Spanish debut at this WC with Antonio Mateu in charge of home-team Qatar's second game against Senegal.
QATAR - SENEGAL
Referee: Antonio Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrian Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Diaz Perez del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Kevin Ortega (PER)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Jesus Sanchez (PER)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro Hernandez Hernandez (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Ricardo de Burgos (ESP)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Juan Pablo Belatti (ARG)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martinez Munuera (ESP)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Bruno Boschilia (BRA)
Now on the scene goes the biggest entertqiner there is... 😀
ReplyDeleteWish him all good...
Better than arguing about irrelevant marks from newspapers ;D...
ReplyDeleteHere are our reports from yesterday's games:
SUICMR (Tello) -
http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2022/11/game-13-facundo-tello-in-switzerland-vs.html?showComment=1669291986400#c4106745196384971333
URUKOR (Turpin) -
http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2022/11/game-14-clement-turpin-in-uruguay-vs.html?showComment=1669335638772#c3482019279965670735
PORGHA (Elfath) -
http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2022/11/game-15-ismail-elfath-in-portugal-vs.html?showComment=1669369828770#c1536647533412018430
BRASRB (Faghani) -
http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2022/11/game-16-alireza-faghani-in-brazil-vs.html?showComment=1669326913424#c567310834585345532
First remark must be done before the game: which version of Mateu Lahoz we are about to watch? The classic one, even trying to control VAR (you understand what I mean...) or a different one, after maybe some advices by Collina? We will see. Nevertheless, it is possible, as it very often happens, that this aspect wont be any importance in the game, if normal without extra-ordinary situations.
ReplyDeleteI expect a game in which African side will be favorite team, but Qatar will try everything after having lost first game. Also important to see how Mateu will treat Qatar's way of playing.
14'
ReplyDeleteMaybe missed yc?
Clear yc missed 14´
ReplyDeleteNow two YC's bit harsh but correct.
ReplyDeleteNow there needs to be question asked:what is criterium,where is line for whistling just foul and for giving bookings,cause we saw what happened 1-2 hours earlier???
34'classic Lahoz situation, let's see how he deales with that
ReplyDeleteAnd no penalty,really classic Lahoz 😀
DeleteSupportable imo
To me looks like more penalty than no penalty. Can VAR intervene to this?
DeleteClear penalty missed....
ReplyDeleteAt least supportable. Attacker goas down quite easily and contact is not intense. But a PK call would of course also have been supported.
ReplyDeleteWe all know the Lahoz stlye, but honestly that was a simple charging from behind and easily given freekick anywhere on the field. I can understand the VAR reaction to be silent, but that should have been a penalty.
ReplyDeleteThat is a 100% a penalty.
ReplyDeleteYou 100% no penalty
DeleteClearly barges into the Afif, yes Afif was looking for contact by sticking his leg out into the defender's path but that doesn't give him a right to barge him in the back. 100% penalty
DeleteReally shocked this didn't go to OFR in the 34th minute, it's a blatant penalty for the charge in the back.
ReplyDeleteNo penalty for me. Way too soft and obvious thar striker wants to fall.
ReplyDeleteBut after that incident that s last natch for Lahoz :))
'35': If the CR7 situation yesterday was a penalty, than this situation is a penalty, a red card for the defender including a ten games ban ...
ReplyDelete#sarcasmoff
Good call. No penalty. Quater player was very clumsy.
ReplyDeleteEXCELLENT decision by Mateu IMHO! Just like in the Belgium - Canada game the attacker holds / moves sidewise in order to have the defender walk in on him and win the penalty.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteI dont think it is like in Canada game,but there we have attacker who purposely hits on the brakes looking to draw the penalty.
DeleteSo imo supportable.
Tell me just one thing: is this foul in the middle of the field? The attacker is faster, better positioned, he can move his legs and body to have better position for the shot! Defender has to avoid this contact, he is slower and comes from the back. And this is not the similar with Canada case because Witsel stood on foot of Canadian player and that was even more penalty. What if he broke his ankle??? Nothing? Really???
DeleteAgreed, it’s probably not exactly similar, let’s say comparable. An attacker making an action to win a penalty
DeleteHe is allowed to move sideways to shield the ball. That doesn't mean the defender can unfairly charge straight through his back.
DeleteYes, he is definitely allowed to move sideways and shield the ball (though I don’t think that was his purpose, but we can never know), so I don’t advocate for a free kick for the defender. But by making that sudden sidewise movement the defender is without a chance to avoid the collision, and that’s why I think it’s fair to not punish the defender.
DeleteI can't stand with the statement 'if it is foul in the midle of the field, then it is foul inside the penalty area'.
DeleteNo, it's not, and will never be. Refereeing is not running on the pitch with Laws of the game in your hands.
Of course that PK must be 'heavier' than foul in the midle of the pitch.
How many PK would we have in every match if referee sticks to your criteria? 10-15?
No one want easy penalties...
And I'm not talking about Lahoz situation per se, I'm speaking generaly about your statement.
No hard feelings, cheers.
I don't understand the counterargument here. How is it soft? The defender runs straight through the attacker's back. If this was not a referee as popular as Lahoz I think the response here would be far less supportive of the call.
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteAnd now the same player who was in that penaltyincudent,obviously frustrated that his team is losing,goes into small talk with Mateu about that situation.
ReplyDeleteIf we compare this situation with the penalty whistled on Ronaldo last night, which one is more penalty??? I am really not interested in Lahoz style or Escobar style - do we know what is penalty or not??? And if we add two clearly missed PK for Canada and the one on Ronaldo it means that the penalty gets the name and dive with style. We already don't know what is PK when there is handball, and now we don't know what is foul for PK.
ReplyDeleteVery good question!
DeleteObviously, Escobar does not whistle in Lahoz' league of quality, but Lahoz, which I usually like so much in refereeing a game, made a mistake here.
Yesterday was clear compensation.
DeleteWhy?
Mistake leading to Ronaldo's disallowed goal,no penalty given after kicking Felix,no RC given after headbutting Felix and eventually he had to compensate with something.
Second one (Lahoz) is more penalty. But no VAR intervention whatever the decision is. It's not clear and obvious IMO
DeleteWell, I can say that the referees on this WC are solid, but there are some inconsistencies if we discuss what is penalty and what is not.
ReplyDeleteAgree!
Delete34' - 0% penalty - not at the world championship and also not at a game of 12 year olds in the youth league. Simply no penalty. Lahoz as a top european referee laughs himself to death about something like that.
ReplyDeleteComments like this reveal a clear bias some people have towards their favorite referees lol
DeleteIf you had seen the situation taken from the camera behind the goal - si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!
DeleteQuod erat demonstrandum. I personally don't even like Lahoz way of refeereing. But this is simply not a penalty. The player stops his run to get the kick from behind. I say this from the point of view of a referee instructor.
DeleteI must say for me it is 100% penalty. Lahoz style is absolutely fascinating and deals perfectly well with this situation, but it doesn't explain the play on decision. Clear charge in the back, foul everyday. People here sometimes make things more complicated than they really are : this is a foul.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with both opinions on whether it is a penalty or not, but the most important point is whether it is the correct interpretation of LotG that the act is not penalized even if it is a foul, depending on 'how to receive the foul'.
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand this point.
If the 'receive of the foul' by the player who received the foul is not appropriate, from that moment on, the discussion of 'whether or not the foul was really committed' ceases to exist.
DeleteThis is always very strange to me
It s clearly to see that the forward moves his right leg to the right in order to get into contact with the defender. So im still fine with no penalty. The contact is initiated by the forward in order to get the penalty.
ReplyDeleteThe contact isn't with the leg though, if it was I'd be in full agreement but the contact is the push in the back which has nothing to do with the attacker moving his right leg
DeleteMy view on this situation (probably minority view):
ReplyDeleteThere are two things I see in this situation:
1) an attacker slowing down almost to a halt, feeling the incoming defender behind
2) the same attacker sticking his leg to the right, into the path of the defender, and moving his body sideways in order to get tackled down or barged into by the defender
These are the reasons why I strongly prefer play on in this situation. Also, I have to say I fully understand the comparison with the situation from BEL - CAN and maybe I was too harsh and/or hasty commenting about that situation on Wednesday, although it still feels different than the situation from this match (apologies to Mr. Sikazwe).
If I saw correctly, these were the same reasons Lahoz explained to the Qatari attacker in that lecture of his (including some practical tips and guidelines, if I may say so). A lecture which continued inside the tunnel at the beginning of the 2H, judging by the replays.
Clear second YC missed!
ReplyDeleteNow wrong corner given to Qatar. 73'
Delete89' missed corner for Senegal. Lahoz under his standard level.
DeletePotential penalty 1HT link: https://streamable.com/2lr1x8
ReplyDeleteHow this is not a PK in 2022 at the WC? With VAR?
DeleteShould have been given.
DeleteSome people had the reason that the attacker is moving in front of of the defender directly and he is deliberately slow down. Of course he got slower as he was about to shoot on target and his movement was in direction to goal. 100% clear penalty for charging from behind.
And this should never be compared to the BEL-CAN situation, where the potential foul occured on foot (and there actually not understandable the movement of attacker and I liked that it was not given) , and here it's just charging/pushing from behind.
JPA-CRC Oliver
ReplyDeleteBEL-MAR Ramos
CRO-CAN Matonte
ESP-GER Makkelie
When it comes to spotting deflections and working out whether a corner or goal kick, it has not been Lahoz's day. At least four I think he's guessed wrong now
ReplyDeleteTrue. And one of his wrong calls lead to Senegal's second goals ...
DeleteThough in this situation AR2 is in question, too.
Truely not Lahoz' day today ...
IMO, good performance by Mateu but with minor points for improvement regarding GK/CK detection.
ReplyDeleteHe will be retired soon, if he hasn't learned up to now, no reason for improvement 😉
DeleteThere is always a reason for improvement... and regarding his retirement, do not give it for granted yet. He has said it multiple times: he wants to continue while he is allowed to.
DeleteNot impressed by that performance from Lahoz, far cry from his excellent perfomance in the 2019 CL final. Couple of yellow cards missed, many instances of corner kicks not awarded, and I'm still adamant that Qatar should have had a PK in the 1H for a blatant barge from the defender. Room for improvement
ReplyDelete2021 CL final that should say
DeleteOT:
ReplyDeleteI must say that Qatar as a team has been so underwhelming at the tournament. That even if Byron Moreno, Gamal Al-Ghandour, Ali Tomusange, and Michael Ragoonath were assigned to all their group stage matches. They probably still would not advance. Lol
*Guys it's only a joke and a bit of sarcasm. Please don't take it too seriously.
**For our younger crowd Google 2002 World Cup Italy - South Korea and 2002 World Cup Spain - South Korea.
My short opinion about the crucial call in 34': a penalty that you can give, I think mostly expected by people, but not a 100% clear one and VAR support should be correct, I think. We saw definitely more blatant penalties in past than this. Still, the attitude of Mateu Lahoz to play on if not 100% clear action by defender on attacker without any contrary proof. We will see what Collina thinks about that (against home-team), by reading next appointment.
ReplyDeleteThe "against home-team" criteria might weigh heavily against the Spaniard. It also doesn't help that there is a very influential Qatari on the Referee Committee. Time will tell.
DeleteKMI is penalty - no penalty. CLEAR NO penalty. Attacker moves (away from ball) laterally into defender's path. This is not a natural movement and we can't expect defenders to suddenly change their run to avoid making contact with the attacker.
ReplyDeleteComparison to the Ronaldo incident is laughable as the two are extremely dissimilar. Ronaldo - defender initiated WEAK contact.
Comparison to CAD-BEL is wise as two are extremely similar. In both cases, the ATTACKER initiated the contact by moving laterally into the path of the opponent.
Analysis
ReplyDeleteKey match incidents:
34’ - Penalty area incident: charging. 11QAT runs for the ball and 18SEN follows him. The former slows down his run, strangely changes his running path to his right and theatrically falls down. Excellent play-on call by Mateu Lahoz who brilliantly read the behaviour of the Qatari player. Masterclass!
48’ - Senegal double their lead after a wrong corner kick decision by AR2 Roberto Díaz. Difficult to spot the last touch indeed and we have a scenario when a simple wrong call leads to a game changing incident. (For those interested, such a mistake is not treated like a key match incident by referee observers, just -0.2 in UEFA scale).
54’ - Possible second yellow card. After being rightly cautioned for off-the-ball SPA-impeding by illegal (rather reckless) use of arm two minutes earlier, 14SEN commits another foul by carelessly impeding 17QAT. Whether it’s an SPA offence or not stays subjective and both no card decision and 2YC should be supported. But the way in which Mateu Lahoz managed mobbing by 10QAT and showed the “man, think!” gesture towards 14SEN was another level!
Overview:
DeleteWe love (or hate) Antonio Mateu for his unique style of handling the games. In this game he was no different. Management of 18SEN questioning a goalkick call (04’), place of FK (22’), 11QAT at the no-penalty call (34’), again 11QAT questioning a throw-in direction and most likely still being frustrated by the no-penalty call (43’), 10QAT and 14SEN at the possible 2YC incident (54’, see above) were paramount examples of his exceptional managerial skills. Cosmic level in this regard!
Three clearly (after watch slo-mo replays :P) wrong restart decisions:
26’ - missed corner kick to Qatar (Ref)
48’ - wrong corner kick leading to Senegal’s second goal (AR2)
89’ - missed corner kick to Senegal (Ref)
… two doubtful ones and not repeated the initial kick-off for too early encroachment by Qatari players (he improved at 85’ in this aspect though) tarnished his performance a little bit, unfortunately.
Disciplinary control was shaky:
13’ - possible YC 3QAT for studs-up challenge, well-played advantage
14’ - possible YC 3SEN for accidental SPA tripping
20’ - correct YC 17QAT for reckless tackle from behind
25’ - missed SPA-like holding by 10QAT, 4OF should have helped
30’ - soft YC 9SEN after late challenge
33’ - no reaction against blatant preventing a quick FK execution by kicking the ball away by 16QAT
45+2’ - correct YC 14QAT after reckless late challenge
52’ - correct YC 14SEN for SPA impeding by reckless use of arm
54’ - possible 2YC 14SEN for SPA impeding (see KMI section)
87’ - correct YC 11SEN for reckless SPA tackle but it all started from a missed careless-reckless tackle by 9QAT (possible help from 4OF and AR1)
90+1’ - very good advantage and correct YC 23QAT for reckless trailing leg tackle
All in all, still good, expected level performance but I’m curious if another appointment will follow given that Qataris could feel hard done by the (excellent!) no-penalty call and wrong corner kick leading to second Senegal’s goal and we all know how FIFA works for years now.
Marks:
Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz - 7
Pau Cebrián Devís - 7
Roberto Díaz Pérez del Palomar - 6
Alejandro José Hernández Hernández - IV