Matchday 3: Review

A small review of matches in the final matchday of group stage action at the twenty-third FIFA World Cup. 

A match-by-match review of games forty-nine to seventy-two.

Match 49: Switzerland vs. Canada (Abatti)

Grade: 

Match 50: Bosnia-Herzegovina vs. Qatar (Valenzuela)

In a do-or-die match which ultimately played out as roughly normal difficulty, Jesus Valenzuela showed, for the second time in this World Cup, a good and perhaps quietly strong piece of refereeing. The official from Venezuela's keys for success in this match were: 1) good reading of what the players were trying to achieve with their actions and, consequently, very good management of (Qatar) players by getting 'on their side', and, 2) knowing when the time came to brandish the match's opening yellow card having managed some borderline incidents before. Really good impression from Valenzuela here!

Grade: 7

Match 51: Scotland vs. Brazil (Ramos)

The key incident in this match was the intervention by Mexican video match official Guillermo Pacheco to disallow a twenty-second minute goal for Brazil, on account of a foul having occurred in the APP.

From a technical perspective, the decision to rule Vinicius' challenge as a foul on Hendry is, in my opinion, clearly correct. Without the ball in playing distance, the Brazil attacker deliberately puts his left foot in front of Hendry's right, so that Hendry cannot kick the ball away (which he otherwise would have done). If Vinicius had then gained control in the very same motion with his left foot, it would not have been a foul. However, Vinicius only brings the ball under control in his next pace.

In pre-VAR times, Vinicius' subtle move would have just been seen as very clever play, without it really being realistic for a referee to have detected it. No Scotland player appeals for a foul. Indeed, I don't believe many people expected the goal to be chalked off, even after having seen the replay. So, it surely is fair to ask: was a VAR intervention actually needed here? Certainly, it felt diametrically opposed to a non-intervention which happened in one of the games played on the next day!

The overall manner in which Cesar Ramos handled the game was good, or at least decent. In a more challenging game, an uncertain start could have cost the Mexican official (missed off-the-ball foul 13sec, unsure how to solve a late challenge 1m27s). The warnings and preventative approach by Ramos, as in Iran-N.Zealand (but perhaps not the same extent), have been very good in this tournament and worthy of praise. His card choices were good. At 77:02, Danilo commits what I would consider to be a fairly routine yellow card challenge (deliberate foul in a SPA scenario) - however I think that FIFA will be satisfied with the way that Ramos, who had previously cautioned Danilo in the match, solved this incident.

Grade: 6

Match 52: Morocco vs. Haiti (Makkelie)

Grade: 

Match 53: South Africa vs. Korea Republic (Tello)

Grade: 

Match 54: Czech Republic vs. Mexico (Falcon)

This was not the most convincing performance by Yael Falcon Perez, in my opinion - it never really felt like he had the match under his grasp. He missed a foul very shortly after kickoff (10sec), solved a small conflict chaotically (3m48s) and then nearly lost control of the match after a deliberate (reckless?) foul by Guillermo Martinez at 4:51. Falcon motioned clearly like he was about to blow up and stop the game on account of the injury being head-related, but he then changed his mind and ordered play to continue - if Sulc had not reacted quickly to kick the ball out of play, but instead been dispossessed by an opportunistic Mexico player to start an attack, this incident would have been a disaster. 

It seemed like he struggled in terms of positioning and producing viewing angles, and his foul recognition was (consequently?) not that convincing or predictable. Alvarez should have been cautioned after consecutive deliberate fouls at 51:40 and 52:12, but I wouldn't criticise Falcon too much for that - indeed, the Mexico defender was rightly booked in a clear situation later on.

Overall, this was clearly an okay performance, but I wouldn't go further than that.

Grade: 6

Match 55: Curacao vs. Ivory Coast (Nyberg)

Grade:

Match 56: Ecuador vs. Germany (Penso)

As I wrote yesterday (here), the decision to allow the game's opening goal was not a mistake in my view. However, this does seem an acutely minority opinion, which I doubt that FIFA will share. 

The overall manner in which Tori Penso handled the game was not especially convincing, but until the last ten minutes, I didn't think it was that bad. It seems like the referee's head went down a bit after the incident where Ecuador protested wildly after an incorrect foul call denied them a promising attack at 11:30 - ordinarily, the actions by no19 are an extremely clear and mandatory yellow card (admittedly, 'the FIFA philosophy' and the incident at 2' change that status a bit). Penso did make some very good decisions in this match: the yellow card at 49:30 for DtR was well-seen (though even mandatory for FIFA, I suspect!), and the opening caution of the match at 42:16 was textbook refereeing. The last ten minutes of the match was not good, and Penso was no longer in control of events in this period, missing clear fouls and not taking any action against the excessive protests of both benches. 

Overall, even if you accept the call to rule Germany's goal as legal, the resonance for this performance is not good. It seems, genuinely, like FIFA did not read Penso's handling of South Africa against Czech Republic correctly. The finger of blame for this match should be pointed in the direction of the appointment makers, who must have known that the level of difficulty in Ecuador-Germany was likely to be quite high. All the same, Tori Penso's performance in this match should be rejected.

Grade: 5


Match 57: Tunisia vs. Netherlands (Garcia)

Grade:


Match 58: Japan vs. Sweden (Barton)

In a match which looked very different to Ivan Barton's first in this World Cup, his performance was less convincing - indeed, it was at the borderline to being less than 'good'. He struggled to find a clear line in fouls, particularly regarding impeding-type and upper body challenges, and his line in disciplinary sanctions was not optimal. The attempted warning at 03:22 didn't really work, and in principle (ignoring 'the FIFA philosophy') the foul at 09:08 was a pretty mandatory booking. The mistake that the Salvadorian made in this incident according to the FIFA philosophy was to try and 'underplay' it by only giving a light toot on the whistle, rather than indicating 'this is very, very close to my threshold'.

Barton quite shrewdly chose to caution a clear, but in reality mostly careless, kick by Japan at 76:05 in order to balance the cards from the yellow given to Sweden in the first half (it would have been better to choose 59:06, however). I'm not really convinced that the yellow at 84:00 was consistent with the disciplinary line in this match, but the decision itself was acceptable. Overall, considering that foul recognition errors were kept to a relative minimum, I would classify this as a good piece of refereeing.

Grade: 7


Match 59: Paraguay vs Australia (Turpin)

In older (and still in grassroots) refereeing, the mantra was 'you have to adapt to the way that the referee is refereeing the game'. Nowadays, at the top level, the reverse is true: 'the referee should try to adapt their refereeing to the way the teams are playing' (and this is good advice at all levels, of course!). This match was interesting because to a significant degree, the opposite was true - Paraguay and Australia had to adapt a little bit to the way that Clement Turpin chose to referee this game, in accordance with his usual and well-known style. After having displayed a 'laissez-faire' attitude in the first 20min or so, the excellent warning and reaction against small protests issued by the French referee at 18:00, more-or-less secured the game for him. His use of sanctions in the second half was good. I really liked the incident where play was restarted quickly at 48:06 after a penalty area incident. The play on call at 48:24 I liked less. 

Overall, Turpin refereed well in both of his group stage matches, which had a diverse nature.

Grade: 7

Match 60: Turkey vs. United States (Ghorbal)

Grade: 

Match 61: Norway vs. France (Oliver)

Grade:


Match 62: Senegal vs. Iraq (Taylor)

The key decision for this match was, clearly, the early red card given to Iraq for DOGSO; it is understandable that the referee gave too much prevalence to the defender on the far side, but this situation was pretty clear and should have been solved correctly on the field of play. That incident aside, Anthony Taylor handled this match in a decent manner, awarding yellow cards when needed.

Grade: 6


Match 63: Uruguay vs. Spain (Elfath)

Ismail Elfath had charge of one of the most difficult and complex matches of the group stage, the hard-fought and often hot-tempered decider between Uruguay and Spain. I would not come to as harsh a conclusion as many have, especially given the two biggest incidents were decided on perfectly by the American referee (defensive freekick and no penalty at 89:45; red card for SFP at +93:58), but it is clear that this game did not go particularly well from the refereeing perspective. 

What should Elfath have done differently?

- It seems that, in missing a few fouls and small things (eg: 9:23, 13:56), the players of both teams did not find much solace in Elfath's refereeing early on. As such, they decided to 'test' him a bit more. The atmosphere on the pitch began to change when players started to exaggerated incidents which they knew and knew that their opponents knew there wasn't anything in them. The first example of this happening is 17:28. It is incumbent on the referee to recognise when this starts to happen, because it erodes his authority over the game a little bit on each occasion. This happened numerous times over the 90'. 

- It does appear that Elfath did 'feel' that something had changed around the 18' mark. I have seen written elsewhere "it was excellent refereeing that the referee pulled out Canobbio, the problem was that he didn't follow through on it". I disagree quite forcefully with that. It was good that Elfath tried to do something but this choice was, in my opinion, a very poor one (talking about one of the most highly-rated referees in the world and a clear candidate for the WC final). A brilliant local assessor once gave me a piece of advice 'subtle things require subtle warnings; obvious things require obvious warnings'. It was very good that Elfath detected the underhand nature of Canobbio's behaviour and identified him as a problem player (also prevalent in the two previous matches!) but the manner in which the American referee tried to curb it could be used as a perfect example of bad practice in a seminar environment. 

Firstly, the timing of this admonishment was not good. Had Elfath done so at 18:12, ie when the ball next went out after the small barge that Canobbio gave at 17:59, it would have had more weight. Instead, he chose to warn the Uruguay player at 19:14, ie after he had made a combative but absolutely fair and completely legal challenge to concede a corner at 18:52. In my book, this underlines the idea that the warning was panicky in origin, and merely pleading in nature.

Verbal warnings serve two functions: 1) to try and correct the behaviour of its recipient, and, 2) to try and modify the behaviour and expectations of the other twenty-one players and coaches etc, on the field of play. Many warnings are excessively orientated towards the second, and not the first. This was a rare case of the opposite! On the second front, Elfath was already made to look a bit stupid no less than fifty-five seconds after the warning had finished. After Cucurella had (successfully) tried to bodycheck Canobbio off-the-ball, for which offence Uruguay should have received an indirect freekick, Canobbio responded by barging Cucurella to the floor. The referee did not even award a freekick in this incident. So, less than one minute after his warning, the players and coaches watched Canobbio commit a pretty clear unsporting behaviour with absolutely no riposte from the official. I think this set expectations rather clearly.

However, from my point of view, that Elfath expected this warning to work on even the first front is much more damning. Some referees, by the nature of their presence on the field of play, immediately commanded respect and authority - Mario van der Ende in the 1990s, Howard Webb in the 2010s and from more recent times Daniele Orsato, are perfect examples. I do not think it is a revelatory observation to say that Ismail Elfath is not such a referee. Nor is it to say that having such a presence is not obligatory in order to be a top referee; Cuneyt Cakir more-or-less dumbfounded other top officials in the 2010s by how, due to an extremely skillful manner/facial expressions (besides an outstanding understanding of football), he was able to arouse huge respect from players during his matches.

I do not think it is an unfair observation to say that, if one wants to put a pejorative spin on it, sometimes Ismail Elfath comes across as a slightly 'buffoonish' leadership figure on the field of play. Did he really believe that, coming in cognisant of all these factors, that would really be able to alter the behaviour of Canobbio by warning him in this manner? If he genuinely did, I would find that pretty condemnatory for making a judgement about his ability as a referee. If we assume that he didn't, then was Elfath really planning to actually book Canobbio after his next 'slightly late charge'? After a formal public warning, the only places above formal public warning on the stepped approach are the yellow (and red) pieces of plastic.

- Elfath actually made a number of very good play on calls in this match, but the way in which he (didn't) sell them contributed to the rising tension. On multiple occasions, players fell to the ground when no foul had been committed, but Elfath just carried on running and made no gestures whatsoever. Especially with a match heating up, you really must in those situations be able to 'say' with your manner and gestures 'I know you think it is a foul, and I know it looks like a foul; but it actually isn't a foul!'. By not indicating the difference between these kinds of play ons, and 'normal' play ons, the players got the impression that the referee wasn't really aware of the dynamic in the match. A good example of this happening occurs at 38:30. 

- In terms of cards, it was acceptable to finish the first half without booking anyone. A logical opening caution, besides to Canobbio for following through on the aforementioned warning at 20:26, could have been to Baena at 31:04 for a deliberate foul in a (surely) SPA scenario, but that would have perhaps felt a little unfair going to Spain, and would probably have violated 'the FIFA philosophy' in any case. Canobbio himself should then have been cautioned, according to shrewd refereeing but not completely mandatorily, at +46:34. I think Elfath's reaction and gesture to a Spain player after this challenge was not ideal.

- The second half in terms of disciplinary measures started in an incongruous way to the first. Immediately, Elfath cautioned Baena on the grounds of SPA holding at 45:52. The decision is okay from an assessing perspective, but it wasn't really needed, because Canobbio would be running into Cucurella anyway. It wasn't the strongest opening yellow by any means, especially given the first 45'. Perhaps the weakest element of the call is that it seems that Elfath awarded the card due to successful pressure on him by Canobbio - this seems, I would say, a fair measure of how successful the first half warning was.

- Tension at the start of the second half was very high. Elfath contributed to that by giving no reaction at all to a late barge by De la Cruz on Yamal (49:21). Had he immediately issued a yellow card there, it would have made a not dubious, but instead excellent departure from the first half and shown that the referee was determined to secure control. The referee from the United States let that moment pass. Then, he inexplicably did not sanction Canobbio after advantage (51:39); on all conceivable tactical and technical levels, this was a really poor call. Taking into account 'the FIFA philosophy', I would be extremely surprised if (the match's VAR, Tatiana) Guzman wasn't feeding Elfath with "check for SFP complete". If Elfath took this information to only give Canobbio a(nother) final warning, then the American referee's actions with that player were not only ill-judged, but craven.

- The foul by Sanabria on Yamal (53:15) was a crude and ugly one. Elfath realised the severity of it, and reacted at probably the maximum possible to referees in the current era - a yellow card and a very firm reaction. While in the 2000s, I think this could have been shown to referees as an example of 'a red card, because hitting point is not the only relevant factor in determining SFP', those days are now long passed. Had the US referee expelled Sanabria, I think it would have been viewed as 'the referee overreacting in order to keep control of the game', probably also by FIFA too. In this isolated incident, the ref did well.

- The (extent of the) delayed whistle at 55:01 was not good refereeing, but the yellow shown to newly-arrived subtitute Varela at 57:31 certainly was, Elfath delivering the sanction in a firm manner. Had the referee continued with this no-nonsense line by booking Bentancur at 58:45, I think that match control may have been salvageable, but the American treated that late charge as if it was a normal foul; this restored the line as prior to this period and meant that the Varela yellow counted for little. The game continued along the lines already indicated into stoppage time.

- The key decision for this match, and also a very key decision for the whole group standings, was to award a defensive freekick in the 89:54 incident and not a penalty. This was an excellently read incident. With all of the stress and pressure that the American referee faced in this match, it is to his credit that he had clear enough mind to assess a tricky and crucial incident correctly. Clearly, the manner in which he dealt with the dissenting behaviour was less than excellent, but consistent with the way that he had handled the match. 

- I would have liked to see a red card for De la Cruz's challenge at +92:18, but as I understand it, the force was not quite high enough to deem it 'tackle as an attack' under the present considerations. The way that Elfath tried to, using his physicality, prevent further escalations in this incident did not work. A logical consequence of this 94' minutes of refereeing was Canobbio's crazed lunge at +93:58, for which he was correctly and immediately sent off by the referee. The behaviour of the Uruguay players in this incident does not do them much credit, to understate it significantly.

- I want to make one more observation, which is not strictly technical. The match director, Gonzalo Mengotti, departed from the mostly Stalinist line of footage choices in this tournament, by showing Ismail Elfath more-or-less running away from Canobbio after the final whistle, heading towards the touchline. Now, I do not want to state anything over the line here, and would like to reiterate - any referee, especially in grassroots football, who feels that their physical safety is in danger should 'get the f--- out of there' as soon as possible, giving no consideration whatsoever to control of the game, authority etcetera.

However, this incident is rather interesting (firstly, the laws do not permit Canobbio to enter the field of play or its surrounding area, of course). Does Elfath's actions here suggest he has refereed the game well, that he served the match well as referee, that he believes in the correctness of his calls and value of his refereeing to the game overall? I would suggest that it is rather the opposite. This is not meant even as a criticism of per se, but surely gives a view into Elfath's own appraisal of his refereeing in this game.

So, what judgement should made about this performance?

In surely the most difficult game of the World Cup, Ismail Elfath's performance was clearly not the worst. He solved the two biggest incidents of the match, in additional time at the end of the second half, perfectly. However, the American referee showed very significant deficiencies in managing the game (I didn't mention about movement and generating visual angles in the technical resume, either), and if he did maintain a modicum of control from 1'-90', it was a feat he maintained barely. I wonder, sincerely, if the pressure of the 'occasion' got to him - with a very strong performance, Elfath would probably have made himself a frontrunner to referee the final itself. Clearly, the match ultimately took a rather different path.

I think Elfath should (and surely, will) continue in the tournament. However, I think that FIFA themselves know that the credibility of appointing the American referee to the final itself has been shot up, and many of the events in this game are actually irretrievable on that front. We will see what happens next.

Grade: 5


Match 64: Cape Verde vs. Saudi Arabia (Letexier)

Grade:


Match 65: Egypt vs. Iran (Marciniak)

Szymon Marciniak used his experience, intuition and profile quite masterfully in this game, to realise a good and assured performance, despite his form still visibly not being at the top. The number of missed fouls in this game was not-insignificant (64:31 is one good example), but the overall impression from the Polish referee was still really strong. He balanced sanctions really well, and read the awarded penalty (08:31) perfectly, even though I suspect he didn't see the incident absolutely clearly. The actions of the VAR to disallow an Iran goal in second half additional time were clearly correct. This was not at the masterclass level that Marciniak showed in his three World Cup matches in 2022, but unlike Argentina-Algeria, this performance was definitely befitting of his status as the world's leading football referee at the present time.

Grade: 7


Match 66: New Zealand vs. Belgium (Makhadmeh)

Grade:


Match 67: Panama vs. England (Al-Jassim)

This was a good performance by the Qatari referee in a normal-difficulty match, with the key calls (not to award a penalty at 36:52 and 74:40 and to only show a yellow card 82:58) being correct. I do not believe that this match offered any refutation of the deficiencies present in Al-Jassim's refereeing of Portugal-DRC, so personally, I would be very reticent of awarding him a third appointment, in the knockout stage.

Grade: 7


Match 68: Croatia vs. Ghana (Fischer)

Grade:


Match 69: Colombia vs. Portugal (Faghani)

If one accepts his decision not to award a penalty in France-Senegal, then Alireza Faghani's refereeing in World Cup 2026 has been first class. Clearly, he received a much kinder appointment in matchday three than Elfath did! His style, not excellent in positioning and movement but extremely astute in not awarding freekicks when players try to trick the referee into awarding one, has worked really well in his first two games. The incident that stood out to me from this match was Faghani, seemingly, about to award a penalty to Colombia (73:34) for an incident very similar to Pinheiro's discussed call from yesterday before then changing his mind and ordering play on. The final ruling was the correct one - Mendes had got his position across first and the ball was in playing distance to his action. Overall, good performance by Faghani.

Grade: 7


Match 70: DR Congo vs. Uzbekistan (Zwayer)

Grade:


Match 71: Algeria vs. Austria (Tantashev)

Despite the match being extremely dramatic (and maybe controversial), the amount of work for Ilgiz Tantashev as referee was not heavy. He immediately and quite rightly cautioned Arnautovic early in the match (10:04) for striking an opponent in a reckless manner; I think this fell short of being worthy of a red card. So, this was a second passing match for the Uzbek official in this World Cup, and an evening in Kansas that he will surely never forget!

Grade: 7


Match 72: Jordan vs. Argentina (Kovacs)

Grade: