The Round of 16 ties have now concluded, and we are 96 matches into the FIFA World Cup™. What is your overall assessment?
Let’s start by saying that we have now played 50% more matches than at the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™, and there are still eight more huge games to be played.
Overall, we are happy. However, with such a high number of matches played in a relatively short period of time, it is normal that some things do not go as expected. When that happens, they are ready to work even harder to ensure they are fully prepared for the next match.
Of course, constructive discussion about decisions will always be part of football, but unfounded allegations have no place in our sport. Nobody can question the integrity of the FIFA World Cup match officials. When this happens, it may provoke reactions that lead to threats against them and their families. This is not right.
Equally, nobody can claim that FIFA Refereeing can be influenced by anyone, not even by the FIFA President [Gianni Infantino]. He has always shown his full support for FIFA Team One while trusting us to work with complete independence. Match officials make honest decisions and, just like players and coaches, they always try to do their best.
Are there any specific areas of focus for you?
Usually, during a competition, we prefer not to focus on specific incidents. However, as we recently clarified what match officials would be looking for when attacking players try to prevent the opposing goalkeeper from moving and being able to defend the goal, we also wanted to clarify another topic that has generated debate.
After every goal is scored, the VAR checks the attacking possession phase (APP). If a foul is identified in the build-up and is deemed to have had an impact on the goal, the VAR will recommend an on-field review. There is no defined limit regarding either the distance from goal or the amount of time between the incident and the goal.
An example of this came in the Argentina v Egypt game where Egypt No. 19 Marwan Attia clearly treads on the foot of Argentina No. 6 Lisandro Martínez.
We believe that a foul is a foul. Regardless of whether the foul appears 'obvious', if the referee did not see it on the field of play, the VAR can intervene.
Equally, if no foul is identified in the build-up to a goal, the VAR will advise the referee accordingly. Stepping on an opponent's foot is a foul, whereas a defender who touches the ball first and then makes normal football contact has not committed a foul. Again, an example of this came at the end of the same game. The referee and the VAR deemed it normal football contact between Egypt No. 10 Mohamed Salah and Argentina No. 10 Julián Alvarez.
Of course, there will always be an element of subjectivity in some decisions, but we are happy with how this principle has been applied throughout the tournament.
It's not the Salah situation that people are talking about. It's the holding on Fathy where his collar almost broke.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis once great judge destroyed the European, and now the world, judges.
One thing that stands out is that every time a controversy arises, Collina immediately rushes to make public statements and give interviews. He clearly cares a great deal about managing the public image. I keep saying that this World Cup has featured an approach that simply wasn't there in previous editions.
ReplyDeletePhilipp mentioned the regular interviews about refereeing in past WC editions whern I said that in the other discussion, but I'm sure he also realizes that those were different circumstances. They were essentially technical briefings and general reviews of refereeing matters. Their purpose was not to respond to a specific controversy. They were low-profile updates followed mainly by people who were genuinely interested in refereeing.
This time, however, Collina is personally stepping in front of public opinion and, so to speak, delivering all of his verdicts. In short, they are doing everything possible to ensure that this World Cup ends with as little controversy as possible. And Collina wants to take the spotlights.
The fact that there has been so much discussion, to put it mildly, and in reality these have been extremely heated controversies, with Egypt in revolt against the French referee has undoubtedly shaken Collina and Busacca. Believe me, their primary objective is not yellow cards, red cards, penalties, or anything like that. What they really want is for everyone to be happy after the match. That is their biggest priority. If they could avoid showing even a single yellow card, they probably would. It almost feels as if they want referees to go out onto the pitch and apply the Laws of the Game by not really applying them.
I can see the whole picture. Collina apologizes because there have been controversial decisions. But shouldn't you simply ignore the criticism? Shouldn't you stand by your convictions? Instead, constantly giving verdicts and trying to smooth things over with reassuring words, in my opinion, says a lot about the direction they want to take.
A performance is assessed only looking at the effects on a national team, that seems to be the philosophy. But that isn't refereeing. That's simply creating a carefully managed spectacle.
Fortunately, this tournament is almost over, and soon we will be back to UEFA. Yes, I have to say it: even though I have criticized UEFA in the past, UEFA and the people working with him operate on a completely different level. Of course, there are still major injustices and things that don't work as they should. But at least there is still a fundamental respect for what refereeing is supposed to be.
I won’t dispute your desire to be back to UEFA competitions, but I do want to address the comparison between a 5-week tournament and the European competitions, which take well over 9 months.
DeleteIMHO the management of both events cannot be compared, as a relatively short (WC or EURO) tournament is more or less a pressure cooker while in a year-over competition dynamics and emotions are different. One only needs to compare the commenting on this blog during the UEFA competition phase and in major tournaments.
We shouldn’t forget the absolute shambles Rosetti cum suis made last Euro’s, throwing their refs under the bus whenever Mr. Ceferin (or whichever influential individual) required so.
Acknowledging all deficiencies one could find in the current World Cup, one could also view Collina’s post-match statements as standing by his officials publicly. Something Rosetti and his refcom would never do.
I think that this approach also does more harm than good. Why now and not after France-Paraguay. Why did he not mention the penalty shout? Has he ever admitted a mistake? This will not sway people who have already made up their minds. Similar to when Infantino came out to say that the committee acted independently and that Trump's call didn't have any effect. Also, no way can you consider the foul before Egypt's goal a clear and obvious error despite the very high thresholds we've seen for fouls. If it wouldn't be considered a foul without a goal, a goal being scored shouldn't change that. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
DeleteThis comment belongs here
ReplyDeleteWhat were expecting to come from the devil's mouth ""that the game between Argentina and Egypt was refereed poorly """ that's impossible in million years, such a negative comment from the Refcom chair would have SHAKEN THE WORLD and Letexier career would've been lfinished internationally , And also a negative statement would've confirmed all the conspiracy theories and every Argentina match was going to be under review from every MEDIA Household starting from Qatar WC22.
Collina is also doing his job and he has been great at it over the years so not a surprise to me, BUT IF there was no wrong doing by the match officials ( put all the doubts to bed and appoint them both Letexier and company --same VAR -- to another match) in that way no more questions from my side, but if not Letexier is in very big trouble and I don't think he will survive especially in FIFA
It can't be that coincidentally all the referees assigned to ARG just suddenly decide to have a poor performance so I'm not sure what you mean here about punishing Letexier. If such accusations are indeed true, it is definitely orders from FIFA rather than independent referees acting out of their own volition. So I'm not sure how not appointing Letexier helps sooth the negative optics surrounding referees
Delete“A foul is a foul” unless the referee had a clear view and a penalty would result.
ReplyDeleteI thought Letexier had a good game but ignorant of the narrative surrounding Messi and co. Needed to find opportunities to punish ARG to give perception of fairness but did not take easy one after Messi penalty miss.
Collina insists that FIFA's refereeing is "not influenced by anyone." Yet if a phone call from Donald Trump to Gianni Infantino is followed by Balogun's red card being overturned, that claim loses credibility. Whether it was direct influence or not, the optics are terrible. FIFA should never allow a situation where political intervention appears capable of affecting sporting decisions.
ReplyDeleteHe also says that "a foul is a foul" and that VAR should intervene whenever the referee misses one. However, Argentina's goal against Austria came after a clear foul on the Austrian player, yet VAR remained silent. That directly contradicts the principle Collina himself outlined. Either VAR intervenes consistently for missed fouls, or these explanations become little more than convenient justifications applied only when they suit FIFA.
I would also add that this entire tournament has been defined by inconsistent decisions. VAR sometimes works and sometimes does not, which only creates more controversy. This World Cup will be remembered as one where referees needed to be at their absolute best — perhaps the best in World Cup history — especially with all the technology and VAR assistance available to them.
The suspension rules also benefited them because referees did not need to be overly lenient or forgive so many bookable offenses, knowing that players would not miss crucial matches as easily. Yet here we are. Expectations were higher than ever, and even referees who were considered the most reliable and trusted are no longer showing the same level of consistency.
Fair play to Collina for backing his referees and protecting their image. That’s much better than Rosetti’s approach at the Euros, where referees were sent home without any public support after controversy.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn’t change the fact that Letexier had a poor game.
The penalty was initiated and therefore a gift imo. Egypt had a goal ruled out for a tiny toe contact, despite Letexier refusing to give soft fouls all game (different standards and re-refereeing = poor optics!). No cards for Argentina, not even for taking the shirt off. Then another big penalty-box incident before Argentina scored the winner. It’s too much, I’m sorry.
Taken individually, you can debate each decision. Together, they form a pattern and a poor image. The pressure got to him. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge it was a very challenging game to referee.
I respectfully disagree.
DeleteWhat you’re calling “too much” is exactly the narrative the losing team tried to create. After falling behind, they shifted the focus onto the referee instead of taking responsibility for the result.
None of the points you mentioned were major issues until around the 79th minute. Once they realized they were losing, the protests escalated. That a common reaction from teams trying to find a scapegoat.
As for the disallowed goal, I think we can agree it resulted from a careless foul. VAR has been very consistent throughout this tournament with those type of offence. We saw a similar situation in Scotland vs. Brazil, where Brazil second goal was also disallowed because of a careless offensive foul.
Regarding the claim that Argentina should have received a card, let’s be specific. Which incident deserved a caution? Simply saying “they should have had a card” without identifying an actual cautionable offence isn’t a convincing argument.
The two penalty appeals were correctly rejected. Rather than recognizing those as good decisions, they’re being presented as refereeing mistakes, which I don’t think is justified.
I believe referee delivered an excellent performance. He managed and dealt with every key situation as expected. Don’t let the drama and attempts to shift blame convince you that he had a poor game.
+ 1, Damir 👍
Delete+ 1 Damir perfect analysis
DeleteOne of the greatest referees on the pitch, but also a politcal monster who harms football. You cannot ask referees to keep up the flow (don’t whistle) and at the same time instruct VAR to spot any error before goals. So shameful.
ReplyDeleteI’m not versed in the history of refereeing, but I have often wondered if Collina really would be “the greatest referee of all time” if he was refereeing in the current period of VAR, technology, and social media. Was he really so head and shoulders above all the rest of the referees who came before him and since?
DeleteI also dont think so highly of him.
DeleteIt's just his personality and demenour,people maybe find great and amusing when ref shows that he can stand his ground.
Look at Barton,he became after his demonstrative style and talk about RC.
So maybe Collina was expressive and not someone to fool around.
As for his quality,bookings and other things.
We'll let our colleagues say that cause they were born maybe before and followed him when he was at his peak.
And now Quansah suspension has been confirmed,not for 1,but for 2 games...
ReplyDeleteEngland should hire Trump as advisor since he was sportsman and can decide what's RC and what's not.
Balogun's challenge was more serious... He received a 1-match ban (which was suspended), while Quansah got 2 matches? It’s disgusting.
Delete"Nobody can question the integrity of the FIFA World Cup match officials."
ReplyDeleteAnd he doesn't know why this started? And why did it happen after the 95th match, when after the previous 94 matches, nothing like this had happened? This is a demonstrative, ostentatious astonishment.
Excuse me, but I'm increasingly reading embarrassing comments, full of acrimony and critical aggression.
ReplyDeleteNot a day goes by without insults raining down on Collina for the most bizarre reasons: because he gives instructions and explains them, or because he doesn't explain them, because he intervenes or doesn't intervene, and when he does intervene, because he supports one regulatory argument instead of another, lapsing into surreal, afterthought discussions about why he explains an incident and perhaps defends a referee's decisions based on the rules.
Explain to me why I'm struggling to understand this, but what is a FIFA Ref Comm Chief supposed to do?
And in a world that now boasts an AI that didn't exist in Qatar 2022, and where the impact of social media has advanced exponentially, is there still anyone who can logically compare FIFA's approach today to that of four years ago?
It's claimed that Collina's goal was to make everyone happy: but come on! Regardless of the fact that in an ideal world this would be precisely the goal, rereading Collina's interview, does it seem to you that by interpreting the refereeing decisions in ARG-EGY, he's aiming to make everyone happy?
Or is he aiming to clarify the rules according to the VAR protocol, regardless of who is or isn't happy?
And let's be honest: after 90 matches, can't it be reasonably argued that overall refereeing performances have been generally good/very good?
Sure, there have been some exceptions, but on such a statistical basis, the exception remains just that. It doesn't change anything.
And shouldn't the debated disparity in judgment also be correlated with the origin and number of referees present? And with their ability to withstand pressure that's often unusual in their own countries?
Think about it calmly. And then let's see if, beyond the chatter, anyone has the courage to honestly say they're better than Collina
+1
DeleteThe World Cup Is Not Just About Winning. It Is About Believing the Game Was Fair.
ReplyDeleteThe World Cup has never been only about finding the best team.
If that were all we wanted, club football could do the job. The Champions League offers higher technical quality. Top domestic leagues offer better rhythm, deeper squads, and more tactical continuity.
But the World Cup is different.
It asks us to believe in something almost impossible: that for a few weeks, in a world shaped by money, power, history and inequality, everyone can still step onto the same field and be judged by the same rules.
That is the magic of it.
A small country can frighten a giant.
A weaker team can push a champion to the edge.
An unknown player can make the world stop watching a superstar.
For ninety minutes, reality does not disappear — but it is suspended just enough for people to believe that fate can still be rewritten.
That is why the World Cup, like the Olympic Games, is more than sport. The Olympic movement speaks of excellence, respect and friendship, and describes sport as a force linked to human dignity and peaceful society. FIFA uses a similar language when it speaks of football as something that can unite the world.
These ideals can sound like slogans. Often, they are. But they point to something real.
The World Cup matters because it promises freedom, equality and peaceful competition — not in their perfect political form, but in their sporting form.
Freedom means the underdog still has a chance.
Equality means the favourite and the outsider should be judged by the same standard.
Peace means national rivalry is settled through rules, not power.
When that promise starts to look fragile, the damage goes beyond one match, one referee, or one angry fan base.
What is damaged is the belief that the World Cup is still a fair stage.
Fans Can Accept Losing. They Struggle to Accept Not Being Believed.
Most people can accept a great team winning.
Argentina can win because it has great players. France can win because it has depth. Brazil, Germany, Spain, England — any major nation can win by being better.
+100 thank you {Not a Ref}
DeleteI was moved (touched) by this comment
That is not the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe problem begins when an underdog does almost everything right, pushes a giant to the brink, and still appears to be fighting something beyond the opponent.
Not just eleven players.
Not just tactics.
Not just fatigue.
But an invisible system of interpretation.
A piece of contact in one penalty area can be called enough.
A similar piece of contact in the other can be called normal football contact.
A foul in the attacking phase can be enough to erase one team’s goal.
Another incident can be described as insufficiently connected to the outcome.
A few seconds of added time, a quick restart, a final whistle, a VAR check that happens, a VAR check that does not — each can be explained on its own.
But when the small decisions keep leaning the same way, people stop arguing about one call. They start asking whether the game itself is being interpreted evenly.
That is where public trust begins to crack.
The heartbreak is not simply that the weaker team lost.
The heartbreak is wondering whether the weaker team was ever going to be allowed to win.
The Rules Exist. That Is Not the Problem.
Football does not lack rules.
Law 12 provides the language of fouls: careless challenges, trips, pushes, tackles, holding, impeding an opponent with contact. If such an offence happens inside the penalty area, it can become a penalty.
But rules do not apply themselves.
What is careless?
How much contact is enough?
Did the defender challenge unfairly, or did the attacker look for contact?
Did the defender play the ball first?
Was the later contact part of normal football?
The law gives the vocabulary. The referee chooses the interpretation.
Law 5 gives that interpretation its force. It says the referee makes decisions according to the Laws of the Game, the spirit of the game, and the referee’s opinion; decisions on facts connected with play, including goals and the result, are final.
That means a football “fact” is not only what happened physically.
It is what happened, plus what the referee officially says happened.
A collision becomes a penalty.
ReplyDeleteOr not.
A challenge becomes a foul.
Or normal contact.
A goal becomes valid.
Or erased.
The problem is not that football has no rules.
The problem is that the same rules can often be used to defend opposite outcomes.
VAR Has Not Solved This. It Has Moved the Argument.
VAR was supposed to reduce controversy. In some areas, it has helped. Offside lines, mistaken identity, ball in or out — these can be clarified.
But for the most important and emotional decisions in football, VAR often does not end the argument. It moves it.
Under the IFAB VAR protocol, the referee must first make a decision. VAR intervenes only for a “clear and obvious error” or a “serious missed incident.” The original decision is not changed unless the review clearly shows that it was wrong.
So VAR is not a full retrial of the incident.
It is a limited review of whether the referee’s original interpretation was clearly unsustainable.
That matters.
Because many decisive calls are not obviously wrong. They are arguable. They live in the zone where one interpretation can support a penalty and another can support no penalty.
And once a decision falls into that zone, the system often protects the first call.
The phrase “not a clear and obvious error” may be procedurally correct. But to many fans, it sounds like something else:
Not clearly wrong enough to fix.
Not transparent enough to trust.
“Supportable” Is Not the Same as Fair.
This is the central issue.
A decision can be supportable under the rules and still fail the test of credibility.
Imagine a similar contact situation involving Egypt in Argentina’s penalty area. If the referee gave Egypt a penalty, it could be explained:
There was contact.
The defender acted carelessly.
The attacker was affected.
The incident happened inside the box.
Penalty.
If the referee did not give it, that too could be explained:
The defender touched the ball first.
ReplyDeleteThe contact was normal.
The attacker sought the contact.
Not enough for a foul.
No penalty.
Both explanations can sound plausible.
And that is exactly the problem.
When both the call and the non-call can be defended, fairness no longer depends only on the written rule. It depends on who gets the benefit of interpretation.
Law 12 gives the language.
Law 5 gives the referee authority.
VAR protects the original decision unless it is clearly wrong.
The institution then defends the process.
That chain can make almost any gray-zone decision look legally defensible.
But legally defensible is not the same as publicly credible.
A Missed Penalty Can Still Matter.
One common argument is simple: if the penalty was missed, then it did not matter.
That is wrong.
A penalty affects a match the moment it is awarded.
Reports said Argentina received a first-half penalty against Egypt, taken by Lionel Messi and saved by Mostafa Shobeir. The incident was described in several reports as Haissem Hassan bringing down or tripping Nicolás Tagliafico.
ReplyDeleteFrom a legal point of view, if the referee judged the defender to have carelessly challenged or tripped the attacker, the penalty can be explained under Law 12.
But FIFA’s own match report described the penalty as “craftily earned.” That phrase is telling. It does not suggest a clean, obvious foul. It suggests a player cleverly winning something from the margins.
Maybe the call can be defended.
But it was not the kind of call that restores trust.
And the miss does not erase the issue.
If a team receives a high-value chance it should not have received, the fairness problem has already happened. Scoring the penalty only makes the damage visible on the scoreboard. Missing it does not make the decision harmless.
A gift remains a gift even if it is wasted.
The Issue Is Accumulation.
Egypt’s complaint was not about one moment alone.
Reports noted anger over Mostafa Zico’s goal being disallowed after VAR review, and over Mohamed Salah not receiving a penalty before Argentina’s winning move. The Egyptian Football Association reportedly raised concerns about the consistency and fairness of VAR decisions.
Taken separately, each decision may have an explanation.
Taken together, they create a pattern of perception:
A soft penalty for Argentina.
A disallowed Egypt goal.
A rejected Egypt penalty appeal.
A late Argentina winner.
That sequence does not prove corruption. It does not prove match-fixing. It does not prove that anyone was paid.
But it does explain why people question the system.
Trust is not built by saying every single call can be defended. Trust is built by showing that similar incidents are judged by the same standard, no matter whose shirt is involved.
If Argentina can receive the benefit of a soft interpretation, why can Egypt not?
If Egypt’s attacking-phase contact is enough to remove a goal, are Argentina’s beneficial moments examined with the same severity?
When the public cannot verify consistency, suspicion becomes rational.
ReplyDeleteFIFA Defended Integrity. But Integrity Alone Is Not Enough.
Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s refereeing chief, strongly rejected claims that officials were influenced by outside pressure. He said the integrity of World Cup match officials should not be questioned and that FIFA refereeing cannot be influenced by anyone, not even the FIFA president.
That response is understandable.
A refereeing chief cannot casually admit that major knockout-stage decisions were wrong. To do so would invite questions about the result, the VAR process, the referee’s appointment, and FIFA’s governance.
So the institutional line is predictable:
The officials are independent.
The officials are honest.
The process was correct.
Claims of manipulation are unfounded.
All of that may be true.
But public trust is not built by asking people to believe in honesty. It is built by letting people examine consistency.
Collina explained why Zico’s goal was disallowed: VAR checked the attacking possession phase and identified Marwan Attia stepping on Lisandro Martínez’s foot. He said, in effect, that a foul is a foul.
He also explained why Salah’s appeal was rejected: the referee and VAR considered the contact with Julián Álvarez to be normal football contact, particularly because the defender was judged to have played the ball first.
Those explanations may be valid.
But they do not fully answer the deeper question:
Why is this contact a foul and that one normal?
Why does this phase of play matter and another not?
Why is one incident explained in detail and another, such as Argentina’s earlier soft penalty, not addressed with the same level of transparency?
Credibility does not come from an institution saying, “We are independent.”
It comes from the public being able to see that independence in action.
The Cape Verde Match Shows How Trust Can Erode Without One Huge Error.
The same issue is not limited to penalties.
Argentina’s match against Cape Verde also raised broader concerns. Official data shows Argentina won 3–2 after extra time, with Cape Verde equalising twice and keeping the match alive deep into the contest. The statistics did not show a completely one-sided match: corners were 8–8, fouls were 13–12, and yellow cards were 1–1.
When an underdog pushes a favourite that close, every marginal decision matters.
Added time matters.
ReplyDeleteThe final whistle matters.
A quick restart matters.
A missed foul matters.
A tactical foul matters.
Whether the underdog gets one last attack matters.
Yahoo Sports reported fan complaints that Argentina had received too much benefit of the doubt, including allegations of uncalled fouls, questionable decisions against Cape Verde, and favourable added-time management.
Those complaints do not prove corruption.
But they show how trust erodes.
Not always through one outrageous decision. Often through a series of small, explainable moments that all seem to bend the same way.
That is harder to challenge — and more dangerous.
Because each moment can be defended.
But the pattern is what people feel.
Finality Is Necessary. Credibility Is Essential.
Football needs finality.
The game cannot stop forever.
Results cannot be appealed endlessly.
Referees must have authority.
But finality is not the same as credibility.
A system can produce a valid result and still fail to convince people that the result was fairly produced.
That is the danger facing football.
The current structure gives referees enormous authority over match facts. VAR offers only limited review. Original decisions are protected unless clearly wrong. Results are almost irreversible. Institutional responses emphasize integrity. Public accountability remains limited.
That may be enough to end a match.
It is not always enough to preserve belief.
A strong system should not depend on everyone assuming that every referee is honest, fearless, consistent, and free from bias. A strong system should be able to withstand the possibility that humans make mistakes, feel pressure, carry bias, or even act improperly.
If the only answer is “trust us,” the system is already weaker than it should be.
What Is at Stake Is the World Cup Itself.
The World Cup is not a utopia.
ReplyDeleteIt cannot erase inequality between nations. It cannot remove money, media narratives, celebrity status, or political pressure. It cannot make every decision perfectly objective.
But it must protect one minimum belief:
The strong should not be easier to protect because they are strong.
The weak should not be harder to believe because they are weak.
That belief is why people watch.
They know the world is unfair.
They know football is imperfect.
They know giants usually win.
But they still want to believe that, for ninety minutes, the underdog is not merely part of the show. It is allowed to change the ending.
If that belief disappears, the World Cup loses more than the credibility of one match.
It loses the power to make people believe in football together.
The greatest threat to the game is not the obvious scandal. Obvious scandals can be named.
The deeper threat is the gray zone that explains everything and proves nothing.
When every decisive call can be defended, but no one can audit whether the standard is consistent, the gray zone stops being uncertainty.
It becomes protection.
And when that happens, what is questioned is no longer only the referee.
Thank you, this is an absolutely brilliant text. It explains very precisely why millions of people around the world simultaneously felt injustice. It's as if a violin string snapped during beautiful music.
ReplyDeleteThank you, and feel free to share this with others.
DeleteWell done for being the biggest hypocrite in the World ,accepting Infantinos and Trumps corruption and then trying to defend referees ,who have been clearly got at.FIFA is finished as an organisation .
ReplyDeleteI will not say whether Collina is right or wrong in his remarks.
DeleteBut I state categorically: following the announcement of the FBI investigation into the AFA over suspected fraud and money laundering, any interference by politicians, officials, or federation presidents within the FIFA environment could lead agents to investigate Infantino and even Collina himself. What we are witnessing at this World Cup is FIFA acting more like a state-run political body than a sports organization.
A shout out to [ Not a Ref]
ReplyDeleteWow, that was so beautiful to read because I never wanted it to end , I was moved {touched} deep and deeper, you really poured my heart, mind.......
All those comments are really very special and make one reflect about almost everything.
We are very delighted to have you [Not a Ref] as part of this blog especially at readers point of view.
Well done you oh my word I'm speechless
As always as we seen in every league in the world the small team throws away a 2 goal lead with 15 mins left to play. They then shout the loudest about match officials and them being to blame. The coaches decisions were all correct. None of their players made any mistakes. Yet the subjectivity of any decision comes down squarely that the referee team lacked integrity and backed the big team because that’s the easy argument to fill the back pages and news minutes. One day in a few centuries time a coach will actually say we made mistakes and paid the price. Match officials are the easy target because they have no voice. The powers rarely speak out and confirm the decisions were correct. Media will always report that referee committees said a decision was wrong. Rarely when it is backed up. It’s all part of being a referee. Makes us stronger and strengthens our bond.
ReplyDelete