It's the fourth WC for Alireza Faghani, the third as main referee. His first game is France - Senegal.
Match #17
Group I
16 June 2026, 21:00 CET
MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford
FRANCE - SENEGAL
Referee: Alireza Faghani AUS/IRN
Assistant Referee 1: George Lakrindis AUS
Assistant Referee 2: James Lindsay AUS
Fourth Official: Sandro Schärer SUI
Reserve AR : Stéphane De Almeida SUI
Vidéo Assistant Referee: Abdullah Alshehri KSA
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 1 : Armando Villarreal USA
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 2 : Tatiana Guzman NCA
My wish is to see a good performance by the experienced Iranian-Australian referee, without needing VAR. The 2022 pattern definitely shouldn't be repeated. They now know what "arm as support" means, among other things.
ReplyDeleteWill be interesting how Alshehri performs tonight after IMO an unconvincing performance in Haiti v Scotland. Obviously FIFA didn't deem the "controversial" decisions that negatively.
DeleteOr maybe it was just because Evans was planned but they couldn't appoint him. It's very hard to believe that all major decisions in that game were OK by VAR. Not even a single evidence was shown. Still, first responsible is pitch Referee and so, Ghorbal. But honestly I would have liked another VAR in this game.
DeleteAgree with that entirely. Looking forward to Faghani and teams performance and hopefully he can deliver a top performance.
DeleteHuge dive from Maignan on the corner. but almost impossible to see him live
ReplyDeleteHe saw him go down and guessed. I'm not sure he saw anything so played it safe, which was also wrong
DeleteClip: https://streamable.com/doids3
DeleteFirst foul is from a French player on his own goalkeeper
ReplyDeleteStrictly by the law, penalty to Senegal. Offence on own teammate.
Delete😂
DeleteVery strange foul on Maignan. It was Tchoumani who stepped on his foot
ReplyDeleteI don’t want to sound rude but looking at Faghani, he doesnt look so fit as the other referees… let’s see if he won’t have problems given the high intensity expected for this game
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. He is 48 years old and France Senegal is very physical match... Maybe not the best choice for the first match for the Aus/Iranian referee from Collina and co.
DeleteSimilar from the Club World Cup final - fitness seem to be an issue
ReplyDeleteIncorrect flag for the throw-in before the hydration break by AR1, very clearly came off a French head off the corner but Faghani correctly signalled while also calling hydration break
ReplyDeleteBlatant error...
DeleteClip: https://streamable.com/ratyfl
This means AR1 missed the heabutt by French defender, not good because rather visible.
Delete+ Hydration break during 4min 10 sec - not normal and the restart of the game was the correct overtuned throw-in for Senegal.
DeleteI think he’s vert experienced ref and seems good by far. Lets them play and gave players message that there will be no easy foul
ReplyDeleteSo far for me Faghanis fitness has not been an issue. Yes you can say he lacks pace (who wouldn't when they are 48 compared to much younger colleagues) but his fitness and positioning (particularly his proactive positioning and reading the play) have been very strong so far.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with the proactive positioning but it may be a problem ıf there is an unexpected action.
DeleteI would call his positioning as “smart” not correct. He doesnt leave the center of the files. He doesnt makes his diagonal because he knows he can’t survive to the game doing that
Delete*field
DeleteYeah ı see the logic behind that but also noticed he’s running too fast towards senegal’s goal when french players recover the ball thinkink they’ll quickly pass through. On the other hand senegal attacking more than expected so ı see him a little bit late on actions near franch penalty area. He must be more carefull about it ı guess
DeleteIn Australia, he referees in the middle of the summer (similar conditions to now). He is used to running in the humidity of north Australia, the dry heat of Western Australia and the high heat/humidity combo
DeleteVery slow game...
ReplyDeleteMaybe YC there
ReplyDeleteMissed YC for Saliba,clear stamp.
ReplyDeleteStonewall YC! He totally missed the contact. Incredible, just in front of him.
DeleteMissed YC clear step on foot.
ReplyDeleteRefCam + Replay
DeleteClip: https://streamable.com/61z5kx
Definitely a missed foul, not convinced on a YC, positioning not an issue, just misread the event.
ReplyDeleteIt was a clear yellow but he missed…
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks to the ref cam we know that the stamp is not missed but deliberately ignored
ReplyDeleteBad consistency on the foul detection imo
ReplyDeleteFair play to Faghani not giving the easy decision of a foul. Senegal player fell down far too easily
ReplyDeleteReplay showed a step on the foot
DeleteWhat's Faghani doing? Giving France everything and nothing to Senegal. Appalling
ReplyDeleteNot a fan of this performance it just feels latargic and very reactive to France rather than refereeing the game.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage played after the stamp on the Senegal player outside France’s penalty area should have been stopped immediately with a quick whistle and a direct free kick. That would have been a much better option than applying advantage.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, for France outside Senegal’s penalty area, the ball was played sideways and the referee continued to wait for a possible advantage. In that situation as well, a free kick would have been the better decision.
There needs to be a better assessment of what is most beneficial for the attacking team when deciding between applying advantage and awarding a free kick.
I think it was a solid first half for faghani. Consistent on fouls and takes advantage of slowness of the game for positioning. Only missed a YC but ı liked the way he managed
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment. He was calm and composed throughout the match, communicated well with the players, and helped create a controlled atmosphere on the field. I also liked that he was willing to raise the level of physicality in appropriate situations without being reckless, while still recognizing and awarding smart free kicks when needed.
DeleteThat said, a higher standard is expected in terms of advantage application, particularly in situations such as the stamping incident, where a direct free kick would have been the better option. In my opinion, his movement patterns and positioning on the field could also be improved to next half
An okay first half from Faghani with a few minor areas of improvement for me. He has set his bar for a foul incredibly high (both a blessing and a curse) this has resulted in a few errors in foul detection which can give the appearance of inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteHis movement and positioning, I have stated previously to be effective and proactive for someone who clearly knows that as an "elder" referee he lacks the pace and sharp injection for end to end sprinting and has resulted in taking the proactive approach to have generally good yet safe positioning.
No major errors to report and I feel in the second half that we will see Faghani tested more and it will be interesting to see how he handles it.
France can foul 1 times out of 2 by recovering the ball without being whistled.
ReplyDeleteFaghani being almost the anti-Ghorbal. Very happy to let small contacts flow today
ReplyDeleteNot sure it's a clear penalty. Definitely not a corner
ReplyDeleteMinimal contact but obviously impeded Mbappé
DeleteCourageuse no PK
ReplyDeleteThats an unacceptable error. PK
ReplyDeleteFull-Sequence: https://streamable.com/olm7kj
DeleteClear pk missed
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this
ReplyDeleteOFR penalty for FRA
ReplyDeleteNo penalty 100 % agree I even didn't like this OFR for what
DeleteWell it wasn't a corner. Wouldn't you think it would be very controversial--> possible penalty, corner -> goalkick without "reviewing" the penalty situation?
DeleteClear contact
ReplyDeleteevery contact is not a foul
DeleteBig decision by Alireza!!! For me, well done!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteThis one decision is very important but I think there is a lot of important context from the refereeing within the Australian League.
DeleteIn Australia, they no longer give a penalty if a defender goes to ground and the attacker initiates contact from the defender behind them. This is why the penalty was not given, but I would have thought there would have been directive from FIFA as opposed to from Australia.
I don’t like the OFR explaining decisions. Again in Australia, they wait for the camera to come to them and face the camera and then explain. None of the referees have done it. I have seen him explain things better
Everyone saying that the referee is arrogant, but this is Alireza. In fact I feel he has toned down his usual demeanor
^ good explanation
DeleteHe says attacker iniates contact.
ReplyDeleteOk.
Then where is YC for that ?!?!
Oh no... fahgani's tournament can be over
ReplyDeleteVery courageous décision 100% with him
ReplyDeleteAttack initiated contact? What a joke!
ReplyDeleteWell. A very poorly managed on field announcement. Saying that attacker initiated the contact which is true, however the challenge also impeded him
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame.
ReplyDeleteCorrect decision! It would of helped him if he gave the goal kick in the first place. Bravo 👏 brave referee.
ReplyDeleteVery poor body language by Faghani after the OFR
ReplyDeleteClear penalty for France—unbelievable decision; it could cost him the tournament.
DeleteArrogance personified. Bye bye mr faghani, terrible decision
ReplyDeleteThis decision either will make this the last game of the tournament for him, either will sent him directly in a further KO stage game - right now I lean for the former.
ReplyDeleteFor me I think it's an incredibly brave rejection from Faghani. Stating that the attacker initiated the contact is an incredibly brave decision and for me this is one that will split opinion.
ReplyDeleteFor me the error lies with VAR Alshehri on this one. It's not a clear and obvious error IMO and to send the referee over wasn't wise for me.
DeleteI agree
DeleteDisagree. In my opinion it is a stonewall penalty because Mané tripped Mbappe with his knee.
DeleteNo penalty was very correct decision the defender played the ball first IMO
ReplyDeleteHere go the trolls anouncing his tournament is over. Lets get real guys!
ReplyDeleteYou're truly hilarious.
DeleteIt's clear that the contact was caused by a reckless challenge from the defending player.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that you shouldn't have fallen in that contact is an interpretation that an attacking player would absolutely not agree with.
Fantastic decision by Faghani
ReplyDeleteFaghani 👍🏻
ReplyDeleteI really like Faghani, but all chances of judging the final were lost there. Unfortunately
ReplyDeleteI like this decision, finally a small contact does not lead to automatic penalty.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
DeleteI was not convinced that it was a penalty either.... Also, do the commentators/announcers not hear the officials when they give the on-field announcement? They always seem so confused about what's happening.
ReplyDeleteI think the justification for the no call is the thing everyone is confused over
DeleteNo, I'm saying that even when he clearly said no penalty, they were like oh he's given the penalty and like 10 seconds later they were like no he's not given it... Then saying that he simply stuck with his initial decision (a corner) when he changed it to a goalkick
DeleteThe referee pointed for a goal kick too early which meant the crowd made noise thinking it was a penalty...
Delete2018 - the best ref at WC, and Faghani should be a final ref, not be due a sponsorship reasons
ReplyDelete2022 - inexplicable error by his VAR after correct decision on the pitch, and Faghani went to home after group stage
2026 - maybe Faghani remember 2022 and now he didn;t listen a advices from VAR
A 2nd chance at the world cup final that he has thrown away
ReplyDeleteNo penalty and no corner, very good calls in the end by Faghani.
ReplyDeleteVery big decision from faghani. I think it was a reckless challenge and mane didin’t touch the ball but also the contact ha made by mbappe. Clear referee decision ı am happy he sticked with his iniyial opinon
ReplyDeleteI don't understand, we judge contact at real-time speed, and the defender clearly imbalance the attacker here
ReplyDeleteCareful, you'll be called a troll for not defending every decision to 110%. You should say something like "Bravo Faghani, very brave!"
DeleteThe images were not the best but it looked very clear tripping from Mane's knee
DeleteMQ, comments like this is why you are called a "troll" not for merely disagreeing.
DeleteIt's not clear to me why people are already saying there's no final for Alireza Faghani and that his tournament is over. In my opinion, this was an excellent decision! Mbappe had already started going down, and even if there was slight contact, it wasn't enough for a penalty. A great and courageous decision by Alireza. Well done!
ReplyDeleteHEAR HEAR
DeleteFaghani just shed a tear.
ReplyDeleteWith france media protests his final chances close to zero now. But he is collinas love child so he still has a chance.
ReplyDeleteAnd what do expect from the French media lol
DeleteWell comments here say that this was very tough decision. Obviously everyone of us saw deferently. Therefore we can’t say that this is 100% PK.
ReplyDeleteApparently what we should say therefore is that it's 100% no PK.
DeleteFor me, you can’t argue that Mbappé « initiated the contact ». So more penalty than nothing but we can back up to Faghani and his braveness to decide like that.
ReplyDeleteBlatant penalty. Nothing else. Never created by the attacker.
ReplyDeleteYes. Look at Mane's knee, there is the tripping
DeleteTroll
DeleteMQ, grow up. Use some sense an knowledge.
DeleteDarren Cann on BBC 'my phone has blown up with messages from several of the worlds best referees who can't understand why a penalty wasn't given'
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Faghani's explanation that the attacker initiated the contact as he got a touch on the ball and simply going forward. Penalty should have been given for me, the defender gets in the way of the attacker and fouls him.
ReplyDeleteFormer Bundesliga referee Ittrich in German TV: clear penalty
ReplyDeleteFormer Swiss Super League and FIFA referee Sascha Amhof said the same on Swiss TV.
DeleteEriksson as well, seemed shocked that it wasn't called.
DeleteWith all the respect we are speaking about two referees who together do not have 20 international matches...
DeleteYet, Swedish referee is something else and that's one statement that carries weight
DeleteI don‘t want to discuss about the weight of the statements solely because of the resumee (of course Eriksson was a better referee than the other two). It just shows a big picture of the publicy towards this situation.
DeleteThis play gives me an opportunity to comment on something I've noticed not only in this game, and that's that the replays are almost always the same. I don't know if a different angle would have helped in making a better decision. I understand that starting with the next round, cameras from the opposite angle to the penalty area are added.
ReplyDeleteI can‘t really stand the argument „the attacker initiated the contact“. If you watch the slowmotion, you always have the impression that the attacker bent the leg/foot a bit into the defender. But you must assess the situations in real speed and what did we see? A clearly high-risk tackle by the defender at a high speed, he doesn‘t get the ball but hits the attacker, so therefore that‘s a clear PK to me.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteCompletely agree. I can't imagine what they're finding out. The defending players are making such reckless challenges, yet it's as if they're demanding 1000% purity from the attacking players.
DeleteClear penalty IMO
DeleteI think the OFR has driven this incident to the top if the VAR had stayed silent, the dust would have settled quickly but now here we are. Either way no penalty was good in my eyes even at first sight live
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteI don't have penalty (do to no contact from the tackle) however, announcement attacker initiated contact is the reason for no pen....???? . Thoughts on trying to rationalize the announcement?
ReplyDeleteLook Mane's right knee
DeleteBlatant contact on the foot
DeleteTheir feet were next to each other and touching. So there was contact.
DeleteTheir knees must have touched afterwards as well.
I don't think the penalty was deserved, it was the right decision. However, we have to agree on one thing: it was a very difficult and courageous decision by the referee, one that could either give him a lot or take everything away.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Delete+1
DeleteI am on your side . I thought while reckless, he did not make contact with the player I.e hardly any contact. The attacking player might not have intended to , but he did initiate contact and in any case the overt simulation doesn't help. Courageous and in my view, right call
DeleteThe defender didn t touch the ball and the first contact is promoved by the defender in the right foot of Mbappe. More than this, whats happening with the VAR. What kind of clear and obvious mistake he thought on the play.
ReplyDeleteTwo return tickets are already prepared to this two referees
Without the new rule of correcting incorrect corner kicks, would VAR have intervened? Very likely that the VAR thought it was wrong to not give a penalty, but I think it would be very hard to sell VAR intervening to give a goalkick without touching on the penalty situation.
ReplyDeleteToo scared after AFCON?
ReplyDeleteEven if he had whistled for the penalty live, it wouldn't have been a mistake and VAR wouldn't have intervened.
ReplyDeleteI normally like decisions that refuse to give a penalty if a contacted is produced but initiated by the attacker. But that was not the case here. It‘s a careless tackle that makes the attacker fall, not an attacker who initiated a contact in order to get a penalty. Clear foul for me too.
ReplyDelete+1
Delete+1
Delete+1
Delete+1
DeleteAs a lot of you mention that they didn‘t find the VAR invention appropriate (however I don‘t agree with that as I stated above), I can maybe find an explanation for that. Faghani gave initially a CK so he thought that the defender played the ball. However, that was not the case, so maybe the VAR assessed it as a serious missed incident as Faghani didn‘t realize the ball hasn‘t been played and therefore the VAR decided that the referee has to look at the situation.
ReplyDeleteIt‘s just a possible explanation.
DeleteGood one 👍🏻
DeleteBasically what I was saying. But does it even have to be a "serious missed incident" with the new rules?
DeleteIf the VAR had applied the new rules strictly, the CK would simply be reversed without an OFR. So the VAR had the impression that a PK has been missed. I hope I‘ve understood you right.
DeleteVery good advantage
ReplyDeleteThere are penalties that football could do without - say fouls on the edge of the box with attacker facing away from the goal - this one is not in that category.
ReplyDeleteIs the tackle a desperate last ditch effort that completely misses the ball? Yes. Is there contact? Yes. Does said contact impede the attacker? Yes.
Well done to VAR, not so well from Faghani.
Hardly any contact - ' recklessness ' in itself doesn't automatically means penalty.
Delete+1
Delete+1
Delete@Sarish Hardly any contact is needed at that speed. And the contact is only light because Mbappe doesn't want to risk a serious injury by tanking the full hit. If he does, no one in the entire galaxy disputes a penalty.
DeleteAgain, the "defender" misses the ball and catches the attacker with a desperate lunge. You need to do a lot of brain gymnastics to twist this into a good decision.
On that note, let's also add that Faghani gets the initial call wrong and makes a disastrous announcement. All in all a terrible sequence for him.
You can clearly see your position isn't a unanimous decision and is split down the middle so to say mental gymnastics is needed is stretching it. He thought the defendant played the ball but that wasn't true so awarding the corner was the wrong call. But he got the ' much bigger ' call re: penalty right .
DeleteAs for the announcement, that much I'd defer to the more experienced referees here. We need to stop rewarding Tom Daley - saying the attacked ' initiated the contact ' isn't good word choice but the decision was spot on. Barely any contact - can't get into mbappe's mind to make subjective evaluations so the only thing available to be adjudicated is whether or not the contact was sufficient to impede the player and here the contact was extremely minimal - unless the position is any contact immediately warrants a penalty - which is not the position of law. I think especially in Europe where I'm more familiar with - there's been a trend of giving penalties for any and all contact . Good to see a referee take a brave common sense position.
+1 MQ agree with your summary
DeleteGentelmans,good evening. After all what I saw my conclude is next: Good performance by Faghani,with obvious lack in way of fitness through the game. One wrongly called offensive foul at begginig of the game. About penalty, GOOD NO CALL live, and after VAR, but I really dont know where is objecitve contact between offensive and defender there,so Its not clear for me where he saw initial contact from France players. At the end, Faghani starts his journey solid.
ReplyDelete+1
Delete+1
DeleteHe awarded a corner so it definitely wasn't a good call live...
DeleteI meant only about penalty/no penalty situation. About goal kick/corner, you right :)
DeleteFor me Alshehri as VAR should take no more games as main VAR. After 1 or 2 poor non interventions in his first game he produces at best a debatable intervention which placed a lot of pressure on the referee to make a brave call which credit to Faghani he did. (The discussion on whether or not it's a penalty has been exhausted on all accounts.)
ReplyDeleteNot great from the official and frankly he would be best served in the support role.
+1 a agree well said
DeleteThat's not a penalty? Im turning in my license tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteWith the allowance of VAR overrule on a wrong corner they had to show it to red
ReplyDeleteMy guess is VAR did think it was a penalty
I cannot see how attacker "initiated" contact
If the argument was player already heading to ground then maybe
However, if same happened tomorrow and Eng were denied a penalty, I'd be livid
Ref*
ReplyDeleteAlright, after watching the second match officiated by Abdullah Al-Shahri, I can only say that he is a poor referee and that he caused chaos in the first match with his intervention in the penalty decision and the red-card incident. Today, he once again intervened very poorly in the penalty situation, a decision in which I agree with referee Alireza, because I did not see any contact at all.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, the Australian referee delivered a generally good performance overall.
Regarding the potential penalty. VAR was correct in seeing that the defender hadn't touched the ball, and therefore called the referee to review the contact between the players. If the referee hadn't awarded a corner, there wouldn't have been review, and there wouldn't have been so much fuss.
ReplyDeleteI posted above, but might have been missed. Important context for decision.
ReplyDeleteThis one decision is very important but I think there is a lot of important context from the refereeing within the Australian League.
————————————-
In Australia, they no longer give a penalty if a defender goes to ground and the attacker initiates contact from the defender behind them. This is why the penalty was not given, but I would have thought there would have been directive from FIFA as opposed to from Australia.
I don’t like the OFR explaining decisions. Again in Australia, they wait for the camera to come to them and face the camera and then explain. None of the referees have done it. I have seen him explain things better
Everyone saying that the referee is arrogant, but this is Alireza. In fact I feel he has toned down his usual demeanor
The thing about announcements is they should be for the fans inside to understand. Looking at a camera, I don't know, I've never liked it, much prefer how Fifa/everywhere except Oz does it. But I feel this is not initiating, rather accepting contact. I think people are overcomplicating what is simply expected to be a penalty
DeleteI agree with you, the main reason they have introduced it because the amount of times attackers look to initiate contact and therefore looked to eliminate players diving or embellishing contact for a foul.
DeleteBrave call for Faghani to bring the Australian interpretation to FIFA WC, where I would have thought this is not common place around the world.
For me pen. Clearly the defender has gone to ground, made no contact with the ball and the attacker has had to take evasive action to avoid injury/tackle.
I very much agree with DB, the initiating the contact argument seems to (really) overcomplicate a rather simple situation.
DeleteDefender decides to slide, misses the ball, touches attacker - at speed - with the thigh to the foot. Attacker does nothing to initiate a contact. For me a simple (and clear) penalty, hence correct intervention and incorrect final outcome.
And having watched Dutch, English, Belgian and German broadcasts: without exception the opinion is penalty. So, at least in Europe, the initiating the contact argument seems (too) far fetched.
We all have our favourite referees and I enjoy the AFC rep and his style.
ReplyDeleteVery high bar for fouls and he likes to let the game flow. Fitness wasn’t so much an issue for me (although at 48 we won’t move as fast as he used to). Missed a clear YC for reckless challenge, but not surprised as 1) lack of YC shown at this World Cup tells me this is a FIFA directive + 2) His high bar for fouls.
Issues: Advantage call when should have called a DFK twice plus the controversy. FIFA don’t like controversy and when more people are talking about the penalty, not the game, this will count against him. Also, his usual VAR Evan’s, was sat out after his controversy didn’t help his case.
Ali Reza’s second game will be key for his later participation in the tournament.