Match 1: MEX : RSA - SAMPAIO (BRA)

Firstly, I left a word out...it should have read "by tomorrow we will find out ..."
But more importantly, I was simply carrying on from your own logic and comments per below.
I hope that clarifies any confusion.
"You can tell he sort of doesn't want to give the second one, but I suspect FIFA is particularly sensitive in instruction with blows to the head right now. And when a top VAR sends him down for something like this that is off-the-ball, you know that they are following instruction."

 

The red card to Mexico is actually an incredibly dramatic moment which almost nobody in the world will pick up on - Sampaio really flew very close to the sun here.

In most leagues/competitions around the world, having two interventions will see you 'rejected' and lose consideration for the next round of league fixtures or be eliminated from the tournament. FIFA very very clearly used this standard in the last Women's WC, a competition which (it felt like) was beget by a large number of interventions. Now: I am not so naive to think that had Sampaio given a YC in this incident, and suffered a second intervention (I'm certain that Gallo would have intervened) that the favourite referee of one of the most important refereeing politicians would have been excommunicated - but Claus is breathing down the neck of both Brazilians, and clearly it would have made Sampaio's tournament much, much more complicated.

You can see he reaches for the RC immediately having read the incident perfectly, but then he's talking to Pires, doesn't seem in full control of the incident, and even reaches to his YC pocket when he first beckons the Mexican over. I was convinced that he had changed his mind, but Iin the end, he stuck with his instinct and made a brilliant call.

In those hectic seconds, Sampaio was in serious danger of being rejected!

 

Well if you read my complete post, I said on first look (live) I thought there was cover. (I was watching the game as a fan, not a ref...thought the defenders were further down the field). On the replay, I could see there was no cover (as I stated).

 

I don't think it matters in this case. I think the attacker would have been able to get to the ball and get a shot off. Not a great shot, tough angle, but a shot none the less. i.e. I don't think they would have scored, but it was a goal scoring opportunity.

 

Really? Sorry...it simply indicated that there would be a few more games completed with perhaps some evidence (or not) of whether there are FIFA instructions (per you thoughts on the matter)
It really wasn't supposed to be a confusing and/or debatable point.

 

It seems that the NFL Rules "analysts" go through mock sessions to make themselves more presentable to a TV audience and the Fox guys get minimal (if any) training.

I'd love to see him or Machnik follow a format such as: 1) What the game expects (yellow, red, etc) in a play they're discussing AND 2) what they believe will be the final decision and why, based on the officiating.

Instead, I hear a bunch of rambling that doesn't help an average fan understand and get a heads-up on what the expectation for the VAR announcement might be instead of vague comments such as "I think". Only improvement from Mark I've seen is a little less mumbling where in his first year it sounded as if he just walked out of a pub.

 

Anybody not feeling bad after listening to that has no heart.

 

Is it really the case that the first intervention for an off-the-ball incident is considered the same as one for a clear error (like what would have happened had he only shown yellow for the second DOGSO)? That doesn't seem defensible, but perhaps detractors would say that the former implies a measurable loss of control.

 

And 1990 on TNT. I remember them missing at least one Italian goal

 

As Mass Ref said, it was directlyin his line of view. We saw the foul on the ref view camera. I wonder of that camera will be used for training on what should be in your line of sight going forward.