U20 World Cup Referee Assignments & Discussion [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, May 17, 2017.

  1. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Good argument. Still think this is the best shot at routing out cynical play like this from football.

    This time it was a win for cynicism, as the player in question ended up scoring the winning goal for Italy. Another win for the 'bad rep' of football.
     
  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #102 MassachusettsRef, Jun 6, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
    Semifinals
    Uruguay : Venezuela - MARCINIAK (POL)
    Italy : England - MATEU LAHOZ (ESP)

    Mateu Lahoz on that match is not surprising at all, but the Marciniak one is interesting in two ways from my perspective. First, it's very possible he moved to this semi because the confederational neutrality principle is in play (it was broken once in the first round, but not since) and that would mean a European referee can't do the Final (andwould suggest several options for the Final, but more on that later). Second, from what I gather there's always been a bit of a "don't put European referees on intra-CONMEBOL matches" attitude from CONMEBOL. And after Velasco Carballo in Brazil v Chile, there was some very high-profile evidence to help that claim. Putting Marciniak on this match, which will not make some powerful people happy, shows both the esteem he's held in and the lack of confidence in any of the remaining CONMEBOL referees (Cunha was likely the best, by far, but he can't do this match for an obvious reason).

    For the Final, if for some reason the confederational neutrality rule is out the window, it's almost certain to be Kuipers, I think. If not, you've got Grisha as a possibly and maybe even Ramos. Kim, as the home referee, can't be overlooked but he's not even short-listed for WC18 (he's a potential reserve) so that would look very weird--more likely he's on the 3/4 playoff. There are a couple other possibilities, including Al-Jassim.

    Also, Orsato and Zwayer are the VAR1s in these two matches. They are quickly becoming the "experts," along with Makkelie, who is AVAR on England-Italy and might very well be VAR on the Final (with Kuipers?).
     
  3. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Penalty suggested by VAR and awarded by Marciniak.

    https://streamable.com/91ot4

    As you can see, the first replay on the world feed is doubtful. This demonstrates that the referees have access to other angles before anyone else. That's good for efficiency, but tough for transparency. Key replay here:

    https://streamable.com/6wk72
     
  4. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    This looks ridiculous for many reasons. The referee was 4 yards away from the tackle and had a very clear view of it.
    The defender clearly played the ball first. It took way too long for the VAR to call the referee over. I am still not convinced it
    was a penalty anyway. There is no way this is given in most top pro leagues (I hope!).

    PH
     
  5. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    He got the ball first, sure. But this is meaningless - you go studs in, you connect - its a foul. If he had just toppled the player without hitting him with the studs = no foul. But the studs make a world of difference.
     
  6. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Was the defender sent off for SFP?

    PH
     
  7. sulfur

    sulfur Member+

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    No need. Intensity isn't high enough for that. For this one, I would have (personally) cautioned, due to the location of contact.

    There wasn't a caution in game though.

    http://www.flashscore.ca/game/h8j7s37g/#game-summary
     
  8. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    I don't think that's enough for a penalty and certainly not enough for it to be a "clear and obvious error."

    He did catch him a little bit with the studs, but there was not enough force there, for me, to justify the foul there. Harder force and studs connect longer then you have a foul.

    Either way, that's not what the VAR is supposed to correct.

    I don't think the decision to award the penalty is completely wrong as there is justification for the call as there is justification for a no call as well.

    The whole point of the VAR is for there to be no post match discussion and outrage at a decision after the game. They don't want the referees to be the story of the game.

    Imagine this next year at the semifinals in Russia. If no penalty is given, only referee boards will debate whether there should have been a penalty given.

    If a penalty given is via VAR, that will be the only thing discussed which will defeat the whole point of the VAR in the first place to not have referees be the talking point.
     
  9. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC

    You're right, this isn't given often, because it's hard to see through the traffic in the box, even if the ref is in a perfect position...that's why VAR is so valuable.
     
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think you're saying the contact is "trifling," are you? I mean, for me this is careless at minimum and probably reckless. I agree with @sulfur it doesn't rise to the level of SFP. But I think this is always supposed to be a foul at midfield. The problem is that fouls like this regularly get ignored in the penalty area precisely because the consequences are so severe and referees are hesitant unless they are 100% sure. But now, with the ability to have a second look, if the VAR and CR conclude 100% that it was a missed foul, does that make it a "clear and obvious error" or does the context of the sport, where fouls like this often aren't given, override that conclusion?

    This goes to the point I made earlier in the group stage, when a stray hand carelessly struck an opponent in the defensive penalty area during dynamic play. On video, it's obviously a missed foul; traditionally, it's almost never called. The VAR era opens up a whole can of worms in this regard.

    We don't know that. You've got a guy who, in FIFA's eyes, is clearly one of the few VAR experts in the world suggesting the review. And you've got one of the best referees in the world, who has been trained by FIFA in VAR protocol, using his OFR to change the call. If those two individuals are making this decision based on their training, maybe this is exactly what it's supposed to correct in FIFA's eyes. But we don't know, because we don't have post-match transparency on VAR incidents.

    Agree with this.
     
  11. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Sure, but in this case there was no "traffic in the box" the referee had a clear unobstructed view, no-one between him and the
    incident, and he was only a few yards away. He must have seen the contact and decided no call. I am having a lot of
    difficulty seeing why his decision would be second guessed, in this case.
    I am not totally against video replay, but it seems to me that this was not a case where the referee
    clearly missed something or got something wrong that cried out to be corrected.

    PH
     
    rh89 repped this.
  12. sulfur

    sulfur Member+

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    For all we know, the conversation may have simply been something like:

    VAR: "Did you see the contact of foot on leg in that tackle?"
    Ref: "Uh... no... is it worth looking at to verify?"
    VAR: "I think so, but your call either way."
    Ref: "OK."
    [...]
    Ref: "Wow, I definitely missed that. Yup. That's a foul."
     
    akindc repped this.
  13. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    True, not a lot of traffic here, but he's still straight in line behind the defender, where it would be really hard to see a foot hit the far leg.
    Capture.JPG

    Regardless, we're just going to have to disagree on the VAR here. To me, the foul is as obvious as it gets in the second replay Mass posted above, and the PK was correctly called.
     
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    If a result of VAR is fewer studs up, dangerous tackles, that's not a bad thing . . .

    But one of the oddities of VAR is always going to be that there are two questions to argue about instead of one: Was the ultimate call correct? Was the original call "wrong enough" to be corrected?
     
    threeputzzz and akindc repped this.
  15. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Agree - he really got a bit unlucky here. Sometimes even great positioning still isn't good enough to see everything.
     
    akindc repped this.
  16. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nicked the ball...as his foot goes over it and he clatters into the opponent. Good call.
     
  17. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    More force and contact and this is likely an ankle injury that sees the attacker out of the game. It's easily a foul as it is.


    We might quibble about how it fits with the VAR guidelines but, with the possible exception of some Venezuelan fans, I'd say that this is exactly the type of situations that have made fans call for using replays.


    I guess that depends a lot on the broadcaster. If they show the second replay during the game I'd bet good money on there being a lot more discussion post-match if nothing is called than if it plays out as it did here. If they just show the replay in the first clip then yes, no one would expect a penalty.
     
  18. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Couple of points that I'm going to cover.

    Watching the replay the first time, I deemed the contact somewhere between trifling and careless. I thought his studs grazed the attacker on the shin, but there was more force than I originally saw. Watching it again, it's definitely reckless and a penalty is more than justified and, in a vacuum, probably, should be called.

    But as you mentioned, "the context of the sport" override this many times. It's not fair and right, but the reality is what's a foul at midfield and what's a foul in the penalty area are not always the same thing and you can make a decent argument that nor should they be.

    I also think there is a bit of an understanding that more contact by the defender in the penalty area will be allowed as long as they get the ball. We all know that playing the ball doesn't absolve you of a foul or off committing a red card tackle, but we do give the defenders more benefit of the doubt if they do get the ball. That's just the reality of the sport. If they make a bad tackle and they get the ball most referees will downgrade to a yellow card.

    http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2017-week-13.php

    Take this tackle here. I have no doubt in my mind that if Cronin doesn't play the ball, the referee produces red. What saved him is that he did play the ball. It doesn't make it right, but it is the reality. I think that is the same instance in the penalty area when it comes to plays like the one in the Venezuela and Uruguay game. We will just naturally allow leeway to the defender if they do play the ball and I think the play falls under the leeway. Now if he fully caught him in the calf or with it more force, that leeway goes out the window.

    I remember the Luke Shaw injury two years ago. It's not a similar play at all, but it's similar in that the defender did get some of the ball and then completely wiped out Shaw.



    I think we all can agree that it should have been a penalty and a red card and that it needed to be called. My point is that not everybody did though. Howard Webb himself claimed that Rizzoli got it right.

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/fo...-got-decision-right-on-Man-United-s-Luke-Shaw

    The reality is that referees at the highest level are refereeing more towards fan, coaches, media and players expectations and perceptions then they are to referees and the LOTG for the most part. Just watch the way the games are officiated at the EPL and Champions League. Referees don't want to be in the headlines and giving a decision like the one Marcianiak gave will rightly or wrongly. We all have seen what happened with Unkle...

    Now to the VAR angle.

    You're right that we will never know whether FIFA wants this play ruled by the VAR. I'd argue no, but if they do you are really basically saying that the VAR should be used to re-referee the game.

    If they want the VAR to intervene and the referee to act on a play like this after viewing the replay, then I don't see how you don't end up having the VAR give three to four penalty kicks a game.

    If this is "clear and obvious," then every decent hold and grab on a set piece or corner should be given. I'd argue any contact in the penalty area and no ball won the VAR should intervene.

    Any tackle that can be justified as a red card for SFP, should be upgraded then. You will end up with games being 8 vs. 9.

    If they deem this "clear and obvious," then that means you want the game re-refereed with and I will be fine with that. I'm all for more penalty kicks and more red cards.

    Lastly, I have not kept up with the tournament at all and it's VAR uses, but has the VAR been used at all to upgrade a yellow or no card to a red for SFP? If not, I just find that hard to believe.

    If they want the VAR to intervene on that penalty kick, then how have they not had one tackle where it needed to be upgraded to a red card?
     
  19. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Kuipers for the Final.

    Ramos for 3/4 playoff.
     
  20. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Any discussion about the PK Kuipers awarded to Venezuela?
    Looked like a clear dive to me. Not sure if it came from VAR or not.
    Very minimal contact.
    I expect there is no controversy since the PK was saved and England won anyway.

    PH
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Kuipers whistled. VAR did not overturn it as an error. Video appears to confirm it was a foul--watch the right knee of the English defender in the second replay:

    https://streamable.com/mphtn
     
    Pierre Head repped this.

Share This Page