The Ref Stop

Argentina v Switzerland

R

RefereeX

RefChat Addict
Level 2 Referee
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
 
The Ref Stop
RefereeX said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.

1783843795102.png
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...
The wrong process used for the Haaland push?
 
one said:
Yes if you could call it wrong 'process'. IMO VAR should have stayed out of it. It was not a clear an obvious error.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
socal lurker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IFAB has always been of the Humpty Dumpty school of language--"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--niether more nor less." I certainly agree this is completely torturing the language. But as I understand it from what Collina said, teams were told this was how it was going to be applied in the WC. (I've seen some argue this was a use case discussed when IFAB adopted the language adding mistaken identity could be opponents rather than teammates, but I don't recall that. All I recall is the example of a handball where the R concluded a defender handled the ball and it was actually an attacker.) And totally agree with you that it is yet another self-inflicted wound for FIFA this WC.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can certainly see where you are coming from about Collina & FIFA have certainly got to sort out their wording concerning mistaken identity (though I liked the fact that in a high profile game shown around the world, a blatant dive was punished which needs to happen in an attempt to eradicate). However, it must be one of the most challenging jobs in the biggest football competition in the world & overall, with the amount of preparation he has organised etc during the tournament, I think in terms of both the flow of the games & standard of Refereeing, many things have gone well. Following the conclusion of the tournament there definitely has to be a review of certain important aspects which includes VAR. I understand there is talk for the next World Cup of including 64 teams, which I think is crazy & if this becomes the case, Collina may decide he hasn’t enough energy in the role, where I feel he still has a lot to offer & still the most respected ex Referee in world football. Although not related to football, whilst on one hand it is sad to see the demise of line judges at Wimbledon (certainly on the main show court), hawk-eye showed how well it can be used in tennis - with the real time speed of decision making/almost immediate visual replays & no need for challenges, though we all know that tennis is perfectly suited for this technology. The perception from some is that mistakenly, not comparing like for like (hawk eye v goal line technology rather than VAR) & for obvious other reasons (eg subjectiveness), many will think VAR should achieve the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top