one telling jokes :) No, I really mean it. The VAR penalty - supportable - does not determine the scoreline.

      Delete
  35. What I don't understand is the fact that three portuguese players have been inside the box before the penalty was taken. why didn't intervene VAR there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the protocol is to only intervene if they become active (touch the ball on the rebound)

      Delete
    2. We could expect (one of) the on field officials to detect an encroachment as clear as this one by themselves though.

      Delete
  36. Big disappointment with Faghani calling penalty. I think this was the end of his dream about WC final.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The courage is what he needed to show.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, sad end of the match. There will be two interesting questions: Tournament over for Faghani or "only" not the final? What about Al Marri‘s VAR appointment for TUN-FRA which was published some minutes ago…?

      Delete
    3. That would be incredibly unfair. He got it absolutely right on the pitch. It does look like deliberate handball on VAR screen. Faghani has been the most solid ref so far by a mile and this incident does not change the scoreline.

      Chefren, usually you're not that dramatic and you know that it is a supportable call when seen from VAR screen.

      Delete
    4. They waited all this time only for them to have needed to wait a few minutes longer, oof.

      Delete
    5. Final for sure. We will see if they change VAR for the TUN-FRA.

      Delete
    6. Chefren, why are you censoring the comments? Because I mentioned Collina's protégés? We'll see how he evaluates this call, which is totally supportable, and that will speak volumes.
      Does this go against the comment protocol?????

      Delete
    7. Smala, yes, indeed, only a few minutes, this seems absolutely to be a joke made on purpose by the fate...

      Delete
    8. I'm not censoring any comment, maybe it went spam. I check it.

      Delete
  37. Took over 2mins past 90 for the penalty to be taken, and over 93 until play restarted, but only about one extra min played. I don't think Collina and the committee will accept the 85th min onwards in that performance. A real shame for Faghani

    ReplyDelete
  38. Flawless match for Faghani and his team until 89'. Full control, great foul detection and player management.

    I'm afraid that this OFR will cost him a deserved final...

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm bewildered. It goes against everything we've been taught.

    Also, if you do give the PK, where's the yellow for SPA?

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's a controversial decision, for sure, but come on guys. Not the apocalypse as some are making it out to be. Giménez's arm is indeed stretched out. Maybe FIFA can go along with Faghani. Don't think his WC final hopes got compromised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my book, Faghani remains the favorite for the final.

      Delete
    2. All the more so Faghani got it absolutely right on the pitch.
      If you watch the replay, it does appear to be deliberate handball because the defender has his arm stretched out indeed. It is not black or white.
      Now, we'll see if Collina is fair in his assessment or will take this VAR penalty (which is a correct decision anyway) as an excuse to give the final to one of his protégés.
      Again, PK is totally supportable. And Fagani delivered a masterclass once again, confirming he's the right man for the championship match.

      Delete
    3. I can NOT see any streched out hand. Its fully in support the body position which is considered natural by the laws and its clarifications. No penalty should have been the decided and for sure NO VAR INTERVENTION - never. This is even amoung us very arguable so never an obvious mistake.

      Delete
    4. The defender cunningly has his hand strecthed out. His reaction says it all, immediately trying to offer an explanation.

      Delete
  41. I'm really sorry for saying this and administrator is free to delete my comment or to ban my account, but some of the VAR referees on this tournament have zero understanding of football as a game and as a sport.

    ReplyDelete
  42. It's a tough decision, I can understand both sides. To me, what you said just adds up.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why didn't anyone notice the defender spread his fingers before touching the ball? It was a deliberate action. Does it really not matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Just watched the incident for the fifth time (!) and the defender has his hand wide open. He knows the direction the ball is going to take and there's no other way to block other than using the hand.Supporting the body is convenient here for the defender who takes the opportunity to cunningly open his hand wide. When you review the incident on the screen, you get a sense of this.

      Delete
    2. David, please. We understood your point of view but now seems you are more like defending attorney here.

      Delete
    3. the law of gravity is universal and pre-exists football

      Delete
  44. Not sure if you need a refresher in the concept of gravity, but a human with 2 arms would tend to use one of them to stop their fall.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is handball cause defender player tackles an opponent and tackle is deliberately action and a defender player must control his all body. After unsuccessful tackle defender put his hand as a barrier to stop the ball. In all tackle actions players know to control his body. This is not unexpected situation and defender see the ball very clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Refereeing instructor here in Montenegro says that penalty decision is correct

    ReplyDelete
  47. hoog, that's the point. Absolutely supportable decision. Again, watch it on VAR screen and you'll instantly give the PK.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lutz Wagner, chief instructor for the LotG in Germany‘s DFB and expert for German TV was stating that it was clearly not a punishable handball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear no penalty and crutuial mistake by Faghani an VAR

      Delete
  49. Faghani lost KO stage match after s this scandalous VAR intervention if he supported it. I am a referee from Slovakia and each committee from bottom level to top learn referees if ball touch a hand when player fall dowm or stand up it's never play against LOTG!!! Faghani must refuse this intervention!!!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Даже по мнению нашего эксперта из России, Игоря Федотова, которого выгнали из судейства, это не пенальти, рука в естественном положении. Но наш бы Сергей Карасев такой пенальти тоже назначил, так как он уже решил завершитт международную карьеры, о чем дал интервью, чтобы заработать денег

    ReplyDelete
  51. Really sorry but it is impossible to appoint again Faghani after this decision, this should include the VAR, and I'm very curious now about Tunisia - France, would be very unfair to see the VAR confirmed for another game, but Faghani out (in that case, indeed, he could have something to complain about...).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really want Orsato in the final, don't you? :)))) Now censor it.

      Delete
    2. Chefren has never been a nationalistic one in this matters. Come on.

      Delete
    3. Trust me, we will see him again.

      Delete
    4. I am very sorry, but this is not a realistic comment, Chefren. Faghani will be appointed again and it will be fully deserved.

      Delete
  52. Судья из России Сергей Карасев сообщили, что завершает международную карьеру. Фагани отсудил очень плохо, Карасев мог бы его заменить не хуже.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for Karasev, his country is banned in all corners of life. I wish him a happy retirement. He was a decent ref.

      Delete
    2. Он вышел на новый международный уровень, и не портил картины судейства, очень жаль, что многие россияне страдают из за политики государства

      Delete
  53. Those Qataris weren't even fit to rule as VAR in this game, shame, ruined Faghani's last hurrah for a final

    ReplyDelete
  54. This raises chances of others for the final,Orsato maybe...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Орсато не достоин Финала, финал должен судить Славко Винчич

      Delete
    2. Orsato is the clear favorite for the final right now. But we have still yet to see the second games of Taylor, Makkelie, Rapallini, etc.

      Delete
    3. Orsato with opening match and final like Pitana in 2018 and Elizondo in 2006.
      I think that is a his main disadvantage at this moment.

      But after Faghani's failure, Orsato is #1, we are waiting for other second matches.

      Delete
  55. Chefren all agree with you... No other appointment can be supported by Collina...and scandalous end of match also from Taylor... He didn't help yourself..

    ReplyDelete
  56. Faghani might just be excused for that one honestly. It would have been ideal not to give it, buh giving it is not a catastrophe as well. What he needs is another masterclass in any knockout match he gets(he will definitely get one imo) and he is back firmly in contention for the final

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fingers crossed...but I doubt it

      Delete
    2. За такой явный просчет простить? Вы в своем уме? За такое решение нужно отстранять арбитра до конца турнира, и исключать из списков арбитров ФИФА, раз он не разбирается в простых моментах, которые все начинающие судьи знают

      Delete
  57. I hope you don't get me wrong, but I am sad right now. Really sad. To spoil what was an otherwise good performance with such a mistake (probably even the whole tournament) is nothing but sad.

    IMO, there is no plausible explanation for this penalty. This was, as some users stated, the definition of a supporting arm. I just cannot believe that the VAR decided otherwise. Nor can I believe that Faghani changed his perfect initial decision. Sad, nothing more, nothing less.

    Faghani's performance has been good for me, at least until the penalty. Unfortunately, I the first 10 minutes of the 2H, but everything else seemed to be fine, maybe with a few mistakes in foul detection, but with complete control over the match and a kind of distant authority that Faghani radiates pretty excellently for me.

    This tournament was a perfect opportunity for Faghani to get something big, IMO. I don't like to talk about anyone as a sure choice for the final because it doesn't make sense, but Faghani was certainly a candidate. After this, I really don't know what to think about his tournament anymore. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. agree with everything you said. Faghani was very fun to watch and was great, with some mistakes, for nearly the whole match. hope fifa gives him more games to prove he is still up to the task.

      Delete
    2. Его нужно выгнать с турнира, и пусть закончит карьеру судьи, раз не умеет применять правила игры. А если он в финале так плохо отработает?

      Delete
  58. I think the play is interpretive, the Qatari saw that the Uruguayan deflected the ball and called Faghani OFR and he found himself cornered, and marked him (Faghani's insecurity when marking him surprises me, his body language seemed an inexperienced referee, not an elite one)

    I don't think it will affect him, I'll wait for him in the next round but before, he was a favorite without a doubt, but now he's on the same level as the others
    who are the others?
    Marciniak and Orsato.

    After this, Faghani has to make excellent performances in the following matches (if there are any) because for now it would be repeating Russia 2018 when the opening referee refereed the final...I wish Faghani luck

    ReplyDelete
  59. It was an imitation of a "supporting arm", why was he spreading his fingers apart like a fan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did not actively spread his fingers, instead the ball made the fingers spread.

      Delete
    2. He does actively stretches his fingers and then rushes to offer an explanation for his action. What is it that he felt compelled to justify? The defender's behaviour speaks volumes.

      Delete
  60. The arm between the body and ground not being a handball was removed from the laws, however in the accompanying guidance to officials on the IFAB website, there is a specific example showcasing this, and the guidance is for no penalty when a player is sliding in and using their trailing arm for support. It's a rubbish decision I'm afraid. Unforgivable at this level

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure the defender player use his hand for support to body( for balance) or a defender try to tackle an opponent (although the tackle is deliberately action) if his tackle is unsuccessful he want to make a barrier for the ball.

      Delete
    2. The defender did not see where the ball was - so how on earth could he deliberately play the ball with his hand (or "make a barrier for the ball", as you take it)?

      Delete
    3. There is a specific example of this type of situation in IFAB's guidance where a trailing arm when slide tackling being used for support, is not a handball offence. If I could post pictures on here I would show you. Slide 37 of this Powerpoint presentation https://www.theifab.com/law-changes/2021-22/

      Delete
  61. Let's use actual text from the LOTG.

    The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence



    In slow motion this looks worse. Why didn't Faghani get full speed replays?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Сколько денег нужно заплатить Колинне, чтобы судить Финал Чемпионата Мира 2022?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello mr Fedotov. Please use a translator and write your comment in english. (Deepl, Google translator..) Otherwise you will not get many answers or interactions with your comments! :)

      Delete
  63. For all of those who say penalty and for VAR this is the perfect answer
    https://ibb.co/tB7WY8T
    Shame that VAR ruined his good work. He was my favorite for the final after Taylor

    I feel sorry for Faggani, he made a very good performance until the OFR and I completely understand his decision to give penalty even from his body language we all can understand that he was not agree with that call. The same words was used by Mark Clattenburg " i disagree with OFR but I don't see other choice by the referee after he went at the monitor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get your point about supporting hand, but supporting hand exception for handballs disappeared from 2021/2022 rules of the game. Your tweet screenshot is from 28 june 2021, before this supporting arm law became obsolete.

      Delete
  64. Это было самое ужасное выступление на турнире. Много допустил ляпов , особенно в концовке, не давал желтые карточки, и наверно назначил пенальти.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What do you think, who is the best referee in XXI without WC final?
    Kuipers?

    And inversely - who was a referee WC final, while his career is "not deserved" to this achivement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me Kuipers is the second best referee of all time after Collina. His body language, managment was awesome. It was a big pleasure to watch him.

      Delete
    2. Kuipers and Brych. I see no referee with WC final, with career which is "not deserved" to this achivement.

      Delete
    3. fest

      Kuipers,I would put there maybe Clattenburg,Cakir(semifinal man),Faghani,Irmatov,Rossetti and plenty others.

      Out of those names if I were to pick one I would chose Kuipers.

      He has everything except that in his resume:CL Final,EL Final,Euro Final,Europa Supercup,Confederations Cup Final and so on.

      Yes ,he was 4th official in 2018,but still,it's not the same.

      Delete
    4. Yep, forgot Brych aswell.

      Delete
    5. The best were:
      2002 - Dallas
      2006 - Micheľ
      2010 - Nishimura
      2014 - Webb
      2018 - Kuipers

      And the best in terms of pure skills would be Rosetti/Frisk but there are many, many! :)
      Btw no WC final this century was actually undeserved; all were very good/wise appmnts by FIFA imo.

      Delete
    6. "best referee in XXI without WC final?"
      Brych? Wait... you mean Serbia x Switzerland in 2018? Or the ghost penalty in Bundesliga? :)

      Delete
    7. 2002, Oscar Ruiz
      2006, Benito Armando Archundia
      2010, Jorge Larrionda for a great second half under huge pressure (try to compare it to Rosetti's being under similar pressure; Irmatov and Kassai (nobody thought their form would deteriorate so quickly in the frollowing years); Archundia again
      2014, Gunyet Cakir
      2018, Cakir again; Faghani (his "case" is still open, not withstanding yesterday's game); Sandro Ricci (however, he was very bad as VAR which diminished his credentials)

      Delete
  66. Handball as a referee instructor (last information I got, unless it's changed very recently).

    FIFA is looking for a support arm to be vertical. There cannot be a secondary (deliberate) motion made by the hand arm.

    Based on MY instruction and understanding, I don't think this should have been given. The arm is exactly vertical. Although it hasn't hit ground yet, it's a support arm/hand. The fingers are extended because that's how a player's hand would be naturally to brace fall. It APPEARS that there is a secondary motion, but that's just the ball's momentum moving the hand. I honestly can't see the player having put the arm here deliberately or otherwise to make themselves unnaturally bigger.

    New information may have come out recently as there was a very similar situation in a professional match (don't recall the League) just before the World Cup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to everything I've known until tonight, I fully agree with you. I'm still trying to find an explanation for this penalty but I just can't. You covered all the criteria in your comment, there is nothing to add.

      Delete
  67. Guys, it's shameful that you're trying to grill a referee. Even if he was wrong, which is not the case, nothing justifies the abusive way some referees are treated on this blog. This is not an expertise blog, unfortunately, this is a refereeing fanclub blog, and this is why I barely post any comment. But I could not stay silent this time around.
    I'm Portuguese but not a fanatic at all. I just heard a technical explanation that I share with you.
    This is what former Portuguese referee Pedro Henriques had to say on Portuguese television (RTP):

    "For the defender, the normal way to support his fall would be to place the arm vertically, sure (so, apparently no penalty), but he would have to place his arm right BESIDE the leg, NOT BEHIND the leg, where he knows the ball is passing through. That shows an intention to clear the ball. If that was not enough, Gimenez even spreads his fingers to make sure the ball gets blocked."
    Summing up, Gimenez uses his arm to support the fall but conveniently puts it behind his leg to make sure it collides with the ball.

    In any case, never a scandalous decision as you guys are trying to suggest. It would be a grey area, there's no ground for you make such a fuss, to be honest.Based on the technical explanation provided by Henriques (he refereed a lot of "clássicos" involving Big 3 in Portugal - Benfica, Porto and Sporting), I think it is a good decision. At least, we would have to give Faghani the benefit of the doubt. He's a world-class referee, he did an amazing job again.

    Good night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Portuguese ex ref supporting a scandalous decision that benefitted Portugal, wow I'm so shocked... not!

      Delete
    2. I backed up my opinion expressing a technical point of view from a former referee. Do you mind addressing the content? The defender conveniently puts his arm behind the leg when the natural way would be to place it beside the leg. This confirms he knows too well how to block the ball. The way he supports his fall is not natural but rather convenient.

      Delete
    3. It's true. Try it again yourself and you will realise that the hand on the ball's trajectory was not accidental.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately, this opinion does come from a biased source and it implies that we can read player INTENT, which we shouldn't do.

      In all cases, many arguments can be made BOTH ways. IMHO, when that's the case, it is often better for the original (not a handball) decision to stand.

      Delete
  68. Just my opinion: it always remarked that VAR was introduced to help and to support the referee and not to replace him and Collina and all his manager colleagues always stressed on the fact that the last decision must be taken by the main referee. Al Marri most probably made a wrong warning, Faghani went for a check but at the end he decided to whistle the penalty so at the end the responsibility is on his shoulders. So if the penalty was wrong (as I think because not deliberate), Faghani has almost the whole responsibility. BUT....... I'm fully convinced that a referee should not be judged only by one episode; if Faghani had a good performance (as I saw watching the match and as some of you stated), why he cannot be proposed for an other match ? Maybe it's trivial but when a top player (and Faghani is a top referee for what he demonstrated in his carrier) makes a mistake and fails a score, he is still on pitch on te next match. Faghani must be squizzed for his decision on penalty to be sure that a handball like this will not whistled anymore, but after that I don't see a scandal to re-test him in a 16th match. He is overall reliable despite the single episode. I understand that the media and the public opinion could be shamed by a further assignment but if Collina and committee would have the brave to disclosure and explain in a transparent way the performance most of the people will understand and accept the assignment. He should call a press conference and says "Faghani made a claer maistake because........ but his performance along the whole match was more than good, so he will be re-assigned because....."

    ReplyDelete
  69. Analysis

    Key Match incident:
    90' Penalty to Portugal, given after OFR
    I am quite at a loss to explain in what way Faghani's on field decision was a clear and obvious mistake, and on what ground Al-Marri thought so. It is perfectly fine to deem the defender's position of the hand as a consequence of his tackle attempt, ergo a natural and non-punishable handball. Inviting the referee to go to the monitor was wrong, and I am also disappointed with the Iranian lack of self-confidence here: an official of his caliber should have had the guts to stay with his original decision (à la Mateu :D), instead of the hesitant and unsure procedure we saw, leading to a spot kick being awarded. [CRUCIAL MISTAKE]

    Balance:
    Faghani navigated in a physical and engaged game quite decently, using his good soft skills as his main tool.
    Five YCs were shown in the match in 6',38',44',77' and 89' (reckless challenge *2,DtR,SPA holding and dissent) one more should have been issued in either one of the two consecutive rough fouls in 49' (rather weak image of only blowing for a foul and running to the point of the infringement)
    On a general picture, I believe the Iranian hasn't really been at the top of the game: see his totally unsuccessful warning to URU6, already booked after a hard challenge( Faghani lost a fight against a player who should have just swallowed the last warning given), or the way he let Suarez bugging him when he made the VAR signal and pointed to the spot after the OFR. This was the sign of a not so sovereign presence.

    Ultimately, Faghani lost the plot in 90' with the penalty decision, and ended up the game not comforting himself as one of the best to handle the biggest clashes. Let's see how FIFA evaluate him, and what will be his next appointment (if any...)

    Marks: 5-7-7-II

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!