Debut of an UEFA crew at the World Cup: Dutch Danny Makkelie in charge of USA - Paraguay.
Match 4
Group D
13 June 2026, 03:00 CET
SoFi Stadium, Inglewood
USA - PARAGUAY
Referee: MAKKELIE Danny (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: STEEGSTRA Hessel (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: DE VRIES Jan (NED)
Fourth Official: ARAKI Yusuke (JPN)
Reserve AR : MIHARA Jun (JPN)
Vidéo Assistant Referee: DEL CERRO GRANDE Carlos (ESP)
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 1 : HIGLER Dennis (NED)
Assistant Vidéo Assistant Referee 2 : AL-MARRI Khamis (QAT)
This match and the opening match are undoubtedly the most difficult of these first two days. Hopefully Makkelie will ride well and not try to be too fancy like in the last WC.
ReplyDelete30 seconds and we already saw crunching foul..
ReplyDeleteCould be tough match.
Spa/reckless whatever you want to call it.
ReplyDeleteClear YC.
Correct first YC
ReplyDeleteClip: https://streamable.com/jsdhro
DeleteDid he give an other YC or just a mistake by the tv director ?
ReplyDeleteBroadcasting error...
DeleteOk
DeleteParaguay players feeling hard done by in the opening 20 minutes. They have shown visible frustration, including sarcastic thumbs ups toward Danny Makkelie after a denied throw in, an incorrect corner decision, and what they believed was a foul on Almirón. Their captain has also already been booked for dissent.
ReplyDeleteDelayed offside
ReplyDeleteClip: https://streamin.me/v/92235d95
Delete2 clear offsides and they gave the free kick for the 2nd offside which was at a worse placement.
DeleteAgree. Not understandable choice.
DeleteNot sure how letting players celebrate for a few seconds rather than the flag going up straight away is better than what we had before...
ReplyDeleteI think AR1 should have raised his flag for the 1st offside who was really clear. Still don’t know how audio alert really work and how it help them.
DeleteWhy is there such a significant delay in raising the offside flag, even when the offside position is as clear as daylight? Is this a serious FIFA instruction related to the new technology?
ReplyDeleteRoutine first half for Makkelie. Good foul detection in one sided game with no major decisions to make or card worthy fouls after early one
ReplyDeleteMakellie had a good first half. He reversed some fouls, forgot a YC in 29' in favor US, but perhaps he understood that the moment already favored the home team too much.
ReplyDeleteThe main point that bothered me was the delay in calling the offside, in addition to allowing slamming with the player sitting down.
Overall, PAR is a more foul-prone team than it is showing today, but perhaps because of the large score difference for a first half in favor of USA, they have already become dejected, even forgetting the Paraguayan tradition of tough play and consistent defense, and this factor is helping a lot Makellie keep the match under control, I was expecting a little bit more challenged game, but the result became it so easy
Wrong YC shown to USA at 50'
ReplyDeleteFull-Sequence: https://www.streambug.io/cv/521ad5
Delete(Wait 1min if long loading)
Very theatrical fall by Almiron,resulted in YC for Usa player.
ReplyDeleteAnd now VAR that resulted in YC for Almiron.
Great usage of VAR.
Completely wrong YC for Ream
ReplyDeleteWhat is that ?
ReplyDeleteIs this according to new VAR protocol, how is this mistaken identity?
ReplyDelete×1 did the foul was taken ?
DeleteVery puzzled by this VAR intervention. Technically it is not a mistaken identity case. But rather a correction of an incorrectly awarded foul +YC. Nota sure if the new protocols now allow that kind of situation.
DeleteThis is a required review with the new laws caution given to the wrong player of EITHER team
DeleteIt's an error in law. VAR cannot intervene as the referee called a foul on the USA player for a very light touch to the foot at his opponent and handed out a yellow for tye foul.
DeleteThat is not a mistaken identity! (If referee had given yellow to another team-mate of the USA player, that would be mistaken identity).
Furthermore, play was restarted with a direct free-kick. Only then did the VAR step in, and the referee stopped the game, handing the Paraguay player a yellow card for diving.
Here again the referee made a wrong decision. If there is any contact, it cannot be called a Dive.
What happend in 53
ReplyDeleteIs that allowed in the LOTG? Wouldn’t be the first time Makkelie ignored them
ReplyDeleteInitially incorrect YC, but not sure that's a correct use of the VAR protocol. Mistaken identity isn't a basis to overturn missed simulation, much less AFTER the free kick is taken.
ReplyDeleteI didn't quite understand the meaning of the wording in the new rules, but if that's what it means, then the meaning of the phrase 'Mistaken identity' itself must have changed.
ReplyDeleteBut then now everything will be an OFR, don’t really understand it.
DeleteIf the referee gives a yellow card to Team A for a foul, but it turns out the foul was actually committed by Team B, the referee has no choice but to review the video footage.
DeleteBut what happens if it turns out it wasn’t even a foul by Team B?
The VAR cannot intervene for yellow cards, only red card fouls.
DeleteI mean, the order of process may be questionable, but any announcement using good English (of course, all Dutch would!) and includes a clear explanation, rather than just sanction, must be welcome!
ReplyDeleteThat is really weird OFR after the FK was played for mistaken identity ?? Don’t really understand it even with the new protocol.
ReplyDeleteIs this correct?
ReplyDeleteSurely there’s no need to go over to the monitor? The referee can just communicate the decision.
ReplyDeleteDanny forgot to announce the decision first!!
ReplyDeleteVery weird sequence of events there with free kick taken before VAR calls referee's attention. And then shouldn't mistaken identity be for teammates only?
ReplyDeleteI didn't understand OFC calling for a review of the yellow card. That would only be possible with a second yellow card. I also didn't think the player PAR simulated. I think Makkelie's gestures aren't very clear and he seems to get lost in the foul call.
ReplyDeleteThis is the new protocol then I assume :
ReplyDelete« a player wrongly being shown a red or yellow card when the offence was committed by another player of either team »
A case for VAR with new protocol
DeleteI mean, I'm more than happy if the protocol is now expanded to allow for simulation to be punished after the fact, especially when a player has been cautioned who has done nothing wrong. Anything that punishes diving and cheating can't be bad. And this was clearly the right decision in the end
DeleteBut if the LoTG says only the identity of an offender can be reviewed, that means the decision itself cannot be changed if it's not a PAI, such as a free kick in this case? How do you then issue a caution to a player you gave a free kick in favour? Must have misapplied the protocol
DeletePelanty missed by the ref 60 min
ReplyDeleteJust re-read the updated VAR Protocol which states: "if the referee penalises an offence but has clearly misidentified the player who committed that offence, only the identity of the offender can be reviewed".
ReplyDeleteThe explanation to the amendment reads: "reviewable decisions/incidents now include two infrequent but potentially match-changing errors: ... mistaken identity when the referee shows a yellow or red card but has clearly penalised the wrong player of either team for the offence in question; the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity".
I guess the "either team" provision may (?) allow this type of review. But certainly not clear from the wording. I'm not sure there's a sufficient nexus between mistaken identity and misinterpreting the offence in the first place as this latest review seems to imply.
Yes I think it’s the new addition saying that in this case there is a clear simulation by Paraguay player then wrong YC and possibility to recommend an OFR.
DeleteHere the problem is the delay, I don’t think you can do that after the FK was played.
But the reviewed should happen before the fk taken if its taken the action is dead . What hapend if th fk was taken and goal was scored
DeleteAgree @adnane clear mistake here.
DeleteIn other words, VAR intervened because an incorrect corner kick had been awarded, and that incident directly led to a yellow card decision for a USA player. That's why Makkelie had to go review the footage himself, which ultimately resulted in a review for mistaken identity?
ReplyDeleteIs it really necessary to make it this complicated? It's very difficult for people who try to read the rules precisely.
Not sure it’s the CK but just the fact that now it’s possible for VAR to review a play when a player is receiving a YC or RC but he is not the one committing a foul but his opponent is. Agree not very clear for any one.
DeleteIf it was actually the opponent who committed the foul, does that mean it doesn't have to be a yellow card for the opponent?
DeleteFk was given no corner by any chance
Deleteadnane
DeleteIndeed. Thank you.
@Anass yes i actually think it's just to cancel a wrong YC or RC when in facts it's the opponent who is committing a foul (here a simulation) even if he don't deserves a YC or RC for that foul.
Delete@crn.ple
DeleteI'll be watching how things unfold. It's almost certain that the frequency of reviews will increase.
This should be a fundamental rule, not an additional option like intervening in incorrect corner kicks. I wonder why IFAB couldn't explain it better.
Agree by just reading the new protocol, i don't think a lot of use understand it that way, but at the end great tool.
DeleteShould it been a penalty at 60' for USA, although shot was made?
ReplyDeleteYes thr Paraguay player was late and stepping in us player foot so it was pk
DeleteSo so situation. But could be VAR stuff. Sufficient for calling ref ?
DeleteGood advantage before goal for PAR
ReplyDeleteFull Sequence: https://streamable.com/fe93yo
DeleteMissed corner.
ReplyDeleteThey gonna need to change the VAR protocol soon imo, to include GK given instead of CK, people will not understand it.
DeleteYes, I imagine there will be a similar change to allow missed YCs (which would have been a second YC) to also be reviewed. Imo, there is now way too much mission creep for VAR - as the earlier incident today for the 'mistaken identity' review shows.
Delete+1
Delete@crn.ple
DeleteIn that case, if VAR doesn't check for offences during the attacking phase leading up to the corner kick, it could result in an incorrect goal.
I don't think anyone wants to go that far.
Agree with that @Anass, but if IFAB want more use of VAR they will probably go that way. It's great for a competition like WC or UCL but to put in place this new protocol in smaller leagues is gonna be really hard.
DeleteClip YC 59': https://streamable.com/t5cm01
ReplyDeleteClip YC 79': https://streamable.com/gokd5y
DeleteClip YC 88': https://streamable.com/2tm5zz
DeleteClear rc missed
ReplyDeleteMissed high reckless tackle in 90' - studs raking/glancing contact on ankle area. YC probably enough but no card given.
ReplyDeleteFull Sequence: https://streamable.com/dzfyvz
DeleteNow Makkelie missed at least mandatory YC
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely sorry but there is absolutely no other way to interpret it other than Makkelie and VAR making an absolute major blunder in the case of Ream-Almiron situation. If you go to the website version of the LOTG and click the text that is underlined in yellow, you get an explanation that looks like this: "Mistaken identity when the referee shows a yellow or red card but has clearly penalised the wrong player of either team for the offence IN QUESTION; the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity".
ReplyDeleteMistaken identity is not the correct call but VAR protocol is saying :
Delete"VAR may review:
a player wrongly being shown a red or yellow card when the offence was committed by another player of either team''.
But the offence in question was a reckless foul. Almiron did not commit a reckless foul, he commited simulation
DeleteThe protocol is not specifying the nature of the foul just saying offence.
DeleteAs I said, if you, as long as you're using the browser version, click on the text underlined in yellow under Article 2(d) Reviewable decisions/incidents; Mistaken identity (red or yellow card) of the VAR protocol you will get a box with an explanation that says exactly what I highlighted in quotation in my previous comment: "Mistaken identity when the referee shows a yellow or red card but has clearly penalised the wrong player of either team for the offence IN QUESTION; the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity". The offence in question was a reckless foul, not simulation. If Makkelie had booked Ream for simulation, it would've been one thing, but he didn't and therefore the VAR review was absolutely against protocol
DeleteOk now understand your point by reading it but imo it's more an IFAB problem because what they did here was what i quote before which is also coming from IFAB website and not what is written in LOTG.
DeleteReam touched Almirin's foot ever so slightly. Thus contact took place and it cannot be interpreted as simulation ,,, according to education session for referees during 2015 WC for women.
DeleteThis is a very poor start to a world cup from a refereeing standpoint I must say. Tello has been best so far imo
ReplyDeleteAnd his performance wasnt even good
DeleteWe've played beyond 7! Makkelie signalled more with his hand! Stoppages in added time correctly being added! At last. I must say, from a style point of view, a use of whistle point of view, gestures, stopping dissent, showing mandatory YCs... Not a perfect performance, but much more preferable to some of what we've seen
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. But I would never expect less from Makkelie or any UEFA referee. I would expect a much higher level of polish and getting the procedures correct. The review was a disaster procedure wise.
DeleteClip: https://streamable.com/ovelu2
DeleteThe most mandatory yellow cards (obvious SPAs) were shown, but I must add there were many fouls of the range “more yellow card than not” and above, which Makkelie chose not to caution. Examples: 2’, 56’, 77’, 90’ (even could say missed second yellow in that last case). Compared with, for example, the YC shown for reckless foul at minute 59’, I wish to echo my thoughts about Tello: the disciplinary choices were made only on the basis of match control and “feel for the game” without considering their severity strongly.
DeleteWith the score at 3-0 by halftime and the tension never returning in the second half, it wasn’t a particularly high-pressure match for Makkelie, but his performance wasn’t great either, as there were several incorrect calls involving YC.
ReplyDeleteThis is the Makkelie I’ve seen this season.
You’ve been criticising Makkelie all season and praising Serdar Gozubuyuk, but do you really believe Gozubuyuk would have produced a better performance in this match? A World Cup game with the host nation playing is a slightly different challenge than PEC Zwolle v Fortuna Sittard on a rainy Sunday afternoon, my friend.
DeleteMy criticism of him this season stems from the fact that, compared to Gözübüyük he's been assigned to many of these smaller matches, and his performances in those matches haven't been very good.
DeleteReally messy second half by Makkelie. Far from level of someone who wants to go deep into the tournament.
ReplyDeleteSo if Dale Johnson is correct this is allowed. I think the law is poorly written to suggest that it is allowed but...
ReplyDelete"Mistaken identity: This is an incredibly niche addition which Collina requested. If a player is booked or sent off but the foul was actually committed by the opposition team, the decision can be changed."
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/ce8jv326d7vo
Makkelie's performance was truly below expectations. Perhaps I was influenced by Makkelie fans and recent good performances in the Champions League.
ReplyDeleteIf his halftime wasn't brilliant, as I've already written, the second half was almost a tragedy overall. He forgot two YCs, the OFR's call was reckless; both players were contesting the ball and went to the ground due to the speed of the play. No any intention to simulate, but I saw the incorrect application of the YC and then an even more disastrous correction. The clear impression was that the OFR wanted to clean up Makkelie's image to keep him alive in the tournament after a blatant error.
The game was violent (PAR) with some moments of USA, but the reversal of responsibilities bothered me for a referee from whom so much is expected.
In short, he continues in the tournament due dutch federation and tradition, but Collina shouldn't assign him to a game of greater importance than QF. I really hope UEFA delivers better performances; I'll be watching Turpin, Zwayer, and Letexier more closely, and at the very least, I expect a masterclass from Marciniak.
I’m just putting all the clips together that RefNewGen created and uploaded in one spot:
ReplyDelete10’ Caceres SPA YC: https://streamable.com/jsdhro
28’ Disallowed Goal, offside, delayed flag: https://streamin.me/v/92235d95
50min, Simulation, Wrong Identity, VAR OFR https://www.streambug.io/cv/521ad5
74’ Paraguay goal 3-1 https://streamable.com/fe93yo
Clip YC 59': https://streamable.com/t5cm01
Clip YC 79': https://streamable.com/gokd5y
Clip YC 88': https://streamable.com/2tm5zz
91m YC for holding + USA high foot no action: https://streamable.com/dzfyvz
97m, Reyna Goal 4-1: https://streamable.com/ovelu2
I’ve noticed that Makkelie often gets high pressure games. For example, Italy in the play-offs, and today the host nation USA, with everything going on in the world politically. We can make some remarks about technical decisions here and there, and of course we should, but one thing is certain, Makkelie does not choke under pressure and FIFA knows. That’s why he keeps getting these appointments.
ReplyDeleteSo far, FIFA can be satisfied with the overall standard of refereeing imo.
It's interesting to see that the commentators in one of those clip describe the performance of Makkelie as excellent (no experts sure), but on this match in which seemingly not that much happened, every little detail is pointed out. Fine of course! Just interesting. Based on the clips I've seen it was a typical Makkelie performance, trusted by players and media, some technical things here and there and in recent years a portion of bad luck, also in once again getting a high pressure match, and a match solved dece tly if not perfect.
ReplyDeleteNow watched the situation in 50'.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't understand. Hopefully somebody can explain to me this one.
First point: VAR intervening after game resumed, that's not good and maybe even close to a technical mistake by the room?
Then, how it is possible to assess a mistaken identity?
It was Makkelie assessment to whistle that foul, he didn't book a wrong player after a foul.
If you use VAR in this way, thinking that it is enough to say that there is a simulation even outside the box, it's the end for pitch officiating.
Am I getting anything wrong?
Changing the restart after the play contiued should be just wrong.
DeleteIf it had happened before, it seems to be justifiable by the new wording in the protocol, although most people (including me) didn't expect such an application.
But apparently VAR can always intervene now, if in a situation the referee gave a card to a team A player, but the offence in that situation was committed by a team B player.
However still unclear, whether IFAB really meant it that way, or whether it was a mistake by del Cerro Grande. We should hope that the WC VARs were clearly instructed here and therefore worked correctly (except the timing after the restart).
You could also ask, whether it actually was a 100% wrong decision: There seems to be a very small contact. Not enough to fall, so simulation still is a reasonable decision, but sometimes the existence of the contact is seen as argument against it. Also technically, it still is a reckless attempt to kick the opponent (but that it part of the rule is rarely applied).
DeleteFully agree with you Philipp and that's the point.
DeleteUnclear from IFAB, for me mistaken identity was only about the same nature of a foul then with referee booking a wrong one, but not in a technical incident when referee assesses a foul and then there is a possible simulation from other side.
Otherwise, easy to say, all fouls in the midfield if simulations, could be corrected by VAR, but what's the point in that?
And more than that, I also agree, this wasn't a "clear and obvious mistake", if we want to read the situation under that point of view, as well.
I tend to believe that Del Cerro went too much far away here, definitely no need of VAR intervention.
Unless, Collina and Busacca explained clearly such situations involving simulations even outside the box, but I'm skeptical.
Have you seen potential penalty incident around 60'? What do you think of that
DeleteI watched it now. Very carefully.
DeletePossible to whistle penalty after the shot by attacker, indeed.
Supportable decision to play on, I find NO VAR INTERVENTION correct.
Technical argument: the defender doesn't make a direct contact with attacker once the ball is kicked by the latter, but the incident also happen for the movement by attacker.
However, a penalty would have been confirmed if whistled by referee, I think.
I would have read it differently in case of clear stepping on foot by defender, once ball kicked by opponent.
I was very curious about Makkelie's match. He described the previous World Championship as the lowest point in his career, which he suffered from for a long time. And then to start again with such an important match. Minute 50 stands out, and I want to emphasize that the first decision was on the advice of the AR, who should have seen this better. After that, a strange procedure with, intuitively, a justified outcome. Excellent communication after VAR by Danny ;)
ReplyDeleteExcellent communication ? After play was restarted ? And forgot to announce explanations before apply them…disagree. All this sequence was a totally mess !
DeleteI mean the announcement with a wink to Sampaio
DeleteAll annoucements will be better that Sampaio ^^
DeleteStandard performance from Makkelie in this match. Some YC missed, about VAR i tottaly agree with intervention. Of course, never under pressure, calm, confident,what I like. And yes, I agree as someone mentioned before- more than QF in this tournament for him will be suprise.
ReplyDeleteFantastic from Makkelie. Don't know what everyone's on about, this is as good of a performance as he ever produces. Stellar! What a way to "bounce back" from the disgraceful CL final snub and now being removed from the UEFA Super Cup. He must feel very upset about that, but stays professional and gives this tournament's best performance.
ReplyDeleteMQ, your constant sarcasm is awful.
DeleteYes, Makkelie was omnipresent and generally kept the players under control. However, numerous detection errors (including several missed corner kicks) and disciplinary mistakes also marred the performance. For me, there was even a red-card offence near the end of the match that went completely unsanctioned, with not even a foul being awarded.
ReplyDeleteThe VAR sequence — which I would mainly attribute to Del Cerro Grande because of the late intervention after play had already restarted — is still quite concerning, both because of what appears to have been a flawed application of the protocol and the Laws of the Game, and because of the way it unfolded. The referee seemed lost, not going to the monitor immediately and then implementing the decisions before explaining them to the public.
Overall, it was an average performance from the Dutch referee, compounded by a poor decision from his assistant to award a phantom foul, which ultimately triggered the controversial sequence.
Law is clear. They can intervene when it restarted specifically for mistaken identity. The wrong player got a yellow card, so they can intervene for the simulation. Nothing was wrong. Just slow and a bit unclear.
DeleteSorry but not for me. This is never a mistaken identity but an onfield decision corrected by VAR over a generous interpretation of the protocol. If we apply your assesment, that’s the end of onfield refereeing. In that case, you should come back from any wrong decision made onfield ? Why this one and not another one ? That’s a future mess of VAR use !
DeleteI agree with Chefren and his message at 9h05…
Delete@ Referee Analyst:
DeleteSorry, but your comment is exaggerated. For months you have been defending French officials no matter what they do, while targetting others (in perfect chatGPT English of course).
The Dutch referee can improve certain details like most referees so far, but the complete mess you are trying to portray simply was not there. Yes, the VAR should make a quicker intervention. The announcement was clear. Not a textbook procedure with a VAR signal and explanation first, but in the end it was clear to everyone, well-sold. Football fans are praising the outcome. Tiktok is full of Sampaio-memes mumbling and being impossible to understand, yet somehow Makkelie was a “total mess”? Don’t be so harsh. No surprise that many users actually prefer Telegram above this blog nowadays. Maybe it’s time to tone it down a little and apply the same standards to everyone.
Btw. I think the RefCam footage shows us one important thing which in fact most here already knew: that being a referee is NOT an easy job. Honestly, a lot is being asked of them at this tournament: new rules, new guidelines, new technology, a short period to adapt, high media pressure, warm climate, travel distances, different time zones etc.
@Anomymous: perfect analysis by you
DeleteSorry but never say that Makkelie made a mess but only the interpretation of this new procedure can create possibles « messes » on future if we begin to re-referee all actions of certains ones and not another ones. I said Makkelie was on an average performance as Arbitrointernacional quoted it as « acceptable » and not good too. And sorry for a French speaking to use sometimes tools to be more understandable in english. ;)
DeleteThe VAR intervention is correct under new protocol, it was reported here under mistaken identity:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/ce8jv326d7vo
Quote
Delete“Mistaken identity: This is an incredibly niche addition which Collina requested. If a player is booked or sent off but the foul was actually committed by the opposition team, the decision can be changed.”
Still, it is not explained that it's about a yellow card from one side and a possible simulation on the other side. It's not clear.
DeleteOne should only draw conclusion that a referee misread a situation in which he whistles a foul but he books the wrong player, not a situation in which VAR enters in the technical assessment of referee.
Do you understand what I mean?
Here Del Cerro decided that it wasn't foul and there was a simulation on the other side, but is that allowed to VAR? Should then they spot all possible simulations on the pitch? It's impossible for me, and it's putting out of control the referee, honestly I believe it can't be in this way.
But as long as we don't get official explanations... words can be interpreted in many different ways.
It's a mess.
It’s clear enough. ”The offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity”.
DeleteSo therefore, in this context it can be reviewed because it was in direct relation to the wrong yellow card.
The word ”except” is what makes the simulation reviewable and why he could receive a yellow card.
VG, I think you are on a different point of view here.
DeleteDo you know why mistaken identity was introduced as VAR tool?
It was to correct the referee for booking a wrong player after a foul, not for making a technical assessment. That's what I want to explain. You take for granted that it's allowed by Del Cerro to say this was simulation (and before all the rest, one could already discuss only about that).
Then, what we are going to see? For all yellow cards issued on the pitch, VAR must check carefully how much it was a simulation by other side? If this is correct, it's over for pitch referee, in my opinion.
I can understand for second YC, and it is still debatable, but for single YC?
Agree with Chefren.
DeleteMistake identity is different than reviewed YC by simulation, and apparently the “identitity” doesn’t concern a foul but a player.
DeleteWithout clearer explanations from FIFA/IFAB, agree with Chefren accordingly
You are completely wrong Chefren. The yellow card was 100 % wrong. No contact, no foul. He saw that there was no foul. That’s the mistaken identity…. Offence called on the wrong player. Who made the offences, Paraguay. What was the offence? Simulation. The law is clear.
DeleteI’ll try to explain it one last time, but clearly we are on two different levels, and there is no evidence that either of us is right unless there are explicit guidelines from Pierluigi Collina and Massimo Busacca supporting the interpretation you are giving, but honestly, I really don't think that's the case.
DeleteSo, mistaken identity was created for VAR when a referee on the field wrongly cautions a player after having identified a foul, meaning he shows a yellow card to the wrong player, but the technical assessment of the incident has already been made. The VAR would never intervene in that situation because the on-field decision principle still applies. And already here we start from an assumption that you take for granted, but which, in my opinion, is not at all.
That's why I asked for your opinion on this point, and you didn't answer exactly on this aspect.
Anyway, having said that, Makkelie would know perfectly well that if it is a simulation by the opposing player, he must caution for simulation. So this is not a case of mistaken identity; rather, it is the VAR stepping into the technical assessment itself, for a single YC.
Now, we know that they can do this in the case of a second yellow card, because the incident is obviously reviewed, and in that scenario I wouldn't have objected. But in the case of a first yellow card, it seems completely senseless to carry out such a review process, because, as I keep saying, we would then have to expect that in every match, for every single yellow card shown, the VAR could start checking for a possible simulation and reverse the caution. And I certainly haven't seen that happen up to now.
But that is not the principle of mistaken identity.
It is simply the VAR room refereeing the match itself, even in situations where intervention would not be necessary.
So I consider it absolutely unacceptable and seriously undermining to the authority of the referee on the field. But evidently, if that is really the interpretation, then I can only give up.
I don't think it is "clear", but VG is absolutely right - this provision in the laws 'the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity' gives clear LotG support for what happened yesterday.
DeleteFormer Bundesliga referee mentioned this blog when he gave his statement about the Makkelie performance in the breakfast program in German tv today (I‘ve read many comments on the law5 blog when I waked up)
ReplyDeleteFormer Bundesliga referee Patrick Ittrich
DeleteNice, I hope he can appreciate the discussions on the blog.
DeleteAs I understand it, if a player restarts play without the referee’s permission, the referee will naturally disallow the restart, stop play, and correct the previous decision. In other words, once the referee has allowed the restart, it is valid, so the previous decision can no longer be corrected.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, before restarting, the VAR informs the referee that a check is underway, and the referee makes the players wait until the VAR has finished its check.
I'm truly puzzled as to why the experienced Makkelie and Higler failed to follow this basic procedure this time. Was it a mistake by the AVAR, who is actually responsible for communicating with the referee? And why is it permissible to revoke a properly approved restart when such a mistake occurs?
These kinds of procedural errors are far more disappointing than incorrect calls during play. This is not the level of tournament where such mistakes are acceptable.
Chefren do you think many referees observe this blog in secret?
ReplyDelete