Round of 16: Review

A small review of matches in the second knockout round at the twenty-third FIFA World Cup. 

A match-by-match review of games eighty-nine to ninety-six.

Match 89: Canada vs. Morocco (Oliver)

This match happened in three stages:

1) Michael Oliver began by refereeing what was a passionate tie a bit too passively. He didn't identify, or at least show that he had identified, the two problem players on the Canada team - number 17 (2:35 deliberate impeding foul; 9:35 deliberate/provocative pushing foul; 10:15 lunging foul tackle) and number 22 (6:40 crafty off-the-ball push not seen; 14:10 off-the-ball blocking; 15:25 careless step on foot). This lost Oliver some ground in what was an extremely challenging start to the match. The opening yellow card of the game was an excellent decision, deliberate late reckless stamp by Morocco no25 (19:15). Oliver either should have then: continued to clamp down by booking Morocco no24 for reckless play (22:35), or taken the opportunity to issue a balancing card after a tactical foul by Canada no15 (36:25).

2) This handling of the first 38min, and not immediately seeing the very unsporting push by Morocco no2 (38:18), led to the confrontation incident. Much to Oliver's credit, he did not surrender to anarchy in this match, and insisted on cautioning one player each circa the confrontation. After that, the English referee correctly read the nature of the game, and strictly issued cards in this period to stay in control of the match. As I said on the day, the referee's actions at 47:20 should be avoided - even if it would be remiss to say that excessive use of physical contact by officials has been something of a feature in this World Cup.

3) Suddenly after Morocco scored early in the second half, the tension significantly dissipated from the match and the level of difficulty dropped to something like 'quite challenging'. Oliver's performance in this period was good and assured. 

Taking into account all of these factors (the level of difficulty, that the referee changed his approach to ensure match control), this was a good performance by Michael Oliver in a unique sort of match.

Grade: 7


Match 90: Paraguay vs. France (Tantashev)

It can be easy, as I would dare suggest many of the blog's comments have underlined, to fall into hyperbole when considering some of the things that have happened during this tournament. On reflection however, I would maintain an extremely and deeply critical view of the manner in which Ilgiz Tantashev handled this game. Indeed, I would quite confidently declare this to have been the worst World Cup performance of all time (give or take Croatia-Australia '06) since 'modern refereeing' began in the mid-1980s. 

Tantashev continually refused to handle this game in a proper manner, and the Uzbek official lost all control of proceedings, allowing the game to descend into chaos. A review:

1) France won the match one-nothing, and the penalty from which they scored the only goal was correctly awarded: attacking player no20 won a careless trip from defending player no8. Penalty incidents where the attacking player is running away from goal are always quite difficult to detect. The intervention of the VAR, Juan Lara of Chile, was correct.

2) The overall manner in which Ilgiz Tantashev handled this match was an unmitigated disaster and completely unacceptable. A brief story of the match is thus: Paraguay began the match by leaving small, late trifling contacts on France players. Tantashev failed his first test of the game when France no6 was cynically blocked by Paraguay no3 (6:50); he didn't spot it. A comparable off-the-ball incident at 12:38 was solved with gestures to indicate 'stop playacting' when it seems France no11 was taken out. The opening yellow card of the match was, actually, a good one - France no12 deliberately kicked Paraguay no4's instep heavily; the non-censure of the Paraguay bench, whose behaviour was unacceptable, was not good. The match then went through a period of relative calm, but was set on fire by a comically cynical foul on the France gk (33:30) in attempt to stop a counterattack. Tantashev only rushed to prevent the goalkeeper from starting a conflict, and didn't deal with the offender. This led to the big confrontation at 33:56, where unlike Oliver in the day's previous game, surrendered to anarchy and didn't sanction any players. The 'looney tunes' element of this match was ascertained when Paraguay no23 wasn't booked for blatantly taking out France no10 at 37:56. Halftime. The non-spotting of France no10's handball at 50:45 and nature of the corner restart was another moment that did not paint match control in the best light. The play on at 62:55 was actually correct, it was a dive by the France player. Aforementioned penalty incident, 0-1. The non-censure of Paraguay's behaviour before the penalty execution was not good. The decision not to issue a first card of the match to Paraguay at 71:54 is a terrible tactical (and technical) mistake; the decision to solve the incident by encouraging the fouled France player up is unbelievable. A concurrent missed incident leads to a further confrontation when the water break is called. Paraguay no4 commits an act of aggressive behaviour against France no10 (76:25) and is not sanctioned; in yesteryear, this would have been grounds for violent conduct. The throw-in restart at 79:25 is handled very poorly. France no6 is correctly booked for reckless tackle (80:45). A reckless late charge by Paraguay no23 is solved as a normal foul (86:40). A further borderline foul by Paraguay no23, this time a sliding tackle, is given as a freekick only (+90:50). A clear off-the-ball foul by Paraguay no23, in aid of an attack, is completely missed by the referees (+94:00). France no11 is acceptably cautioned for delaying the restart/aggressive behaviour (+96:00), but the 'taste' of the decision is very sour. There is a contretemps, involving Paraguay no23, before a corner for his team is taken (+97:30). Paraguay no4 is acceptably not booked for SPA and only an attacking freekick is given (+98:25). Control of the game, in the sense that a confrontation is clearly coming, is not existent in the game's final minute. Additional time is not enlarged at all; fulltime. There is unrest after the match and Paraguay staff member Carlos Gonzalez is issued a yellow card for dissenting behaviour toward the referees (he was also booked in the match vs. Turkey).

Tantashev's tactical approach was, at best, naive in the extreme and his performance was a dereliction of one key duty for the match referee - to ensure the safety of the players. His handling of this match should be rejected in the strongest possible terms. The whole Tantashev 'story' during this World Cup cycle paints the whole FIFA refereeing operation in a terrible image; it gives the impression that the people in charge simply don't care. What happened in this game can hardly be considered a surprise.

Grade: 1


Match 91: Brazil vs. Norway (Elfath)

Big calls: Ismail Elfath awarded two penalties in this match, and both decisions were justified. The play on before the first half penalty is correct - the Norway player is trying to shield the ball, and his opponent skillfully manages to kick the ball away from his grasp. The reason that Elfath decides to award a goalkick on-field is because he misreads (understandably!) the attacking move of Brazil. When Brazil no22 gains possession, Elfath anticipates him taking the ball on the defender's inside and making an attempt on goal, so he adjusts his positioning to move into the diagonal channel. Instead, Brazil no22 sees the space on the far side, and plays a through pass to no9; this pass leaves Elfath with a very poor viewing angle into the tackle. He perceives that no9 deliberately takes a touch in order to win a foul from the sliding defender, but the referee does not detect that no9 is fouled. The touch on the ball is not sufficient to negate the foul tackle, in my opinion. The VAR, Tatiana Guzman, handled all three elements in this play optimally. The second half penalty is okay. The nuance of the incident is that Brazil no5 deliberately jumps under Norway no4, but there is a careless striking offence, so the call is clearly not wrong, and is acceptable.

Managing the game: The manner in which the American referee handled the game was mostly good. Any hiccups (such as the restart allowed at +50:20) were pretty minor and Elfath had good control of the game until the final stages, when things began to fray a little. 

Overall, this was a solid performance.

Grade: 6


Match 92: Mexico vs. England (Faghani)

Big calls: Both the penalty and red card awarded to England were correct without much question. In the SFP incident, you can see Faghani look out to Jayed (the fourth official) for help, but they ultimately decided to play on - given that the (correct) final decision was red card, this isn't ideal. The penalty to Mexico is, in my view, also clearly correct but the circumstances of it highlight the difficulty that FIFA face in trying to find consistency in judging penalty area incidents: the attacker, quite clearly, has no intention to really do anything with the ball and is only trying to 'win' a decision, but unlike in other incidents, a VAR (in FIFA competitions) has no real choice but to intervene and award a penalty. One might say that FIFA's campaign against 'soft' penalties is antithetical to VAR itself. Unlike for the red card, the referee shouldn't be censured for not detecting this offence live.

Managing the game: Alireza Faghani showed not only to be a great referee in this match, but also a 'Great Man of Refereeing' - if one spoke of Tantashev's performance in the opposite terms, then this was one of the best and most deeply impressive overall performances in the last forty years of World Cup football. The base mark for Faghani's refereeing in the UEFA system would be in the region of 8,8-9,0. I think one can compare to the famous match between Atletico Madrid and Barcelona with Howard Webb; certainly, Faghani's keys to success were the same as the English referee on that night in Madrid: a) arousing respect and trust from players despite the match being extremely challenging, and, b) amazing feeling for what the players were trying to achieve with their actions, and being ready to immediately and sometimes furiously issue warnings against threats to his authority over the game. For the second time in this tournament, I was (positively) astonished by the level of refereeing in a match; after Netherlands-Morocco, it seems those two referees will 'fight' for the final appointment. It is a pity that two OFRs were required in this match; it remains to be seen whether that will be a disqualifying factor moving forward.

Grade: 7


Match 93: Portugal vs. Spain (Taylor)

Anthony Taylor used his style of policing borderline incidents carefully to realise a good performance in this Euro-heavyweight match. He correctly produced the game's opening yellow card, at 88:05, when the nature of the match changed. Overall, this was a strong showing by the English referee.

Grade: 7

Match 94: United States vs. Belgium (Makhadmeh)

The same can be said of Adham Makhadmeh, who refereed well in this normal-difficulty (but surely rather high-pressure) tie. The two first half warnings for borderline fouls helped secure the game, and his leadership of the game was impressive. There were a small handful of mistakes in the goings-on of the game, in which the decision to award the United States the freekick from which they scored was probably among them (but it was more 'soft' than a completely bogus call). In general, the Jordanian official proved an excellent choice for this match, which he handled in a convincing manner.

Grade: 7


Match 95: Argentina vs. Egypt (Letexier)

Francois Letexier's performance was one of the most controversial in the tournament, but from my perspective, the rulings in the game's four big incidents were okay. The penalty awarded to Argentina could have featured well thematically in the article 'Expect the unexpected (decision)?' - personally, I would have considered 'play on' as a brilliant decision, but the most easily explicable and expected call was to penalise the contact that happened. 

The decision to rule out an Egypt goal in the second half was among the most-discussed incidents of this World Cup, to such extent that FIFA released a widely-quoted article in Pierluigi Collina's name on the topic. The explanations offered reminded me of those which UEFA used to defend a penalty call (which was actually 100% correct!) made by Hugh Dallas at Euro 2000 - I don't think it is too difficult to read that FIFA would, probably, have preferred Jerome Brisard (the VAR) to validate the goal. The interpretation of what constituted the attacking phase of play was consistent with the intervention in DR Congo vs. Uzbekistan and, in principle, not a problem. Personally, I would have deemed the incident to have been no foul - not only was the nature of the contact quite trifling, one must consider how an incident comes about; the Argentina player unexpectedly put his leg across, and the Egypt player was just running normally (he didn't make a challenge). For me that is just bad luck, not a foul. However, we should also remember that 'step on foot' has been a point of focus and training for referees in the last ten years; according to current instructions, one certainly cannot say that the final decision is wrong.

In my view, Jerome Brisard made the same kind of mistake that Tiago Martins made in the Austria-Bosnia qualifier last year: one has to take into account, on a sliding scale, both the nature/severity of the potential offence, and the extent to which it is actually in the APP. If the foul is a crystal clear offence, then you should stretch the consideration of what the APP is to the absolute maximum possible, and vice versa. The end result is an intervention and final decision that is not wrong, but surely belongs to a category that is a darker shade of grey. A foul is a foul; until it isn't! The second play on at +92' is correct without any argument. The potential holding incident is more interesting - the replays shown are (characteristically) quite poor, but it seems as though the actual tugging is quite light and the Egypt player falls of his own accord. It seems like the incident is perhaps borderline, but that both Brisard and Letexier solved it (more) correctly.

However, I do not believe this to have been a good performance by Francois Letexier overall. The game was very challenging, but the French official allowed too much to go and lost his grip on the match. The threshold for a yellow card was set too high, and one can pinpoint the moment where it was lost disciplinarily: after a not-easy start (borderline to SPA by Arg3 at 6:10; small mobbing by Arg at 12:40; borderline to reckless stamp by Egy2 at 17:30 and then the penalty call), Letexier erred in not immediately booking Argentina no2 for a cynical off-the-block at 20:10. This opening card would given the French referee the perfect platform to underline his authority in this match, but he instead cautioned an Egyptian staff member for protesting against the non-sanction. The players' behaviour began to continually slide after that moment, and the referee in choosing a bare-minimum card line, found himself unable to act against it: mobbing/dissenting behaviour (29:30, 32:25, 43:35); deliberate and crafty fouling (36:45, +46:55, 47:20) and later in the game, player-player conflicts (84:35, +96:55, +100:30). 

In very challenging games, small details can be enough to cost you! The scene at 54:50 is the most indicative of this match, in my opinion: with the official watching right over him, Egypt no11 commits a really blatant DtR, which is a clear challenge to the authority of the referee. Rather than issuing him a clear warning, which was a tactical must, the Frenchman instead pretended that it hadn't happened and didn't take any action. While he used quiet words with players and even managers very shrewdly to help him over the course of the match, decisions like the phantom corner awarded at 30:50 and the non-caution for shirt removal in the disallowed goal contributed to feeling that not everything was well in this game. 

Combining both the OFR (whether you considered Brisard to have been justified or not) and manner in which the game was handled (lower 6-level), I would unfortunately take a critical view of the refereeing in this match.

Grade: 5


Match 96: Colombia vs. Switzerland (Barton)

There were four noteworthy penalty appeals in this match, handled by Ivan Barton. The first two (49', 88') were not much and correctly waved away by the referee. The latter two are more interesting (90', 93'), and would have been supportable foul calls - the arguments against awarding them are that in the first incident, the Switzerland player runs into/towards the defender rather than following the ball, and in the second incident, that the heavy nature of the touch by the Colombia player means that the ball is no longer under his spell, and what follows is 'normal football contact'. In terms of managing the game, I thought that Barton handled it well, according to his usual style - the opening yellow card (49:45) was an important call for the match, but it seems per the referee's gestures, that it was a hint from a (Dallas-based?) teammate. Overall, this was a good performance in my view.

Grade: 7

All marks are compiled according to this system. 

This post is intended as a general overview, and not a deeply exhaustive analysis of every single incident!