I think players do what they know they can get away with. I think we would see much cleaner games if there was any expectation of misconduct being taken seriously. (Random aside—would Adams have played the same games if the US was more worried a ref would actually give him his second caution for a suspension?)
21' should be assessed as excessive force IMO - a rising elbow strike with clenched fist. However, I'd say that actually getting a RC without need for intervention would be pretty superhuman here - catching the offence with your trailing eye in that area of the pitch, you simply couldn't be sure enough that it wasn't just a very reckless impeding offence. Elfath did well to see it at all. On the halfway line with the game dead, no attack etc, it is probably a bit different. I'm surprised that you see 28' as a 100% intervention for PRO. I'd say that a caution is definitely maximum here. The ref solved this scene by quickly running over, calming players down (using exactly the same 'two players just came across each other' from Al Hilal vs. Flamengo missed SYC/SFP incident, if you remember that far back). To be fair, Elfath absolutely succeeded in managing this scene. Together with the scandalous tackle which resulted in the red card (careers are ended by assaults like that), I think the American ref solved all of these scenes the way that FIFA would want (at the WC finals).
It all started with the 7m studs raking on Ronaldo's thigh by Boulahrouz. A correct red card there instead of the YC, would have prevented most of the subsequent cards. (maybe!). PH
I want to go back to USA/CR on Wednesday. There's a real chance that there was an offside in the buildup to Dest's goal. I wonder if the thru-ball on the left flank was actually to an offside player. There isn't a replay available with a clear-cut camera angle, so I guess we'll never know. But my question is this: If VAR had been available for this match, would the "attacking phase of play" have been restarted by the time the goal had started? The US had to bring the ball AWAY from the goal briefly, and the defenders were all back into position. How far does the APP extend?
Agreed. 100% is probably too strong from me. But I think that last look at the follow-through, with the studs into the calf, would probably convince him. It probably comes down to who is VAR in MLS, but if that gets sent down, given a few incidents Elfath has had this year that are similar, I think he goes with the recommendation and give the red. But it probably isn't sent down every time, which makes 100% an exaggeration. Probably in real-time, but given what we've seen on video replay you are saying the first is a red card. So would you expect an OFR and a red card for it at the World Cup now?
28' is one of those weird 'follow-through SFP' incidents - the Honduran player plays the ball absolutely cleanly first, and the only contact comes after the tackle has been fully executed. The nature of the contact is very different to say Orsato's SWEUKR scene (here, medium-intensity glancing down the shin and then only very heavy on the (upper) foot), too. Really, I think the defender deliberately kicks the ball at his opponent with a slide tackle to win a throw-in, while showing a disregard for the safety of the Mexico player. For me, this is a cast iron case of a reckless tackle. 21' is very interesting re. intervention. If we take exactly the same offence on the halfway line, missed by the FoP officials and causing a mass confrontation, then I'm pretty sure 10/10 WC VMO teams would call the ref over. In this situation, punished with a yellow card, players not really caring either way, not in the 'nothing' area of the pitch in the midst of an attacking play I'd find an intervention pretty (even, very) surprising.
Though I fully understand what you're saying, I would suggest this might be one of those cultural things where we see something in Latin America regularly that we don't often see in Europe. Because--even if this isn't the case here--I can guarantee there are tackles in our hemisphere where the player knows he can play the ball "cleanly" initially and takes the opportunity to drive through the opponent with as much force as possible, hoping the fact that he "got the ball" disguises or partially excuses the misconduct. In other words, while I know we aren't supposed to be mind-readers, I see a tackle like this as more deliberate than what we saw in SWE-UKR, as in that situation the fouling player is being punished despite the lack of intent, as the result was foreseeable and he had to be held responsible for his actions once the severe impact occurred. In this case, despite the initial "clean" part of the tackle, that result is not foreseeable or inevitable--the level of force for that tackle, right next to the touch line with the ball likely going out of play either way, is just completely unnecessary. I know I'm generalizing and relying on some cultural stereotypes, but I feel like this is the type of tackle that is more often accidental elsewhere around the world, but is very often deliberate in our neck of the woods. I think this is likely a fair analysis, but it does sort of speak to the emerging reality that VAR is not really about dealing with red card offences objectively, doesn't it? Bluntly, this is either clear violent conduct or it isn't. The fact that a WC VMO might treat it differently due to what it then prompts is, if true, an indictment of the system. A player shouldn't get away with a late and deliberate elbow to the head.simply because no one really notices. After all, the VAR is there to notice!
Agree with all of your comment(s)! I had the same feeling that 28' was pretty deliberate, but personally I'd still say the offence only merited a YC given the contact's nature, but obviously that's a moot point for discussion etc. and can perfectly understand your take too .
But that means Escobar at the Azteca! In all seriousness, huge match for Barton. Probably not an overstatement to say a big part of his WC candidacy—at least the part he can control—rests on this performance.
Unless Martinez gets that match instead of Escobar. (I can hope, right? ) EDIT - Since Costa Rica is also in that window, it almost has to be Escobar. Shoot. Maybe we'll be in a spot where qualification won't rest on that match.
Honduras plays Mexico three days after the Mexico-US match. Unless the principles behind the assigning are abandoned or Honduras is eliminated on matchday 11, Escobar is getting that match.
Thoughts on this? On a side note, having a game-deciding OFR in additional time added onto 9 minutes of stoppage time is truly CONCACAF. The “no penalty, game over” signal might also be a first.
That has got to be a penalty! Wow! The initial shot I think no, but then he sticks his hand out and blocks the attacker dribbling through (maybe twice?).
I don't think this plays into the dynamics of the decision at all, because I think the VAR was right to send it down and it's a penalty. But there's a level of intrigue here in the sense that Hernandez, the referee, essentially just got promoted to "#2 Mexico WC candidate*" and Escobodo, the VAR, was the person demoted out of that spot and now only has a shot of going to the WC as a VMO. Only one of them can be correct here in what is probably the most intense/critical situation a CONCACAF referee can face in-confederation short of the Gold Cup Final or determinative WCQ match. The fact that the demoted guy nailed it, in my opinion, while the promoted guy (with video) gets it wrong should be worrisome for FIFA. *I actually think Ramos is toast and Hernandez is going to the WC at this moment, but on paper Ramos still appears to be #1 since he would be a returning WC referee... and decisions like this can only help Ramos
This is example #1056 where VAR isn't really making the game better. I will say that they accepted the decision a lot better than I thought they would. I was expecting him to get mobbed after signaling no penalty. Or maybe they did mob, we just don't see as the video ends.
OK, I'm too lazy to watch again, but I didn't see it as him reaching out, but as his arm stretched out with an opponent's leg limiting his ability to get his arm out of the way. Maybe I'd see it differently if I watched it again while not multi-tasking, but it didn't strike me as a clear and obvious error by the R. (Though I suppose it was likely sent down as a missed incident as the R likely was unable to see the ball touched in that melee.) But at least VAR is removing controversy from the game . . . .
I can't access the video posted above, but here is the full sequence: https://send.cm/d/5gG2 My reflections: - Hernández actually fails in this scene, you can see that he is about to blow for fulltime, with whistle-in-mouth he stops, about to blow up, when he sees there is a (very!) promising goal-chance, he allows the game to continue; it is important to stay completely focused right until the end of the match! - we agree that the handling from blocking the shot is correctly not punished, right? - I'm surprised that the consensus is that the handling on the floor should be punished: only at one moment is the defender's arm out in a punishable position, before the ball is de facto kicked at his bicep a little bit later; there was nothing else he could other than slightly push the ball away For me, I would go even go so far as to say that awarding a penalty here would be a tragedy. - I disagree with MassRef saying that "only one of them [Ref/VAR] can be correct here"; Escobedo calling Hernández at this moment (final, last play, result still open) and in this scene (two potential handling incidents, where the latter was surely missed by the on-field officials) seems congruent with common sense. I'd say this was an example of how VAR can be used to reduce controversy, actually (unlike the first OFR, where Escobedo should have had the nerve to confirm the correct on-pitch call).
By the way, I thought Hernández was very good last night from the extended highlights which I watched (link: https://send.cm/d/5gFi). Let's see how he gets on at Arab Cup, but I think this referee is on a very good path to making Ramos 'toast' for the next WC, as MassRef put it .
For the guru's of VAR protocol: Assuming that the R did not see hand/ball contact, this becomes a missed incident rather than a C&O error, right? Does that change the level of certainty the VAR is supposed to have to send it down or not? I've just never been clear on that aspect of the protocols.
Your Youre combining two different principles. You’re right when you say a missed incident is something the on field officials didn’t see. However, a review must still be a clear and obvious error. The threshold for determining if it is a clear and obvious error is lower when it’s an incident the referee team did not see.
We of course also disagree on whether or not this is a penalty, but let's leave that aside for a moment. The problem with this thinking is that it goes against all instruction and what players, coaches and all other stakeholders are being told. Essentially, you're suggesting that Escobedo is justified in calling Hernandez over (I'll paraphrase here, so excuse the quotes) "to have another look" because the call is "too important." When announcers make this suggestion, we roundly mock them because they don't know what they are talking about. What you're suggesting isn't supposed to happen. And I know you know that. But if I'm understanding you correctly, you think there are "common sense" situations that override what is supposed to happen. And, yes, that's where we disagree. Maybe the referee team gets out of it here--I truly don't know as I didn't watch or read post-match press. But eventually players and others are going to say "wait, the VMO said at 90 + 10' there was an obvious game tying penalty and you just said 'sorry, no?!" The rejected OFR should be very rare. Following the path you suggest ensures that it remains rare, but actually ends up occuring disproportionately in the most vital situations. And I think that's a recipe for disaster long-term. If 95%+ of OFRs result in an overturned call but the majority of the 5% are in situations like this, won't fans and others simply believe that the referee didn't have the courage to make the big call and admit error at the critical moment rather than believing that VARs just always happend to be wrong at the most inopportune times?