Match 95 [R16] : ARG : EGY - LETEXIER (FRA)

Don't you love irony? I find it so entertaining.

 

"It's technically correct" is only used as BS rationalization to justify a call that is clearly not in the Spirit of the Game or the foundational expectation of fairness. No one uses "technically correct" to justify a good call on the pitch, it's just a good call.

"Technically correct" is on par with "the check is in the mail", "I love you" and the third which we all know but I won't repeat.

 

As I said, I think it would do FIFA a world of good to release these like PRO does. Let everyone see the discussions of the standard, what the VAR is looking at, etc. And let all of the referees hear the conversations their colleagues are having and what their approach is (I assume they are already getting some of this but presumably not every match).

It seems like PRO does a pretty good job of maintaining a consistent standard for interventions, and I feel like a big part of it is that everyone can look at what they release and know what the standard is supposed to be

 

As I said, I think it would do FIFA a world of good to release these like PRO does. Let everyone see the discussions of the standard, what the VAR is looking at, etc. And let all of the referees hear the conversations their colleagues are having and what their approach is (I assume they are already getting some of this but presumably not every match).

It seems like PRO does a pretty good job of maintaining a consistent standard for interventions, and I feel like a big part of it is that everyone can look at what they release and know what the standard is supposed to be. At the very least, it helps people understand the thought process. I’ve learned a lot from watching those videos

 

Maybe I’m being dense, or maybe I just don’t watch enough high level soccer, but I don’t see a practical difference between the Egyptian foul where he stands on the attackers foot and the (apparently) non foul where Argentina kicks the attacker on the top of the foot.

I’d be perfectly happy for neither to be a foul, but I don’t understand them getting different results when they were both reviewable.

And if you don’t like the term “technically correct” for calls that meet the letter of the law but feel against the spirit of the game, I’m open to suggestions.

 

Maybe I’m being dense here, but I’ve read the comments of the Egypt coach from the post game.

I get the usual “they just wanted to keep Messi in the tournament” line of complaining. At this point, it’s pretty much expected. But if I’m reading his comments, he’s objecting to Letexier being assigned that match because Argentina played France in the 2022 final.

If Letexier was looking for some sort of payback, shouldn’t he have been calling things against the team that beat his native country? That just makes no sense to me at all.

 

In this topic, I’m seeing so much drivel about Tello being assigned the France - Morocco game. Do people actually think these refs are going to deliberately ruin the biggest game of their career because they want their national team to have a slightly better chance of winning? It’s not worth engaging with trolls like this, really, which leads me to my next point, about how an “Inside Video Review” segment would be consumed at the World Cup…

Maybe I’m being too cynical, but I don’t think that would “help” in the way that you think it would. Some partisan would find a way to take a quote out of context, and some media outlet would find a way to turn this into a Story and a Narrative.

I mean, we just got through a week where ESPN (ESPN!!!) published an article wherein a former referee outright lied and claimed that Claus was not shown a full-speed replay of the Balogun tackle, and also separately argued that this somehow violates VAR Protocols. Both these falsehoods were extremely easy to fact check! But it didn’t stop the general public from internalizing the completely wrong information.

The World Cup is a different beast from a league like MLS. The media environments are just worlds apart. Just because Inside Video Review works in MLS doesn’t mean it will work in the World Cup.

 

Just because it wouldn't work isn't a good reason to not do it though. I think the idea has merit even if it wouldn't solve this problem.

 

I didn’t think Letexier was at his best either, but it didn’t make me suddenly think he’s not a (the) top referee. Can you explain what you mean by “go into his shell”? Is that a comment on his much more lenient approach to disciplinary sanctions than we saw in his previous games, or is there something more to it?

The OFR, for me, is a wrong recommendation by Brisard. I would have preferred if Letexier stuck with his decision, but it doesn’t matter too much what my personal feelings on it are. If this is a foul for FIFA, I can’t criticize.

The disciplinary standard was certainly notable, and as a big fan of Letexier’s usual rigorous approach, it did disappoint me personally not to see him take the same strategy in this game. Like many games at this World Cup, there were a couple of challenges that seemed like they should be mandatory YCs, but weren’t. This is the main reason that I’d rate Letexier as “just ok” for this match. That said, like above, I can’t criticize a referee too much for not taking the approach that would be pleased me the most! I do think most players accepted and were pleased by the disciplinary line for most of the game (Egypt’s full-time temper tantrum notwithstanding).

I thought the manner in which he handled the majority of the match was in-keeping with his disciplinary standard, in that it felt like he was not as firm or demanding as much of the players (eg Egypt’s mobbing tendency) as he could have been. But in added time, with the Argentina goal, he rightfully turned his intensity way up to handle an Egypt team that was having an emotional meltdown. In this period, he was very energetic, alert, firm, and disciplinarily rigorous, without being too “mean” about it (for lack of a better word). It felt like a very professional performance in those last minutes. My view is that, while he was “just ok” for the first 92 minutes (which was all he game had required), he was fantastic in added time.

 

Fair points about the World Cup. I was talking more generally that this a good idea for more transparency, but there are notable logistical issues to doing it for a tournament, unless you were going to have one big review a couple weeks after the final (which would be a...questionable way of handling it)

 

Wow, this is very well put. I think there's also a conversation around this incident showing the inconsistency between the refereeing on the field vs. by the book. I'm all for allowing a bit more contact and letting play continue more often, but the moment the referee is called to the screen to review, he has to "follow the book".

In that way, I'd almost empathize with Letexier who was put in a difficult situation and unfortunately had to "follow the rules" instead of managing the game "his own way", thus ensuring consistency (which is what fair means, at the end of the day).

 

For me it's not always the accent, it's the quality of the audio.

I'm baffled how the audio is so much worse in the stadiums where NFL games have absolutely clear audio when a referee is explaining a penalty. You would think they could use the existing technology.

Granted, my ears are not what they used to be, but they haven't gotten worse since the NFL season ended…

 

I was at the game today. We were seated pretty high up, but both my son and I noticed that AR2 seemed to be wearing shoes that may not have been black.
There was an orange or pink color with the boots. - almost looked like the laces. Anyone notice this in TV?

 

I’ll stick up for Dr. Joe here, part of the issue is audio, but I did mistakenly here him say “the goal is confirmed”, and was quite sure that’s what he had said, until I doubled back to check and realized he actually said “the goal is cancelled.”

His English is good but the accent plus the audio quality may have thrown a few people off. But that’s what everyone should learn to deal with in a global game.

 

Went back to the walkout to have a look, and you’re right. The base is black but there’s a lot of red on the top. I’m watching on fairly low resolution right now so I can’t tell if it’s the tongue or the laces or what, but it’s really a lot of bright red that does stand out!

 

My post was not directed at you, or anyone specific for that matter. It was a generic post, as the term "technically correct", or similar, is a not uncommon rationalization on this forum. My bad for not making a direct response to a poster, I'm sorry you were confused. I don't want to run afoul of forum rules. I will try and do better in the future.

I never commented on VAR in this case and I take no issue with what you said in this post in regards to the VAR call down. It sounds like a plausible explanation to me. My post was of a completely different nature and I believe it speaks for itself.

 

Just to be totally fair, I’m hoping that I’m not considered one of “those trolls”. I hate the “Messi gets all the calls” complaining from teams losing to an Argentina. But I realize that’s the cost of doing business in events like this. Teams losing will look for every excuse, and it’s always easy to claim “star treatment”.

 

After rewatching the Salah incident, I see that you are, as usual correct in you analysis of both.

Ion my mind they both lump into trifling contact with the foot and I don’t really think either of them should have been fouls, or indeed have been fouls this week outside of reviewing APP.

Anyways, I see your point. I just wish we didn’t have one standard for live play and another for APP review.

 

Even with those it will still leave you scratching your head at times.