WC 2026 kick off. Referee Wilton Sampaio from Brazil will be in charge of the opener, Mexico - South Africa.
Group A
11 June 2026, 21:00 CET
Estadio Azteca, Mexico City
MEXICO - SOUTH AFRICA
Referee: WILTON SAMPAIO (BRA)
Assistant Referee 1: BRUNO PIRES (BRA)
Assistant Referee 2: BRUNO BOSCHILIA (BRA)
Fourth Official: BENITEZ Juan Gabriel (PAR)
Reserve AR : CARDOZO Eduardo (PAR)
Vidéo Assistant Referee: GALLO Nicolas (COL)
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 1 : LARA Juan (CHI)
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 2 : BRISARD Jerome (FRA)
Sampaio's AR's are two of the very best in the world. Bruno Boschilia has been around since forever ago, working even on the 2016 Copa America Final, for example. And Bruno Pires garnered high praise on this blog for his fantastic impression in the 2022 World Cup.
ReplyDeleteKick off 6 minutes late. Hopefully not a common occurrence
ReplyDeleteI guess in first matches of host nations because of opening ceremonies
DeleteI don't like those white stripes on the short of the referees. The stripes from the Tshirt are okay I guess but the short should be fully black. Eventually you can add some white stripes on the socks, but definitely they do not look good on the short.
ReplyDeleteSampaio’s body language outstanding! Very clear application of the countdown on throw ins and what a game this is going to be.
ReplyDeleteI would rather if each throw in wasn't accompanied by 3 or 4 whistles however...
DeleteVery true one things for sure the Brazilian loves his whistle.
DeleteFair comment
DeleteCould have been YC for SA for steping on foot
ReplyDeleteClear yellow.
DeleteSampaio ever management their cards in the start normally discussing with players but in the second half open your tool box
ReplyDeleteA few challenges from South Africa. A card can't be too far away
ReplyDeleteAs if by magic...
DeleteThe Brazilian referee forced to issue this first YC.
ReplyDeleteHe was aware that he could have booked also the other player before, so it was mandatory choice now, understanding the moment of the game.
Another potential yellow card. South Africa playing very close to the limit
ReplyDelete21', this was another clear YC for South Africa.
ReplyDeleteHow much can be allowed to the CAF team?
Now a correct YC for Mexico. They may feel somewhat aggrieved though given the challenges by South Africa so far
ReplyDeleteA little late intervention by AR2, wasn't it?
DeleteNot sure about YC for Mexico, I haven't seen contact
ReplyDeleteAnd plenty running towards ref,from both sides.
ReplyDeleteMaybe stricter policy is needed.
As I expected.
DeleteInteresting first goal kick vs corner challenge. Referees now always going to opt for the defensive restart of goal kick as only "clearly wrong corners" can be overturned. Bringing this in line with general coaching for referees of not sure = goal kick
ReplyDeleteShould be the opposite though. Since an incorrect corner kick can be changed.
Delete45+2 second occurrence
DeleteWhy should it be the opposite? You want a crap load of interventions for silly corners? “I don’t know so give the corner so we can review it” is not a good idea. Go with the safe option.
Delete+1 RAP
DeleteYes. i want that since he blatantly missed a corner kick…
DeleteBringing this in line with general coaching for referees of not sure = goal kick
DeleteWell, if you needed change of the VAR protocol to realise this... Refs always choose a goal kick in a doubt
I think Sampaio's style is dangerous. He tends to talk too much, and the successive fouls change the atmosphere. He tries to prioritize fluid play, but the South African team is very physical.
ReplyDeleteToo much talking with the whistle not enough firm action to change behavior.
DeleteAbout the card to Mexico: rather late intervention by AR2, I think he was waiting for something before. In my opinion the challenge can be assessed as reckless, but the fall by South African player is not natural, he used a bit the contact. Nevertheless, for me not a clear and obvious mistake. But should have been YC to South Africa in 21' because on a similar level of recklessness.
ReplyDeleteOt: Collina on the stadium.
ReplyDeleteGame has calmed since the water break
ReplyDeleteMissed offside by AR1
ReplyDeleteMissed corner for RSA
ReplyDeleteCan VAR interfere with that?
DeleteNo VAR can interfere only when the CK is wrongly given
DeleteNo only ones awarded wrongly
DeleteNo, only if there was incorrect corner awarded. They cannot intervene when there is wrong goal kick awarded
Delete@ugur B no only incorrect corner kicks as this was a goal kick var can not get involved, see comments above
Deletethank you all
DeleteI don’t like the fact the Sampaio uses the whistle for everything. He whistle for faults, for conflitcs, for corners, throw in, when he wants to delay the game, speak with a player… too much whistle of you ask me
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteSame message almost same time xd
DeleteFrom IFAB guidelines for match officials:
Delete“A whistle which is used too frequently/unnecessarily will have less impact when it is needed.”
You have to whistle to start the 5 second countdown though for throw-ins and goal kicks.
Delete+1
DeleteOne thing that annoys me about Sampaio’s style, although it was a fairly solid 45 minutes from him, is that in my opinion he blows his whistle far too often at every stoppage. I know one reason is of course the new rules but still. It strongly differs from the European refereeing style, where the use of the whistle is kept to a minimum as much as possible. I do of course recognize that the training methods and refereeing style in general are likely very different in Brazil compared to Europe. But that’s the kind of observation that stuck in my mind, nothing against him personally
ReplyDeleteThe key moment of this first half was the first yellow card of the match. The Brazilian referee was forced by the circumstances to show it, given South Africa aggressive style of play and the fact that they had already committed a serie of fouls. Subsequently, the caution shown to the Mexican player can also certainly be supported.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we want to make a deep analysis, it must be said that a stricter disciplinary approach would likely have resulted in additional yellow cards, such as the one in the 21st minute (which, in my view, was mandatory due to the ball being already kicked and the challenge from behind). Of course, this depends on how one chooses to interpret the match.
We are all well aware of the long-standing views regarding yellow cards in FIFA competitions, so at this stage the performance can be described still as satisfactory. However, if I am to speak of excellence in first half, that wouldn't be possible, also considering the overall level of the match (not really demanding).
We will see what happens in the second half. After Mexico goal, it looked asthe hosts might have an easy game, especially following the serious defensive mistake committed by South Africa. However, the match has remained balanced, meaning that the second half could still provide some challenges for the Brazilian referee.
Not the most convincing performance in the 1st half
ReplyDeleteDisagree. A very good first half from the Brazilian referee and his team in a clear and relatively trouble-free match. Two cautions were issued following appropriate verbal warnings. The second one may have been a little harsh (perhaps on the advice of Assistant Referee 2?). Excellent mobility and fitness throughout. Overall, it has been a convincing performance for me.
DeleteIMO, not a great first half for Sampaio: he seemed unsteady, too nervous, and more concerned with not making mistakes than managing the game confidently. I sincerely hope for a higher-quality second half.
ReplyDeleteI see the performance from Sampaio as decent in 1H. Very good physical shape, cards only when it is really necessary,and yes, If he chooses strict style,he could give 7 yc in first half, but its not the sense. He understand the spirit of the game what is very good.
ReplyDeleteMy primary takeaway from the first half: Sampaio should have done a little more to sanction the South Africa players for reckless tackles. The tackles by South Africa at 3', 11', 21', and even the foul not called at 35' were worse than the YC to Mexico at 23', which I think we can say was simply a mistake by Sampaio's team. The 3' challenge was the worst of these and is the only one that should be considered a totally mandatory yellow card.
ReplyDeleteThe YC he found for RSA4 at 17' was a very good decision, especially considering it was the same player who was guilty at minute 11.
Correct red card for DOGSO. Good decision by ref and AR2
ReplyDeletePerfect decision both RC for DOGSO and FK.
ReplyDeleteAR2 with clear signal that is was outside the box.
ReplyDeletePerfect RC decision and freekick by Sampaio. Well done and clear.
ReplyDeleteCrystal clear,situation reminded me of Barca Atletico and Cubarsi's RC.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I would just about the “arm sign” given by the AR2. But this is just a detail ahaha
DeleteVery clear red card, crucial decision, but something about you can't have doubts. Very often, DOGSO are grey areas, this one finds all people in agreement.
ReplyDeletehttps://streamff.com/v/d73b203e
Thanks for the quick clip Chefren, rather expected decision but good teamwork to confirm outside
ReplyDelete57' another possible YC for reckless challenge from behind.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he stopped issuing cards for reckless after the two bookings in first half, stays as controversial.
Not only that,but running towards him from RSA players should be punished.
DeleteMark my words, no referee at this World Cup will punish that. That’s my prediction.
DeleteI must agree, very excessive use of the whistle for everything.
ReplyDeleteDisturbing.
For simple foul and substitution, there were like 10 quick whistles
DeleteAgree. A bad side of referee performance indeed.
DeleteHe blew it about 20 times in a few seconds! Like Darude Sandstorm...
DeleteAlso,what is this dive?
ReplyDeleteHolding onto the head like he shot him...
I have to say, that thanks to new law all the subtitutes ran out of the field. Good law by IFAB.
ReplyDeleteRC DOGSO
ReplyDeletehttps://streambug.org/cv/5dcfac
Agree, guest Other than these Americanised "ads breaks" (obviously going to be required more often moving forward as planet heats up) the flow of the match has been greatly improved by recent changes
ReplyDeleteAlso refreshing to not see physio entering pitch as yet for tactical reasons
ReplyDeleteGood no penalty call
ReplyDelete+1
Delete73' Penalty area incident: supportable decision to play on, penalty wouldn't have been questioned by VAR. AQ
ReplyDelete74' Clear YC to South Africa, correctly given.
Game turned into a challenging one. Very rough by CAF team.
74’ : IMO more penalty than nothing but not clear and obvious error so normal no intervention by VAR Gallo.
ReplyDeleteDo you think so? For me fully normal, body against body without excessive force. Would have been a very soft one.
DeleteSupportable call to be silent but not a problem if whistled for me.
Delete73': Penalty area incident
ReplyDeletehttps://streamff.com/v/ac5006f3
Argument in favor of penalty call: defender absolutely not interested in playing ball, only attacker as target.
DeleteArgument in favor of play on: in the end you can accept such action, very borderline, but still.. not the feeling of a big penalty, correct by VAR.
Now VAR situation,possible RC once again.
ReplyDeleteQatar 2022 had 3 RC's.
ReplyDelete1st match we already have 2.🙃
This is what happens when IFAB and FIFA change their philosophy and are way too permissive. Garbage football.
DeleteFinal angle much clearer showing a slap. Fair to say that Sampaio is not going to be the poster boy for on field announcements
ReplyDeleteCorrect RC imo
ReplyDeleteSerious foul play?
ReplyDeleteVery poor English by Sampaio, couldn't understand whay he was saying. Really sorry, at this point he spoiled his performance.
Agree. Sampaio’s speech in English was absolutely disastrous… a terrible loss of legitimacy here. And then the Mexican player should have been cautioned as well, alongside the red card! Poorly managed situation here!
DeleteYeah i couldn't understand anything he said in the middle.
DeleteIt's like that.
DeleteWhen a judge from a country becomes an aspirant to the FIFA panel, he must be dedicated to English proficiency.
And from what we've seen, Sampaio wasn't a good student in English class. lol
He just needed to say violent conduct rather than try to explain it too much
DeleteWhat English was that? 😵
ReplyDelete83' RC for Violent Conduct by South African player after OFR
ReplyDeletehttps://streamin.me/v/36c08708
English commentator: “ I think it’s extremely harsh” What a complete fool. He strikes him with excessive force in the head. Great catch by the VAR
ReplyDeleteRC is ok. But mexican player had to be booked too IMO.
DeletePuh, I don‘t know honestly. The slow motions make it look worse and more intentionally than in real speed, but that‘s what we see in times of VAR, sometimes interpreting maybe a bit too much in actions. For me not fully clear, but also not fully wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnnouncement by Sampaio was weak, but what should a referee do… So much to do and then you have to explain a possible violent conduct in a foreign language…
But he should have said "violent conduct", this shows a very poor knowledge of the LOTG. If he thinks this was a serious foul play...
DeleteAgree with you, it's a very particular intervention by the room, but we must wait.
It can be either ZERO TOLERANCE against such actions asked by Collina or just Gallo going a bit too far away here?
Some people can disagree with the violent conduct, but it's not a mistake to consider it as red card, to make clear my point of view.
Agreed, honestly I was not hearing a lot, so I missed that he called it a SFP.
DeleteChefren I doubt its laws of the game knowledge, he just used the wrong word because he isn't a native english speaker..
DeleteI'm not sure if the replay was really clear enough to show intensity and point of contact. One of those that many would stay silent for not being clear and obvious enough, on lacking evidence, rather than it not being a RC. Agree with the above on announcement, really not great.
ReplyDeleteSaying that, the referees camera perhaps looked slightly more forceful
To me it seems the immense pressure of the occasion is visible on his face.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that’s it, I think he’s getting in his head because he knows he’s lost the game.
DeleteHonestly why is Sampaio so shy with his whistle. We barely hear it
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be hearing whistling in my sleep!
ReplyDeleteCommon thing, he does a lot in Brazil as well 😂
DeleteAn odd match for the Brazilian referee. He had made 2 key decisions correctly (or at least supportably) despite having an inconsistent general impression.
ReplyDeleteWith the missed red card and pretty disastrous announcement it's now a pretty negative picture for him. Would be interesting to see his next assignment in the tournament
3rd RC,imo wrong decision.
ReplyDeleteExcellent red card for DOGSO
ReplyDeleteWrong RC imo. More SPA than DOGSO
ReplyDeleteSampaio made a complete mess of the game
ReplyDeleteRC for DOGSO. I think YC better decision here, RC very harsh but not 100% wrong. Once again, correct by VAR.
ReplyDeleteCould this been clear case of compensation?
DeleteNot sure about this RC, YC for SPA would have been better imo.
ReplyDeleteWow, what an end… Third RC, DOGSO again. Another borderline decision, supportable. In the end, Sampaio maybe too much in the focus in order to get something big again?
ReplyDeleteOmg I have never been so shocked to see red
ReplyDeleteMy honest opinion. That would have been a yellow. I felt he wasnt baring down on goal and would have had covering defenders.
ReplyDeleteNever DOGSO. And not really SFP
ReplyDelete50/50 decision for me VAR right not to get involved but not a clear RC.
ReplyDeleteFor me this is a definite red card. His next touch is a clear shot in the penalty area unobstructed
ReplyDeleteExactly, he's going to be one on one with the goalkeeper at the 6 yard box.
DeleteAgree with the Red card. Clear opportunity to go to goal and kick alone the ball. Good sport for me with clear cooperation with AR1.
ReplyDeleteLast part of second half, Brazilan referee spoiled what he had done in a very positive way during almost full game. Really sorry.
ReplyDeleteWe never saw three red cards in the opener of a WC... incredible to compare with Qatar 2022.
Already more straight reds than in Qatar, insane
DeleteAgree with the overall impression but NOT about the red cards. Third one debattable but never mistake. Braveness to avoid big decisions by modern no talking referee is refreshing for me. Don’t blame Sampaio for that !
DeleteLooking at today, how it was possible 4 years ago to see a full tournament almost without red cards? :) It's incredible.
DeleteSo is not referring issue!! Is game base. We can say something about his body language and poor communication towards players but decisions are correct and appropriate
DeletePlease rewatch Mateo Lahoz during Netherlands - Argentina and if you prefer this kind of catastrophic and coward refereeing, me not.
DeleteThis ref is joke
ReplyDeleteSpot *
ReplyDeleteI don't think any Uefa official shows a RC for that. Perhaps showing two to the opposite side was playing slightly in the mind. Supportable perhaps, but I don't think it'll be viewed well by most
ReplyDelete90'+2 RC for DOGSO, supported by VAR:
ReplyDeletehttps://streamff.com/v/e153c416
All three Red card was spot on!!
ReplyDelete+1 Chefren definitely supportable dogso remove the foul & attacker is shooting...yc still possible but I think I actually prefer the braver decision of RC
ReplyDeleteToo much controversy now, after a good 1st half. His chances to proceed far in this tournament disappeared now imo
ReplyDeleteExcellent decison by Sampaio! That is a clear example of a DOGSO! I don‘t like when we magically change the criteria whenever we are in a tournament. Finally a ref sticks to the book.
ReplyDeleteYou are being too harsh. Second game is absolutely a possibility.
Delete3 RC were absolutely right IMO.
@Ref19: I’m sorry! I was replying to a comment made by ref above! Not to you :)
Delete@diego612: No worries :)
DeleteWe won’t be seeing the Brazilian in the Final.
ReplyDeleteEither way it's impossible to see Sampaio progressing far into the tournament with the controversy that will surround the red cards
ReplyDeleteToo early for all these unnecessary criticisms. Ref has been spot on
ReplyDeleteWell, definitely much more material for commenting than expected before start of the game. If I recall well in some of the previous WCs and ECs we had to wait long time for first RC of the tournament, now 3 in first game.
ReplyDeleteAren't player supposed to leave the pitch if game is stopped for injury or suspected injury. LOTG text: "An outfield player is required to leave the field of play for one minute after the restart in the event of one or more of the following:
ReplyDeleteplay is stopped because the player has an actual or suspected injury"
Referee did not follow this protocol.
Yes, I noticed that, too. That happened at least twice: first at the penalty incident at 73' where Sampaio stopped play and continued with dropped ball for the goalkeeper and second time just before the 2nd RC - the same: referee stopped play and continued with dropped ball for the goalkeeper. In none of the situations the player on the ground left the field of play for 1 minute.
DeleteI think it‘s less about the technical decisions, you can all justify them, none of them were fully wrong. But he will be in mind as "the referee who awarded three RCs". And that is what he has to worry about for his future matches in this tournament. The overall impression was somehow not great (but also not bad). I think he will get another match but maybe not some in the very late stage of the tournament.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong but I suspect SAMPAIO might get another group game and or a round of 32 match but I don't think he will go pass there
ReplyDeleteWell I will tell one thing! Very good Sampaio, in modern times, he showed that he have courage to make decisions on field without relying on VAR. About English language: in Conmebol,some referees have problems with English language, but they are top referees, so should we forget about decision makers, and give priority to language speaking? I think no, and, I m possible only one who understand what Sampaio said. So, dont blame this guy for what he did today. Again, Very good perforamnce. I expect one more assigment for him, and than two appoitments in final stages!
ReplyDelete*performance. To add- He set right pathway for his colleagues.
DeleteCrucial incidents:
ReplyDelete50': Red card for DOGSO
https://streamff.com/v/d73b203e
73': Penalty area incident
https://streamff.com/v/ac5006f3
83' RC for Violent Conduct by South African player after OFR
https://streamin.me/v/36c08708
90'+2 RC for DOGSO, supported by VAR:
https://streamff.com/v/e153c416
The interpretation is somewhat difficult because the South African player's contact with the ball before the foul play was not directed towards the goal.
ReplyDeleteShould we consider that there was a free South African player in front of the goal in the center? In other words, even if it was difficult for the player who was fouled to shoot, it was easy to pass the ball to a free teammate, and it was undoubtedly a clear scoring opportunity for the South African team.
90+2 DOGSO was a brave (but justifiable decision). However, I think management of the situation left something to be desired. If you’re going RC there go big. Don’t let the defenders surround you and show it from 10 yards away. Right to the pocket, assertive and confident!
ReplyDeleteMight be in the minority but I really enjoyed that performance from Sampaio. Was it perfect? Certainly not but he and his team were brave and courageous and applied a fairly strict approach to the LOTG after some initial leniency in the first half. I would quite like to see him again but do fear that modern refereeing will mean that his progress is quietly curtailed.
ReplyDeleteSorry last one is not dogso
ReplyDeleteOverall, good performance. Didn’t like the last RC, his English and some foul identification. Apart from that, decisions were fine
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the performance and loved his body language, he needs to work on when and when not to use his whistle but he was brilliant.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the announcement after the OFR I was wondering about one thing.
ReplyDeleteMany times we have the pairing with common language background for referee and VAR and imagine once you discuss with your colleague in Spanish/Portugese in this case what happened and then suddenly you have to express yourself in English.
Of course he should know 100% the most important terms and definitions, but to switch from one language to another can be tricky.
So I am wondering wouldn't be better if the communication in international games would be always in English? It would be also more transparent and would definitely help to increase the confidence for these announcements.
The amount of pressure on him caused his mix up of terms, it’s a bit unfair on foreign referees on such a big stage.
DeleteSampaio's performance was generally good. It was expected that this game would be of medium difficulty because the South African team usually commits a lot of fouls and the Mexicans fall down a lot! I believe all the cards were correctly applied, including the last red card, which was the most controversial. It seems very strange to have 3 red cards in a debut game, but all are very well justified.
ReplyDeleteI saw him a little nervous, perhaps because of the importance of the game. The referee helped well in marking PK, but his speech wasn't very convincing. I've seen worse referees, and we know that at that moment there are many communications from all sides on the headset, and it must have been difficult to speak English, think in Portuguese, and hear instructions in Spanish (I think he got confused because of this multilingualism).
I don't see as an exceptional referee to watch him in a final, but we might see him again in QF or SF. Let's see if this game will set a precedent for referees' behavior regarding whistles to reinforce their authority, or if it was only Sampaio who used this criterion. Overall, a good performance, not magnificent, but efficient from the Brazilian referee and their assistants
Tbh Sampaio's poor performance in the second half: wrong both 2nd RC (a random contact essentially determined by the dynamics of the game, deserving at most of a YC also considering the discipline metric Sampaio had used up to that point) and his 3rd RC (not all four conditions were met for DOGSO, while they were met for YC from SPA). With this performance, Sampaio cannot aspire to a WC final match definitely
ReplyDeleteWhich condition was not met for DOGSO?
DeleteMichael +1
DeleteCompletely disagree with your assesment of the two RC. No problem to support these two judgements. Violent and purposed gesture and not « random contact ». On French television, former Ligue 1 referee Thomas Leonard just explained for him that was a mandatory RC and good decision by brazilian referee.
DeleteAs Chefren explained below “there were also defenders converging toward the centre of the penalty area”. You cannot assume a DOGSO situation there.
DeleteWe saw clear replays and static image when the foul occured and defenders are late and attacker involved can obviously reach the ball alone to kick or pass to a partner more accurated than defenders to play the ball passed. So disagree again. Never a mistake. DOGSO ok and good VAR confirmation.
DeleteIn the end, all the decisions are at least supportable, some of them clearly correct. Some people may have doubts about one red card or another in the end. Personally, I believe there can be no doubts about the red card shown at the beginning of the second half, and I think we can all agree on that. It was a good on-field decision.
ReplyDeleteAt same time, it was perfectly reasonable not to award a penalty to Mexico for the risky challenge by the South African defender. Here the referee made a decision that many people can agree with. The VAR team also did a very good job in these situations. That should be taken for granted at this level, but it is still worth highlighting.
The two slightly more controversial incidents came later in the match. In my opinion, the red card for the slap to the face can be justified, but it feels like looking for something extremely particular. If this criterion were applied consistently throughout the competition, we would likely see many red cards for violent conduct. That is perfectly acceptable if it is the standard being set, but the real question is: is this a guideline from Collina and Busacca, or is it simply Gallo personal interpretation, going a bit far about it?
I can assure you that in Italy not everyone would classify such an action as violent conduct, and I also believe that at UEFA level many would support a yellow card instead. Perhaps the fact that the Brazilian referee completely missed the incident on the field also played a role. However, the referee then displayed a lack of knowledge, at least of English, if not of the Laws of the Game themselves. To be fair, we can probably say that the issue was the English, because he certainly knows the difference between violent conduct and serious foul play from his refereeing career.
This frequent issue of South American referees seemingly struggling with English makes me astonished. These are highly experienced FIFA referees, and it is difficult to understand how they can operate at this level while speaking only their native language. UEFA referees, by contrast, are subjected to very strict language requirements and testing, even the observers. There is clearly a significant discrepancy here. That said, this is a personal opinion and not directly related to the assessment of the performance, but I wanted to mention it.
Finally, there is the last red card. It concerns a DOGSO situation which, in my view, can certainly be supported, although it will not convince everyone. The assumption is that the attacker would have immediately turned toward goal and taken a shot, but there were also defenders converging toward the centre of the penalty area. There is room for doubt.
I also think the VAR was correct not to intervene. The only real discussion point regarding VAR in this match concerns the violent-conduct review because, after just this first match, we still cannot say whether every VAR team would have intervened in the same way. We will need more evidence as the tournament progresses.
Overall, it is very difficult to evaluate the Brazilian referee's performance. I thought he performed well up until the final parrt of second half, with the two red cards. After that, partly because of his body language during the red-card announcement, he unfortunately lost a considerable amount of credibility in the eyes of the players. These may seem like small details, but they matter a lot when assessing referees of this level and experience.
DeleteAs for the DOGSO red card, it was certainly a less expected decision than a yellow card would have been, but it remains an understandable call.
Given the way the match unfolded, few would have expected so many events at one stage, and this is a performance that can't easily be summed up in a single word. The upcoming matches will tell us whether this is the standard we should expect throughout the competition or whether there was a particularly strict approach, both on the field and in the VAR room, during this second half regarding the two incidents.
Lasty but not least, I will repeat that, in my opinion, Sampaio should have been stricter with reckless challenges in the first half and at the beginning of the second. However, those issues become almost insignificant compared with everything that happened close to the end, which absolutely took the scene.
Now, up to Collina and Busacca.
All red cards were correct
ReplyDelete+ 1
Delete+1
DeleteI believe that the Brazilian referee delivered an average performance in today’s match. In my opinion, the second red card was exaggerated and did not rise to the level of violent conduct. Another important point is that he overused the whistle excessively.
ReplyDeleteAverage? That’s generous
DeleteHe could just have said:
ReplyDelete"After review, violent conduct, player number X Mexico. Final decision red card and direct free kick".
All standard phrases that requires minimal English.