Argentina v Switzerland

[RefereeX]

Embolo sent off after VAR mistaken identity review, second yellow for simulation.

I can’t agree with this, again.
I said when it happened in the USA game before. This is NOT mistaken identity. It’s an incorrectly judged foul.
The wrong player has been booked, yes, but not because his identity was mistaken.

If people think that should be in VAR’s remit, then fine; but it should not be called mistaken identity

 

[one]

Embolo sent off after VAR mistaken identity review, second yellow for simulation.

I can’t agree with this, again.
I said when it happened in the USA game before. This is NOT mistaken identity. It’s an incorrectly judged foul.
The wrong player has been booked, yes, but not because his identity was mistaken.

If people think that should be in VAR’s remit, then fine; but it should not be called mistaken identity

Agree. As with the England game Haaland push, correct outcome was reached but wrong process used. It is an obvious misuse of the mistaken identity protocol. The referee misidentified the offence, he did not misidentify the offender.

And as with the England game wiregate incident, the final outcome of the game could have been different if this was done right.

 

[ladbroke8745]

That's funny...
Only the other day I mentioned no double yellows.
Switzerland come back against Argentina and finally one is given and its in Argentina favour.

 

[Kent Ref]

Wrong process BUT a cheat has been identified and dealt with.

 

[DavidObs]

Wrong process BUT a cheat has been identified and dealt with.

The Swiss Manager apparently said the new rule (Law) is not football, but neither is blatantly diving in an attempt to win a free kick.

 

[The Gump]

One of the worst dives I’ve seen. I know it’s not right but I’d prefer wrong process / correct outcome than correct process / wrong outcome!

 

[es1]

This feels exactly what VAR should be used for. Absolutely clear and Absolutely obvious and a very fair outcome.

 

[David F]

Agree - either the protocols have been misapplied twice, or the “mistaken identity” paragraph in the protocols has been amended by people who don’t understand what mistaken identity is.

The reference to “the offence in question” suggests to me the former, since it implies a single offence, whereas simulation is a different one.

It also adds an odd discontinuity that if Paredes gets booked, Embolo gets sent off, whereas if Paredes doesn’t get booked, Embolo stays on the pitch. Would be much simpler to say that VAR can intervene in any clear acts of simulation and leave it at that.

 

[Degnann]

Agree. As with the England game Haaland push, correct outcome was reached but wrong process used. It is an obvious misuse of the mistaken identity protocol. The referee misidentified the offence, he did not misidentify the offender.

And as with the England game wiregate incident, the final outcome of the game could have been different if this was done right.

The wrong process used for the Haaland push?

 

[one]

The wrong process used for the Haaland push?

Yes if you could call it wrong 'process'. IMO VAR should have stayed out of it. It was not a clear an obvious error.

 

[RefereeX]

Yes if you could call it wrong 'process'. IMO VAR should have stayed out of it. It was not a clear an obvious error.

Only difference being that this would be a subjective error based on a definition of clear and obvious where as in my opinion the review for Embolo is factually incorrect, even if it arrived at the correct outcome

 

[CaptainsPlease]

There is no material released by IFAB to suggest that simulation can be penalised using VAR in this manner. I also agree it does not make sense that the decision to penalise the player committing simulation depends on a card having been incorrectly issued, further evidence that this is not IFAB's intention.

In IFAB's slides they showed an example where an attacking player handled the ball but a defender was wrongly cautioned, this is what the updated protocol is intended to address. Not to punish a different offence.

There's also a Q&A saying this type of incident can be reviewed where the player penalised for the foul has been sent off i.e. not where it was their first caution.

Q: An attacker challenges a defender, who falls to the ground in the middle of the field and pretends to have been fouled, despite there being no contact. The referee stops play, awards a free kick for the defender's team and shows a yellow card (YC) to the attacker, which is their second YC in the match and results in a red card (RC). May the video assistant referee (VAR) inform the referee about a 'clear and obvious error' so that the incident is reviewed?

A: Yes, the VAR can assist the referee in relation to a clearly incorrect second YC. After the referee reviews the replay footage, the second YC and the subsequent RC for the attacker are cancelled. The defender is shown a YC for simulation and play is restarted with an indirect free kick to the attacker’s team.

 

[socal lurker]

Collina addressed this after the reversal in the U.S. game. The decision was made before the cup that mistakenly identify included this context where a player was cautioned for a foul that was the result of simulation. I suppose the “logic” (if there is any) would be that both are USB offenses, and the wrong player was cautioned for USB. I’m not a fan, especially as the review ability of the dive depends on whether the R cautioned for the original “foul.” It also creates weird results, like here—sure, the original foul call and caution was wrong. But there is zero chance a second caution would have been given for simulation at midfield if the R saw the play correctly initially. So the caution is essentially created by the review process that FIFA instructed the VAR and Rs to use.

 

[RustyRef]

Collina addressed this after the reversal in the U.S. game. The decision was made before the cup that mistakenly identify included this context where a player was cautioned for a foul that was the result of simulation. I suppose the “logic” (if there is any) would be that both are USB offenses, and the wrong player was cautioned for USB. I’m not a fan, especially as the review ability of the dive depends on whether the R cautioned for the original “foul.” It also creates weird results, like here—sure, the original foul call and caution was wrong. But there is zero chance a second caution would have been given for simulation at midfield if the R saw the play correctly initially. So the caution is essentially created by the review process that FIFA instructed the VAR and Rs to use.

As much as I admired Collina as a referee, I'm starting to think that his prolonged time on the FIFA exec committee has affected his judgement. Mistaken identity is when you when get the wrong person, and in this case would be cautioning the wrong Argentinian player for the foul. There's zero mistaken identity here, the referee clearly sees the two players involved but just doesn't realise there is an act of simulation rather than a foul.

I'd actually be OK with VAR being able to get involved with acts of simulation, but to dress it up as mistaken identity is utterly ridiculous, and it isn't helping FIFA battle the narrative that they are trying to facilitate specific outcomes in this World Cup. I think that is ridiculous personally, it is just sheer incompetence rather than anything nefarious, but they really aren't helping themselves.