My Tv broadcast had a decent replay of the Vidal shot on the upright and Rodriguez (may be different player) hitting the crossbar. Right back for Portugal kept Rodriguez onside. Great decision by AR2.
You know what, I went back and watched it again a few times. You are right. I thought he cleanly got the ball first with his toe. I was wrong. That's a PK to me.
I was going to say that the referee had a decent game after the 90 minutes. In extra time, I thought he was astonishingly poor. The warning/no caution to Gomes as he was getting subbed off was absurd. You're 115 minutes in and you decide to give a warning. I just don't understand why no caution there. The amount of dissent he allowed from Chile was extraordinary. Every decision and every foul called came with a gesture from a Chilean player. I thought Ronaldo deserved a dissent caution as well for that incident, but it was really in line with every other player on the field. Overall, the referees outside of the UEFA trio, Pitana and Geiger were really poor and weak. Some were bordering on in over there head. No real authority, lack of presence and lack of conviction from them. They'll have to scrap confederation neutrality in the knockout stages at the World Cup.
By the way, they should just scrap VAR and use it only for offside/onside decisions for goals. It's clearly not working for any fouls and misconduct decisions.
For reference, the challenge in the penalty area: https://streamable.com/zcfxp So whose fault is this? Irmatov's for not believing it's clear and obvious? Faghani for restarting too quickly and not giving Irmatov a chance? Irmatov for not being quick enough? Or how about just Faghani for missing the foul in the first place?
And this clip sums up what I saw from Faghani today: https://streamable.com/kka8a Misses a foul (or sort of applies advantage), tries to manage his way through something that should absolutely be a card, and his body language and interaction then shows the player--not him--is in total control. I know there are differences of opinion, but I thought Faghani was really poor today. And that comes from someone who, on another thread, had him as a candidate for the WC Final just a couple weeks ago. He didn't live up to his growing reputation today.
The clear and obvious answer is "all of the above." Not to mention, if he didn't think there was a foul, why not a YC for simulation?
I stand by what I said re the first half, but as for extra time in particular, I'll just crawl to my corner now . . .
Well, there is a possibility that it's only B, C and D of the options I presented (meaning that Irmatov DID think it was clearly and obviously a penalty, but couldn't act quickly enough). If that's the case, that's a scandal in itself and speaks to a problem in the technical aspects of the system and training. And if Irmatov didn't think this was clear and obviously a penalty, you have an issue on the judgment side of the training and the bar for "clear and obvious" being conveyed (or the message received) is far too high. Because that's a penalty. Pretty decent point, actually. FIFA refs are taught to avoid simulation cards when there's contact and they're just saying "no, not enough for a foul." But it's pretty hard for a referee to concede there was contact here and not have a penalty particularly since a goal kick was the decision. So he was essentially saying, with his call, that this was simulation. He just didn't offer a card for it.
It appears that during the growing pains phase, the teething situations to be ironed out properly will require a cultural shift of/by on-field referees to start relying on the VAR. Rugby, field-hockey, cricket, have it working, so it is just a matter of time. (what is the CR abbr mean in this thread? I reckon it is not player initials)
In the referee forum it mostly means Center Referee (CR). I see where you are getting at. I believe the whole concept of the VAR is to act as safety net not a crutch (like an assistant referee). If there is an obvious mistake by the CR, the assistants, nor the 4th official have the angle to fix it then there should be an extra set of eyes to review and give the referee a second chance to get the KMI (key match incidents) correct.
They both are fault. Faghani didn't see the challenge and gave a goal-kick. Irmatov probably wasn't too quick in order to review it before Faghani gave the goal-kick.
I'd be pleasantly surprised, with the emphasis on surprised. I've just never seen anything that makes me think he's that highly regarded. I know it's not the strongest collection of refs, and everything is going his way, but... Anyway, certainly hope I'm wrong.
He's had the U20 Final and a WC R16 match. What else do you need to see? Also, on paper this was a very strong collection. You have the three guys in Europe everyone thought were in contention for the cup finals. You have two of the top South Americans. Gassama is the only possible WC returnee from Africa. And Faghani has done two FIFA finals already. Plus Geiger. On paper it is pretty hard to get a stronger collection right now. Mazic. Last Confed Cup, Kuipers did the Final despite Spain's presence. This time, there have been no UEFA refs in the semis, which justifies one in the final. Plus, recently, no ref has done 3 matches at this tournament. Geiger is the only option for confed neutrality. But there are viable reasons to ditch neutrality. Should Geiger get 3 matches when two of the top UEFA referees only get 1 each? I personally hope he does, but there's really no right answer to that question and only Busacca's answer matters.
Maybe bumping up Irmatov from VAR? Seriously though, it would be really ballsy of Busacca to keep confederation neutrality, and appoint an American over three top rated Europeans...I really hope he does it.
I understand that. That line was in response to you saying you hadn't seen anything to make you think he was highly regarded (presumably by FIFA). Was just pointing out that in the two big FIFA tournaments he went to, he got the Final and a R16 match (and was 4th on a semi). For a CONCACAF ref, that's a big deal.
Thanks for the cr-explanation. The way the var-experiment is heading will be similar to where rugby landed. I would not be surprised if collaboration would be sought to help with implementation. With the latter part of obvious mistake situation, there was one incident during the Hurricanes match against the Lions, where the referee asked for review and the TMO gently coaxed the referee toward a situation that was eventually deemed to be worthy of a penalty. So in effect, it was TMO helping the referee make a kmd (key match decision). The reviews are shown on large screens inside stadium, and also seen by the tv-viewers, so everyone goes ooh-aah. The best bit, the referee is left alone by the on-field players (who are usually being attended to). Everyone benefits.