As I've said on here countless times, it's not that important to get every decision "right." Sports are not that important that we have to get every single incident officiated correctly. They just are not. Those asking and thinking that making every yellow card decision reviewable is a good thing will get your wish inevitably. But I ask at what cost to your overall enjoyment of the game? Has anyone that has watched this World Cup thought its been a better product than any other World Cup before all because we can get some yellow cards now correct? I urge any of you to watch the last two minutes of the 1st half between Georgia and Auburn this past Saturday night. The final two minutes took about 38-45minutes of real time to complete due to multiple replay reviews, etc. all due to the concept of "we have technology let's make sure we get it right." It was unwatchable. It got so bad that the announcers were just fed up with it "oh here we go again another review." There are serious discussions in college football circles about how instant replay has ruined on-field officials in that they aren't making any calls anymore and just punting everything to replay.
Argentina : Colombia - PINHEIRO (POR) Morocco : France - TEJERAS (URU) Dickerson is 4th for Pinheiro. Herrera is 4th for Tejeras. Don't know who else remains, but Dickerson's appointment here can only be a good thing.
I've been beating the "Dickerson is prepping for 2030" drum and I still believe that. But if he does get the Final here and does well, it certainly puts some pressure on FIFA, I'd think. You might start to wonder how firm Penso's position is. It's hard to imagine FIFA would abandon plans for Penso to go. But it's also a bit hard to imagine three American referees could go. And Elfath must be a lock now barring injury or a disaster in Qatar. Still think Dickerson is on the outside looking in now. But (much) stranger things have happened.
Yeah well unfortunately for some, all the technology letting people see officiating screwups immediately has made it impossible to go back. I remember with soccer before VAR when the TV broadcast would have the offside line replay within 10 seconds showing the AR was wrong. Baseball is the same with the strike zone and will be even moreso starting next season. And you can really see the problem when there’s the baseball and other sports that have the “unreviewable” plays, so even though an immediate replay using technology shows that the officials were wrong, they can’t review it and everyone blows off the handle about “how stupid the concept of unreviewable plays is when we have technology to see it’s wrong” When technology allows people to not only see refereeing mistakes immediately but then also use it to start screaming about conspiracies, not using it is not possible at this point. People want every call to be right, then complain about the process getting to that
Kind of an odd thing that I've noticed that perhaps wraps into the desire for conspiracy theorizing is that fans will tend to take something the broadcast does (offside line, strike zone, whatever) as gospel while doubting the veracity of anything "official." Gonna be real fun next season when baseball fans start picking up on the limitations of the automated system, although it will still be more consistently accurate than broadcast overlays.
Are you aware of a fourth official from a semi-final getting the whistle right away in the final of the same FIFA men's competition? Mariani is the main candidate for this final.
This is a good point and argument. I'm not immediately aware, and it's very hard to research the fourths on semifinals of youth tournaments at the moment (lot of dead links relative to the FIFA site). I thought it used to happen semi-regularly, but admit recently I can't recall it. I do know we thought of both Eriksson and Kuipers as Finals candidates in WC14 and WC18 despite the fact they were 4ths on semis. Are you suggesting that once they were named 4ths, they were actually out of the running for the final? Because that would be a very interesting new "unwritten" FIFA rule. Regardless, in this case I'm sure you're better positioned than me to know the possibilities. To support your point, Dickerson not having a full crew makes it tough, too. And if Mariani is being pushed as the Italian for WC26, capping the tournament with a final here would be logical. Plus, historically Argentina accepts Italian referees, as we know. So it's an easy spot to lose neutrality if France advances. You're probably right. But if you are, it was still nice for Dickerson to have this run.
FINAL 20 October 2025, 01:00 CET ARGENTINA - MOROCCO Referee: Maurizio Mariani ITA Assistant Referee 1: Daniele Bindoni ITA Assistant Referee 2: Alberto Tegoni ITA Fourth Official: Joseph Dickerson USA Reserve Assistant Referee: Logan Brown USA 3RD PLACE 18 October 2025, 21:00 CET COLOMBIA - FRANCE Referee: Omar Abdulkadir Artan SOM Assistant Referee 1: Gilbert Cheruiyot KEN Assistant Referee 2: Abelmiro Montenegro STP Fourth Official: Khalid Al Turais KSA Reserve Assistant Referee: Mohammed Al Abakry KSA
Pretty fascinating FVS situation early on in the Final. Goalkeeper fouls attacker. Rather badly, in fact. Surprised Mariani missed it--honestly, that's the worst part of this (that there was no call at all real-time). So Morocco submits a FVS request. Fast forward to the end and the decision is DFK for Morocco and yellow card for the goalkeeper. But there are multiple issues or questions in how you get there. First, did Morocco submit a request for penalty or for DOGSO-red? And, does the nature of the request they make matter insofar as retaining a request? Meaning... let's say they want DOGSO-red but it ends up being a penalty kick? The request is wrong, I guess. It's a very weird and narrow situation where a completely missed foul that may or may not be inside the penalty area adds layers to the process. Anyway, it was so hard to tell if the foul was inside or out. Mariani and Dickerson took awhile and I think they ultimately just went with where initial contact looked like it could have been. And then, once you say outside, the ball was already played away so you get yellow for reckless and not red for DOGSO. I think one of the broadcast replays showed it was really a penalty, but it didn't seem like they had access to it?
Sorry to post again before anyone else commented, but I just thought of an interesting angle here... This incident is in the penalty area or outside by less than 3 inches. It was incredibly close. So the idea that a team might request a penalty but get a DFK is fine. It makes sense. It's a genuine question as to whether this was inside or out. But where's the line? Meaning, let's say it's the 90' and a team has a request left. They are down by a goal. Their player gets fouled 23 yards from goal but referee misses it. Can a coach then request a review for a penalty, get it rejected (as the incident is 5 yards outside the penalty area), but get a DFK out of it? I can't see a reason why or how not. Once the referee is at the monitor, he's obligated to take the best possible or most accurate decision. He couldn't just look at such a play and say "play on."