Match 4: USA : PAR - MAKKELIE (NED)

The Referees so far are working really hard with their footwork to get the 18-25 yard calls correct. Things will be missed there. But if a defender is cautioned, VAR can right a bigger wrong. A "more important" wrong as I mentioned.

You're right that they should have just said "simulation is reviewable if the defender is cautioned". And advertised it. Because none of us knew.

 

Idea: Maybe wait until after the World Cup to put all of IFAB's new pronouncements into effect? Work out the bugs in thousands of club games before trying it for the first time on the game's biggest stage? Maybe?

 

Alternate idea: Test the changes in other competitions first?

Point being: Trying something for the first time in games of such high stakes is asking for trouble.

 

Fair enough. It might just be more of a function of making sure the officials are thoroughly prepared and that the changes are adequately communicated to teams, broadcasters, etc.

Of course, they may have communicated such things to commentators, and it just went in one ear and out the other.

 

The Athletic weighs in on the new use of "mistaken identity"

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7356267/2026/06/12/tim-ream-yellow-card-mistaken-identity/?

 

His first point is wrong. Allowing mistaken identity to be corrected was already reviewable after a restart. It’s only the expanded scope (opponents) that is new.

His third point isn’t really a point. Some 1st yellows already got reviewed (simulation in the PA to see if really a PK or a PK foul thy was cautioned).

this read to me like it was rushed to put something out. Would have been much more interesting if he talked to WC refs about their instructions in this context.

 

IFAB put this out yesterday:
VAR may now review two infrequent but potentially match-changing decisions/incidents:
➡ An incorrect red card resulting from a clearly wrong second yellow card
➡ Mistaken identity when the referee shows a yellow or red card but has clearly penalised the wrong player of either team for the offence in question; the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity

 

But weren't they actually reviewing the offence in this case? If not, then what isn't "mistaken identity"?

 

What wouldn’t be mistake identity seems to be a foul by the opposing team that doesn’t merit a card? In that case, the issue wouldn’t be that a yellow was given to the wrong player, it would be that no yellow should have been given at all (which isn’t reviewable). So this is really only going to come up in the context of either foul vs. simulation, or maybe a clash between two players where the referee has the wrong player leading with the elbow or something

 

Not a whit more clear than the language in the Laws with respect to reviewing a fould that is simulation. Simulation by an attacker and a foul by the defender are not the same “offense in question.” But IFAB has always supported the Humpty Dumpty view from Lewis Carroll—words mean whatever they want them to mean. We just get to guess what that is.

 

Generally agree. But an offense by one team is never the same as an offense by the other team. And that language has to mean something. So….shrug

 

what it most obviously would mean is something that was referenced around here somewhere already. R calls a HB on blue, and the replay shows the handball was on a white player. So we could wipe the SPA caution given to the blue player (or the caution given for trying to score with the hand) even though p,ay has restarted. But as said, it’s just really poor drafting, whatever it is intended to mean. It shouldn’t be that hard to use words that actually say what they mean. Hire a $&*#ing copy editor who can help them draft coherently.

 

Seems like it’d be simpler to say all yellow cards and any DFK within 30 yards of the goal is reviewable. That’s where we’re headed, isn’t it?

 

Not sure if this was asked and answered or not but if the 1st caution in the case of a 2nd caution --> red card was due to mistaken identity, that could only have been fixed by reviewing the 1st caution, right? I mean, a guy gets a 2nd caution for a tackle 37 minutes AFTER the 1st caution was given, the VAR can't really say "Hey Ref. The 1st caution was incorrect by mistaken identity so this is really #7's 1st caution. Take the other caution and give it to #9 now. Both players remain on the field."

It can't work that way, can it?

 

I don’t think there is anything in the Laws that says it couldn’t work that way, as it says mistaken identity can be fixed after restarts. But I wouldn’t expect it would—I would expect (hope?) that part of the VAR remit is to check who was given a caution against the video feed to confirm it at every caution. (And I can’t conceive of it it being to decide a caution should have been given to an opponent!)

 

I think this part "Mistaken identity when the referee shows a yellow or red card but has clearly penalised the wrong player of either team for the offence in question; the offence itself cannot be reviewed except in the context of mistaken identity" is being interpreted as a convoluted way of saying "You can't review yellow card offences unless the wrong player was given a card. In that situation, you may review the offence."

They're trying to clarify with the second part that you may not review YC offences in general, just when they're part of the wrong player getting a YC, but butchered the landing in English.

 

What next, back to "deliberately handles the ball" in Law 12?

FWIW, I agree, and lament that when your content comes to pass, the verbiage will have at least a semicolon, two bullets, and no fewer than three dependent clauses containing the words "sanction," "cleavage," and "oversight," (or combinations thereof), so as to defeat utterly a clear message.

 

Needs at least one word that is used in a way inconsistent with the dictionary!