To complete the Quarterfinals, Wilton Sampaio is about to officiate the European big clash England - France. Let's follow his performance.
ENGLAND - FRANCE
Referee: Wilton Sampaio (BRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Bruno Boschilia (BRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Bruno Pires (BRA)
Fourth Official: Mohamed Mohammed (UAE)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Mohamed Alhammadi (UAE)
Video Assistant Referee: Nicolas Gallo (COL)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martinez Munuera (ESP)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Neuza Back (BRA)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernandez Hernandez (ESP)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Ciro Carbone (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martinez Munuera (ESP)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Neuza Back (BRA)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernandez Hernandez (ESP)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Ciro Carbone (ITA)
I think a foul before the 0-1 but imo the attack is too far advanced for VAR interverention
ReplyDeleteLooked like a foul on Saka before the goal, huge miss.
ReplyDeleteA foul should have been whistled before this VAR check, indeed Italian commentator has reported that Sampaio after the end of VAR check made a gesture to English player (not shown in TV) that foul had been outside the box.
ReplyDeleteWoe. It was clear foul to kane and it should be penalty for england. How did he not give that?
ReplyDeletewas absolutely outside the box! no pen. No retroactive foul allowed.
DeleteThe foul was outside the box. That's why ...
DeleteFor me the foul is outside the area, that's why it's not that there is no OFR
ReplyDeleteContact on Kane close to the France PA:
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/4i299t
Contact on Kane starts while his foot is outside box but looks like it continues over the penalty box line. Very hard to call in real time or by VAR, though.
DeleteContact on Kane surely continues to the line of the penalty area? It doesn't just stop outside. I can't see how that's not been given?
ReplyDeleteContrary to holding fouls, non-holding fouls such as tackles are assessed at the point of initial contact.
Delete+1
DeleteContact on Saka before the French goal:
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/qttemc
AR1 uses his flag only to signal out or corner. He doesn't see anything else just in front of his eyes.
DeleteI hate to think that a no call may influence the outcome of this tournament just like it did in Brazil-Belgium four years ago. I wish they would choose best refs and not let regions of refefees play any part in the decisions.
DeleteIt seems as though the APP starts from this foul too, as FRA gain possession and start an attack after the contact.
DeleteMy guess is VAR didn't think it was a clear foul to have the goal reviewed and disallowed, unless there was a new phase of play that had started.
I can't understand the VAR decision here. Close to 40 secs between foul and goal but still almost definitely same phase of play, and looks like a clear foul to me.
DeleteNo clear foul. There is contact but not enough to be a foul. no whistle is consistent to other matches' decisions as well.
DeleteNo faul for Kane is bad teamwork.AR1 had to see that
ReplyDeleteWhat a pleasure it is to watch well-mannered teams play. After the previous two matches there is no pressure on the referee, no theatrical waving of hands etc.
ReplyDeleteAlso evidence of why players put pressure on the ref.
DeleteUnconvincing start from the referee. To not give any sort of foul for the Kane incident is a really poor decision.
ReplyDeleteVery inconsistent. Call for Saka first time, then same place, same spot, no foul. Then Foden gets an even softer call.
DeleteDoes anyone else notice something off with Sampaio's whistling technique or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteYESSS
DeleteKane are diving a lot that can Sampaio misunderstood at 33' on foul outside. But so far totally convinced act, that can leave strong his name to the final.
ReplyDeleteYou are kidding, right???
DeleteVery bad Sampaio in 1st half. He missed almost everything!
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. Sampaio's refereeing almost as bad as Lahoz's. He is lucky there is no Latin American team on the pitch.
DeleteCome on Autor! Sampaio is used to South American pressure, he officiates much more difficult and tense games in Libertadores or Cup Qualifiers between Argentina and Uruguay for example.
DeleteSampaio for the final, please!
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahha.
DeleteCalm down Seneme.
DeleteI will be not very surprised if Sampaio will get a final...
DeleteKane contact leading to potential foul was initiated outside the box. No VAR by rule. Correct call imho.
ReplyDeleteCorrect call by VAR but still a foul missed that could have led to a promising free kick, with ENG trailing by one goal
DeleteWrong call by Sampaio because FK hasn't been given
Delete+1
DeleteThought it was a good half. Should have given a foul on Kane, but it was outside. No foul for France goal. Good yc
ReplyDeleteInteresting restart after the whistle for the possible Hernandez's injury. France played the ball last as the referee interrupted the game, but the dropball is given to England... nothing really important but not according to LOTG
ReplyDeleteImportant thing is that he missed foul and YC.
DeleteReferee stopped play just before England was about to start new attack. Perhaps blew whistle (and established restart) with that in mind, but it was clearly before the touch.
DeleteThis first half wasn't so bad IMO. Although Sampaio seems a little bit inattentive and missed a clear foul (clearly outside the box) on Kane, the performence is overall solid... Let's see the 2nd half
ReplyDeleteOverall excellent performance by Sampaio. It wasn't a foul in France's goal and if it was an infraction in the possible penalty for England, it was outside the area. A.R 1 and 2 hit hard and fast corner kicks and offsides.
ReplyDeleteExcellent? Really.
DeleteClear penalty missed (Kane's left foot was touching line at point of contact). Couple fouls missed (one indirectly led to France goal). Not acceptable at this level
ReplyDeleteOffence location is based on point of contact (legs) not on where the attacker's foot happens to be. Point of contact was outside PA.
DeleteFoul before goal. Could be an offence, doesn't have to be. VAR would look at that, but not much they can do with this as it's not clear or obvious - especially considering line referee has drawn.
Hope he has a better second half. Will be under pressure from ENG after those two decisions but he’s lucky these two try to play rather than fight
ReplyDeleteIt's quite humorous how some say referee was brilliant and others say they were terrible. In all honesty, there was little for the referee to do (very easy half) and not much can be done wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe only YC was a no brainer.
The teams came to play and the referee can play through more dubious contact, wait longer for advantage (or possession), etc. What will be telling is whether the referee will be up to the task for whatever may come in the 2nd half as the battle lines will be drawn tighter.
And, indeed as I write this, we get a great YC (after advantage) early on.
I'm gonna state what may is a very controversial opinion: the World Cup assigning system is broken because they choose to look like they are being "fair" over being competent. That is, giving women a shot at World Cup assignments is admirable, yes, but only if it is on merit. Likewise, giving referees from many different regions top assignments is likewise praiseworthy, if they earn them, but doing so just to look they are fairly assigning every region leads to poor decisions that most likely influence the outcome of the tournament, just like it did in the Brazil-Belgium game four years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis is the World Cup and many factors go into choosing the officials.
DeleteYes, you are right. I was being cynical.
DeleteThe random misogyny degrades this otherwise worthwhile post. Frappart is not in the bottom 5 performances to date.
DeletePossible random misogyny except for fact that one female referee (Japanese?) was only promoted to the top league in her country AFTER being selected for the World Cup.
DeleteNo doubt on that decision!
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteClear penalty, nothing to add here.
ReplyDeleteCorrect penalty to England by Sampaio
ReplyDeleteStonewall penalty!
ReplyDeleteIs Sampaio a dark horse for the final? Besides the missed foul (outside the area) on Kane very convincing. He lets the game flow (what many here refer to „missing everything“) and keeps this line which makes him perfectly respected. All YC needed however were shown. The first one at a perfect moment.
ReplyDeleteHe should be nowhere near the final based on what we’ve seen tonight. “Letting the game flow” does not mean ignoring obvious fouls
DeleteI am adding Sampaio to list of my prospective candidates for Final
ReplyDelete1. Lahoz
2. Orsato
3. Marciniak
4. Sampaio
5. Danny
Was there a second Lahoz at the tournament that I missed?
DeleteRidiculous inconsistency - no call for tackle from behind on legs of Saka and then gives the same the other way.
ReplyDelete+1
Delete65' Missed foul on Sakka. Sampaio looks terrible to me, trying to minutely trying to parse every contact rather than going with a "gut" call, that is, he's overthinking things.
ReplyDeleteIncredible how many clear fouls Sampaio missed in 65 minutes! I have the feeling that his approach was to let the play go, but that shouldn't mean not whistling clear fouls.
ReplyDeleteThe most of all is advantage and options for to keep a fluid game
DeleteSorry, but IMO the dark horse doesn't exist anymore after this match. Many little mistakes, no consistent line. I like Sampaio's style and personality, but for a final this is simply not enough.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not the best performance by Sampaio especially in terms of foul detection, maybe the worst by him at this tournament, but still one could say in this case without crucial mistakes...
ReplyDelete+1. But still is far better than Lahoz yesterday
DeleteSaying better than Lahoz yesterday is saying not much.
DeleteThe referee has a choice in this (type of) match. Whistle everything as many of you wish or whistle IMPACT (with more flow). The latter is extremely difficult to master. It isn't quite mastered here, but...
ReplyDelete1. No one has been injured
2. Players are content
3. Not one "missed" decision has had impact
4. The game is extremely entertaining
Everytime there is something more important, the referee is there to give it.
Plenty dissents and talking from English players, he needs to calm them down.
ReplyDeleteClear and obvious mistake?
ReplyDeleteClear penalty missed, correct OFR!
ReplyDeleteI hope OFR reversal for no call on foul on Mount.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a clear penalty against France, good OFR
ReplyDeleteNever a clear and obvious mistake for me.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, yellow card for the fouling player called by opponents.
One of the clearest and most obvious penalties on this tournament
DeleteWe don't play football this way. PK and YC clearly missed. Should have been given by referee - should never have needed VAR
DeleteFIFA's directive to referees is different from UEFA. If the referee will change his opinion after watching, VAR recommends OFR.
DeleteSo, no OFR should have commenced in your opinion?
DeleteChefren, most of the time you are spot on with your observations. But you are way off on this one. This was one of the clearest most obvious PKs. To the point that it's "knock" on Sampaio for not spotting it live and calling it himself. The French player makes absolutely no attempt to play the ball and simply forcefully bundled through the back of the English player.
DeleteThat would be all from Mr Sampaio on this tournament. Have a safe flight to Brasil!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteno, he is not. it is not the best refereed match, but a disgrace is something else
DeleteClear penalty.
ReplyDeleteIncredible. He didn''t whistle this kind of fouls all the match but now gave penalty for the exactly same kond of contact. Awful refereeing. How on the earth fifa let this guy whistle in quarter-finals in WC?
ReplyDeleteBye Wilton
ReplyDeleteBellingham clear YC not given...
ReplyDeleteAre refs instructed to not give Eng YC's?
At first I thought not a clear an obvious miistake, but after replays I agree with the OFR.
ReplyDeleteExactly same contact like the second penalty on 88th minute to eng num6 but he didn't gave a foul. Awful referee, maybe even worser show up than Lahoz yesterday night.
ReplyDelete8 minutes????
ReplyDeleteThe classic penalty. Its absence would be a scandal.
ReplyDeleteSurprised at people saying no penalty! It's one of the clearest penalties of the entire tournament, in my opinion. I like the assertive style of this referee but so many calls missed.
ReplyDeleteNot PK only for those who never played or reffed football
DeleteFIFA's directive to referees are different from UEFA. If the referee will change his mind (opinion) after watching, VAR recommends OFR.
ReplyDeleteThis referee loves his multiple whistles, but half the time I don't know what it's for or what he's trying to communicate!
ReplyDeleteThe performance of Sampaio was not awful, but you now what is? FIFA management of this QFs. It was a completely disaster. The only one who actually can say that delivered a good, required level performance was Oliver, and I say that without being a fan of him.
ReplyDeleteLahoz started superb but it turned into a disaster, Sampaio and Tello did ok, but definitely not good enough. The appointments were very dubious if you ask me, made so they allow all kind of theories by fans; and 4th officials without personality an/or control. In every game all the players and staff from the bench was up, almost near the line, whicjh is annoying. I would have liked to see someone more experienced, respected by players in this role (and I think especially at UEFA names given that most of the players are from there and know the refs). Unfortunately, FIFA spoiled drastically their image. Poor management, the appointments were at least, let's call them uninspired.
+1
Delete+2 Consequenses for Collina are on his place
DeleteAu revoir Turpin
ReplyDeleteOliver for the final, others sucked big time!
ReplyDeleteSampaio was overall good IMO but lost it in the end...
ReplyDelete(you can debate about the 2nd penalty but the YC only after England complained is really not acceptable, 'losing the plot' at 85' throw-in scene, and some a bit choatic stuff besides)
... idk what happens now, but the final should be beyond him tbh.
+1. But we should consider that Sampaio had 3 major KPI's in the penalty area and got them right (though 1 only after OFR). Not everyone would be that competent.
ReplyDeleteOFR penalty was an obvious miss. The penalty given was a no-brainer. The Kane situation (very fortunate it wasn't inside) was an obvious miss. Can't have VAR "bail out" referee 2 out of 3.
DeleteOthers have mentioned here that FIFA and UEFA VAR intervention protocols are different. In this sense I understand that FIFA encourages a little bit more of intervation that UEFA. For this reason I believe that Sampaio got it right. My issue with Sampaio in this game was poor foul detection.
DeleteARG-CRO: Orsato/ Abdulla (Irrati)
ReplyDeleteFRA-MAR: Ramos/Makkelie (Fischer)
3PLACE: Marciniak
FINAL: I have no idea, actually...
Or put Marciniak straight to the final, Orsato straight to the final without any playoff, surprise everyone and put Oliver...I have no idea
I am not able to do any prediction, cause the decisions of Collina and Comittee are unpredictable and sort of unforgivable in this WC
DeleteSo I can only say what I would suggest:
ARG - KRO Barton
FRA - MOR Marciniak
Final Ramos or Orsato
3rd place Gomes or Mohammed or Oliver
This match was an easy QF. The teams came to play. Nothing reckless or unsporting was missed (there was indeed very little of that). Anything that had impact was given. The cards were fair.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the referee decided that anything "unclear" to his eyes was not an offence. Most of the time this was OK, but these "no decisions" included the Kane situation mm's outside the PA and the OFR penalty.
BOTH of these (including the YC - SPA - for the penalty) should have been given and should NOT have needed reviews (except Kane for position whether the referee had given a DFK or PK).
Can you believe that the YC to Maguire in 90th minute was first and only YC for England in the whole WC?!
ReplyDeleteGood evening. I hope that in thousands of comments that was irattional, I will try to explain some stuff. First, its very easy to drink cofee in house, and watch video,and said hey, bye Sampaio,Lahoz etc. First, nobody rate the game- very challenging, second- Sampaio style is obviously let the game to flow- he did that, and he was accpeted from players, coaches, crowd, its very important. Thrid- as someone mention, Fifa instructions about VAR are totally different than Uefa. Sampaio did everything by protocol. How many of us here would call that penalty at first- Nobody!!!Fourth- game overall very good, is he among three candidates in my view for final-YES. There was mistakes, as in every game,but that not change the fact that nobody will speak about Sampaio. And one more thing- I saw comments like some big players criticize referees, its not possible to se them in some ending games. Gentelmans, officials do they job becouse rules demand that of them. Cheers!!!
ReplyDeleteBrilliant summary, thanks!
DeleteBrilliant performance by the Brazilian officials. Sampaio knew how to control the game well, one of the most exciting and expected of this tournament (He is used to South American pressure, he officiates much more difficult and tense games in Libertadores or World Cup Qualifiers between Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile for example).
ReplyDeleteToday he preferred to apply the advantage and play a more fluid game than whistle for any silly foul. The VAR calls were important to clarify the decisive moves, where I think there were hits by the team as a whole, noting that it was just a foul in the 1H at 33' and in the second move depending on the angle that is seen and where Sampaio was understood as a shoulder-to-shoulder dispute, which is clearer in favor of a Penalty looking at the bid from behind.
Brilliant performance by today's referees (Tello and Sampaio), who show the strength of Conmebol's refereeing, which at least for me considering just this tournament and the current moment of the Quarterfinals, proves to be a little superior to UEFA.
Of course, the English will complain too much, it's expected, but I don't see anything that compromises the result after all, England had the chance to tie the game, wasted by Kane in the second PK, and comparing today's excellent Sampaio's performance ( with Oliver's only average performance yesterday, I get the impression that any complaint can be understood as just whining.
Have you watched another game?
DeleteThe comment is quite funny tbh. Sampaio with the help of VAR got everything major right. I also believe the 2nd PK was hard to spot and a needed OFR understandable. But he missed a stonewall foul before the (rightfully) not given pentalty situation with Kane. Missed 2 YCs against England, only gave Hernandez a YC after ENG players telling him (unacceptable) and at times looked to be confused with himself. I am not a fan of calling it a scandalous performance but it was certainly a below average performance.
Havent watched Tellos game so cant comment on that. Just generally speaking it is quite subjective to call CONMEBOL superior to UEFA when Rapallini struggeled, Valenzuela and Sampaio ended on below average (or weak) performances, Tello was not convincing etc.
UEFA had a horrible Lahoz and a weird PK by Makkelie thats it. Orsato, Marciniak, Oliver, Turpin were spot on (or above average). Even the rightfully critisized Lahoz had 2 brilliant GS games.
Sadly we have a weak general level in this WC (just my opinion), but UEFA still overall look to be the most consistent. I would even argue CONCACAF was slightly better than CONMEBOL. Ramos and Barton were extremly calm and most very strong and Elfath has recovered textbook like from a below average start.
I respect your opinion but completely disagree.
DeleteFirst of all, Orsatto has been little demanded in this tournament so far, with easy and calm games, and from whom a little more was expected, Makkelie cases, but the dutch failed in a crucial move in POLARG and due this no appear related in any Round of 16 or Quarterfinals matches. The same can be said about Siebert, because the German did not know how to properly manage URUGHA and in the end he ended up pathetically fleeing the field, humiliated by his horrible performance and with fear stamped of the Uruguayan players. Yesterday we saw finally the Spanish referee Lahoz in a big game, who certainly whistled the game more difficult part of the tournament, but who, due to his performance, managed to transform the chaos into a complete collapse in what is meant by managing a match. Without to mention the muted and unconvincing displays from the English duo (Taylor and Oliver).
I think that due these terrible performances it is shameful even for UEFA to admit this lapse in the technical quality of its referees. By on the other hand, I believe that Turpin and Marciniak leave with their names strengthened in the midst of this turmoil.
And by last I agree that CONCACAF is growing with promissors names for the next WC. I would to say the same for AFC and CAF, but the unique fact that call my attention was the Faghani fallen. Unfortunetely
ReplyDeleteSf 1 Marciniak
Sf2 Taylor
3rd elffatfh
Finał orsato
Makkiele can change one of theose refs
I think it'll be Makkelie for Taylor, the rest I agree with
DeleteI think it does not make any sense to appoint a referee directly to the final without any other KO appointments.
DeleteSF1: Marciniak
SF2: Orsato
3RD: Elfath
Final: Oliver/Turpin
Unfortunately Sampaio not up for the task tonight. Some of the fouls he didn't whistle were just plain and obvious. The only reason things did not get out of hand like yesterday is because tonight we saw two teams that came to play football.
ReplyDeleteNothing surprising by the way, since his first three matches were rather unconvincing as well. He looks insecure, is not ready to make big decisions and doesn't manage the game at all. This is what you get when politics make appointments.
Neville believed France's first goal should have been ruled out for the foul on Saka: "It's a simple decision. He kicks his leg away - I'm not sure why that isn't a foul. He's nibbled and he's kicked him. It should be a free-kick. Upamecano has tried to win the ball on three or four occasions where can't win the ball, on Saka, on Kane."
ReplyDeleteHarry Maguire also told BBC: "Really poor, very poor. From minute one, there were five, six fouls in the first 15 minutes, not one yellow card. It's a foul for the first goal, leading up to it on Bukayo.
"I can't really go into explaining how bad his performance was. I don't want to go into too much because I'll end up getting fined. But even though the big decisions were wrong he never gave us anything, throughout the game he was really poor."
If yesterday the BBC asked to any brazilian player about the performance of the english referee Michael Oliver and especially about the clear penalty not called, they would hear the same thing. It is part of the press to provoke to get newspaper headlines.
DeleteFinal for Orsato. 3rd for Frappart if France in the final
ReplyDeleteMatch Review from our fine friends at Arbitro Internacional
ReplyDeleteEngland vs France
A European classic like England vs. France at this stage of a World Cup is always a challenge. If it goes wrong it can possibly sink your career, if it goes well it possibly takes you to a Final. Sampaio's performance was neither one nor the other.
He moved with consistency to have the best possible position Which helped him to give rhythm/flow to the game, without penalizing minor fouls. Within that, he omitted some clear fouls. The possible 24th-minute penalty was a foul, although Gallo correctly did not intervene as it was outside the area and the second penalty that was finally agreed upon after VAR Review. Still, one would expect it to be detected on the pitch. The first penalty was penalized correctly.
From a disciplinary point of view, he had a few challenges, although the timing did not look good to give the yellow card after the second penalty. Where it seemed that it was the pressure of the English that forced Sampaio.
His assistants had a correct job and the interventions from the VAR with Nicolás Gallo in charge (a strong candidate for the final) were correct.
In the end, Sampaio carried out a match with players committed to letting the match flow and manages to adequately manage emotions, however, it was far from a polished performance with some treacherous inaccuracies.
Without Brazil, some will see him as a candidate for the final, although like Oliver yesterday, this performance can generate love and hatred.
Once again, poor appointing sets up a class referee to fail. One could have expected ENG-FRA to be a fast, free-flowing game with little gamesmanship. It needs a referee who does not call every contact as a foul, a calm figure whose authority is based on rapport and acceptance by players. One can think of Makkelie, one of the Argentines, maybe even Mateu!
ReplyDeleteIt is quite obvious that Sampaio was well-prepared for this match. He tried to let play flow. He tried to be a calm figure. He tried to gain acceptance by players. But Sampaio is not any of those things. He did a decent job of it on the back of his strength in positioning, card selection and style. But his foul detection seemed completely random at times, leading to irritated ENG players. It was obvious that he was out of his depth and by the final minutes Sampaio seemed a lost figure on the pitch (throw-in situation).
It was not a disastrous performance by any means, but it just felt so unnecessary. I am a big fan of Sampaio and have seen him excel in a QF involving two Mediterranean teams during the Arab Cup. There is no reason to think he could do it again in the World Cup. Instead, background-oriented Tello is sent to POR-MOR. Once again, a good referee is not used to his strengths.
To be honest, it is only karma that political choices in referee selection, tournament guidelines and appointments have come back to bite the RefCom so hard during this tournament. Using Seneme's Christmas card list to select CONMEBOL officials, leaving some of the best non-UEFAs at home, selecting so many referees from top football countries, appointing refs to matches they are obviously not suited to and then dropping them like a stone, shoving AFC and CAF in front of the bus after MD2, the list goes on and on.
And for what? The level of refereeing has remained poor and there is no consistency whatsoever between the matches. Media attention has been on Mateu and Siebert losing control, Faghani and Elfath's wrong PKs and all the conspiracies stemming from appointing QF referees from QF nations. Not to mention of course the home VAR committing an error that would have been the biggest refereeing scandal ever in a World Cup, if only it had been committed in a match of any consequence. Perhaps Elfath's made-for-TV moment is the only positive note in this aspect. It is telling that this immediately catapulted him into the KO stage and a candidate for the final.
All in all, this World Cup has been pretty depressing to watch as a refereeing enthusiast who has seen many of these officials perform so, so much better than this. I would not blame them at all.
Agree, Thomas
DeleteI saw a referee that did not affect the outcome - VAR saved him on the penalty and Kane put it over - but there were many little things that contributed to a 'sub par' performance. Was there a foul at the other end prior to the France goal? Yes, but England had the length of the field to defend that and did not. Thats not the referees fault but had the foul been given....
ReplyDeleteThe foul on the edge, is it in, is it out. If he gave that as a penalty, I strongly doubt VAR would have intervened but when its not given, the VAR made the correct call to not refer down. Was this inside the area? Possibly, but not clearly. For most objective, it was outside, but you are talking maybe a couple of cm.
In all, are these 'big ticket' items? No, but at the half, when you could 5 fouls missed (minor) then you have an issue around foul ID so missing the penalty was not a surprise.
You wont see Sampaio again. After 2 quarters with controversy, they will not want the slightest hint of controversy in the semi or the final.
Analysis
ReplyDeleteKey Match Incidents:
16’ - https://streamable.com/w87cyl
Additional angles: https://streamable.com/xt23sf
Possible foul initiating an APP prior to France’s goal. 18FRA challenges 17ENG who controls the ball. There are two tripping and one kicking movements of the French. Is letting any of them go a clear and obvious mistake by the referee (and AR1)? In my opinion, not. 17ENG goes down quite easily, most likely expecting to get the call in his favour. I don’t see a clear link between challenges of 18FRA and 17ENG’s fall. Of course, awarding a free kick wouldn’t have been wrong as well but assessing this duel should be at the referees’ discretion. Supportable decision, correct no VAR intervention.
25’ - https://streamable.com/kvaoay
Additional angles: https://streamable.com/er6nma
Penalty area incident: kicking. 18FRA tries to play the ball putting his leg between controlling the ball 9ENG’s legs. He fails to reach the ball and clearly kicks his opponent. The question should not be whether the foul was committed - it’s clear that it was - but whether the offence took place outside or inside the penalty area. The kick indeed starts slightly outside the box but the contact lasts above the penalty area line as well. As the offence is not holding, we have to assess the exact moment of the offence having the biggest influence on an attacking player. It’s difficult in this case but it should be one of these frames:
https://snipboard.io/nHiXYZ.jpg
https://snipboard.io/SQzbC3.jpg
Would VAR intervene had the referee awarded a penalty kick here? I doubt that. Based on this and the blatant nature of the offence, I think it would be commonsensical - but also according to LotG - to intervene (VAR) and award a penalty kick (the referee). On the other hand, if there is no clear proof the foul occurred inside the penalty area… All in all, the referees (REF, AR1) at WC shouldn’t really miss such a foul…
52’ - https://streamable.com/virs5n
After a very good advantage (offside flag by AR1), correctly awarded penalty kick in favour of England for a very blatant tripping offence by 8FRA. Correct decision.
74’ - https://streamable.com/0a3z7w
Penalty area incident: kicking. After a throw-in to England, 22ENG attempts to shield the ball that is moving towards him and at the same time 18FRA makes an attempt to play the ball from behind of the Englishman which causes a clash of thighs. Awarding a penalty wouldn’t have been a mistake by the book but as we know something more is needed to constitute a penalty in a WC quarter-final. Supportable play-on decision.
75’ - https://streamable.com/4hrap5
Penalty area incident: pushing. 9FRA clearly uses the small amount of contact to win a penalty kick. Correct play-on decision.
80’ - https://streamable.com/k96ibo
Penalty kick awarded for charging after an on-field review. Initially, the referee allowed play to continue as he had his view blocked by a French player, but VAR Nicolás Gallo correctly intervened and the only correct decision was made -> penalty kick for careless but blatant and deliberate charging offence. There is another aspect of this scene though: was the charging by 22FRA SPA or DOGSO? VAR presented the referee good angles to assess it properly but, surprisingly, Wilton Sampaio didn’t even want to caution 22FRA and did that only after mobbing by English players. The yellow card is supportable - 19ENG had no control over the ball. However, the likelihood of getting it was quite big as the pass was really precise. I think VAR even suggested it to the referee by showing him good angles from the side. But we know that nowadays it’s not expected from referees to send players off based on LIKELIHOOD of getting control of the ball. Final outcome - correct. Initial miss and card showing procedure were subpar though.
90+3’ - https://streamable.com/df2p30
Penalty area incident: holding. No good replay of this off-the-ball scene but it seems likely that 6ENG was held by his arm by 14FRA. Nonetheless, play-on still supportable as the scene had no impact on play.
Overview:
DeleteWilton Sampaio faced a fast-paced game with both sets of players focused on playing football. The Brazilian allowed too many challenges but in such fair games it has somehow become a norm. The main problem was that, especially in the first half, most of those play-on calls went against England:
possible foul initiating an APP at 0:1 (16’),
missed foul outside/inside the penalty area (25’),
several challenges let go (31’ - protests against AR1, 34’, 45’, 45+1’, 45+3’ - protests against 4OF).
They could’ve felt hard done indeed. Nonetheless, at the end of the first half, the referee most likely realised it and tried to allow some physical play from English players, too. Examples being 42’, 45+2’or 45+4’ causing big protests by the French coach.
In general, good disciplinary choices were made by Sampaio. A strong warning to 11FRA for kicking the ball away after whistle (32’), picking up a third blatant foul by 7FRA to issue the first caution of the game (33’, 36’, 43’) and a mandatory YC to 11FRA for very reckless tackle (46’).
Excellent dealing with mobbing shown in 62’! He lost the plot a little bit in 65’ allowing play to continue after a quite clear foul on 17ENG who wildly dissented afterwards. Instead of taking the initiative, the Brazilian awarded a FK in favour of France for subsequent offence and allowed its quick execution, totally ignoring the whole mess. Then, both mandatory cards were correctly issued: the one to 22FRA for SPA/DOGSO challenge after OFR in 80’ and for reckless use of arm by 6ENG in 89’.
It’s difficult to label Wilton Sampaio. His technical accuracy is not the best, to say it kindly. However, he somehow compensates these deficiencies by the way he manages players / the game. He looks very concerned, living and feeling the game, always being able to react to particular incidents and not ‘pro forma’ like, for example, Fernando Rapallini. His look is rather serious but he has no problems with verbally connecting players. This all helps him to gain respect from players even if they sometimes are upset with one or another call. Of course, in an ideal world the calls would be equally good…
Marks:
Wilton Sampaio - 6
Bruno Boschilia - 6
Bruno Pires - 7
Nicolás Gallo - IV