There was always an English referee. Until there wasn't in 2018. Yes, Clattenburg left England a bit high and dry with his retirement. But at the same time, I think England and UEFA had well over a year to fix that problem (which coincided with Atkinson's retirement). And Oliver either wasn't pushed in time, wasn't pushed enough, or just wasn't deemed ready. If 2018 was a situation where EPL referee Michael Oliver was deemed too green, I think, in theory, you could end up with situations where the Spanish or Italian names could fall short next year. All that said, in practice I actually agree with you. In the Italian case specifically because of Rosetti and Collina. And the Spanish case because I don't think anyone can afford to have the Spanish league not represented at the WC next summer. So it's not so much legacy and history, but the acute situations related to those two countries right now. We'll figure out who it is in Spain (and probably already have). In Italy, it seems a much more open question with the candidates less deserving, but that also will likely sort itself out. I don't think either of these are locks at all right now. Look at the KO assignments in UEFA. And Makkelie has never set the world on fire with FIFA. The Dutch have been on the outs plenty of times before. Toss in Makkelie's ego and there starts to be a compelling case for him to miss out. Taylor is playing on legacy, too, at the moment. And does England really need two referees with the older one being second choice? Maybe a more likely candidate than Makkelie, but I'd put him as an underdog. A lot can change, but right now I think you have 5 candidates for 4 spots. Other than "who is the Italian?" and "which of those 5 guys performs the worst next season and gets left off completely?" I actually don't think there are really many interesting questions at this moment, at least. Stipulating and stressing, of course, that a lot can change (injuries, performance, etc.) so I'm not writing any of this in stone. But aside from maybe adding a wildcard like Pinheiro, the overall landscape does seem pretty straightforward for next year at the moment. Which is something you can't always say.
Who do you see as the 5 candidates competing for 4 slots? Cuz if you’re assuming a Spaniard and an Italian both go, as well as giving Taylor a plausible chance, I’m not following your numbers.
I called Taylor an underdog. Meant to imply he was on the outside looking in, just like Makkelie. I mean, everyone in your post has a plausible chance. But I do not believe Taylor and Makkelie would be going if the tournament was this summer. If the choices were being made right now I think you'd have Peljto-Eskas-Meler fighting for last spot, reserve, and last one out. But we really should stress how much events could turn things, still. I mean, the CWC alone could completely shake some of these rankings up. I could have a very different opinion come August, nevermind next March. EDIT to say that, of course, right now, I don't think an Italian would be going. So I am factoring in the 9 months or so they have to figure that all out.
Ovrebo was Norwegian and that match predates Eriksson's era in the elite echelons by a few years anyway.
Not weird if his contribution is below par. Makkelie in the Eredivisie is not performing well, too many sub par refereeing. Just this weekend he again was the talking point in the decicive top match of Feyenoord vs PSV. Feyenoorder Givairo Read acquitted after red card in the final phase of the top match against PSV Givairo Read will not be suspended for his red card in the top match against PSV. The right back was sent off in the final phase by referee Danny Makkelie because he would have brought down an opponent who had broken through. However, the card is now being sponged. That wasnot his only issue in this match: https://www.fcupdate.nl/voetbalnieu...jn-laars-bij-feyenoord-psv-en-spaart-noa-lang Makkelie blatantly ignores the rules of the game at Feyenoord - PSV Danny Makkelie has made an incomprehensible decision in the 26th minute of the match between Feyenoord and PSV. The referee measured PSV's Noa Lang ostentatiously. In the 26th minute of the match, PSV was allowed to take a corner kick when trailing 2-0. A shot by Mauro Júnior was smothered in Feyenoord's penalty kick area, after which Feyenoord was able to counter. Ayase Ueda immediately had an eye for a teammate in the depths, but Lang clearly deliberately stuck out his arm and took out the counter for Feyenoord. A yellow card for Lang seemed to be the only appropriate punishment for Lang, given what is stipulated in the KNVB rules, but Makkelie ignored the rules of the game and spared the PSV player ostentatiously. In fact, the referee punished Feyenoord goalkeeper Timon Wellenreuther with a yellow card for protesting. A few minutes before this happened he shouldhave given PSV Ldezma a second yellow card for bringing down a player and thus smothering a promising attack. That would have PSV play an hour with 10 men. In the end Feyenoord lost in the dying seconds of the match with an unjustified one man down situation, where it should have been PSV with a man down. Makkelie is going downhill.
It seems that a prequisite of being on these stupid disciplinary committees (same as the English ones) is having an IQ below 80. How on earth can you say this red card is wrong? https://www.streambug.io/cv/eee7f9 Makkelie should obviously have booked Lang (not already cautioned), this was a clear mistake. https://www.streambug.io/cv/ed5d46 But I can't find any situation where Ledezma even commits a foul after his (16') yellow card, let alone a potential missed SYC - I think in your partisanship, you've confused the facts. The clip below is the full sequence of the minutes between the yellow given and his substitution. https://www.streambug.io/cv/29c1d5
That got overturned?! Holy hell. It's definitional. It might be better than most OGSOs as it's a 2 v 0 on the goalkeeper. That's mind-boggling. This does seem a situation where he got everything wrong, though, other than the foul call. Made things unnecessarily complicated and produced a bad result by, I imagine, trying to be very pedantic about what SPA actually is. Do you think the DOGSO above was overturned precisely because Makkelie did not (correctly) give this as DOGSO? Appearances, equities, and such? Don't get me wrong, he is 100% spot on that this is yellow and the manner in which he explains/sells it is correct. But I wonder if the fact that he didn't give this and then gave one the other way in the second half was in the mind of the disciplinary committee. Because otherwise I can't fathom how the red card was overturned.
At this point why not just get rid of the DOGSO red card? Just have referees award goals instead. It's pretty obvious that powers at be don't want them to be given.
I hate that idea. But I would support the idea that a DOGSO based on an “honest” foul could have the suspension waived, but keep the suspension for cynical fouls. (I wonder if his is some of what goes on with “rescinded” red cards—more than saying the card shouldn’t have been given, the committee is saying a suspension should not apply. Would be nice if actually communicated that way.)
But they would just move it to where they make it almost impossible to have a "cynical" foul short of a rugby tackle like they are doing now with how they've stretched the limits of attempting to play the ball on DOGSO fouls in the penalty area.
You guys have already said the important stuff about these incidents. I’ve said it a hundred times But I still cannot get over makkelie keeping both cards in his wallet, taking out the entire wallet, and sometimes flipping it around to grab the right card when he does it. I swear I don’t think I see any ref who does even competitive youth games still doing this, usually it’s only very young and new refs, and this guy is a FIFA referee. At a bare minimum, keeping the red card in the rear pocket has become very commonplace to where commentators say “uh oh he’s going to his back pocket you know what that means”
Thought Zwayer (GER) had a great first half. Just wish he didn't appear quite so flustered when dealing with complaints. More so a style thing I think but he appears so nervous in my opinion. Obviously he isn't, just appearance things.
The Diallo card is worth analyzing. Diallo holds his opponent from inside the center circle in his own half to a little over the halfway line. He probably has hold of the shirt for 10 full yards (seriously). He lets go, advantage is applied, and Diallo chases him another 40 full yards as they end up in the channel to the left of the penalty area and then Diallo gets goal side. The play ends with Fernandes coming in to foul his opponent. Zwayer ultimately gives Diallo the yellow. But, what for? Just "blatant holding," I guess. It can't be for SPA even though this might be the clearest example ever of why this law change should have never happened. "Everyone knows" this is a yellow except, technically, it's not a mandatory yellow anymore. I think there are some referees who would have stuck to the text and not given this card.
Yeah I agree I think it's the duration without any attempt to "play the ball" that makes it difficult to justify no card.
I've always made this argument that the UB clauses are not exhaustive. And that you can drive a truck through "shows lack of respect." But with that said, it made no sense to eliminate a caution for something that everyone knew and accepted as a caution if we (or the powers that be) still want to give the caution when it's, um, "extra bad." I've said this several times, but it creates a completely unnecessary inconsistency. A lot of referees are going to (justifiably) hang their hat on not giving cautions like this because the Law change eliminated/discouraged such cautions. But then in extreme cases like this, some referees are going to be compelled to give them. What do we think will happen when an extreme case is a potential 2CT? Even here, you can tell Zwayer thought long and hard about whether or not he was going to give it. IFAB broke something that needed no fixing just because they want fewer yellows.
PRO would quite literally have the referee report this as UB-Blatant Holding Offense Edit: actually they might have no card due to it being on the ball as you described.
What I don’t get is why isn’t the “cynical holding” explicitly listed in the LOTG instead of putting it on the referee to just group it under the “lack of respect” catch all, when it seems like for many years it’s always been an assumed caution? Speaking of PRO I asked Victor Rivas about this in person when I saw him a few years ago, and he said exactly what you’re saying, that some leagues have points of emphasis on certain things and that they’ll even have a specific reason like that on their PRO match report instead of generic UB. The only resource I have to see how these specific YC reasons get reported is La Liga who publishes all their match reports for the public to see. I don’t remember if I’ve seen something like this on a LL report and how it gets reported on there, and of course there would also be the strange translation terms that happen
Also I swear we discussed this a year or two ago because there was a play in EPL where the defender basically yanked the attacker down from the front of his shirt almost pulling it off his head, but the attacker stayed on his feet, advantage played, and got a shot off, but the YC was still given and there was some argument about if it reached the cynical point and should have still been a YC, or is calling it attempted SPA advantage no caution would be better I found it https://streamin.one/v/27012c33
Right. I think I made the arguments then that I'm making today. I want that to be a yellow. But IFAB took explicit steps to make plays exactly like that NOT a yellow... unless they got "too egregious" apparently, but there's no definition of "too egregious" because I'm making up that term and no one ever actually said this. There's no way whasoever, for example, that Kavanagh would have produced that as a 2CT. The change just gave referee's a ton of latitude and no direction on a very common occurrence, except for the overall explicit direction of giving fewer yellows for this. It's really an unnecessary mess. If you interfere with or stop a promising attack through a hold, it should be a yellow. The idea that advantage should negate the card bewilders me, because at some level, unless the hold is trifling (and therefore not a foul), it is successful.
To me, this is one of the negative effects of trying to make everything uniform and specific—it makes it weird when something is left open to judgment like this. I do think IFAB dropped the ball badly on SPA/advantage. They either should have skipped this completely or gave referees the judgment to skip the caution for an “honest” foul rather than a “cynical” foul (yes, I know that creates grey, blah, blah, blah). Either of those would be better than this world where we have constant debates about what discretion the referee has. When I started reffing, I believe there were only 5 cautions and 4 send offs—most things were referee judgment of USB. And there was no attempt to list most forms of USB specifically. I like that better, but I also see how that was a lot easier in days gone by long before VAR, when replays were limited, fewer cameras on the field, and much, much less money in the game.