After the health issues experienced during 2021 AFCON, the referee from Zambia is back in big tournaments and he is about to officiate Belgium - Canada at 2022 FIFA World Cup. Wishing him a good game!
Game 12 - Ar-Rayyan (20:00 CET)
BELGIUM - CANADAReferee: Janny Sikazwe (ZAM)
Assistant Referee 1: Jerson Emiliano Dos Santos (ANG)
Assistant Referee 2: Arsénio Marengula (MOZ)
Fourth Official: Yoshimi Yamashita (JPN)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Neuza Back (BRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Juan Soto (VEN)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Nicolas Gallo (COL)
Offside Video Assistant Referee: Mokrane Gourari (ALG)
Support Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Standby Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Abdelhak Etchiali (ALG)
OFR for handball for CAN 7"
ReplyDeleteClear ...
DeleteCorrect PK + YC(BEL11) for handball (shot on goal) after OFR. Hand in unnatural position, away from body. But PK saved...
DeleteGood intervention and good decision, well done
ReplyDeleteTorally wrong offside call and possible penalty for Canada again,very bad decision from linesman.
ReplyDeleteI think it is responsiblity for R and not AR. Player is in an offside position, R should communicate it is from BEL player. Maybe AR put flag up to soon, so no choice for R to decide offside?
DeleteWrong offside desicion by AR against CAN.
ReplyDeleteBall played by BEL10 13". Chance
Looks like that
DeleteI can not believe what I see...maybe lack of concentration by the AR
ReplyDeleteReferee must give him information who touched the ball or correct AR's decision.
DeleteYes, I assume his view was blocked. Otherwise, I can not find the reason. Very big mistake IMO
DeleteAlso AR must delay a flag.
Delete...and then some people keep asking why the ARs put down the flag when the player is in a obvious offside position.
This is why
First crucial mistake of the tournament?
ReplyDeleteEveryone talking about wrong offside call but what after clear penalty for Canada after that?!
ReplyDeleteNo OFR?
Stamp,to me very clear.
DeleteLikewise - why no OFR?
DeleteHe clearly makes contact with the ball first before standing on Canada players foot?
DeleteSo many times we saw var intervention no matter if the player plays the ball first...
DeleteIt seems that game had been already stopped.
Delete@matt
The ball is not an excuse, that's a foul.
Absolutely wrong AR's decision, but I'd not only blame him, but the referee as well... As an AR you're watching the position of the 2nd defender and the attacking player... To me, the referee is responsible for determining the passing player, especially if communication system is in place...
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteCan VAR not intervene here if there is a foul in the PA before the whistle goes? Seems like the Canadian player was fouled.
ReplyDeleteVAR must intervene in the situations like this.
DeleteNo official explanation after this decision by VAR to support, hopefully they didn't miss that it was a backpass by Belgium!
ReplyDeleteIndeed I think it was because game had been already stopped. So no possible to give penalty. The WC seems already over for Sikazwe.
Delete13" : BEL5 plays the ball just before contact with foot. So no PK for me. Offside decision is of course wrong.
DeleteReferee hasn't whistled yet when possible penalty occurs. So VAR decided that was not enough to invite the referee for OFR
DeleteAs Mr. W said, the ball was played by the defender. Enough for me to not intervene as VAR.
Delete@David
DeleteSorry, what?
10' Correct OFR and penalty + YC
ReplyDelete13' Clear penalty but big mistake by the AR for the offside call. VAR had to overturn this decision
https://streamja.com/B3ye2 How is it a clear penalty? The defender gets the ball?
Deletelooks like BBC is much better than FOX ... no replay here.
DeleteI agree, don't understand calls for PK?
DeleteWith this review, it could be supported as no PK, so OFR was not mandatory. This could save Sikazwe, but AR2 should wait more.
DeleteFor me it is a clear step on foot even if he had touched the ball just before
Delete3 fouls on Hazard already - 25 mins played
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely ridiculous decision to not spot that it was the Belgium player who played it back. Compounded by the fact that it looked like a clear penalty ensued. Massive mistake and one which will probably cost Sikazwe his place in the remainder of the tournament
ReplyDeleteMistake by VAR too when not telling him to watch it. It was a small touch on the ball and then clear studs on the shoe. It was a penalty.
DeleteToo much whistling and now has players complaining.
ReplyDeleteNow again VAR check...
ReplyDeleteThey backed him.
DeleteI mean... Stonewall penalty, if we take into account FIFA's guideline, but this could have been an UEFA-like PK as well...
DeleteMinute 38 absolutely penalty. Clear stamp on the left foot.
ReplyDeleteVery poor performance by Sikazwe, definitely the worst so far. Now it looked like he wanted to whistle penalty but he hesitated and played on, putting in trouble VAR. Not easy to decide whether to intervene or not, after this game WC over for him...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agreed, however, if we take into account the FIFA's line for foul recognition, this is simply a PK worthy of an OFR...
DeleteChefren I disagree with you about this being the worst performance so far. That's quite harsh. Sikazwe is in real control of the game and spot on with his foul detections. You didn't say this yesterday with Chris Beath. He gave himself sometime to make a decision which is normal. And I think it is ridiculous to just say world cup is over for him after this game.
DeleteChefren that's rather harsh. You didn't say world cup over for Vincic and Beath. I wonder why you are repeatedly saying that with the Zambian ref.
DeleteAbsolutely no idea why intervention in 38', just ridiculous......clear no pk
ReplyDeleteI agree with no PK, but don't think there was intervention just a check. (Did take kinda long)
DeleteI agree with no PK, but don't think there was intervention just a check. (Did take kinda long)
DeleteYeah agree, I was about to say "check" rather than "intervention"
DeleteThat's a clear penalty for me. Stands on his foot. No idea why VAR hasn't stepped in. What a shocking 45 minutes for the officials.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteWell, I'd say Sikazwe is doing a pretty poor job so far. No authority, hesistant in his decision-making, a bad moment of off-side/penalty. He didn't start so badly, making contact with players, warning them, being preventive, but after VAR intervened for the handball, it seems he lost it.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Belgium scores...
ReplyDeleteWhat a night it will be for Sikazwe...
And Collina is shoen on big screen,Sikazwe has shown himself tonight no doubt.
DeleteToo many small/big mistakes by Sikazwe. Sorry to say but I do not think he is ready for the WC. Anyway, wish him best of luck in the 2nd half and hope to see improvement
ReplyDeleteCollina did not seem to be impressed… I wonder what he said to himself 😂
ReplyDeleteWe need the "Italian lip readers" who made themselves famous in the 2006 final lol
DeleteWill work on that.
DeleteCollina was talking with himself... I think
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a clip of that 😂?
DeleteAnd he blows for half time a good twenty seconds before the minimum of 5 is up. Shocking first half.
ReplyDeleteThat's such a cheap lie. He blew at 4.57
DeleteBut the comments are definitely not influenced by who is refereeing. Please!
DeleteCan Collina take over for the 2nd half? 😂
ReplyDeleteNow Croatian commentator is saying that he expects Sikazwe and Soot to go home in this break
ReplyDeleteFully agree! I wrote that already!
DeleteCollina Video here : https://streamable.com/aexnks
ReplyDeletePlay on at 38' is correct (IMO) for the same reason that Mateu's play on in ENGSCO at last EURO was - putting the leg across deliberately where the defender is going to tread to generate a contact/penalty. Soto was correct there (and with prior OFR), but 13' is much more debatable. The defender does play the ball, but I don't think he gets enough of a touch on it to say that it is out of the attacker's 'possession', and then the contact after that cannot be denied... overall, I doubt the great man was happy :/.
ReplyDeleteDisagree about situation in 38'. Absolutely not even close with situation in Barcelona.
DeleteSorry Mikael but comparing situations from EURO with situations from World Cup id wrong. Different instructions, different line of VAR intervention.
Delete@Mikael +1 on both 13’ as well as 38’
DeleteThis incident in 38' was not 100%, it is 1000% penalty! Clear stamp on the left foot, both Sikazwe and his AR2 had to see that in live! VAR - whole team from VAR room has to go home in the halftime if it is possible!
ReplyDeleteThe situation from 13' and mistake when offside was signaled and the ball came from Belgian player - DISASTER! Sikazwe must see that, so clear situation. And again it was CLEAR PENALTY! I have possibility to playback video on my cable tv and it was so so obvious. Incredible that FIVE VAR refs missed that, just incredible.
A handful of performances so far have been a little disappointing (Beath, Vincic, and Sampaio IMO), but all those were still good enough, acceptable in the big picture. This one, through one half, we can already say is the first one that is just... bad. I feel bad being so harsh about it but Sikazwe looks like he's in over his head here. Disappointing to see, I was glad when FIFA stuck their necks out to appoint him, but now it looks really bad.
ReplyDeleteIMO Beath and Vincic were below-average and not good enough in the "WC standard". Sampaio was pretty oustanding and I like his style
DeleteI'd add Rapallini today to the Vinčič/Beath group. Slightly below expected performances, but still acceptable in the big picture - i.e. can be given a 2nd appointment.
DeleteThis one is the first one that screams 'the referee's going home'
(Am still salty for FIFA ditching Tessema ngl 😅)
Rapallini's is weird for me, FIFA could say "nice job" or they could reject it, I don't know.
DeleteIn a vacuum, it was a perfectly fine game: A clear and consistent disciplinary line which was *perfect* for what that particular game needed. The problem is that this line was very different from the rest of the tournament. Did the committee explicitly want something different?
@smala017, Wilton Sampaio performed really well, I can't understand your remark by any means.
DeleteI also think Beath was solid. As for Vincic, it goes without saying he underperformed. Curiously enough, a European has had the worst display thus far. Still can't believe Vincic didn't immediately stop the game after that frightful incident involving Saudi Arabia players. One of the most irresponsible decisions I've seen a referee take ever! In normal circumstances, impossible for him to get a second appointment, but of course he's a Ceferin's protégé, so...
@Quilava
DeleteCmon, you cannot possibly compare Rapallini with referees that had missed pks and VAR interventions. The only issue was missed 1-2 YC, the line which was actually quite typical for 2018 WC. For me no discussion, Rapallini performed very well.
Just to add, the Croatian head of the refereeing committee in his analysis for media specifically praised Rapallini`s alertness and prevention in free kicks and corners, correctly pointing out that by this he prevented potential problems that his colleagues have had in the tournament. And he said that the referee was on higher level than the game itself, the statement which I agree with.
Referee expert for German TV ist Bibiana Steinhaus. For her the first incident in 13‘ is not a penalty as the defender slightly plays the ball first. All other experts (German football players) disagree. For her, it should have been a penalty for Canada in 38‘ as the ball was not played at all and the defender tripped the attacker. In her view, VAR should have intervened. The other experts agreed.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's the opposite :)
Delete38' incident
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/x3htxw
IMO correct from VAR to not intervene. Attacker clearly moves his leg on the left into defenders path
Sorry but cant agree. Stepping on part of foot was the reason for this player to fall. Nothing more than that.
DeleteYes, but the step on foot was caused by the attacker himself who, without any reason apart from trying to win the penalty, moves his foot to the left. Defender does not change path, just continues his run. Football understanding!
DeleteProblem with Sikazwe performance is not just his decision making.
ReplyDeletePoor teamwork (13,38'), indecisiveness(38') and non-following of VAR protocol (13') are something that make the whole picture bad. Unfortunately...
The question is where to even start...
ReplyDeleteI've rewatched the situation in 13' and can confirm that the whistle went off after the potential foul on CAN player (if everything is fine with my broadcaster). The foul itself is clear for me, no matter the fact the defender played the ball first, it was a clear step on foot IMO. And that offside decision... Completely unacceptable, sorry to use such strong words, but a referee and an assistant on this level mustn't make such a mistake. Regarding the lack of VAR intervention, important and crucial mistake IMO, VAR could and should have intervened for my taste.
Potential penalty for CAN in 38': missed mandatory intervention again, IMO, and I'm completely speechless as to the performance of VAR Soto. Of course, Sikazwe certainly didn't help him by appearing ready to whistle and then abandoning the thought. Clear penalty for me.
Regarding VAR intervention for the penalty in 8', another important mistake by Sikazwe for me, he should have seen that handball himself IMO.
But, what worries me the most in light of the impending 2H is the fact Sikazwe gives an impression of being completely lost in this game. Just look at his body language and especially his eyes: he probably feels something went terribly wrong in 13' and his self-confidence is completely shaken. That's just my impression, but I don't like his general performance at all. And Collina's face at the end of the 1H probably says it all.
I'm sorry for the strong words again, but the performance in the 1H has been unacceptable for me.
I couldn't agree more with the second part of your comment
DeleteHave to agree with you regarding the indecisiveness. I wonder if the same indecisiveness would exist if the minnows had fouled the giants on these occasions. Looking at the comments, roughly 50/50 split as to whether the penalties in minutes 13 and 38 ought to have been given. I have to say that he would have had less hesitation or second guessing if these had been Canadians allegedly fouling Belgians. I would bet everything that at least two would have been given, but there is no way that he would be prepared to give Canada three penalties in a half - even if they were all stonewall decisions. IMHO, this is a very real factor that adds to the challenges that fledgling World Cup nations have to deal with - no one wants to be seen as the one who wrongly caused one of the favourites to fall. However, there seems to be less (partly subconscious) concern about injustices going against the underdogs. Not saying that either (13 or 38) was a stonewall penalty, but I was not surprised in the least that Canada would not be given a second. The minnows deserved better in this one.
DeleteFIRST HALF, KEY MATCH INCIDENTS:
ReplyDelete7": correct penalty for handball, but after wrong awarded cornerkick.
13": a) Wrong IFK for offside after backpass.
b) Possible Penalty foul, for me no PK ball is played by BEL5. Others think it is PK because of studs on foot and only minimal touch on the ball.. So I think not clear and obvious?
38": VAR check for possible PK. For me to easy for PK. Comming together, CAN22 put his foot under BEL6. Understand claims for PK, but I think that would be quite harsh as there is no intention to foul or even make contact.
45": Collina talking to himself🤣
And now...
ReplyDeleteMissed handball,missed offside maybe,but rightfully given YC to Meunier,finally some good decision from Sikazwe's point of view.
I feel like he is now trying to little compensate for bad 1st half.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am wrong, but that is impression I am getting from watching first 10 minutes of 2nd half.
Now right YC to Onana.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and important because Onana plays in a very aggressive manner since entering the FoP.
DeleteSikazwe somewhat back on his track mentally IMO, HT break probably helped him.
The two subs by belgium both YC after only 10min
ReplyDeleteIMO Wrong YC to Bel #18. Hand to chest and not to face. For me a careless foul
ReplyDeleteHard to judge this, yc is acceptable for me to prevent although I also prefer no booking. I would not say this is a wrong decision
DeleteI agree
DeleteI feel like he's maybe compensating for Canada in this 2nd half.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm wrong, but that's my feeling.
How is that 2nd one a YC? First one I agree with
ReplyDeleteI think missed 2nd YC TO BEL 15. Far to late, studs planted in opponents foot.
ReplyDeleteOnana was there very CLOSE,I mean very very close to wnd YC being shown.
ReplyDelete2nd *
DeleteI have seen Sikazwe more often in African games and generally liked his approach and style, BUT when he gets in trouble he often looses any control - 1st step - and then - 2nd step - often overreacts and ends loosing any line, consistency and tries to get control by agressive cardplaying. I hope we will not even see that today... I feel sorry for him being left alone by VAR Soto, who simply refused to do his job. I hope we dont see that guy again sitting in front of the monitors!!!
ReplyDeleteCan't watch this game, but I think, as Sikazwe is definitely out and if he was planned for a game in MD3, maybe it will be Maguette N'Diaye's chance to show his qualities.
ReplyDeleteFirst Qatar Airways flight from Doha to Lusaka is Sikazwe's flight
ReplyDeleteIf Sikazwe is to be sent packing, same thing must be applied to Vincic, who's had the worst performance of the tournament thus far.
DeleteSikazwe is not close enough to Vincic,who had some decent moments and match control.
DeleteAgree.
DeleteSome people here are clearly getting their knickers in a knot over Sikazwe's first half. Vincic not bringing the game to a halt after what happened with Saudi Arabia players is the definition of "unacceptable", let alone all other mistakes.
DeleteAgree. Vincic should be boarding a plane back to Slovenia right away.
DeleteIt was embarrassing indeed. Endangering players' physical condition by not stopping play is a capital mistake. He also missed two PKs (needed VAR check to whistle one of them).
Correct YC 80', brilliant call
ReplyDeleteCorrect YC 80" CAN19
ReplyDeleteOrange one for Johnston,very close to RC.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, clear ✂️ I think Red for SFP would be correct. But YC is fine aswell. So orange
DeleteScissors tackle right now, extremely borderline. One could accept VAR intervention, but still I think no clear mistake to back referee.
ReplyDeleteHonestly the comments I'm reading here in Sikazwe have been rather unfortunately harsh and exaggeratedly critical. One can only wonder if it's because of he's African or his infamous misfortune of the past. It's not even been a poor performance. Only the incident with the AR and the penalty after OFR which is hard to spot. Other than that Sikazwe has been solid. Foul detections have been spot on. Yellow cards spot on. Absolutely in control of the game. I don't het the point of these criticisms and him being unfairly targeted. I'm very disappointed
ReplyDeleteKinda inclined to agree tbh... The comments about Vincic were NOT this inflammatory or harsh.
DeleteI liked Sikazwe in WC 2018 and I remember him very well from Club World Cup final in 2016, for me there is no problem he is African. Unfortunately, this performance is not WC level. Talking about wrong offside in 13', you can't describe that as "only the incident with the AR", that's beginner mistake, unaccaptable at WC level. I am sorry, especially after solid 2nd half and because I remember his very good matches in past. Obviously, 2022 is not his year.
Delete"Solid" second half that no one acknowledged until now? Why? Because everyone was waiting for him to mess up to continue the criticism!
Delete+1. Very disgraceful. They are only hanging on to 13' . Aside from that they have absolutely nothing on Sikazwe other than blatant and shameful sentiments
DeleteYk, I just did in a comment below. And I genuinely think it was a absolutely decent performance in the 2H, which makes me happy, to be honest. Sikazwe is a good referee and I'm genuinely fond of his refereeing, however I still feel his 1H has been poor. And believe me, I would be more than happy to be able to say the opposite.
DeleteI see people here definitely getting their knickers in a knot over Sikazwe's first half. Some wrongs, yeah, but it's not the end of the world as some people are making it out to be. If Vincic gets a second game, then Sikazwe must get three.
DeleteBarry Porter, +1
Delete+2
DeleteGozie Joe I think you are well off the mark. In comparison to other referees he has been indecisive, irratic and in 2 cases, simply wrong!
ReplyDeleteOffside given in 1H is incorrect in law.
YC given for "arm/elbow", no contact with face, barely a foul.
Scissor challenge could easily have been red.
Needs to calm himself and get the basics right
+1
DeleteIncluding the scissors challenge when even you admit that it was a supportable decision in order to dog pile if--proving Gozie Joe's point.
Delete*him
DeleteWell said, also incredible to compare Sikazwe with Vincic. Vincic was indeed below-average but definitely not the worst. We see a better Sikazwe in the second half, but overall his performance is not acceptable
DeleteThe point is Vincic's performance was poor yet everyone was choosing their words carefully then--even after endangering a player!
DeleteAgree.
DeleteI think you are the one that is wide off the mark. The only mistake was the incorrect offside by the AR. All yellow cards were spot on. Foul detection was great and I wonder what you mean by getting the basics right. I thought you would call series of wrong decisions. In the end you only mentioned one which I already did. And I admire the way you turned a blind eye to his absolute control of the game and good foul detections.
Delete"Unacceptable" was what Vincic did when he didn't immediately stop the game after the horrible incident involving Saudi Arabia players. Let alone all the techical inconsistency and crucial mistakes.
Deletetechnical*
Delete@Yk, spot on!
DeletePoor display from Sikazwe and his team today. Will be very surprised if he is awarded another game. Can only imagine what Collina was muttering to himself when the camera panned to him 😂
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a better 2H, IMO. Sikazwe regained his self-confidence enough to deliver a decent 2H for my taste. Yes, scissors tackle in 83'(?), but I think it was a supportable decision to issue a YC here, although the tackle being very close to SFP.
ReplyDeleteLet me just say I feel really sorry for all the problems Sikazwe had in the 1H. I genuinely like him as a referee, also remembering his WC 2018, and I hoped for him to have a nice WC after that unfortunate situation he experienced at the last AFCON. However, his 1H today stays pretty poor for me. It's a real pity that something like this happened to him, and again in 2022.
https://youtu.be/iZtPNEAS3Tc
ReplyDeleteHere is that Collina moment :))
Very interesting analysis in German TV by the experts, trying to find reasons why the two penalties were not given. They were highlighting the amount of nationalities and languages in the team (today 8 nationalities), that they probably have never worked together (VAR crew and the crew on the pitch) and that there could have been issues with communication within the team.
ReplyDeleteIronically, the most blatant miscommunication was between referee and AR, who *have* worked together before.
DeleteI tend to go to Occam's razor: the two penalties were not given because there was no clear and obvious error justifying VAR intervention.
Of course, as a Canadian I'm arguing against interest, though ;)
I fully understand this issue, but, IIRC, all the officials should have at least basic understanding and grasp of English language. If the problems stem from a language barrier, then we, as a refereeing community, have a serious problem. Of course it's difficult to communicate in a foreign language when you are faced with pressure and are limited in time, but still... Imagine a huge container ship crew facing a heavy storm and doing all the preparations in haste, a crew composed of sailors from all over the world. They would be in serious trouble if unable to communicate effectively. And there is also experience to add, none of these officials is a newbie.
DeleteMaybe I'm too strict. Maybe my own skills in English are poor (I'll leave that to the contributors to decide). However, these issues shouldn't happen, IMO.
One fact on which I fully agree with them is the issue of working together for the first time. That is an aspect that can be crucial in tense moments. Not that it should or must, but there is a possibility.
Exactly the same was said in Italian TV, too many nationalities and language as a barrier for the officials, but honestly one can't believe that at WC. Surely CAF is paying the fact that they don't have main VARs at this tournament, but I think Collina paid attention to these details. He will be extremely disappointed.
DeleteI can add that the Italian commentator made a shocking gaffe at the beginning of this game talking about referees, he had to apologize later, at the beginning of second half.
He had said: "In this game there will be referees from many races: Zambia, Angola, Mozambico..." (instead of saying "nationality"). People were shocked against him. It is a common mistake for some people to say "race" for indicating a "nationality" but that can't be said by a so expert journalist.
Just to follow your initial subject:
DeleteOn Croatian TV, refereeing expert Mario Strahonja stated that both situation in the 1H should have been penalties for his taste. What's more, he argued in favor of mandatory VAR interventions.
Sikazwe had a great game. First half was good asides the offside mistake (not helped by his assistant). Second half was world class.
ReplyDeleteBro, you are trying to defend undefendable. He awarded PK after OFR, he didn't help his AR2 about offside mistake (referee must help his assistant with information who played the ball), with that situation we have potential PK and after all of this we have clearly missed PK in 38'
DeleteSorry but, surely last match for team Sikazwe and VAR referee Soto
He is clearly trolling,sir Gozie,you are doing excellent job in that department,keep them coming.
DeleteI mean this blog has defended FIFA's management of the women referees so... I think Gozie Joe is well within his rights to do this especially since (probably) unlike others he actually believes this! :)
DeleteLast match for Sikazwe in light of what we just saw? The I assume Vincic in a plane bound for Slovenia, right?
DeleteNow I think that we could even expect a replacement of Soto for England - USA game, not 100% impossible after today. To be honest, I can't explain some decisions taken. The problems with both penalty appeals is that all people expected penalty there, but we see interventions only for holdings... for sure Collina will have many things to say today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wanted to answer to some comments above: why I was so harsh with Sikazwe, simply because his mistakes in first half were not acceptable at this level, Vincic was poor as well but he had definitely a better appearance, this is not the case for today.
How much serious is a raised offisde on a 100% clear backpass? And then possible penalty, and VAR didn't intervene. Then, the incident later during the game. Apart from the call, and best decision was to whistle, he hesitated too much, at first glance it looked like he was waiting for VAR and that's simply what Collina doesn't want to say! I'm quite sure the performance in first half will be deemed as very poor. Then, about Beath, I didn't watch game, that's why I didn't comment live. For sure not a good display according to what I could check later thank to our report: he had to whistle penalty or foul in favor of defender, then he missed two clear cards and he was soft in several moments of the game. But again, a mistake like the offside today didn't happen.
In all cases, you shouldn't be worried because Collina, like Rosetti has the head to decide by himself and we will see, that's only my opinion!
Vincic had a better appearance really? Wow! Vincic struggled from beginning of match to the end for control and foul detections, gave a controversial pen and clearly ignored the heard injury protocol by not whistling after a dangerous challenge thereby endangering player's life, then finally, the excessive stoppage time he allowed. And you say he had a better appearance? How is that better than Sikazwe's?Unbelievable. Yet you never said world cup is over for Vincic.
DeleteHonestly, Sikazwe's only true mistake is that of calling a wrong offside and the potential penalty that followed of which without the unfortunate offside, he definitely gives the pen. The incident on 38', saying he was waiting for VAR is so deceptive. He only gave himself more thinking time which is normal with referees and that for many people wasn't a pen. Other than that his foul calls and yellow cards and management were 100% both in Ist and 2nd halves, yet you never acknowledged any of these.
I never expected this from you Chefren. I always admired the way you defended some refs especially Danny Makkelie who has made a lot of mistakes and too many OFR in important games in the recent past. I wonder why this is completely different.
Forgot to add Vincic even missed a clear penalty
DeleteLet's be clear and break free of agendas or establishment-controlled opinion - Vincic flopped through and through in ARGvsKSA. Missed 2 PKs (saved by VAR in one of those situations), put players' safety at risk, which is shocking on any level. I mean, it is what it is and FIFA have to follow a coherent line in assessing refs' performance and managing the opportunities they get. This is the World Cup, millions are watching from all continents, match officials watch the matches there in Qatar when they are not on duty. There must be coherence and decency, otherwise Collina will lose his footing among thosse he's supposed to lead in a fair and transparent way.
DeleteDavid Hatfield. The propaganda driven and clear distorted comments here are extremely shocking and bemusing. Clear bias and almost racially flavored appraisals and criticisms. I thought this would be a platform where we can be more objective and empathetic with the refs notwithstanding their countries or past. Buh with the virulence, untruths, vileness and insensitivity I saw here last night, I was completely mistaken. Worst still coming from people you would not gave expected Even worse is such coming from persons you wouldn't have expected it to come from. We definitely gotta be doing better in here.
DeleteThe only I have to say it that I hope "Ex Eng Ref" and company use the same choice words to describe the performance of the "big name" refs/the "good" refs and co--the favorites--when they perform as poorly as they are saying Sikazwe did and not resort to saying "he refereed 'slightly below expectations'" like apparently Vincic did.
ReplyDeleteI will repeat what I sad. Currently, we enjoy extremley high level of officiating at this WC,and we should be aware of that. I can not agree about Vincic becouse I see him in knock out phase. Of course, there is a mistakes, most important that they not affect on the final outcome.
ReplyDeleteWho cares about the safety of the players? The only thing is that the final outcome is not affected!
DeleteThat would be an even greater scandal than Saudi Arabia getting the best of Argentina.
DeleteThat would be an even greater "scandal" than Saudi Arabia getting the best of Argentina.
DeleteShould penalty have been repeated? Curtois had one leg in front of the line, second behind the line?
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity Ethiopian referee tessema bamlak he deserved wc 2022 not sikazwe?
ReplyDelete@Gozie and Barry: I have often defended referees from esp. Africa and Asia against post-colonialistic perception of their abilities and so many scandalous headlinds and interviews asking for "professional European only" referees and that happened so often. It was a shame to read those comments, BUT I DID NOT READ THEM HERE. I even made interviews to point out from a scientific view to make clear, that those "great profis" make only minimal less mistakes then those from AFC and CAF. Instead of asking for nominating "only the bestprofis" - whoever that might be - those guys should propose more exchange of referees between the different confederation to reach a better understanding an common interpretations of the LOTG.
ReplyDeleteBUT in this case tonight things are different. The VAR was acting far away from his duties - he CANNOT come back - and Janby Simazwe did 2 or 3 CRUCIAL mistakes in only one half and thats simply too much. So for me his performance was clearly under exoectation and he should not be given a 2nd game.
Beath and Vincic were acting under expected level, too, but with several MINOR mistakes they might be nominated again for 3rd matchday - where I, honestly, would not like to see them again, too - but there is still the difference between minor and crucial mistakes and an acceptable 2nd half by Sikazwe does not change that fact.
If you defend a comrade from Africa or Asia after a REALLY bad job, you dont prevent racist opinions, you just put poison in a discussion, which should only focus on facts and the interoretation of the rules of our beloved sport, where ANY racism should have no chance to spread!
Janny Sikazwe, sure, sry my autocorrection or my furor spoiled his name!
DeleteGreat arguments Gozie Joe. Not.
Delete@Gozie Joe, let's just see what FIFA will do. I would love to see an African referee go far, as I think it's important to have competent referees from each federation, but it shouldn't be Sikazwe. FIFA cares about 3 aspects: performance, media and also background.
DeleteAndrasch has perfectly explained why Sikazwe was the worst performance of the tournament so far, but let's assume that Beath and Vincic were equally bad. There are 2 reasons why they could be given a second game and Sikazwe won't:
Firstly, media: Sikazwe is known as the "corrupt referee who ended a game to earn some money". I'm sorry for him, but that's the way it is. FIFA gave him a chance (rightfully so), but he arguably missed 2 penalties, which is also on VAR Soto. A referee who was literally introduced as corrupt / dodgy CANNOT be given a second assignment after such a game.
Secondly, background: in 2022, Beath was the referee for the Club World Championship final, Vincic was the referee for the Europa League final and Sikazwe was rejected after 1 game at the AFCON. Obviously, even in case of equally bad performances (again, they weren't), Vincic and Beath would be more likely to get a second game based on the background they arrived with.
'Corrupt official who Ended a game early to earn some money'
DeleteYou are absolutely clueless. You should be mute if you have no idea what to say.
Can you please read my entire comment instead of one sentence which you use out of context?
DeleteI never said he is that - I said that's the perception of the media. And yes, the journalists are clueless and shouldn't write that as they have no idea what they're talking about. But guess what, they do write exactly that and since FIFA cares about media, Sikazwe couldn't afford himself any crucial mistakes.
At least in my country, he isn't introduced as 'Janny Sikazwe from Zambia, 42 years old on his second World Cup', he is introduced as 'Janny Sikazwe, the referee who ended a game early at the AFCON' - you can imagine the comments of those who don't follow refereeing closely
Vincic was also arrested for potentially being involved in a drug and prostitution ring but here we are. And this has been reported by the way.
Delete@Andrasch Neunert, did you watch Argentina-Saudi Arabia?
DeleteOther than two missed penalties (crucial mistakes) and a great deal of inconsistency in foul detection, Vincic overlooked an instance in which a Saudi player had his health at serious risk. This alone would be enough to put him on a plane back to Slovenia, where he should attend a lecture on how to protect the safety of players. Anyway, as Ceferin is still around I suspect political interference might still afford Vincic another game, which would show Collina and company in a very bad light. They've doing well so far, I really hope they're not gonna shoot themselves in the foot.
They've been doing*
Delete@jleekens, seriously? I'm not Sikazwe's lawyer, there are African officials who outperform him.
DeleteThat being said, his work tonight was not that bad. If it were an European ref protected by the establishment, it would be deemed an acceptable job.
Now let's assess Vincic from the media perception: the Slovenian ref who failed utterly in a game with strong media exposure, the guy who was once detained in a bar as a result of a police raid against pandering and drug trafficking. He's saliently climbed up through the ranks under the umbrella of a man called Ceferin, who happens to be the UEFA chief. Not a comfortable story for FIFA nor Vincic, and a very interesting one for the media.
More recently, Vincic had a quite controversial night in Lisbon in Sporting-Frankfurt in CL, with Sporting staff even considering lodging an official complaint to UEFA over biased refereeing.
I didnt watch the game, but I did see all the key incidents and I think three things can be said in Sikazwe "defense":
ReplyDelete1) both potential pk situations (not the offside, which was clearly wrong) were difficult to assess. I read above in the comments that Bibiana Steinhaus said it was a pk in 38' and not in 13'. Personally, and some experts as well, think it was more the opposite. So maybe there is an argument to support no intervention in both cases. In 13´, ball was played (touched) first, and in 38´ there was a sudden movement of the attackers leg to the left.
2) Sikazwe cannot be guilty that VAR didnt invite him for OFR. What would happen if Vincic hadnt been invited by VAR? Exactly the same thing, 2 situations, both with some arguments pro and contra.
3) Whether we want to admit or not, there is a possible bias against the referees from "exotic" countries and federations other than Europe and South America, and if Vincic, Taylor or Makkelie were in the same situation, the comments wouldnt have necessarily been completely the same. Maybe Im wrong, but at least in my case many of those referees I havent watched in other competitions so I cannot have other impression than the one from a particular game, which is not the same as with UEFA referees which I see at least 7-8 times a year in different competitions, some of them certainly more than 10 times.
I agree with your point no. 3. Many of us tend to defend those referees we know and have watched before based on past experience we have about them and their refereeing. Personally, I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but I cannot lie about the fact that, completely unintentionally and unknowingly, sometimes I fall into a "bias-trap", so to say.
DeleteSikazwe's performance today wasn't good, that is my opinion and I will stick to it. However, I think that, as a refereeing community, we should all be feeling sorry for a fellow referee making such a mistake (or mistakes, whatever your opinion is). A mistake that is unacceptable, but how can I be sure the same won't happen to me? If any of my comments sent the opposite message, one of "crucifying" the referee, I sincerely apologise.
Here's my take.
ReplyDeleteOffside clearly wrong - referee and AR communication
Penalty Claim 1: Defender played ball before making some contact with attacker's foot. Not a clear and obvious error.
Penalty Claim 2: At first glance a penalty and wise to hold up play. On closer look, attacker intiatated contact by deliberately moving left foot into running path of defender. Not a foul.
Collina talking to self - extremely funny.
I think it's important to note and has been buried in the replies to this thread, that the 1st PK (correctly VAR intervention) was indirectly a result of a corner kick being awarded instead of a goal kick to Belgium. Was the 1st of 2 big mistakes from the assistant on that side in the 1H. Frankly, none of the officiating team, whether it be the referee, assistants or VAR team covered themselves in glory in this game. Sad as I was hoping that Sikazwe would 'redeem' himself on the biggest stage after his infamous struggle at the AFCON.
ReplyDeleteI've been rewatching the entire 1H, trying to have another look while being cool-headed and composed:
ReplyDelete1) My opinion on the 13' situation remains completely unchanged: unacceptable mistake on such a high level. Clear penalty to be awarded, no matter the previous slight touch on the ball. Mandatory VAR intervention missed.
2) Regarding the potential penalty at 38', my initial impression of a clear penalty was somewhat wrong, for the reasons Mikael perfectly described in his comment at 21:00. I understand the arguments in favor of play on, although still leaning on the pro-penalty side, however less strongly than before. Still, I have a feeling it will be assessed as a mistake by both the referee and the VAR, due to the recommendations at this tournament so far. Time will tell.
Analysis
ReplyDeleteKey Match Incidents:
08’ - PK for handball awarded after OFR. 11BEL blocks a shot on goal with a clearly outstretched left hand. Clear penalty missed by Janny Sikazwe who quickly stops the play in a neutral zone awaiting an intervention by Juan Soto. The only possible decision - penalty and YC for SPA - taken after an OFR.
13’ - Penalty area incident: follow-through step on foot. Nightmare offside decision by both Sikazwe and Marengula - clear deliberate play by an opponent. Whether Soto should’ve intervened or not is disputable though. 5BEL slightly plays the ball that stays in 11CAN’s playing distance, and slightly puts studs on his opponent’s foot. 11CAN’s reaction to this slight contact looks exaggerated. Technically, a penalty kick could’ve been easily given. However, reviewing this incident, something is missing for a “clear and obvious error” (of course, not talking about the offside call ;)). I support the no-penalty decision.
38’ - Penalty area incident: step on foot. Another complex situation for referees. 22CAN plays the ball towards the goal-line and - being aware that 6BEL follows him - puts his left leg in front of the oncoming opponent, what ends up in 6BEL stepping on 22CAN’s foot. Sikazwe clearly waits for input from Marengula and ultimately decides for no penalty. Again, a penalty kick could’ve been given and it wouldn’t be a mistake. But one has to support the non-intervention by Soto. Well, what a challenging half for the Venezuelan!
45+4’ - Penalty area incident: handball. 7CAN’s shot on goal is blocked by 8BEL. The ball hits the Belgian in a hand that doesn’t make his body bigger at all. Correct play-on call.
60’ - Possible 2YC. 15BEL - who was already cautioned for reckless use of arm at 53’ - is late in his attempt to block the ball controlled by 11CAN and performs a careless-reckless studs challenge against his opponent’s foot. There is no significant force hence ‘forgiving’ the Belgian is supportable.
63’ - Possible 2YC. 18BEL performs a risky tackle on the ball while his opponent puts a leg in front of the already tackling Belgian. Correct play-on decision.
83’ - Possible RC. 2CAN loses the ball in the midfield and has to run behind 24BEL in order to stop a quick counterattack. After chasing the Belgian for quite a long time, he performs a scissor tackle from behind. Sikazwe opts for a yellow card only but given that there is no dangerous type of contact (no ankle bend, etc.) and that the ball was somehow reachable for the Canadian, the call has to be accepted.
Overview:
DeleteIt’s obvious that emotions played a big part in the comments section during the game but I disagree with blaming Janny Sikazwe at every possible occasion. In my opinion, he correctly and/or supportably solved six key match incidents. The only clear and obvious mistake has been corrected after an OFR. As a referee, you don’t choose incidents you have to face on the pitch during the game. Many of those scenes the Zambian was challenged by were complex and in the grey area. I think that VAR (Juan Soto from Venezuela) did a really good job during this game!
Of course, the nightmare offside mistake at 13’ has to be noted and both Sikazwe and Marengula blamed for that but it really wasn’t important for the game - whistle came after the penalty area incident, so in case of a clear and obvious mistake, VAR would’ve been able to jump in.
As for disciplinary control, it was on a very decent level as well. I really liked two very clear and serious verbal warnings the Zambian issued at 03’ and 48’ for late and cynical challenges of 11CAN and 18BEL respectively. The first YC of the game came after OFR and it was for blocking a shot on goal with a hand. In the first half any reaction against Canadians too frequently committing offences would’ve been warmly welcomed. Two cautions for reckless use of arms of 15BEL and 18BEL within three minutes (53’, 56’) were quite isolated from the game context but fully correct in my opinion. Sikazwe supportably / correctly saved both players at 60’ and 63’ (see above) but missed another YC to a Belgian player (19BEL) for LoR holding at 65’. The Zambian crowned it all by issuing two correct cautions to 19CAN (81’ - studs challenge) and 2CAN (83’ - reckless-SFP tackle, see above).
I had a gut feeling that Sikazwe had some problems with fitness. He wasn’t the best runner in this game to say it kindly and sometimes just looked fatigued. It was visible at 79’ when he had to solve a small conflict but his presence in this scene was very weak (as well as at 46’ when he simply ignored a blatant attempt to prevent a quick FK execution -> strong whistle and verbally managing the scene would be optimal). Not so many minutes added to both halves showed some problems as well (I think Pierluigi Collina complained exactly about that when being shown by the broadcaster at 45+1’).
Despite that, the Zambian delivered a satisfactory performance (it would’ve been a good, expected level if not that terrible offside call) but the missed handball penalty stays as a clear match error.
Marks:
Janny Sikazwe - 5
Jérson dos Santos - 7
Arsénio Marengula - 6
Juan Soto - V
Only one error on 13" and you give him 5? You didn't realize it wasn't possible to see the handball in real time ? Please your marks are really laughable
Delete@Euro soccer ref: I think I agree completly with your analysis. I do think in 8" you should add that cornerkick that led to OFR and PK was a wrong desicion. Was a quite clear goalkick for me. In 2H their was also wrongly a corner kick given, but in this case very difficult to spot. But did not lead to key match incident as did the corner decision in 8".
DeleteStoppage time is tracked by the 4th Official now (per Pierluigi). Any low amount is on the 4th.
DeleteI have noticed, in this tournament, that the final whistle is frequently sounded several seconds before broadcast time. Not sure if that is on referee team or broadcast teams.
@Gozie Joe : Sikazwe had a bad game overall. Here, the analysis is favorable to the referee but I disagree about the PKs.
DeleteYou must be of African descent to want to defend the indefensible. You insist on it when clearly the level was low for a WC. And I'm talking about the same thing for Vincic. Vincic and Sikazwe should go home. There are enough referees who whistle better than them.
@Groule. If one mistake means a bad game overall, then you know nothing about football officiating. Wherever I come should not be the issue. An honest and fair appraisal should. The level he showed was never low.
DeleteMy predictions:
ReplyDeletePOL-KSA: Gassama / 4TH: Mukansanga (Jiyed)
ARG-MEX: Makkelie / 4TH: Al-Jassim (Dankert)
TUN-AUS: Kovacs / 4TH: Matonte (Martinez Munuera)
FRA-DEN: Marciniak / 4TH: Elfath (Kwiatkowski)
Just a final remark on the possible penalty after wrong offside, I think that under the point of view of VAR, we can say that what happened before, the wrong offside assessment, can be included in the "clear and obvious mistake", because you have all the proofs that officials assessed a 100% wrong situation and for this reason they couldn't analyze what happened later in the best way. Taking it alone, I can agree that there should be possible doubts about interventions, but for me, if VAR is there for 100% wrong factual decisions, and surely one like that happened before, an intervention for allowing referee to rewatch would have been even understandable, but also taking the incidents by itself there are arguments for calling referee, so you can understand how much serious was that mistake...
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteMy spy on the inside tells me that whilst they cannot get involved in the incorrect O/S call, the touch before the foot comes down (the foot has to go somewhere) is what saved the VAR intervention. Thats the line in the debrief
DeleteFully agree with the debrief. The ball was played. The subsequent contact wasn't clear enough for a penalty.
DeleteJoe Fletcher (CAN) also took this view.