I was going more on the line that if the NIR/SUI incident occurred here, that it would be closer to Henry level than what we got because of the teams involved.
Thanks! I misunderstood your post. Agreed here, though I would also say that it is also a major talking point (not just "a talking point")
Mass Ref, I have a question about Lahoz’ style. Admittedly, this is the first time I have ever seen him, and I found him fascinating to watch. This had to be the biggest match of the UEFA calendar outside of the CL semi/final, no? At times, he turns his back to the ball in anticipation of where it is going, yet it seems WAY earlier than anyone else I have ever witnessed! On some occassions, the ball never got where he was looking. His pointing and gesturing is a bit over the top, to me, and I thought twice he was actually giving the foul instead of NOT giving the foul. Also, he brushed players aside at least twice during the game, physically. I don’t think I have ever seen that from a FIFA badged referee. His conditioning though was unreal. He got from point A to Point B in a flash. So, that’s a positive. You think he’s going? Or do the major incidents hamper him?
Right. This match was always going to get media coverage because of what it was and the result for Italy. And that means a detailed review of the referee decisions today and tomorrow. So in that regard, of course, there is more generic attention on the refereeing here than the Northern Ireland vs Switzerland game last week. But 8 years from now Italians won’t be saying a Spanish referee kept them out of the World Cup. The same can’t be said for the Northern Irish and a Romanian referee. That’s the difference.
Good result for Rocchi. He'll be in play for a lot of assignments this World Cup. Possibly the Opener?
I have a better shot of refereeing the opening match than Geiger in the current political climate considering Russia will be one of the teams involved. Imagine the headlines if Geiger gives a remotely controversial decision against Russia. "American referee hacks Russia's World Cup hopes." There will be a better chance of Geiger seeing Iran than Russia at the World Cup.
You're probably right about Geiger doing the opener. He's the type of ref that could get that game (assuming Russia doesn't draw a CONCACAF team), but an American on that game probably becomes a story and could define the opening week of the tournament something went wrong.
To be honest I didn't even consider the Russia colluding with USA, hacking, etc. but makes sense not to use Geiger for that match for the premise of the match setting the tone for the rest of the tourney. however, I don't think Geiger is that far down the pecking order in the eyes of FIFA.
Exactly. Under normal circumstances Geiger is on the short list for the opener. With Russia in it? I just can’t see it. If Russia doesn’t play a South American team, Pitana is near the top of the list. I don’t see another name unless FIFA wants to just give it to a UEFA referee. But when they don’t have to do that, they probably won’t. If it is a South American team, the pickings are slim. Would Irmatov, from a former Soviet Republic, really be in the mix? Does any African qualify? I think the answer to both questions is “no.” Maybe Faghani is the alternative but he’s literally the only realistic non-CONCACAF option I can think of right now. All signs point to CONCACAF. Garcia or—perish the thought, Aguilar—could back door their way into an opening match assignment that otherwise would have been Geiger’s.
Irmatov also did the 2010 opener. That would be quite an achievement to do it twice. With an Asian ref doing the last two openers and Geiger being in that group of "good ref that could get a QF but probably never could get the final", which typically gets the opener, I would list Geiger as the clear favorite...if it was anyone but Russia.
That's also because Mateu Lahoz's mistakes cost both sides more or less equally. If there had been a single blatant handball by Sweden in the 95th minute not given as a penalty, things would have been very different. Error of commission/omission is not the only factor here. A good example is Ovrebo in 2009. Just like Mateu Lahoz, he committed several errors of omission by rejecting a host of strong penalty claims. Unlike Mateu Lahoz though, all of his errors cost Chelsea. Are Chelsea fans no longer saying that a Norwegian referee kept them out of the UCL final, 8 years later? I doubt it.
You are correct! Football fans have very long memories. Germans even to this day say a "Russian" linesman prevented Germany from winning the WC in 1966. (Yes I know he was actually from Azerbaijan, at the time part of the USSR. Those days anyone from the USSR was called Russian, much to the annoyance of the people from the other Republics). However, Hansson does not seem to get a lot of blame for missing Henry's handling in the Ireland/France match in 2009, most of the bile falls on Henry for deliberately cheating, as it does for Maradona in 1986 WC vs. England. In fact few people can remember who that referee was. PH
Last time it was in January, which I believe was earlier than in the past. This time, again, the first seminar for appointed referees will be in early February. So I'd expect a January announcement again.
That is true. When something is truly "clear and obvious," to borrow a phrase we've come to love, the commission/omission thing is less relevant and perhaps not relevant at all in some extreme situations (like the lack of an offside flag in Argentina v Mexico 2010). But when a game-changing debatable call happens, I firmly believe the commission/omission thing matters. Referees are better off not giving the penalty that probably was a penalty rather than giving the penalty that was probably not a penalty. A decent example. But the issue with Ovrebo is that he turned away four credible penalty appeals, all against the same team. So it was really the cumulative effect. If he had simply missed one single stonewall penalty, there would have been controversy that week, but I doubt the game would be remembered the same way it is right now.
A few things I noticed about Lahoz. First, after whistling for a foul, he frequently (not always - a few times he ran to the spot of the foul) turned away from looking at the foul location and looked up field. I was taught in Refereeing 101 to continue looking at the players involved in the foul to see if there was any followup 'activity.' Now, perhaps he had instructed his AR's to do this. But it seemed strange. On the plus side, however, many times he scanned the players away from the ball - clearly when the player with the ball wasn't being challenged by an opponent. He did it more often than I believe I have ever seen, and it struck me as a good habit. What was all of his pointing about? Rufusabc previously mentioned this, and I could never figure out what he was up to with it. Many times he would point to a player far away from the ball and who hadn't been recently involved in play. Any ideas?
He had a lot of fun gesticulating. My favorite was his two part advantage motion...first pointing to the foul with one arm, and then adding the second arm if it became an advantage. I kinda liked it...showed the players that advantage was being considered.
Or the lack of a goal signal in Germany v England at the same World Cup! Fair enough. While Mateu Lahoz was poor, he was at least consistent with both sides. Four wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes, but the Italians cannot say that their World Cup qualification chances were ruined by him. One can only imagine the public outcry if all four penalty shouts had been against Sweden and the game ended 0-0. Hategan, on the other hand, was unlucky that no other goal was scored during 180 minutes, so his decision to give the penalty was pretty much the only talking point.
Neat little attempted advantage by Marciniak before calling the PK. I really liked his field presence/personality compared to Lahoz. Note: It's a rather large gif so I didn't embed it. https://i.imgur.com/QSHGG59.gif
And interesting, at least to me, in that it is consistent with the USSF "only advantage in the PA is a goal"--the teammate got a shot and it was clear from the moment of the foul that it was not going to be a shot that was better than a PK. Marcinak clearly gave the proverbial "two bites at the apple" that has been much discussed as to the PA.
In another thread (languages) you mentioned being at a seminar listening to Bob Evans. He always emphasized this, and it is discussed in his book. You are correct, it is a very good habit and a sign of a smart referee. I am not sure if it taught very much these days at least in the US. I haven't heard it at some high level instructional events I attended in recent years. Of course Evans, a former FIFA referee and FIFA referee instructor was essentially ostracized by US Soccer for most of the last decade, and was not appointed to teach at things like the Regional RTS so perhaps teaching his ideas went with him. PH
Not that it mattered in this particular game, or this particular incident, but for clarity this decision by Marcinak is contrary to instructions within UEFA. That instruction, which is similar I believe to current thinking in the US, is that you should only play advantage in the PA when it is more or less a "tap-in" for a goal, which this clearly was not. However, if you do decide to give an advantage, UEFA is quite clear that if the team involved have a clear unimpeded opportunity to exercise that advantage - in this case take a shot at goal - then that advantage has been "realised" and you cant then go back and award the PK if they fail to score. I like Marcinak a lot, and he did well in this game, but that decision ("two bites at the apple") will not be supported by his Observer, though, thankfully, it is highly unlikely to cause him a problem given the relative unimportance of the decision.
Turpin I believe is on the Peru v. New Zealand 2nd leg match. in the 25th minute there are calls for a PK from Peru. For once me and Steve McManmanam agree on the no PK decision. The ball struck his hand in front of the center mass of the body after taking a nasty deflection. ill see If I can find a clip at halftime.
Matchday 5 Group E Spartak Moscow - Maribor: COLLUM (SCO) Sevilla - Liverpool: BRYCH (GER) Group F Man City - Feyenoord: KRUZLIAK (SVK) Napoli - Shaktar Donetsk: SKOMINA (SVN) Group G Besiktas - Porto: MATEU LAHOZ (ESP) Monaco - RB Leipzig: UNDIANO MALLENCO (ESP) Group H APOEL - Real Madrid: SOARES DIAS (POR) Dortmund - Tottenham: TURPIN (FRA) Brych, fresh off domestic controversy, will hope to get back to normality in a crucial match in Seville. Kruzliak with back-to-back UCL appointments in England - good sign for him even if it's not a big match. Turpin returns from Peru to do what should be an interesting game - Dortmund is a club in crisis, while Tottenham will hope to bounce back from their loss to Arsenal and claim the group winners spot. Finally, let's hope that Besiktas - Porto will be a football and not a handball match.