There was no red card in this match. There was no shot on goal whatsoever on this penalty decision. There was no card awarded of any color. And, for what it’s worth, the penalty was initiated via VAR and not called in real time. It is 100% a punishable handball. Mandatory penalty. Harsh is in the eye of the beholder but there is no way not to call that. I’d urge people to link to or verify via video when you can, because very few of the statements of fact about this play are factually accurate.
If FIFA asked Aragon "You're getting a brand new set of cards and you can put a graphic on them, what do you want the image to be?" and Aragon sends a picture of himself cuz he idolizes Makkelie, I wouldn't call that an endorsement from FIFA. They simply fulfilled a request from him. Katia Garcia might've been asked the same question and opted for the Mexico City skyline. If you were asked the same question, you might pick the Dallas Cowboys star logo or your favorite bowl of spaghetti or a fancy Bugatti.
But they could have told Aragon "No, that makes it too much about yourself." And if he insisted, they could have put a smaller picture, instead of one that takes up half the card. Can't wait to see someone actually doing that
Mexico : Argentina - JAYED (MAR) Spain : Colombia - DICKERSON (USA) United States : Morocco : ORTEGA (PER) Norway : France - PELJTO (BIH) Chow of Costa Rica is in for Blanchard, so Dickerson gets there without a full crew, which is noteworthy. Though, the fact that Ortega gets an assignment at this stage makes it all a little less impressive (I kid... mostly). Ortega appears to be rapidly moving up my list of officials where I can't quite tell what anyone sees in him. Or maybe he's just there because it's such a shallow pool and CONMEBOL needs an assignment.
Jayed the only one with a R16 and a QF assignment. Surprising? With Morocco advancing, it seems like they could use the Italian or Portuguese referee if they were going to get someone a R16/QF double. Or the Saudi ref if they were sticking to neutrality
Why does your mind go to "get someone a R16/QF double" instead of "use Jayed while they still can?" I don't think there's any scenario where you want to "get someone a double" for the sake of it. There are, however, all sorts of scenarios where you try to use a referee while you still can, in case his team advances. Jayed falls into that category here. Dickerson does, too, though obviously he skipped the R16 in this case. Whether it's surprising or not, I think it illustrates Jayed is being chosen out of some combination of merit, future potential restriction, and maybe even CAF being bad otherwise? The jury is out on that last factor; I haven't seen enough to know if we'll see Artan again but it does seem notable Gamouh only got one match and hasn't been seen again.
Looking forward at SF, it does seem like CONMEBOL would likely get the winner of US/Morocco and the all-UEFA affair. The other match is likely one of the Europeans if Spain doesn't advance. Not sure who slots in there otherwise. I guess also CONMEBOL if it's Mexico-Spain, but then that maybe means a reconsideration of CONMEBOL for the other side. Goes without saying things are a little different from most FIFA tournaments here with all the personnel constraints.
Dickerson went to the video and confirmed no foul prior to goal. But... I thought Spain had no video interventions left?
Talk about absolutely frivolous requests. The foul was the other way! But this is an example of what's going to happen. Goal makes it 3-2 in a KO stage at 89' and there was some bodily contact... of course a manager is going to use his request. As to your question, had Spain used two requests in the match? And were either successful? I only went to watch the highlight so can't answer the question but I'm certainly interested in finding the answer!
Well then. I take back what I said about a frivolous request! And I guess given it's an option for Dickerson, I would say it's smart. Maybe unnecessary in this specific instance because it's pretty clear. But no harm. And if Dickerson was less than 95% sure on-field, then it's definitely the right move.
Probably an understatement. I think the count is 14 distinct yellow cards when counting bench personnel, but it might be higher. And we saw a great example of the practical implications of having FVS instead of VAR. At 90' there is an incident where an Argentinian player leaves a lot in on a late challenge. It's a reckless yellow. Two Mexicans immediately run at the guilty player and more or less attack him in a retaliatory fashion. But they are like chest bumps/pushes. Hint of a swinging arm in one but it's to the body and rolls up; not VC. Jayed gets in immediately and books one of them. So the incident ends with a card for each team (plus a card for each bench, but that's a different matter). #4 Mexico is the second player who came in. In a vacuum, he also committed UB but it's one of those situations where a card for each team is fine and what's expected. But then the Argentina coach makes an FVS request. For a VC red card against #4. Which is a pretty ridiculous argument. But guess what? Once at the monitor, the referee really can't ignore the obvious UB, can he? And... yup, #4 is already on a yellow. A fact that the Argentine coach absolutely knew. So you get a backdoor review for a 2CT, which wouldn't happen with VAR. This player never gets sent off in a VAR match. He always gets sent off in a FVS match if the coach still has a request left. Worth noting there was even a later, legitimate FVS request for a VC upgrade. You can tell all you need to know about this game when an Argentinian player is pumping his fist in celebration when his opponent is sent off at 90+7' of a KO match that was 2-0 and was only supposed to have +5. This was not a well-tempered affair.
Yeah it was ugly, and that was a really bad elbow to the back of the head, was happy there was no mass confrontation.
It really does seem to set up for a Dickerson final now. UEFA referee on the all-CONMEBOL and CONMEBOL referee on the UEFA-CAF match. Then you have to prep for the UEFA-CONMEBOL possibility and if it's that... who else? Unless it's a shock like someone who didn't even have a KO match, the only real possibilty is Al-Thurais and I don't think that's a possibility. So the only things standing in Dickerson's way are either an abandonment of confederational neutrality or Morocco winning and a UEFA referee being held in reserve (and ranked above Dickerson). Those things are possible, but it's also not like Dickerson is dealing with UEFA's elite of elite. I suppose Pinherio or Peljto might be preferred over him still, but Dickerson has seemed to perform well and been adept at FVS (remember, being adept at VAR helped Elfath in 2019).
Haven’t seen any of this game yet, I will watch highlights in a bit, but that second caution situation is what I meant earlier when I said that the increasing influence of video evidence in modern football is making it harder and harder for the “art” / “street smart” / “spirit of the game” approach to remain practical; the “science” / “book smart” / “laws of the game” approach is growing into the only approach that holds water. And I think that’s actually a good thing. Again, I haven’t seen the play at all, but just reacting to the assertions you made [1) that a player who was already cautioned did something that would be considered UB in a vacuum, but 2) it doesn’t typically get given because of the surrounding context of other misconduct that is also occurring, and one caution for each team seeming fair], I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s fairer. I think a player who earns a YC in a vacuum should get a yellow card, and I don’t think think the fact that he’s already on one, or especially the fact that other misconduct also occurs, should bail him it. It doesn’t make sense. It’s unjust if these extraneous factors should affect the consequences that come to him.
And I disagree. Because I don't think there is a real science to refereeing. The problem is our sport, almost every caution or potential caution is subjective. Was it simulation or a coming together where a player tried to sell contact? Referees often err on the side of the latter, even when simulation is pretty clear? How often is something that fits the dictionary definition of dissent punished with a yellow card for dissent? 1 in 200 times? Delaying the restart is inherently subjective and quite often the most obvious cases of delay are ignored. Mass-cons? I mean, all the time--almost every single dead-ball situation with misbehavior--there are more pretty clear cautions than actual cautions given. Always. And then get into the most common yellows like reckless and SPA and there is inherent subjectivity to both calls. There can be subjectivity purely on the merits and then there can be subjectivity due to level, age, skill, match dynamics, etc. I was taught that yellow cards were a remedial punishment to modify behavior and improve the game. They have evolved into a specific metric tied to suspensions (and, of course, potential ejections). I don't think that's a good thing. Also, specific to the type of situation we're talking about... it's good that FVS can help get guaranteed 2CTs? Then why isn't it good to help them get all cautions? I'm being serious here. If refereeing should be more science, then it shouldn't be a matter for celebration if we're fixing 2CTs while not fixing missed first ones. Or wrong second ones, for that matter. If it's science we want, we should readjudicate every caution or potential caution because it's not very scientific to open up a very narrow subset of misconduct decisions and with an even narrower path to get there. And it's not really fair or fairer, either.
1) Dissent and DR: I don’t think you need to go far to find posts by me criticizing the extreme leniency we see on these topics in the professional game. You’ll find no complaints by me if we woke up one morning and they were suddenly (more) strictly enforced. 2) Subjectivity in general: I agree that almost everything decision referees make (sorry, ARs) is fundamentally subjective. However, I don’t think that stands in the way of a “by-the-book” refereeing philosophy. There are considerations given by ‘the book’ (which does not necessarily mean the LOTG themselves; rather, the corpus of technical instruction) to help parse subjective situations. See below. 3) Mass-cons: To use mass-cons as an example with the ARGvMEX and Aubaumeyang incidents in recent memory, ‘third man in’ is a book consideration. Other book considerations would be the player’s level of aggression, the distance they came from, and the force and nature of any contact they made. My view is that there are ‘street-smart’ considerations that stem from practicality without necessarily being rooted in fairness. For example, the urge to find an even number of cautions for each team, and the urge to make sure none of the players you pick are already booked. The reason we don’t/can’t have 10 cards every mass-con is not because there’s some inherent fairness in coming away from a 10-person brawl with only 2-3 yellow cards, it’s because it’s impractical for referees to identify and remember more than a couple sanctions at once. And for VARs, it’s not practical to spend 15 minutes reviewing footage to get it all right. But in a perfect world where referees were omniscient, there wouldn’t be anything unfair or bad about every act of misconduct in a mass-con being punished. Mass-cons just wouldn’t happen, in that case. 4) FVS and VAR: Technology brings us closer to a perfect world of omniscient referees, but it’s impossible to get all the way there. However, I think getting closer is still a good thing, as long as it is done evenly and without bias. I’ve now watched the video of the 2CT incident in MEXvARG and I think it’s a great example. It does my head in that the thuggery you described as “more or less [an] attack” doesn’t classically result in cards for both of the assailants. There’s a fundamental unfairness about getting away with such an “attack” without being punished. The fact that technology can get us there is great! 5) FVS and yellow cards: I think it’s worth explicitly acknowledging that, as FVS is currently designed, all missed yellow cards are essentially challengeable, with the penalty that you lose a challenge in doing so. A coach could do this for a first yellow if he wants to burn a challenge, too. Whether or not that’s good design is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t have strong opinions here; I think creating an NFL-style challenge system for our sport is an intriguing but fraught problem that may or may not have a worthwhile solution.
Picking out this one point and then responding generally overall to your entire post... But at what point does reality step in? What if three Mexicans had run in and done similar actions? Four? Five? The philosophy you're espousing or the end game that results from it just reaches a point of the absurd or impractical. You can't give 5 cautions. You don't book three players when crowding and dissenting. Etc., etc. There's obviously a fundamental disagreement in what refereeing is about here. I think a great referee manages a match. Manages players. Recognizes context. Provides the best adjudication of situations as possible that ensures the players can play in the most fair manner. Gets direct red cards and penalties, to the extent possible, objectively correct. Because red cards are punitive for unacceptable actions and penalties are the remedy for fouls that (in theory) take away goal-scoring opportunities. Everything else is art. Where's the foul threshold? Where's the caution threshold? How much dissent to tolerate? How strict or not on technical offences a referee needs to be on the day. I obviously could go on. I just think the idea of technical or scientific accuracy is, first, unattainable. I also think it's not really what most participants or observers of our game truly want (witness all the complaints about "toenail" offside). It is also, in this case, a way for managers to play an increased role and manipulate the officiating (because equity is never going to be possible). And then it's also just part of the process that is taking away the passion and the intangible positives from the game. We've said it before (and I and others predicted it) but that immediate and certain passion around a game-winning goal is gone. I'm increasingly an old man yelling at clouds but we are taking away so many good things from the game in an effort to pursue something that we will never achieve and, I believe, most people don't actually want. We can look at that Mexican 2CT and say it's correct (like I said, in a vacuum, it is), but that vacuum. means we have no idea what else went right or wrong in the prior 89 minutes to lead up to that point. And unless we're going to treat the previous 89 minutes the same way we treated this incident, I don't get the virtue. Or, if I do, I think all the negatives outweigh it.
this highlight package has all the cards, pretty much the crap show you would expect from Mexico Argentina
LMAOO 34 seconds into the game we get the first DR action (not cautioned or addressed). Nice of the players to immediately let the refs know what kind of game it would be.