I thought he was excellent in the final 15 minutes, for what its worth. It wasn't the prettiest performance for the first 75, but it's likely what FIFA wants and it set things up for the end of the match. Honestly, for the neutral this was a fun match to watch and Geiger did have a hand in that (even if it meant not doing some of the things that we, as referees, want/expect him to do). The degree of difficulty on this match was high and adding in no communication for the final 10 minutes didn't help. I think FIFA will be very happy with this. And Geiger and crew, by extension, will have to be happy (even if they will be a little self-critical).
Somewhat unrelated... I've never noticed Joe Fletcher runs on the field, in front of the corner flags sometimes. As an AR, my brain exploded a little bit seeing that one.
I really liked how he reffed the game, I know it was referenced there were 30 fouls in the first 60 minutes but that helped set up the final 15 which were refereed really well. If there weren't cautionable or even PI fouls then why give a card because the game needs one, i. As long as it is relatively equitable why would anyone care. Also I saw Mark have a quick quiet word with #14 after the dissent, which probably had a de-escalting effect. Morocco should be given all the leeway possible with frustration and dissent, they had already lost in frustrating fashion to an opponent that could be considered inferior, then they were going into a game that they were expected to lose going against one player that FIFA wants in the tournament as long as possible. Mark's job was to try and keep everyone calm and appear (and be) just and fair, he did an excellent job of that throughout the entire match, while setting the stage for SAP fouls to be cautioned with the yellow in extra time, even if Morocco wanted a quick re-take. It could be a lesson for everyone, call the easy ones and the big decisions are a lot easier and it makes the game go better. A few things that may have not been noticed that I thought helped him that others may not have noticed. - talking to #14 after the dissent display - protecting Benatia after Pepe's flopping around - barely/ if at all acknowledging Ronaldo's calling for a penalty I am sure there were more moments that I missed as well but those things allowed him to have a good if not great game.
I think Geiger did fine. He should be getting another game. I think Brazil vs. Serbia is a game that he has a really good chance of getting on for match day 3. While the foul count was high there was actual flow in the game and the fouling wasn't as cynical as it was in other games. Players accepted it, for the most part, and moved on. My only quibble was with the amount of dissent that he allowed in the game. Granted, he hasn't been the only referee who either failed to punish dissent or turn a blind to it, it still was getting excessive in my opinion. Some will say he "managed" well #14 of Morocco after he gave the card to Benatia for PI. It's dissent full stop. He showed him up and made a scene. It should be a caution for dissent no matter what game or time of the match. I think I've seen one card for dissent this entire tournament, but it is what it is and FIFA really dropped the ball with allowing players to make the VAR signal. It's going to get worse and worse as the games progress. On another note, it really is amazing just how loud and public the North African/middle eastern teams are with their dissents and complaints. They area all very loud and public with every decision that goes against them. Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Iran have all been very loud and done a lot of dissent. I guess it's just a cultural thing. One of the teams I have the hardest times refereeing is an Egyptian team on my local men's league game. Every decision that goes against them they scream and moan about.
Geiger had a nice game. But FIFA needs to implement post-game cautions for simulation. It’s the number one complaint you here from borderline fans. It hurts the game. Both Ronaldo and Pepe deserve post-game cautions for their blatant cheating.
I would support the laws for VAR to be amended to include diving in the penalty area by an attacker. "Was not cautioning the attacker in the penalty area for simulation a clear and obvious error?" That would be a focused question that would allow Ronaldo and a couple others this tournament to be correctly cautioned, but not too broad where the slight contact and the ref plays on results in an OFR. I know of course this starts down the slippery slope of American sports replay where every year something new gets added. First diving. Then clear reckless tackles. I'm not saying it should happen. I'm just saying I'd support it.
And who is going to judge this? Not only that, but... Ronaldo got kicked. He exaggerated, but he got kicked. In fact, if Geiger had given the penalty there, I'm not sure VAR would have been able to say it was a clear and obvious error precisely because of the contact. Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be a penalty and Geiger was 100% spot on as FIFA instruction for some time (going back over a decade) has been to avoid simulation cards when there is clear contact. But when we're dealing with a situation that VAR might not have overturned in some cases but giving post-match administrative cautions in others, we've got big potential problems on our hands. And Pepe got hit in the back off-the-ball. Again, his exaggeration was farcical and unsporting. But how do you punish Pepe for the exaggeration without also then punishing the Moroccan player for initiating off-the-ball contact for no reason whatsoever? What happens when your post-game caution for Pepe gets him suspended but the lack of a post-game caution for some other missed offence allows a different player to play? At that point, not all cautions are equal (or possible) in a tournament where card accumulation can have a major effect on results. There are three ways to discourage and stop simulation: 1) Don't fall for it 2) Punish it with cautions when possible/appropriate 3) Fine players for it--regardless of if it gets caught or not You can add a fourth more radical one (which some competitions are using), which is to suspend players for it when it works and is consequential to the match. But with VAR in place, the situations where this becomes true are more limited in scope.
No. Please, no. First, again, in this particular situation the standard would not have been met. Ronaldo gets kicked. So not giving him a caution is not a clear and obvious error. At most, a decision not to caution him for embellishment/exaggeration is a judgment call. Second... This. VAR should be to correct grave injustices. We expand it to include simulation in the penalty area and then it becomes a question of simulation outside the penalty area. And then when one of those leads to a 2CT, it becomes a question of why not all 2CTs. And then why not all yellows. The slippery slope is incredibly dangerous and very real in this case. One of the good things so far with VR at this World Cup is that it has had a high standard for intervention--higher than in all domestic competitions we've seen. Expanding the scope of video review is not what is needed right now. First we need to get through this tournament and then we need the next four-year cycle to get the rest of the world in line with a consistent application.
Nonsense- Contact was made in that the two body parts made contact. But he was not kicked. Likewise, Pepe did not get hit. Someone placed a hand on him. The Moroccan player did not commit a foul. There is no prohibition against patting a player on the back. Are you actually suggesting it was VC? Because that’s the only way his conduct could be punished. Whose going to judge? The same ones that judge during the game. All it would take is for the VAR official to make a notation while watching and the CR take 5-10 minutes post-game to review. All your “what if’s” are irrelevant as those same questions are asked about cautions given during the match. “What happens when your post-game caution for Pepe gets him suspended but the lack of a post-game caution for some other missed offence allows a different player to play?” Again, happens all the time. But the fact a player’s conduct slips by is never a legitimate reason for not punishing conduct that is caught.
Okay. Let's wait until we get a clip if you have a strong feeling against the word "kicked." But let's also not pretend like this was a coming together of two body parts. Ronaldo cuts back and the defender's leg hits Ronaldo's leg. Again, it shouldn't be a penalty because the amount of contact was trifling. But if you're suggesting this was a collision with both players equally at fault, that's not true. "Placed." Okay. We'll wait for the clip on this one, too. Though your "placed" turned into "patted" in about two sentences, so I'm interested to see where we go from here. The Moroccan player deliberately put two hands on the back of Pepe while the ball was not in play. Whether you think he placed his hands or pushed him or struck him or patted him or hit him or slapped him is a question you can spend time contemplating if you want. The point is that whatever he did, he did so in an aggressive manner. You say there is "no prohibition against patting a player on a back." To which I would say you're being deliberately obtuse. And then you ask if I'm "actually suggesting it was VC?" Get a grip. What in my post comes remotely close to that suggestion? We issue cautions for game disrepute in situations like this OR we admonish the player for initiating the contact for no reason. As referees and player managers, we do something to let the Moroccan player know that while Pepe's exaggeration was farcical, he was able to exaggerate because you initiated the entire incident. I loved what Geiger did here. No cards was the right way to go (which should put to rest your absurd assertion that I was suggesting a red card). But my point is that if you start demanding post-match cautions for exaggeration in situations like this, you can't just take the exaggeration out of the larger context. I've used management techniques before such as "you know, I was thinking about booking him if you didn't make such a joke out of it and pretend you got shot." Knowing that ALL exaggeration has to be given a caution post match takes away a lot of the tools we have as referees to manage the match and manage individual players. So you're going to put a referee in a situation where he sits in a room, after a World Cup match, and starts handing out cautions (or not handing out cautions) knowing exactly who will and who won't be suspended due to his decisions. Brilliant plan. I don't understand your assertion that this happens all the time. You're advocating that a referee--after the match--make decisions on misconduct but only a certain type of misconduct. If you're saying some cautions get missed during a game but others don't, of course that's true. But it's not like the referee goes through the game and says "well we're only booking illegal re-entry today, the other cautions are off the table." That's what you'd be doing. You'd be giving the referee the power to review the game but only sanction a certain type of misconduct, while ignoring all other misconduct that he might have missed during the match. The consequences will be suspensions. That's a recipe for disaster.
Good heavens, NO. Referees are responsible for the match. Having referees do post game evaluations that have no consequences for the match and only have an impact on future matches is a terrible path to start down. Leagues can implement processes if they want--much harder for the WC due to political ramifications.
here you go: https://www.clippituser.tv/c/lnnvkz I don't mind "kicked" or "clipped", but my problem with the incident is that there's contact, his foot doesn't get moved at all, and then "falls from his arms". I don't know that I would ever call it a penalty, but I think my hesitation is that he tries to exaggerate it, not that it's not a trip / attempted trip. So if my hesitation is because this acting pisses me off, not that it's not a penalty, it might be a penalty. Like was said, if it was called a penalty, there definitely wouldn't be enough for the VAR to consider it a clear and obvious error.
https://deadspin.com/here-it-is-the-world-cups-greatest-and-most-shameless-1826985686 This needs to be punished in some way. Period.
There's been acceptance, maybe it's actually taught, I'll leave that to Mass Ref to answer, that is there's any contact, it can't be carded for simulation. I think that's as ridiculous as the "if the defender gets a touch it can't be a foul" false supposition. There was clearly some contact from the defender. He clearly dove after feeling it. Should have been a caution to him.
One thing VAR does that does not get discussed is remove the incentive to yell at the referee. Yelling in frustration is simply the last desperate act of a hopeless person, because referee's never change their call in response. But if a player knows VAR is possible, he is not hopeless until the immediate emotion has cooled off. Plus, if they looked at it in super slo-mo, what more can you ask? Now that you have brought it up, I'd be curious to watch if players from leagues without VAR are more likely to go crazy with dissent. That the players from leagues where they have had VAR are used to it and expect that they will get justice. In the Champions League Semi, I don't think Buffon goes crazy and gets tossed if he is playing in Serie A with VAR.
In theory . . . not convinced that is what we are seeing. Indeed, we may see dissent and delays designed to be sure that the VAR reviews--the hope that the VAR thinks "Wow, they're upset, maybe I need to look closer."
Pepe asserts that Geiger was seeking Ronaldo's shirt after the match. Nordin Amrabat unimpressed with Portugal-Morocco official Mark Geiger: "Unbelievable, I just heard from Pepe the referee wanted Cristiano Ronaldo's shirt. C'mon, this is the World Cup not a circus". [nos] pic.twitter.com/EJGEJjbDy9— Mohamed Moallim (@iammoallim) June 20, 2018 Its Pepe. Take it for what its worth.
It's not even Pepe. It's a Moroccan player saying he heard from Pepe. I'll put the chances of this being true as being near zero.
My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with a girl who saw Mark Geiger ask for Cristiano Ronaldo's shirt.
This is a good play that shows how tough refs have it sometimes. There is definite contact. Not only that, but contact on the leg that could theoretically at a minimum destabilize the player making a cut back. But in this case it really didn't. So Ronaldo falls in a way that makes it very obvious that the "gravity" of the contact wasn't enough to impede him in anyway. It was clear simulation. A slighter player, like Neymar, would probably be able to sell it better, falling in a way that would make it look like the contact impeded him, and probably nobody would have a problem with the PK call.