A lot of "rules" and common practice went out the window in the last WC with ability/performance being a much bigger influence in appointments. That's why there is such a big "IF" in the predictions.
He--and we--mean in this tournament. Some tournaments they keep it throughout, in others they keep it through the group stage only (and still others they've made an exception or two in the group stage). Given the matchups, the size of the tournament and the performances of a few referees, I'd think this is a tournament where neutrality gets scrapped. But we don't know that yet.
Can we talk about what happens on the second Mexican goal if the ball doesn't end up in the net? How would you sanction the Russia keeper?
True.. I only post occasionally, but I am on bigsoccer reading the posts several times per day. Perfect? No. Impressive performances by Mark and his crew over 2 games? For me, yes.
We all have to remember that VAR is an infant (or maybe a toddler). Not surprisingly, it is experiencing a steep learning curve and like many things as referees we only get better at it by doing it. So, it is no surprise to me that it has at times been good and has sucked at other times. Will it really be ready for the 2018 World Cup? I have my doubts but we shall see. I believe that one aspect about soccer referees that we enjoy whether we admit it or not is that there will always be gray areas where the subjective nature of calls does not please everyone. After all, if we look at it from our couch from 5 different angles in slow motion and don’t agree on the call why is it surprising that what the referee called does not please everyone (VAR or no VAR)? The perfectly refereed match is a myth and the individual nuances of each match will always differ. The public may think that VAR is the magic potion that will suddenly make all matches perfect but alas, that is fantasy. Two referees I have enjoyed watching in the Confederations cup have been Mark Geiger (USA) and Fahid Al Mirdasi (KSA). Have they and their crews (including VAR) gotten everything right? No, but I think their overall presence, foul selection, positioning and rapport with the players has been good.
Portugal v Chile: FAGHANI (IRN) Faghani wasn't so good on his first match but it seems that Busacca has too much faith on him.
Or he's the only option, if you presume the idea of Geiger getting Portugal back-to-back was dismissed (or, alternatively, if Geiger is being held as an option for the Final). This would seem to indicate Pitana for the other semi, right?
Germany : Mexico - PITANA (ARG) Rocchi is his 4th and Al-Mirdasi is the 4th on the other match. A Germany-Chile final sets up perfectly for Geiger. There are two situations where you have a UEFA referee for the final. The nightmare scenario for Busacca now has to be Mexico-Portugal; there's no good option for that match without breaking neutrality or using someone who wasn't that good in the group stages.
I think Faghani had a very good first half. He controlled the temperature of the game well and used his three cards wisely. One YC for reckless tackles to both teams, and a well-timed dissent card to Por. The dissent card was absolutely necessary, given the spectacle Ronaldo put on just a few minutes earlier when Faghani called a foul for Chile 10 yards outside the Portugal penalty area. He managed that situation without a card (could definitely have given one if he wanted), and given that the dissent persisted, the card he did give was necessary. With no goals, this game is going to get much tougher. Excited for the second half.
Ronaldo turned his back and walked away from Faghani while he was trying to have a conversation and admonish him. And Ronaldo escaped a yellow card after running 40 yards and putting on a "spectacle," yet Andre Silva got one immediately after his first outburst. I don't call that well-managed, I call it having to book Silva because you're losing control and you know it--if Silva needed a yellow card, so did Ronaldo (perhaps more so). He got nothing from that card. The dissent continued--both from Silva and the Chilean players. I thought he has been relatively poor, honestly. Neither set of players seem to respect him. I don't think he's "controlling" the match so much as nothing truly absurd has happened to blow the lid off things--but I don't think he has anything to do with that at all and part of me thinks it's just a matter of time. And he missed the foul by William in the 20' that really started to allow temperatures to rise.
And just to throw VAR into the discussion, I don't know how the Cameroon challenge over the weekend gets an OFR and turned into a red card but Jara's tackle doesn't get re-examined by the referee. I'm not saying it's a stonewall SFP red card, but it's in the ballpark and seems the sort of challenge a referee would want a second look at if the VAR system is in the business of upgrading yellow card challenges to red.
This is a thoughtful response, but I really couldn't disagree more. And my read of the players' respect for him is quite different from yours, as was just shown by the card he showed to Chile in the 50th minute. That card engenders an entirely different reaction if he's not so decisive, and if he hadn't given the previous card to Carvalho. He's been on top of the game, I think. Also, it's not as if Ronaldo ran 40 yards just to dissent. He's going to be marking someone in the penalty area on that play anyway. I'm not excusing the dissent, I'm just saying that trying to manage that situation without a card seems reasonable to me. I suspect we won't reach an agreement, so I'll leave it at that. We'll see how the second half unfolds.
And a thoughtful response from you, too. You're right that I don't think we'll find common ground here, because I really feel the lack of respect is apparent. So we can leave things as they are and watch how the match unfolds. So others can see what we're discussing, though, here are the two incidents in question: https://streamable.com/5jqgf https://streamable.com/ntefo
I'm not sure if there is a huge language barrier for the Iranian referee (or management tool) but I noticed he uses his whistle like no other. Obvious ball across the toucheline 2, 3 sometimes even 4+ quick whistles for a throw in. Even fouls, and corner kicks there are extra whistles.
Haven't watched anything but these two clips, so my comments are based entirely on these. In clip #1, Ronaldo doesn't look like he could care less with what Faghani is saying to him. That was "teenager turning his back on his parents" level of dissent. Clip #2, I think the card was justified but I can't see how the players respect him here. Just my $0.02
That was my first thought as well...got the refs attention really fast. As for Ronaldo...he gets a little leeway as captain, a little leeway as, well, Ronaldo, so a card would have really surprised me.
Well I think he blew that one in the 109th minute. Definitely a foul. If he thought otherwise, we was wrong. If he was playing advantage, that was the wrong call as well--no advantage when Ronaldo had his back turned to goal. He should have given the FK to Portgual at the corner of the PA.
So I honestly am quite torn about the non-call in the penalty area. The defender cleanly and clearly wins the ball, but the defender's boot them comes down on top of the attacker's foot. I honestly don't think you'd see many professional referees give it as a PK, but I don't know, and I'm open to being persuaded. At the least, though, I think it should have been reviewed.
Personally, I think it could go either way. But I absolutely love tat he made it clear that calling advantage belongs to the CR, not the players. No VAR on the possible PK is ridiculous