The first 2022 FIFA WC game with a referee breaking confederations rule is Poland - Argentina. Danny Makkelie will oversee this clash. On the other hand, English referee Michael Oliver will control Saudi Arabia - Mexico. Let's follow everything about group C deciding games here.
POLAND - ARGENTINA
Referee: Danny Makkelie (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: Hessel Steegstra (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: Jan De Vries (NED)
Fourth Official: Said Martinez (HON)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Helpys Raymundo Feliz (DOM)
Video Assistant Referee: Paulus Van Boekel (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert (GER)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Kathryn Nesbitt (USA)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Juan Soto (VEN)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Anton Shchetinin (AUS)
Game 40 - Lusail (20:00 CET)
SAUDI ARABIA - MEXICO
Referee: Michael Oliver (ENG)
Assistant Referee 1: Stuart Burt (ENG)
Assistant Referee 2: Simon Peter Bennett (ENG)
Fourth Official: Istvan Kovacs (ROU)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Vasile Marinescu (ROU)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Alessandro Giallatini (ITA)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernandez Hernandez (ESP)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Ciro Carbone (ITA)
who has the harder game do we think? Danny has the top teams... but Oliver with the more challenging teams to referee?
ReplyDeleteI think the most heated match will be Makkelie's, I hope he does well
DeleteLet's wait for appointments after the 1st half...it's customary
ReplyDeletewhy are refs wearing read in Poland/Argentina? Better choices available.
ReplyDeleteOnly turquoise would be possible...
DeleteKSAMEX a good fast paced game. A definite test
ReplyDeleteNot a good idea for Mexico 4 to be touching the ref having just received a yellow card...
ReplyDeleteYep noticed that myself, Oliver was firm warning him.
Delete28' missed foul on bith sides of the pitch, some will say it's a same criteria, other will say it's a compensation
ReplyDeleteJoke of a penalty,sorry
ReplyDeleteNever ever never OFR and never a penalty.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Van Boekel would ask for an OFR to that position in a champions league game. But FIFA want Argentina to continue to the tournament for sake of the tournament.
DeleteOMG… Why? Another controversial and crucial penalty decision!
ReplyDeletePenalty? How?
ReplyDeleteNever a penalty. I'm schoked...
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, this OFR is absolutely wrong for me... I can't imagine that this was enough for whistling a penalty! Van Boekel went by book and in my opinion he didn't show the best (closer) replay to Makkelie, shown before the OFR by broadcaster.
ReplyDeleteOne cannot describe how many beers Makkelie has to pay Szczesny for his save…
DeleteDear Mr. Chefren : I dare to recall to my response to your blog intervention regarding Makkelie some days ago. He makes mistakes just like the rest. It is only human and he remains also for me a top referee. But this decision should disallow him to further whistle on this tournament. However, I still believe that he is candidate for 1/4 final, even semi final. The designation of refs lacks objectivity and will remain to lack objectivity. One of the victims of such games is for example Lawrence Visser, but : no designation whatsoever on MD 4 tot 6 in none of the three UEFA competitions. I am not at all member of his fan club, but one cannot take things seriously anymore, see a.o. Kovacs and Frappart on this tournament, Cakir after Slovenia game etc etc
DeleteUnbelievable, how he gave penalty for that. They shold send hom and his crew right back to home at halftime.
ReplyDeleteDisgraceful decision to award a penalty. Huge relief for FIFA that it was missed
ReplyDeleteBad angles offered by VAR for OFR, isn't it? What we saw on TV before was better.
ReplyDeleteExactly that, absolutely. I'm sure in case Makkelie would have taken different decision.
DeleteFirst Faghani, now Makkelie. Leaves only one option for the final. Collina has to dig out his football shoes himself.
ReplyDeleteHahah
DeleteWhen you put the line of VAR intervention so low, this is what you get as a result.
DeleteThere are at least 3 candidates or the final, even if we eliminate Makkelie and Faghani... I remembered Makkelie's penalty in Euro semifinal England - Denmark, I t was also a joke penalty in my opinion...
Deletefor the final
DeleteGK didnt touch the ball. Clear penalty.
ReplyDeleteIf the defender jumps and misses the Ball and his head hits Messi's head would it be a penaltı?
DeleteI absolutely hate to say that but VAR has not offered the best image so far in this world cup :/
ReplyDeleteIts more ridicolous penalty than he gave it to england at euro 2020 semifinal. At that time england at home advantage, this time argentina may have messi advantage.
ReplyDeletePol Van Boekel had some controversial performances as VAR in recent times. This game, Saudi Arabia-Argentina, that Inter-Barcelona... But he is still considered among the most trusted VAR along Irrati and Dankert.
ReplyDeleteIrratti and no one else comes close imo.
DeleteI've turned off the Poland vs Argentina broadcast. Last time I did that was after Rosetti's famous goal. It's a disgrace.
ReplyDeleteMakkelie can't have the final. Many OFR for his last games... And now, controversial PK after OFR
ReplyDeleteHe shouldn't either way. He doesn't have the personality or body language for it.
DeleteI mean if anyone other than the goalkeeper went up for a cross, missed the ball and then caught the attacker in the face would that not be free kick?
ReplyDeleteFor a defender hand is not a part that he can play the ball in the game. But hand of a gk is. As he didn't use his hand in an excessive force, to me this is a clash only.
DeleteThe correct assumption is that the defender hits the opponent too late by the playable part.
DeleteIt would be logically possible to say that the defending player is trying to play the ball, so the situation is the same as the defender trying to tackle too late. perhaps. Of course, it is more natural to see it as just a clash.
For a decision so 'controversial', it was telling how well the Polish players on the pitch reacted to it - Makkelie is well respected.
ReplyDeleteNot so. The Poles respect themselves and do not try to put pressure on the referee.
DeleteAccording to book it is easily explained as penalty, nobody can question, but in reality in such game it looks not enough, and I think the call by van Boekel is rather wrong, for me not a clear and obvious mistake by referee. The most important thing I want to underline again is that van Boekel didn't show best angle, shown before on TV, where it was clear to me that Argentina's player had made also a bit of simulation compared to what had really happened.
ReplyDeleteAgree. This is rather the end of the tournament for Van Boekel than Makkelie. Knowing Makkelie, he is thrown out of the team, just like his two former AR
DeleteTbh, that would be logical anyway. The Netherlands have many good VAR's. Van Boekel is 47, doesn't have much refereeing perspective in The Netherlands anymore. I'd not be surprised if this is the last tournament for Van Boekel.
DeleteElfath returns
ReplyDeleteAnother foul-fest as Cameroon attempts to kick the Brazilians into submission all while Elfath talks endlessly, makes mean faces, hand gestures, and smiles. Good optics, little substance. Just like an "actor".
DeleteMakkelie penalty is a scandal. This is probably the end of this tournament for Makkelie.
ReplyDeleteThis is not fullfilling LOTG, this is politics. Sad.
ReplyDeleteCAM-BRA: Elfath
ReplyDeleteKOR-POR: Tello
SRB-SUI: Rapallini
GHA-URU: Siebert
The ideal referee for Serbia-Switzerland.
DeleteRidicolous penalty, the next one by Makkelie in very important match (after EURO semifinal)...
ReplyDeleteJust as he has done before with former partners (an AR I believe). Makkelie will not think twice to throw Van Boekel under the bus to save himself.
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't think it's a penalty then why call it? Obviously he thinks it was a penalty. He isn't forced to follow VAR after seeing it by himself.
DeleteI completely and totally agree with that. But Makkelie can easily say that Van Boekel should not have intervened or he could say that he was overly influenced by Van Boekel or that Van Boekel didn't show him the best angles. I just wouldn't put anything past this guy.
DeleteBetter to say, Makkelie understood why Van Boekel intervened.
DeleteJust want to comment on the penalty in ARG-POL:
ReplyDeleteWe saw a long ball from the left reaching Messi who was standing around 5 meters away from the goal. Messi headed the ball without any influence by the goalkeeper. When the ball was already flying towards the goal or towards the outline, the goalkeeper hit Messi with some fingers rather than with his hand, not even speaking about a fist or something similar. The hit was not of high intensity. Therefore, one could say it was "careless" or even better a normal accident. Considering that the ball has already been played by Messi and the hit had no influence on the header, a careless touch or hit cannot be enough to justify a penalty. Makkelie did not show a YC, so he did not think that it was reckless either.
Speaking about the OFR, van Boekel and his crew were clearly overwhelmed by the replays, overestimating both, the influence and the intensity of the hit. I am sure that Messi‘s behaviour (laying on the ground) was also taken into consideration. Van Boekel should have told Makkelie that there was a contact but that the contact was neither of high intensity nor relevant for the header.
I do not agree with some comments that the selection of the pictures on the OFR were bad. Van Boekel showed Makkelie the angle from behind the goal, were the touch was visible, in slowmotion and in real speed. He also chose an angle that made it possible to decide whether the touch had an influence on the header. We do not know the audio input during the OFR, but IMO Makkelie was put in the position to evaluate the incident adequately. I fully understand the pressure Makkelie was under, but one can expect from a world class referee, despite that there was a touch, to give a corner kick. We must underline once again: Not every contact has to be punished, not without and not with VAR.
Hey, now Argentine in front and Polish team must change its 8-1-1 system.
ReplyDeleteMisssed YC ARG7 51'
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the 'Makkelie will throw Van Boekel under the bus' comments? Obviously it's not a penalty and there will be consequences. If FIFA think VAR is at fault, Makkelie will get another game with probably Fritz or Dankert as VAR, nothing Makkelie can do about that. I'm quite certain Kuipers would have prefered to do his EURO's final with Van Boekel, but Van Boekel didn't perform so he got Dankert - Kuipers had zero influence on this. If FIFA think Makkelie is at fault, he will be going home (and Van Boekel won't work as VAR during this tournament again).
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand? Just remember what he has done to his AR2 after Serbia-Portugal.
DeleteI'm not saying that he is right/wrong, just saying that it happened before.
+1
DeleteGood to see that I'm not the only person that sees this.
No, it's perfectly clear to me that you (and others) are refering to the situation regarding his former AR's. I just don't think it's comparable - Makkelie can influence his AR's, he can't influence VAR appointments at the World Cup. There's no need to talk about 'throwing him under the bus', as any action by Makkelie towards Van Boekel won't influence his future appointments in this tournament
DeleteExcellent offside by AR1 to chalk off a Mexico goal (around 56')
ReplyDeleteAnd again YC missed by Makkelie after one more foul by ARG 13, his 4th without any attempt to play the ball. Makkelie fails to protect the offensive players, not the 1st time.
ReplyDelete#modern
DeletePenalty. 100% clear. Keeper jumps without playing ball and plays strongly enough into Messi to knock him over when he's still in middle of his jump after heading ball (never mind the rolling after).
ReplyDeleteWe don't want these to be penalties because we want to give keepers more leeway, but I'm sorry, this is CLEARLY careless on the part of the keeper. He has to know Messi is here. Messi is clearly impacted as he is in a vulnerable jumping position. Without the contact, he lands on his feet.
To say this is NOT careless is misunderstanding the definition of careless. This is NOT normal contact.
LMAO. Never a penalty
DeleteMlacko - How is keeper's action not careless?
DeleteFor me is no penalty. Sorry !
DeleteHoracio Elizondo (ARG) said no PK. His reasons were simple. The GK's action didn't directly alter, influence, or interfere with what Messi did in the play.
DeleteSo unless any of you have a World Cup Final on your referee resume. I'm going to go with the word and expertise of Mr. Elizondo.
Lol, so if you're a world cup final referee anything you say is automatically correct? That is the stupidest thing I've heard and Arbiter has certainly said a few stupid things already. Clattenburg did 3 Finals in one year and nobody here thinks everything he says is law.
DeleteAnother good, slightly clearer offside from AR1 Burt to disallow a Mexico goal
ReplyDeleteOliver doing a Lahoz (Rudiger UCL final). Helping the player up whist showing him a yellow
ReplyDeletePitana did that years before.
DeleteSurely that's a penalty for Argentina in 90+3'. Keeper takes out attacker after the shot. If we're off going the 1st penalty and careless contact
ReplyDeleteThe limit is capped at 1 gift per match.
DeleteKeeper played the ball here.
DeleteOliver has learnt well from last year. Much better at delayed whistles after fouls when a goal could potentially be scored imminently
ReplyDeleteMichael Oliver and his team were magnificent. Great movement, excellent decision making. A very good evening's work
ReplyDeleteAmazing match from Oliver
ReplyDeleteDidn't watch the Mexico vs Saudi Arabia match but good to see it seems Oliver and team had another good performance. Hope he gets a reward of a KO game.
ReplyDeleteThe battle between Oliver and Taylor was lost to Makkelie.
ReplyDeleteNah, Makkelie is done for in this tourney after that joke of a penalty
DeleteThe battle between Oliver and Taylor was lost by Makkelie.
Deletewhy didn't the second halves start at the same time? is this someone's mistake?
ReplyDeleteThis is last day matches.
Oliver was great today.
ReplyDeleteI was trying to watch both games in the same time,Makkelie had what he had,but Oliver was excellent today..
Not an easy match and he did great,without his lenient line,showed 7 bookings all correctly and gave advantage everytime very well.
One more game for sure,maybe even more and Makkelie...
Jeez..
After Faghani one more name without final,Orsato and Lahoz maybe are 2 biggest names who benefited after tonight.
Isn't there a rule regarding referees being sent home when their respective nations get to the QF or have just made that up? If true, I think Orsato has best chance since Spain should get to QF the way they are playing
DeleteIf there is,than Orsato has the best chance
DeleteRoss - nope, this rule only existed for three WCs ever (the nineties).
DeleteHoracio Elizondo (ARG) said no PK. His reasons were simple. The GK's action didn't directly alter, influence, or interfere with what Messi did in the play.
ReplyDeleteSo unless any of you have a World Cup Final on your referee resume. I'm going to go with the word and expertise of Mr. Elizondo.
Sandro Ricci (bra) said no penalty too.
DeleteShow me where in the law book it says it can't be a foul if the "action didn't directly alter, influence, or interfere".
DeleteProbably next to the section in the Laws where it says that the opinions of former World Cup Final referees must be followed unquestioningly at all times (or perhaps only if they support your own opinion).
DeleteI told that! But the most parte of Makkelie's supporters didnt want hear. Where is the final boy now?? Lol
ReplyDeletePathetic comment! So you’re really happy about a refereeing mistake/disputable call to take your right? I think your behavior is nothing better than the behavior of the “Makkelie supporters” you address.
DeleteAnd in general I have to say the atmosphere here on the blog, as we’ve seen more often during big events, gets worse by the day. The negative approach, the sarcastic “Ciao Mr X”, “Referee X is sent on the first plane home”, it becomes more and more annoying. Many people don’t bother to start a constructive discussion on a content level, but actually want to impose their opinion upon other readers or just work their own agendas. Because it’s not only the so-called “Makkelie supporters” with an agenda, I feel there are quite a lot people here having agendas.
Maybe, as a Dutch, this would not be the right moment to make my point, but still I do. And with apologies to the readers whom it not concerns (everybody knows that for theirselves), because fortunately there are still attributors who are making valuable comments without mocking, cheering or ridiculizing each other and the officials in Qatar. If it would have been easy we would have been there ourselves.
Well said DutchRef, thank you.
DeleteI leave Fab GX's childish comment up only to present your exemplary reply.
With all due respect Makkelie's ladies shut up. Have the humility to recognize that this blog, instead of having serious discussions about global refeering, after all it is the World Cup, has become a European children's club, each with its regional affinities and without any technical discussion. For the majority here, it bothers the fact that refs from other confederations in charge of games, even more so when they are important. If there's no chance of be responsible for big games now, when will they? There are also the heralds of the yellow card,
Deleteor the Orsato, Makkelie, or Marciniak fan club, already with his fortune-telling predictions about who will be responsible for the final. Come on guys, its so boring! I would hope more for a Barton or Mohammed to have a great opportunity like that than for a Champions big shot again. I came in here to have high-level discussions, but since it's turning into this clowning, maybe I'm wasting my time with spoiled brats. Apparently every 4 years is this same pathetic scene. Now I understand why people who came here to contribute with the quality of the discussion ended up giving up
+1
DeleteIs the aim of Fab GX, Gozie Joe, David Hartfield/Brian Porter (this is blatantly the same guy btw...) and all these other random users and their 'agendas' actually to ruin the discussions? They appear during the WC and just lambast other opinions, like they are trying to *impose* their view rather than *add* to a civilised discussion; it is quite bizarre to me...
DeleteI'm sorry for Dukat, M, Forlan and many other users (also Arbiter! :D But WC ref/VAR relations don't work like Soviet denounciations + Elizondo was an EXCELLENT referee but he is not the ultimate oracle of truth, though he is right very often... ;)) whose contributions and opinions I read gladly on every occasion.
Analysis of AUSDEN
ReplyDelete‣ ⚽:
Despite the importance of the game for qualification, Australia vs. Denmark was quite a poor piece of football. Accordingly, the match deservingly won by the ‘Sooceroos’ was one of normal difficulty for the appointed referee, Mustapha Ghorbal of Algeria.
‣ ⚖️
The key scene upon which the Algerian officials had to determine was at 71’ (clip below).
https://streamable.com/4fztz1
Some pointers:
- it seems the original award was a very good spot by Ghorbal!
- as was the offside by an eagle-eyed linesman, Mokrane Gourari
- has the attacker *actually* committed an offside offence when he was struck?…
- interpreting the laws as a text: no || common-sense says yes (see Rostov vs. Bayern case)
- again, the YC (if for reckless and not SPA) should stay as per the LotG, but en praxis, no
----> Overall well-solved by Ghorbal/Gourari IMO.
‣ 🟨/🟥:
The game was not challenging on a foul recognition level, and in disciplinary control Ghorbal managed to convince. The key decision in this regard was 4’, a sound booking, and two more followed (all three for tactical fouls). All other relevant scenes were adequately managed according to the ’spirit’ of WC2022 seen in other matches. The same deficiencies noted in NEDECU about charisma and leadership style were not ‘disproven’ here, but Ghorbal still had some nice interactions today and presented a more firm and motivated figure.
‣ 🚩:
Besides 71’, not too much work for aforementioned Gourari and Abdelhak Etchiali. Having watched both of this trio’s matches at the WC, I can say that they stand ahead of all the other CAF crews in convincing as whole TEAM. This should be a strong argument in their favour moving forward.
‣ 🕴️
Overall I think FIFA will be happy with the performance of Mustapha Ghorbal and his teammates in this match.
7 - 7 - 7 (III)
‣ 📟
Full clips analysis for this game can be found here:
https://fromsmash.com/ausdenghorbal
Analysis of POLARG
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/sp0sud
(36min)
I don’t think Van Boekel was correct to intervene in the Szczęsny-Messi KEY MATCH INCIDENT which resulted in Argentina being awarded a key penalty (saved). Szczęsny’s action was targeted at ‘saving’ the cross and not challenging Messi, and indeed the Poland goalkeeper’s contact on the Argentine star would come under the ‘careless’ format. It seems that the experienced Dutch VMO lost his nerve, the same as Al-Marri in PORURU, to both DETECT a potential penalty and then have the CONFIDENCE to determine it wasn’t enough, we go on. A mistake by Van Boekel.
The merit of the penalty itself, contra the intervention, is more debatable, and I don’t find its giving a ‘clear match error’ by referee Danny Makkelie. Still, my strong preference is for no penalty. Indeed, the officials had another interesting PAI to determine upon, which in case of being given, would have *directly* determined who advanced from Group C. The scene becomes much easier as Szczęsny makes a clear save on the ball, otherwise it would have been tricky…
https://streamable.com/327es6
(+92 min)
As an OVERVIEW, perhaps surprisingly, Danny Makkelie faced a technically much easier game than he did in Spain vs. Germany in MD2. Especially in much of the 2H, the match was played as a de facto non-event. There were a couple of moments where perhaps it seemed ‘in doubt’…
https://streamable.com/s4tm8u
(27+52 mins)
… but overall the Dutchman saw it through with few issues, consequently issuing yellow cards for clear transgressions of the laws. Sound performance on the whole - though FIFA’s determination of 36’ will obviously be key to how Makkelie’s trio and then Van Boekel progress through the tournament.
6 - 7 - 7 - (II)
Analysis of KSAMEX
ReplyDeleteOliver rejected two penalty appeals from Mexico in 65' and 78', and rightly so: in both cases the attacker recognizes he is not in a good position anymore, and tries to win a spot kick with some very minor contacts.
As from 49' where the English referee might have shown a SYC to MEX4 for SPA, considering the rather generous line towards SPA in this WC and the fact he didn't issue a caution for the exact same offense in 12', restricting the sanction to a FK was the sensible and expected choice.
On a global level: what a stunning performance from the English trio! Oliver simply excelled in his foul selection, not being afraid to blow his whistle for the many infrigments (a total of 38 fouls, quite high number at least for the tournament's standard).
He adopted a predictable and sensible disciplinary approach as well, correctly booking seven players (15',28',34',52',81',90+1' and 90+6') while resisting unnecessary or cheap YCs (12',72',84'). Accordingly punishing the misconducts was much needed yesterday, and he wasn't afraid to take measures, very refreshing to see.
He savoured a high level of acceptance throughout the match, players responded well to his focused, determined and confident presentation (see his management of MEX4 in both 15' and 49', or his handling of an off-the-ball push in 31'). The teams were genuinely confident on the English man's ability to lead the game: so was I!
Both assistants were stellar: AR1 correctly disallowed two mexican goals for tight offsides in 56' and 87', AR2 was correct in many close calls to make (9',15',45',45+2,74',76').
A KO stage appearance is a must for Oliver's crew after the rock solid officiating they displayed.
Marks:
Oliver - 8
Burt - 8
Bennett - 8
Irrati - IV
Abouth the penalty incident in POL-ARG with Makkelie I still have after read all the opinions a bit of mixed feeling. I will try to explain why.
ReplyDeleteIn this case Van Boekel showed the images to Makkelie which from that point of view made a penalty supportable. Later on viewers where shown a angle in which the doubt came up. Was it a penalty? From that second angle it was very doubtfull and even justified for the VAR to not do anything.
But what if it was the other way around? Haven't there been matches where we all screamed for a penalty or RC because of one angle which showed the "evidence" of the contact for the penalty or RC.
So in this case. What if Van Boekel decided, based on the angle in which almost no contact was visible, to not call Makkelie and let the play go on. But after minutes or maybe later in the day the angle with the contact (on which he now called Makkelie) showed up. Isn't it that we all than scream and shout that they made a mistake and that Makkelie should be send home because of not giving the penalty.
Summarize, since it is so doubtfull, one angle is pro penalty and the other one against, my opinion is that it is no clear and obvious error by Makkelie, play on is supportable and the mistake is on Van Boekel who shouldn't have called Makkelie to the screen.
Angles are key in penalty/foul decisions.
DeleteIf ONE angle clearly shows a penalty (as happened here), we have to respect that angle. The keeper was clearly careless (making contact with the face whether intended or not) and the penalty correctly given.
I recall the infamous situation involving US referee Esse Baharmast. ALL camera angles during match showed NO penalty. However, another came available after the game which showed a CLEAR penalty. He went from villain to hero.
On the other hand, we all know the unwritten rule that if the ball is no longer available for a player of the attacking team, you should award a penalty kick only in case of a reckless challenge. The reason being that a careless foul has no influence on the action... It's been quite a good instruction that is very commonsensical and extremely useful when assessing penalty area incidents...
Delete