Match 64: FRA : CRO - PITANA (ARG)

The only issue with saying he doesn’t have time to react is that Matuidi doesn’t touch it. He has to be prepared for if Matuidi misses his header.

 

Also notice his arm tenses up before contact with the ball is made. If it was a completely unexpected ball his arm would have been pushed backwards. Instead, he braced his arm for the contact.

 

By that logic, if he knew it was coming he would have tried to smack it somewhere else, instead of off his leg and almost scoring an own goal. Either that, or he tried to move his arm out of the way but couldn't do so. Still doesn't prove he intended to block it.

 

awful job by pitana, second ref who screwed the world cup final within 8 years! but other than webb who was awful but had no impact to the outcome of the game, pitana maybe even handed the trophy to the french himself!

I actually still think france would have won even without his help, but he helped a lot. I always think that at this level that sort of help is not intentional, but that doesn't chance the facts: if you screw up the world cup final you shouln't be allowed to officiate any match at the highest level, and that means never again!

 

I’m not saying he intended to block the ball, I’m just saying it wasn’t unexpected. That’s just a clue to determining if it is considered “deliberate” but not a be-all and end-all.

Also R.I.P. Pitana at the highest level

 

I don't know if it makes a difference to you, but in my original post on the handling offense I wrote that it was a rare case where normal speed made the offense look worse than the slow motion. I based that on the acceleration of the defender's hand after the ball went past the French player.

 

I do remember reading that, though I didn't notice it was your post. I was referring more to the average twitter user that saw the replay (most of them online are in slow-mo) and claimed handball right away. For me it just looks like he's trying to get his leg up and that caused the arm on that side to go down faster. It would be impossible for both arms to come down evenly in that position.
Perhaps the ref saw it as you did, but for me it is not conclusive enough to say he intended to use his hand and had the time to do so. It might be more likely he ignored Matuidi's effect on the play all together.

 

Good point. It's very likely he reacted in some way, but with the arm coming down naturally to begin with, he had a very small margin of error. I just wish they would clear up the rules regarding deflections, or in this case near deflections, so we'd have more insight into the thought process.

 

I’m happy and sad to see the World Cup be over.

Sad because I love watching the World Cup.

Happy because maybe now we can get back to observing the games as referees in this forum, not as emotionally invested fans.

 

Yeh that's a good point. There are too many factors to consider, especially when fifa don't clarify their criteria, which seems to change from game to game. Maybe that is something that can be improved on regarding VAR. All viewers now know when a ref is using VAR, so it would be nice if they could communicate their thought process back to the viewer. This could potentially limit conspiracy theories as well

 

↑ Sorry for going a bit off topic. Thought I was writing that in "The Final VARdict" thread, because celito and I were talking there.

 

I want all of those who support Croatia to answer this honestly.

If the teams were reversed and Croatia DID NOT receive a penalty for the actions of a French defender, what would you be arguing for in this forum?

And, I think you would be arguing for a penalty. It’s not a bad thing to be biased in favor of your team, just so you recognize it.

Remember our referee called a GOAL KICK on the play. He never saw it hit the defender. When he saw it, he ruled penalty.

 

I wanted Croatia to win and I immediately said to my friend "Oh gosh, I hope this isn't Pitana's legacy, missing that handling penalty. Please go to VAR, please fix this."

 

How? It doesn't matter where lines are, there are always calls right on the line. Unless the Law is changed so that all contact between arm/ball is an offense, there will always be disputes. (And if that were what the rule was, just watch the gamesmanship in aiming the ball at arms.)

 

I doubt there are many real Croatia supporters here. Most of us are neutrals that rooted for them by process of elimination. So the answer to you question is a big fat no. I may have been disappointed for a few minutes, but certainly wouldn't be arguing it days after the match, and especially not if they had just scored a goal off of a dive.
And I think it could be said in general that most non-calls are forgotten about more easily than when a game-changing penalty was given, unless the non-call itself resulted in a goal (Maradona, Henry, etc.).

All this tells me is it happened too fast for the ref to see, but he expected Perisic to not only see but react in the same situation.

 

he would have been taken to the bastille for that and guilloutinated some days later, if france would have lost the wc because of that.

 

It could mean his view was blocked by the players. Right?

 

There's no evidence that I've ever seen to support these claims. Except for bigger projects like the total rewrite of the Laws that came into effect in 2016, the IFAB takes proposed changes, drafts the wording amendments and implements them within the same year. There's no spending "the next couple years tweaking the language so it translates" better.

Also, all the versions of the VAR protocol including all the early drafts, have been in English. The IFAB's primary working language is and always has been, English.

 

Half a million fans greeted the team the day after in a 9 hour celebration that put to shame any Super Bowl celebration I've seen..... and no one (players, fans and journalists) blamed the referees on the loss.

In the week(s) since the game it's been interesting reading from some like PRO's Peter Walton that the hand ball shouldn't have been called, even though we know this type of play, as harsh as it is, is usually whistled. Why is that the case?

That's because right now, it's WAY too subjective of a call and NO uniformity, which is why we've read so many different opinions. We have Esse Baharmast teaching Nationals what he believes is and what is not a hand ball (specifically on plays where the defender is in the process of slide tackling), but admits it's contrary to the calls we see already at the pro level. No one else finds this messed up?

Remove the word "deliberate" and make it more definitive on what a hand ball really is. Half of the games we all officiate we hear "Ref, hand ball!", regardless of the skill level. It's 2018 and there's still no definitive and clear statement of what it is, instead we're getting various opinions of what it should be.

I'm going to guess Pitana took a second look to see if there was a last second deflection and looking for any legit reason not to whistle this.

It's a shame he fell for the dive as I doubt that someone like Cakir would have. I've coached longer than officiated, so justifying to me a bad call by saying the goal wouldn't have happened if my guy didn't graze the ball on the free kick isn't going to placate me.

 

So if you read the current 2018/2019 LoTG on page 14 second paragraph it literally talks about making the laws more clear and easier to translate.

As far as the language issue if you read page 19 it mentions that English, French, German and Spanish are recognized languages. However, if there is divergence in interpretations the English text is authoritative.

I believe you in that the versions of the var protocols were done in English. I just wanted to bring it up that there is a possibility that someone with English as a secondary language was drafting the protocols.