A&H

France vs England

I don't think the referee was anywhere near as bad as has been made out. For the two big calls that went against England, I don't think Saka was fouled in the build up to the first goal, he felt the slightest bit of contact and fell over, and the referee was consistent in not giving those. And for the possible penalty, I get the argument that he should have seen it real time, but if he had he would almost certainly have given it outside the area. VAR would still have said no penalty because they would have to be 100% certain it was inside to recommend a review, and they didn't appear to have an angle to give them that confidence level.

Mark Clattenburg agrees with me https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...IGHT-big-calls-England-crashed-World-Cup.html
 
The Referee Store
santa sangria said:
On the local coverage, the country’s top AR is explaining the VAR penalty call very clearly. Then they’ve had a Q&A explaining the big VAR decisions this tournament. Really great slot. He does Champions League. Bonus, when he comes down to the 4th tier to keep his hand in, I often assist him. The lads are on the telly! Chuffed!
Click to expand...
It’s really good you have an active professional referee as an analyst. I wish we had that in the US. One of our “analysts” is a “former FIFA match commissioner” and former indoor soccer referee who clearly isn’t up to speed on modern officiating. How is your colleague in terms of being fair and even critical of his colleagues?
 
I didn't think he had a great match but equally I don't think he was anywhere near as bad as being portrayed. The 2nd pen was a bad miss, that was clearly more than just easng the attacker out of the way but also when it's a long ball played to an attacker the referee is always going to be along way from the incident. He missed several free kicks in short succession which I think amplified things at a time when England were 1-0 down but pushing hard for an equaliser so it sticks in people's minds more.

His body language wasn't great. He never appeared to be confident. Probably something he needs to work on at that level but then again it is hisn1st ever world cup KO game I believe. Telling people to just be confident isn't how it works in real life.

One area of real irritation this world cup is the constant warning at set pieces. Warn, warn, warn some more and continue warning. The players actually wait for the refs to blow the whistle and warn before even attempting to start play at a corner now. One clear warning and then let them get on with it is the way forward. What use is a warning if its followed by further warnings?

I think he will be disappointed that he didn't have a good game as that's his world cup over now but the idea he was awful is a falicy.
 
one said:
Read a couple of pages of this thread. Gave up reading the rest. A lot of fan comments. Disappointed to see accusations on the referee and referee bashing comments on a referee forum.
Click to expand...
It’s why I generally don’t post much on US game threads. For example, I thought Jesus Valenzuela was not good in the US-England game because he refereed it way too much like. CONCACAF match (in other words, “Cards? What cards??”, and that was every bit as much for the US as for England).
 
I might be wrong, but I think that would have been his first game refereeing two European nations, given it was his first World Cup as a referee I can't see when else he would have done it. Not sure it really sits comfortable with me that his first time of doing it was in the quarter final of a World cup between two of the top seeds.

Tim Vickery, BBC's South American football correspondent says similar, in that he has had to vastly change his game from how he referees in South America, to extent he gets confused and muddled up as to what is and isn't a foul.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1601697188471799808
 
one said:
TBH I am reasonably certain it WOULD NOT have dropped to Mount and he WOULD NOT have beaten the goal keeper to the ball. With that in mind and with the benefit of replay (which the referee did have) I would not have cautioned the defender. There is no basis for it in law. He did not interfere or stop a promising attack. I think the referee was pressured into a yellow by the players who were asking for red.

View attachment 6227
Click to expand...
Could definitely be considered reckless.
 
RichardRef said:
Could definitely be considered reckless.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Could be by you and maybe some others. IMO it wasn't. But we are talking about this particular referee here. He sees a shoulder charge (nothing to miss really) in real time he doesn't even consider it a foul. Then sees a replay VAR telling him it's a foul. He goes back and gives a penalty. Carding at the same time (had he thought it was reckless) would have made selling this new decision to both teams a lot easier. He doesn't card then. He gets croweded by english players asking for a send off. He then calls the player over around 20 seconds after he gives the pen, and cautions him. What are the changes of HIM thinking it was reckless, or just giving into pressure and Carding a downgraded DOGSO?
 
one said:
Fair enough. Could be by you and maybe some others. IMO it wasn't. But we are talking about this particular referee here. He sees a shoulder charge (nothing to miss really) in real time he doesn't even consider it a foul. Then sees a replay VAR telling him it's a foul. He goes back and gives a penalty. Carding at the same time (had he thought it was reckless) would have made selling this new decision to both teams a lot easier. He doesn't card then. He gets croweded by english players asking for a send off. He then calls the player over around 20 seconds after he gives the pen, and cautions him. What are the changes of HIM thinking it was reckless, or just giving into pressure and Carding a downgraded DOGSO?
Click to expand...
I agree the decision & sanction should be decided at the monitor, with VAR & referee in agreement. The yellow card did seem a second thought when under pressure for a red card.
 
DJIC said:
I agree the decision & sanction should be decided at the monitor, with VAR & referee in agreement. The yellow card did seem a second thought when under pressure for a red card.
Click to expand...
We’ll, they can discuss, but they certainly don’t have to agree. Whether to card or not is 100% the referee’s decision. That said I agree it was some of the weirdest optics I’ve seen in a profess game. He comes back from the monitor, English players complain, looks like he’s telling them no card, and them (voice in his ear?) he runs over and gives a card.

I suppose the card could be for either SPA (which isn’t forgiven by the PK as it wasn’t an attempt to play the ball) or reckless. (I don’t think it can be a downgraded DOGSO, both because I don’t think it was even close to DOGSO and because it wasn’t an attempt to play the ball.)
 
one said:
If I understand @PinnerPaul correctly, your "subsequent foul contact inside" is the continuation of the first foul contact. if so , that is not what advantage was made for. It would be a misuse of the advantage concept to do this. The concept of advantage is to allow 'play' to continue to see if the opponents benefit from 'play'. There is no 'play benefit' here. Only turning a free kick to a penalty. There is a reason the accepted convention never turns a FK to a penalty using the advantage clause.

However if the attacker is still on his feet after the first foul, running chasing with/after the ball with a chance of gaining control then yes advantage can be played.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I was reading @PinnerPaul's reference to "subsequent foul contact" as indicating that a second, separate foul has occurred, after advantage was played on a previous one. Subsequent to me, in this context, means something that is distinct from a previous occurrence, not a continuous event.
 
socal lurker said:
We’ll, they can discuss, but they certainly don’t have to agree. Whether to card or not is 100% the referee’s decision. That said I agree it was some of the weirdest optics I’ve seen in a profess game. He comes back from the monitor, English players complain, looks like he’s telling them no card, and them (voice in his ear?) he runs over and gives a card.

I suppose the card could be for either SPA (which isn’t forgiven by the PK as it wasn’t an attempt to play the ball) or reckless. (I don’t think it can be a downgraded DOGSO, both because I don’t think it was even close to DOGSO and because it wasn’t an attempt to play the ball.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is another case where football could and should learn from rugby. It's really common when listening to TMO conversations to finish the process by confirming the agreed sanction and restart:
"OK TMO, so with all that in mind, we have a penalty and yellow card for #5"
"Agreed"

Even if the penalty is the reason the ref gets called over, he should also be confirming the associated sanction. The VAR doesn't have to agree, but the referees decision should be made before he leaves the screen, not after.
 
GraemeS said:
Yeah, this is another case where football could and should learn from rugby. It's really common when listening to TMO conversations to finish the process by confirming the agreed sanction and restart:
"OK TMO, so with all that in mind, we have a penalty and yellow card for #5"
"Agreed"
Click to expand...
I don’t think that needs to be learned from rugby, I think that is already best practice and inexplicable that it didn’t happen here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
IFAB can't have their cake and eat it here.

If there's a set procedure in place and referees will be sanctioned for not following it, the "final confirmation" step needs to be laid out in the procedure and trained to happen. If it isn't, they can't just assume that the referees and VARs will think that it might be a good idea in the heat of the moment, or that they won't fear further sanction for slowing down the procedure further with extra confirmations.

We've all seen the occasional VAR decisions where the referee has walked up to the screen, seen one replay and immediately gone "OK, I got it wrong", turned round and walked back onto the pitch. Which means this step isn't an enforced part of the process and we can therefore presume, isn't currently being trained.

Hence the suggestion that they need to look at other sports and learn what good practice is from the iterations that have already happened elsewhere.
 
GraemeS said:
We've all seen the occasional VAR decisions where the referee has walked up to the screen, seen one replay and immediately gone "OK, I got it wrong", turned round and walked back onto the pitch.
Click to expand...
Side chat here:
What irks me with VAR is how long they spend at the monitor. Almost having to be convinced the decision is / was wrong.
If the decision is clearly and obviously wrong, then, aside from any potential discussions on sanction really the referee ought to not spend every long at the monitor at all.
The penalty for mount - It didn't need to be looked at, freeze framed, replayed from another angle, freeze framed, slowed down and replayed again for the ref to go, yep, missed a blatantly obvious one there..
 
JamesL said:
Side chat here:
What irks me with VAR is how long they spend at the monitor. Almost having to be convinced the decision is / was wrong.
If the decision is clearly and obviously wrong, then, aside from any potential discussions on sanction really the referee ought to not spend every long at the monitor at all.
The penalty for mount - It didn't need to be looked at, freeze framed, replayed from another angle, freeze framed, slowed down and replayed again for the ref to go, yep, missed a blatantly obvious one there..
Click to expand...
To take that a step further… and one reason why I think the protocol is fundamentally flawed… if an AR can call an offence the ref has not seen, why can’t a vAR…?
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
RustyRef said:
I don't think the referee was anywhere near as bad as has been made out. For the two big calls that went against England, I don't think Saka was fouled in the build up to the first goal, he felt the slightest bit of contact and fell over, and the referee was consistent in not giving those. And for the possible penalty, I get the argument that he should have seen it real time, but if he had he would almost certainly have given it outside the area. VAR would still have said no penalty because they would have to be 100% certain it was inside to recommend a review, and they didn't appear to have an angle to give them that confidence level.

Mark Clattenburg agrees with me https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...IGHT-big-calls-England-crashed-World-Cup.html
Click to expand...
FIFA agree with you RustyRef, Mr Sampaio is staying on in the last 12 referees, Michael Oliver is on his flight home. 🤔
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top