At a macro-level, I would say this is what happens when a world class referee feels afraid to be able to referee the way he likes to. Normal Mateu Lahoz maybe sends off Weghorst for the foul right after the Dutch goal. Normal Mateu Lahoz definitely sends off Berghuis for follow-on dissent. Normal Mateu Lahoz definitely sends off Paredes and if he doesn't get it immediately, he also sends of Van Dijk for his reaction. And normal Mateu Lahoz is handing out cards like candy at full-time for all that went on. It seems clear he felt compelled to referee differently. And I think that's too bad. I wouldn't mind a 10 v 10 or 10 v 9 match here.
Kyle Atkins getting some on-field time after the second half whistle, by the way. Never a good thing (for the referee) when a 5th official accomplishes that on the bingo card.
I’m really disappointed because this type of match seems like the exact type that Lahoz would have been great with making everything about him that everyone complains about him doing. He definitely seems to be too afraid to ref how he wants out of fear of what FIFA would think about a WCQF ending with 2-3 RCs
So if Mateu Lahoz wouldn't even pull the trigger on sending Paredes, it's worth asking who would?... Rocchi and Cakir come to mind, but they are both retired. Tello and Barton are your best bets from this tournament? Before I saw what I just saw, I would have thought nearly everyone would have done so. But if Mateu Lahoz can eat that card, maybe anyone can.
Hahahaha. Montiel getting a dissent card. I mean, I am SURE it was warranted in a vacuum. But when you're turning a blind eye to so much else, that's something.
I'm no expert on the Laws of Football but have considerable experience in officiating and coaching referees in another sport. I thought this guy could get himself in trouble early on as I felt he pulled the yellow card option too early and often. This can lead to potential problems later in your match where either you continue on and become tha main talking point post match because you ended up having to send players off for relatively minor matters or you just start to ignore things where you lose control of the game. There have been a few blow ups now and basically the players are ignoring his attempts at discipline during these incidents. I'm reading some posts here and listening to commentators that say he is normally pretty tough with the cards. To be honest I don't think this guy is up to World Cup standard. I'm not even sure he is up to professional standard. He definitely hasn't performed well in this game. Edit : I'll add the comment now that he seems very aware of who has a yellow as he hands cards like confetti to people who haven't got one yet but ignores things when players already have one.
111' I think an NED defender just got run over in his own PA for a no call. Now a fair yc for reckless. What's the caution count now?
That's a horrendous challenge at 112'. When it first went in, I had some concern Mateu Lahoz was going to let it go. At least he's not afraid to give what would appear like a controversial card to some. Then a phantom foul at 113' coming out? He's just rattled, I think. It's survival mode.
Oh and I get the sense, given the dissent and bench behavior, that they might be the ones more likely to make a Uruguay-like scene at the end if they lose. But the Dutch are getting frustrated, too.
Football Connesouoir@KierDoyle 4m Look, if you view the referee as the arbiter of truth and keeper of law in the match, sure, Lahoz is a disaster. But if the referee is really the arbiter of the spectacle, Lahoz is Picasso or Rembrandt.
Rattled is a good word for it. He is a referee who wears his heart on his sleeve, you can see emotion in his body language. And right now the body language is showing everything bad. He looks sad, dejected.
One guy blasted the ball at his opponents and didn't hit them. The other--the biggest guy on the field--ran 30-40 yards and barged into his opponent. In no way am excusing the initial behavior. But I also don't see how 10 v 10 would be very unfortunate or very unfair there. If you want to say one is a 10 on a red card scale and the other is 8.5, okay. I can see debate about nuance. But they were both in the red card zone.