June 15, 2017

Confed Cup 2017: Referee Appointments for Matchday 1

Colombia's Wilmar Roldán has been chosen to referee the opening game of 2017 Confederations Cup between hosts Russia and New Zealand. He will be assisted by Alexander Guzmán and Cristian de la Cruz - both also from Colombia - and Fourth Official Mark Geiger from the United States. The referee team will be supported by a trio of Video Assistant Referees (VARs) consisting of Brazil's Sandro Ricci, Canadian Joe Fletcher and Paraguay's Enrique Cacéres.


Roldán, who was ranked at the 2nd place in our annual referee ranking back in 2012, has already officiated at World Cup 2014. After his performance in the tournament's second match - Mexico vs Cameroon - significantly suffered from two offside blunders of his assistant referee Humberto Clavijo, the young Colombian was sent home following his second game between Algeria and Korea Republic.


17 June 2017, 17:00 CET
Gazprom Arena, St Petersburg (Russia)
Russia - New Zealand
Referee: Wilmar Roldán (Colombia, 1980)
Assistant Referee 1: Alexander Guzmán (Colombia, 1985)
Assistant Referee 2: Cristian de la Cruz (Colombia, 1978)
Fourth Official: Mark Geiger (USA, 1974)
Video Assistant Referee 1: Sandro Ricci (Brazil, 1974)
Video Assistant Referee 2: Joe Fletcher (Canada, 1976)
Additional Video Assistant Referee: Enrique Cacéres (Paraguay, 1974)

18 June 2017, 17:00 CET
Kazan Arena, Kazan (Russia)
Portugal - Mexico
Referee: Néstor Pitana (Argentina)
Assistant Referee 1: Hernán Maidana (Argentina)
Assistant Referee 2: Juan Pablo Belatti (Argentina)
Fourth Official: Abdelkader Zitouni (Tahiti)
Video Assistant Referee 1: Jair Marrufo (USA)
Video Assistant Referee 2: Dalibor Djurdjevic (Serbia)
Additional Video Assistant Referee: Ovidiu Alin Hategan (Romania)

18 June 2017, 20:00 CET
Spartak Stadium, Moscow (Russia)
Cameroon - Chile
Referee: Damir Skomina (Slovenia)
Assistant Referee 1: Jure Praprotnik (Slovenia)
Assistant Referee 2: Robert Vukan (Slovenia)
Fourth Official: Milorad Mažić (Serbia)
Video Assistant Referee 1: Clément Turpin (France)
Video Assistant Referee 2: Milovan Ristić (Serbia)
Additional Video Assistant Referee: Malang Diedhiou (Senegal)

19 June 2017, 17:00 CET
Fisht Stadium, Sochi (Russia)
Australia - Germany
Referee: Mark Geiger (USA, 1974)
Assistant Referee 1: Joe Fletcher (Canada, 1976)
Assistant Referee 2: Charles J. Morgante (USA)
Fourth Official: Wilmar Roldán (Colombia, 1980)
Video Assistant Referee 1: Ravshan Irmatov (Uzbekistan, 1977)
Video Assistant Referee 2: Alexander Guzmán (Colombia, 1985)
Additional Video Assistant Referee: Artur Soares Dias (Portugal)


185 Comments:

  1. This appointment could mean that Gassama will get something more than the expected (at least in my opinion). I just hope he wont get MEX - NZL! AUS - GER would be a very good game!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Mexico v New Zealand and then a Semi-final??? 🤔

      Delete
    2. I hope they test Gassama in a Russia match, to test Roldan isn't a bad idea but he is more used to intensive atmospheres and 'big' matches in CONMEBOL anyway.
      Maybe FIFA do wait for the more crucial Russia-Mexico...

      Delete
  2. BTW about Roldán, before 2014 WC I thought he was a huge talent. I was disappointed after having watched his games. True that almost all mistakes were made by assistant referees, but I wasn't impressed by him as well. Therefore I hope this time it will be totally different! I wish the best.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also wasn't impressed by Roldan at WC, but based on a few games I watched at 2016 Copa America I think he has improved. As an example, I was surprised by how calmly and brilliantly he solved the Jones-Valencia situation in USA vs Ecuador game, which led to 2 RCs.

    On the other hand Caceres is a more authoritative referee (he sometimes reminds me Carlos Simon for his card showing procedure), but with a very good foul detection. I regularly check Arbitro International and he almost never has crucial mistakes, according to them.

    I'm really looking forward to see how CONMEBOL referees will perform in Russia this year and the next one, after so much (deserved) criticism after 2016 Copa America

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nitpicky, but I believe the señor's name is "Alexander Guzmán".

    Will be interesting to see Roldán, I wasn't impressed with his WC 2014. Quite a few crucial mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Three persons for VAR duties? How it works? What mean additional VAR ? What is hes responsobility?
    Video Assistant Referee 1: Sandro Ricci (Brazil, 1974)
    Video Assistant Referee 2: Joe Fletcher (Canada, 1976)
    Additional Video Assistant Referee: Enrique Cacéres (Paraguay, 1974)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VAR1 reviews key match incidents apart from offside issues at goals (that is VAR2's role). AVAR follows play when VAR1 reviews incidents.

      Delete
    2. Many thanks for explanation.

      Delete
  6. POR-MEX: Pitana, Maidana, Beletti (all ARG), Zitouni (TAH), Marrufo (USA), Djurdjevic (SRB), Hategan (ROU)
    CMR-CHI: Skomina, Praprotnik, Vukan (all SVN), Mazic (SRB), Turpin (FRA), Ristic (SRB), Diedhiou (SEN)
    AUS-GER: Geiger (USA), Fletcher (CAN), Morgante (USA), Roldan (COL), Irmatov (UZB), Guzman (COL), Dias (POR)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surprising that Marrufo is involved in a Mexico game, having Mexican descent.

      Delete
    2. There have once even been controversies about that. Busacca is not having the luckiest hand in terms of nationality matters...

      On the other hand, it of course makes much sense in terms of language. Both speak Spanish fluently I guess - similar to Turpin and Diedhiou

      Delete
    3. Changing Caceres and Marrufo might have been a good solution then, respecting languages.

      Delete
    4. Marrufo is not allowed to work Mexico in CONCACAF--he isn't just of Mexican descent, his father was a FIFA Referee from Mexico.

      I don't understand why Marrufo just isn't Geiger's VAR.

      Delete
    5. Marrufo should've been Geiger's VAR... There's no point in putting Irmatov as Geiger's VAR and Marrufo as Pitana's VAR... Busacca made such errors in U20 WC as well with Hauata and Cunha!!!

      Delete
  7. Puh, Geiger. I did not expect him on an international stage liket his after the horrific Gold Cup performance in the semi-finla, but well. His WC was very decent.

    Ah, I believe the kick-off times are not correct. 17 and 20 CET according to FIFA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Predictions MD2:
    RUS-POR: Rocchi, Skomina, Hategan, Praprotnik, Turpin
    MEX-NZL: Al Mirdasi, Zitouni, Caceres, Vukan, Irmatov
    CMR-AUS: Mazic, Pitana, Soares Dias, Maidana, Ricci
    GER-CHI: Faghani, Gassama, Diedhiou, Birumushashu, Marrufo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My predictions: (Referee - FO - VAR1, VAR2, AVAR)

      RUS-POR: Gassama (GAM) - Mazic (SRB) - Turpin (FRA), Ristic (SRB), Irmatov (UZB)
      MEX-NZL: Al Mirdasi (KSA) - Skomina (SVN) - Diedhiou (SEN), Praprotnik (SVN), Dias (POR)
      CMR-AUS: Rocchi (ITA) - Pitana (ARG) - Hategan (ROU), Maidana (ARG), Caceres (PAR)
      GER-CHI: Faghani (IRN) - Zitouni (TAH) - Marrufo (USA), Belatti (ARG), Ricci (BRA)

      Delete
  9. Marrufo should inform Busacca and the committee that his father was a Mexican referee, perhaps FIFA doesn't know that :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. 15': wasn't that a penalty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VAR are blind today. Sorry, one has to be honest.

      Delete
    2. The question is, whether it is a 100% penalty, otherwise the VAR must not intervene. And I think, the attacker is jumping before the contact (and might fall anyway) - therefore my impression is, that the decision is still acceptable

      Delete
    3. At any rate, I didn't like Roldán's attitude to stay away looking quite passive, to be honest.

      Delete
    4. Sorry but this is clear penalty. It's unacceptable what happened...

      Delete
  11. Watching the replay, it didn't look like the keeper touched the ball and it looked like he clipped the striker... why was the VAR not utilized there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He checked the incident but it seems as if he didn't judge it as (100%) foul. For me a penalty but I also have some doubts whether it is so clear to overrule the referee.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the clarification! :) enjoy the match and tournament

      Delete
  12. Video:

    https://streamable.com/sukph

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear penalty given the contact at the feet. From one angle it looks like a too early jump by the attacker...but the replay angles shown on TV are clear.

      I would at least have expected that Roldán is sent into the review area to have a 2nd look himself.

      Delete
  13. We will se, if Ricci and Caceres will be appointed in next matches. If not, it will mean it was a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Based on what we saw at U20 WC this penalty would have been whistled for sure, I think that Busacca informed the VAR officials to check carefully whether there is even the 1% for backing the referee. However, I think this was a very clear penalty if compared to many other situations assessed by VAR at U20 WC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can recall Busacca highlighting that Walter Lopez Castellanos situation from Uruguay v Italy game during the media debriefing and he said in such situations they want to improve as in the referee himself should go to the review and check... So why wasn't that done today?? Aren't Roldan, Ricci and Caceres instructed properly what is wanted from them??

      Delete
  15. Excellent offside decision in the 30'!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now we could have seen how will it look like with flag up at OGSO. Roldán waited for the goal being scored and only then he whistled it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice remark, I had missed that Roldán whistled only after the goal scored, however with the raised flag I got the impression game was stopped because some players were still...

      Delete
    2. Yes, that was also the message sent to the German referees: AR raises the flag and the referee waits for the shot on goal.

      Delete
    3. Similar scene in 41'.

      Delete
    4. I really don't like that, AR, still with the raised flag, is out from the game for a while, but what happens if he has to make further assessments before a possible goal? This can't work for a long time, what do you think Ray?

      Delete
    5. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I really don't like all those experiments with our beautiful football. Check the link below. It would be a different sport.

      Delete
    6. I would like to separate the very needed VAR programme from the things van Basten and co. propose.

      On the VAR decision: It has always been clear that human mistakes are not abandoned by VARs. Sources of mistakes are rather brought to another, but also human level. However, as Philipp outlined, it looked like an early jump at first glance. Maybe Ricci simply chose the "wrong" angle to look at the incident. We cannot know it. Oh and by the way: Roldán could have seen that himself...I know noone cares with VARs anymore, but it should not remain unmentioned.

      Nonetheless, I am opposed to condemn something which is correct, needed and useful in itself but simply wrongly applied. Ricci's decision was maybe the result of a lack of experience, training and practice. But this does not mean the entire VAR idea is bad.

      Apart from that, I think Roldán was ok in the first half. However, I am not sure whether I should praise his calmness or criticize a lack of energy in his body language. Looks a bit lethargic at times, also due to the chewing gum in his mouth, maybe.

      Delete
  17. By the way, the IFAB are going to further destroy football

    http://www.play-fair.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much all of those are utter bullshit. I think IFAB, and Niclas wrote football in general, is surely becoming way too focused on making a game fair that lives and is popular thanks to being unfair essentially. Where's the 'fun' for the media when they can't criticise the referee (I mean tell Hansson, Øvrebo that...). The next step is robot players or so. The decision of cheating should really be a moral / cultural one rather than some stupid facets of the LOTG. Football hardly needs to change either, it's popular for a reason. Quite honestly, how is IFAB really thaaaat relevant to football to have the authority to basically turn it into a joke.
      If Ellery, a great referee and actually a good and decent person, has signed off this I'm sorry he's gone totally mad, the changes already were (more than) enough.

      Delete
  18. No clue what is a foul or not for Roldán...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you being so critical?

      Delete
  19. Now in 40' it was even more evident that referee must wait for a possible goal before whistling an offside in case of promising attack / OGSO. Not nice to watch if you ask me. BTW extremely tight offside, correct call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TERRIBLE! In the situation of the disallowed Russian goal it was clear that the goalkeeper didn't really react anymore. How does FIFA imagine that? AR stands still with his flag in the hand and waits until the situation is finished? How bad he has to feel during these seconds...

      Delete
  20. Italian commentators are not convinced as well with NO PENALTY decision. They think it was a clear penalty, but even in case of different decision, why not VAR intervention? Referee should have rewatched the incident for sure, he was quite far away, without making any signal / gesture. It is possible that he totally missed the incident.
    I must say Busacca can't be content with such management.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm watching from Canada and TSN analysts were frustrated saying "mistakes like this should not be made on the big stage." They also cited Howard Webb's frustration with the lack of management with the VAR system

      Delete
  21. VAR system works fine, ha-ha.
    Terrible

    ReplyDelete
  22. Any report from the second half as I am watching Portugal - Serbia at U-21 Euro at the moment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think about referee having beards?
      For me very good game for Bastian..

      Delete
    2. Why not? I like beards and think it looks cool! :)

      Yes, another good performance at U21 Euro. See the respective post.

      Delete
    3. I remember I was a bit surprised when I saw Oliver Drachta's beard in a friendly game, there was something weird and uncommon about him. But then doing some research I found out that there are many other cases, such as Stefan Johannesson (UEFA - Sweden ) or Sébastien Desiage in France. Even AR Child had at 2016 Euro. I guess trends change with time. Think of how many referees had moustache in the 90s and early 2000s: Garcia-Aranda, Batres, Bujsaim... now I can't find any! Anyway I don't see any problem with that, as long as it doesn't look unprofessional. I wonder if UEFA/FIFA have guidelines about that, though!

      Delete
  23. Not much. Clear missed YC at 81', apart from that, nothing (big) really happened for the team.

    ReplyDelete
  24. For me it's not a clear penalty. Yes there is a small contact, but the striker was really looking for the PK by eager to fall. In this situation the super slomo made it looks worse instead of in real speed. However I agree that in any case an OFR should have been recommended to the referee. Just for the reason to protect the image of the VAR. During the offside situations the referee handled excellent to wait some seconds to see if the outcome would result in a goal. This can only be done when de ball is very close to the penalty area or goal and in which we can expect a goal in close time (seconds). As we all know, we can't do nothing in case the whistle is blown before the goal has been scored. So better to wait a few seconds and then let the VAR to check the decision.I know this is a different approach to football, but we have to try it to know if it can be implemented. Otherwise I there is no other option to prevent a disallowed goal after a wrong offside call. And players must remember that they only stop play after the whistle of the referee. The way of the VAR must not only be adapted by the referees, but also by the players in order to get this project successful. There are many negative comments about the VAR. Perhaps these people can suggest some better solutions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that the attacker jumps a bit before the contact. It recalls a bit the Aguero penalty/simulation in City-Monaco with Lahoz. That wasn't surely penalty and IMHO this is not a 100% penalty.

      Delete
  25. https://www.facebook.com/ref.rostkowski/posts/1548253531885475

    Interesting post from Rafał Rostkowski. If the play is restarted after the closest stoppage (free kick, corner kick, throw-in) after the incident, the referee can't change the decision regarding that incident.

    Now, have a look at the time. 14:01 - foul, 14:20 - play is restarted after the free kick given in the middle of the field. Surely the VAR was not ready yet. Therefore, the reason for no change can be that the referee didn't stop the play in order to receive a message from VAR when he gave a free kick in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I see some outrageous comments that it's not 100% penalty.

    The russian forward had his right foot on the ground when the goalkeeper kicked him (with right knee). How can someone pretend that forward jumped before the contact ?

    A very good referee should "feel" the foul even if he doesn't see perfectly the contact. If you played football or you saw a lot of football in your life you start to "feel" some things even without seeing a lot of re-plays. That's my opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Haha ofcourse Petscho. Well if you were able to see - without any replay - that there was this slight contact with the goalkeepers knee, then your eyes are fenomenal! And if you decide to take crucial decisions - like penalty kicks - based on "feeling" then you're a great referee. Sorry mate, the way the striker felt was more like an acrobat showing a bad audition in Britisch Got Talent :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since there is VAR, the arguments "if you were able to see, without any replay, that there was this slight contact..." are unreasonable. There is a VAR who has all possible angles. And if that's not a penalty for you, even after watching replays, it's really strange... I can't see any kind of simulation there.

      Delete
    2. Honestly, for me it was penalty live, during the game. I didn't have any doubt. I was really surprised when I realised the referee didn't indicate the penalty spot.

      I tell you one "secret": the greatest "no-flag" decisions of assistant-referees are based on "feeling"...

      Delete
    3. @petschovschi
      About last sentance... Absolutely :)

      Delete
  28. Pitana's whistle sounds very strange, I don't like it. Do you know this model?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed a very strange, quite sharp sound. I have no clue which whistle this could be, I don't really like it either.

      Delete
    2. rI seem to recall that he had the same at 2014 WC (at least in Korea vs Russia)

      Delete
    3. Also in France-Germany and at the Olympics. A terrible one.

      Delete
    4. They just had a close picture of Pitana. His whistle looks like the typical Fox40, but the way he is using it is quite strange (the sound of it).

      Delete
    5. Pitana uses Fox, but he puts his finger in a hole on a whistle, similar like Clattenburg.

      Delete
  29. Now, VAR intervention. Offside position missed by AR2, correctly disallowed goal.

    ReplyDelete
  30. VAR reviev: disallowed goal for Portugal. Correct decision. It was after a shot on goal (crossbar), so difficult for AR to remember all the positions of attackers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Almost 60 seconds - of course, very good that the correct decision was taken in the end. Accuracy prevails over speed. Nonetheless, maybe this can be optimized in future.

      Delete
    2. I was wrong, the offside occurred before the shot on goal, it was a "normal" pass. So I would say AR had to see it.
      Check:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5r3lj1_pepe-canceled-goal-by-video-assistant-portugal-mexico-confederation-cup-18-06-2017-hd_sport
      And question is: how long earlier can go VAR while analyzing a goal?

      Delete
    3. I have to rewatch the disallowed goal, however, I think at least three or four Portuguese players were in an offside position. So, AR2 should be able to detect the punishable offside position by himself.

      Delete
    4. @Ref_1707 indeed three players were in offside, AR2 had to see that

      Delete
    5. It was a difficult situation and the circumstance that there were 3-4 players (possibly) in offside did not make AR2's life easier.

      Delete
    6. Maybe the AR wasn't 100% sure, so he gave advantage to attacker and of course advantage to VAR system.
      It's better to wait in this case.

      Delete
    7. @Ref_1707
      Attackers in offside position obstructed referee's view and also when you have so many objects to follow, your eye limits become very obvious.

      Delete
    8. @DrMr
      I know that the offside position was not easy to detect (also from personal experience), however, in my opinion, the offside was not impossible to detect and AR2 can be blamed for missing it, even if it was not an easy one.

      Delete
  31. VAR review to analyze the second goal scored by Portugal (crucial for the outcome). It was assessed as regular, but also in this case the process took a quite long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It definitely took too long. The communication could have been better either, Pitana should have actually pointed his finger to the ear for the whole time, and not just for a few seconds.

      Anyway, a better day for FIFA and the VAR-programme.

      Delete
    2. Any idea, what was checked there?
      I think, FIFA should communicate that as well in their broadcast.

      Delete
  32. About Pitana: apart from VAR incidents, I think he was OK in a not so much challenging game. Very good foul detection, he could have issued one YC more (minute 89') but regarding disciplinary control he had this approach from the beginning. Definitely better than Roldán in terms of alertness: clear gestures, looking always for the best possible angle to judge incidents, movements.
    Expected level (8.4), now the interesting thing is to understand how much importance Busacca and committee will give to the missed offside. Of course the performance must be analyzed without VAR reviews. I would appoint Pitana's crew again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think FIFA should keep him directly for the (semi-)final. Good performance, his natural authority seems to make things very easy. I don't remember any FIFA game he had which was not fully controlled.

      Delete
    2. Can we do something about Pitana's whistle?? That is really troublesome for the ears?? 😂😂

      Delete
  33. Minute 16' in CMR - CHI: Skomina disallowed a goal scored by Cameroon for a previous foul by attacker. I think supportable decision, so OK that VAR didn't intervene. But at the same time one can say it was a soft call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that if he could watch the replay Skomina would have played on. The call is quite soft, but those situations are always difficult to assess with so many players touching and moving.

      Delete
    2. Agree, supportable decision.

      Delete
    3. Right decision by skomina

      Delete
    4. Indeed, soft but acceptable call by Skomina. No need to intervene for VAR, however, I think VAR had not even a chance to intervene as Skomina immediately stopped the play (before the goal was scored). Nice to see that he is still evaluating on his own and that he is not just waiting for VAR to decide.

      Delete
  34. Replies
    1. Again: Very, very uncomfortable for the referee team.

      Delete
    2. I think the VARs are right and the assistant referee didn't flag, because he wasn't sure and he knows that there is a VAR

      Delete
  35. Niclas, did you say a good day for VAR ;) ?
    Really strange decision, still unclear whether this was an offside position. Seems level to me. Many problems with showing replays in TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOW, replays with lines were shown: attacker was tightly offside. Absolutely something to improve: Showing decent replays that support VAR's (correct) decision.

      Delete
  36. On the pitch, without watching a video replay, every AR would allow that goal. Even on the replay I'm not 100% sure, if I were VAR I would allow goal or at least tell referee to watch himself and decide. Do you know if VARs have and use 3D technology maybe? It would explain why Skomina did not watch the incident IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In clear black and white situations (like offsides - actually 😅) a rewatch is not necessary. As I said, we should not overuse this possibility.

      Delete
    2. I agree, but to me this is not clear, that is why I think Skomina could watch it :). But just while I am writing they showed on tv goal situation with lines VAR use (I guess) and it realy is an offside. Great decission by VARs :).

      Delete
  37. He was marginally offside correct decision

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VARs have many other angles, not just one we saw on TV :)

      Delete
    2. On TV, it showed the line which showed VAR made right decision :)

      Delete
  38. Portugal-Mexico: after disallowed goal,there was replay with lines on the pitch.
    After that, there was graphic 'NO GOAL: Ofside'

    Cameroon-Chile:
    After disallowed goal there wasn't any replay with lines or graphic with VAR decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Graphic was just shown, clear offside.

      Delete
    2. In minute 52 I saw the replay with lines and the decision "OFFSIDE" was when the referees walked off the pitch.

      Delete
  39. https://s16.postimg.org/nlqvx1505/image.jpg
    Tight offside, but offside. I think almost impossible to detect for all the assistant referees, so VAR will always intervene in such situations, even extremely tight offsides. But... are that evident mistakes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mmm... an offside should always be a black/white decision: even after some replays, one should be able to decide whether it is offside or not. It's not something that can be interpreted. Then, I think that, yes, VAR will always intervene in such cases. Otherwise, how would you decide which is a tight offside and which not?

      Delete
  40. Why is Mazic wearing a radio on his right side? Do anyone know or have an idea of what it is?

    ReplyDelete
  41. We have another extremely tight offside now. Goal should be disallowed if consistent to previous decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So VAR informs us that the position was regular. I must accept that but it looked like tight offside at least by head.

      Delete
    2. But the 2nd goal wasn't offside

      Delete
    3. As someone earlier said, they probably have more angles than we see on TV, maybe they even use 3D tech but it is not shown on TV.
      Also, it is now clear that FIFA instructed ARs that if they are not sure, they let the game go, and after efect (goal, penalty kick, foul, ...) they raise their flag if they think it was an offside. IMO not the happiest solution, second, even minutes can pass between potential offside and efect... Praprotnik obviously thought it was an offside, they asked for VARs help and VAR decided. But, I don't think he should raise his flag, they have communication...

      Delete
  42. 92:50 Skomina looked very nervous after VAR decision, he had something like a shot of anger against a player while handling the ball. Not nice to be watched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand him. This procedure is very uncomfortable for the referees.

      But what did AR1 signal???

      Delete
    2. Praprotnik did raise his flag after goal was scored. He probably signaled offside (look my earlier comment).

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. It is also possible that Praprotnik decided to "freeze" the previous situation, waiting directly for a possible goal before raising the flag, as Roldán did twice in this game yesterday.
      Indeed, in case of offside flag by Praprotnik after the first pass, he would have been unable to make to subsequent assessment, standing still with the raised flag.
      One thing is sure: big confusion and chaos in referees and assistant referees mind, it is difficult to change and re-adapt the easy things made in years and years of officiating.

      Delete
    5. @Victor
      No, I dont think so, on that level ARs dont make such mistakes. And after three matches it is obvious that referees an ARs must wait until goal is scored or some other efect has happened and then decide. Which is obvious, after goal was scored, Praprotnik raised his flag as thought that first pass was offside.

      Delete
    6. @victor
      I don't know why you always remove your comments after the anwsers you get, it is not the first time and that's not nice, it seems you don't like to discuss :)

      Delete
    7. It's not like I don't like to discuss. Sorry if it deemed that way.

      Delete
    8. Ok no problems, please understand that it was just a remark you are of course free to do it :)

      Delete
  43. To be honest, I really don't like the VAR-system. For sure, there won't be any match-deciding mistakes, that's a big advantage. But what about referees, who gets confused or even angry if he is corrected by VAR in a few situations in a match? And what about ARs, who are afraid of flagging offside when they make a significant mistake? This is only human that they get nervous and distracted. And last but not least, what about all the emotions from players and spectators, who are celebrating a goal and one minute later the goal is disallowed?
    This isn't the football I enjoyed so much in the last years. But I have to adapt myself to this new conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. CMR-CHI
    disallowed goal for Chile 45' - 3D
    https://postimg.org/image/mnlynkm3n/

    ReplyDelete
  45. It will be very interesting to see whether:
    a) many VAR interventions correcting the referee and the ARs will have an impact on further appointments for the refereeing team on the pitch.
    b) a wrong VAR intervention or a missed intervention will have an impact on further appointments for the VAR (e.g. Ricci yesterday or Team Mazic if Ristic's decision would be wrong (of course very unlikely in case of offside decisions) or the refereeing team on the pitch.

    Of course we cannot blame AR2 for keeping the flag down (impossible to detect if you're name is not Sascha Thielert 😉); but maybe AR1's error has an influence on Busacca's next appointments. Overall, solid performance by Skomina.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *your is correct instead of 'you're'...

      Delete
  46. Chefren, you see that Praprotnik will flag for offside when Sanchez get the ball. He make a small stop. Maybe Skomina or Mazic said to Praprotnik "don't flag, the VAR will look when the game is death".
    https://youtu.be/TtyP6-taCB8 the moment start at 1.20

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ok it is clear we, and everybody else must change our view on assesing referee's performance now when VARs are introduced.
    We should not ask questions like: What if there was no VAR? .... We must not think that way and if some decision was corrected by VAR it should not be counted as referee's mistake specialy if we have offside decisions thight as two Slovenian assistants had. Also, imagine what is happening in Skomina's head after two decisions corrected by VAR? That is why, we should forget thinking: what if there was no VAR.

    ReplyDelete
  48. CMR-CHI
    disallowed goal for Chile 45'
    https://vid.me/rXOa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I find strange about that:

      They drew the line at the Cameroon defender's foot. We cannot know whether his waist was closer to the goalline, though (it seems so, I call the difference in the positions X).

      The Chilean attacker, however, is marginally offside. Maybe 10cm. As he cannot score a goal with his upper arm and hands, actually only a part of his left chest and leg make him offside. Now what if we weigh up the maybe 10cm offside with the Cameroon defender's waist position? Maybe 10cm - X makes the whole thing level or even onside.

      I appreciate VARs in general, but for such offside cases it is slightly dubious. Originally all was planned to help the referee for incidents in his back. Now we are at a point where we punish "armchair offsides" (how we called it once) - maybe resulting from 5cm offside positions - after 2 minutes of celebrations, joy and hopes of a team.

      Delete
    2. In German TV, they raised the question, why this is considered as a clear situation. They expected the VAR not to intervene. But they asked someone from IFAB, who told them, that offside situations are always considered as clear.

      Delete
    3. I completely agree with Niclas. When it comes to such tight differences in position it's hardly possible for the VAR to move the line with 100% accuracy to the correct position. And it gets even more difficult when the body part involved doesn't touch the ground, but is half a meter 'in the air'. Check the image of Fudbaler, what if it's the butt of the player in the middle?
      https://postimg.org/image/mnlynkm3n/

      Delete
  49. Question for those who watched the game (which I didn't):
    http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170618/44xzl9ig.png

    Was an offside graphic for this 1st pass shown?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean the calibration lines? Yes, they were shown, proving that it was no offside, however, I'm not sure whether I can find a picture of it anywhere.

      Delete
    2. Yes, with this same video it was shown that player was ONSIDE. One has to accept that, but impossible to question as players are too far away in video footage.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but only for 1-2 seconds.

      Delete
    4. Was it from a midfield perspective or also with the blurred angle like in the screenshot above?

      Delete
    5. From the same angle of this video.

      Delete
    6. Then I seriously hope that THIS was not the only basis the VARs made their decision on... one prerequisite for stadiums with VARs FIFA should IMO think of are flexible cameras moving at the entire sideline, being always 100% on line with the second last defender. Otherwise it is going to be a lottery.

      Thanks a lot.

      Delete
    7. https://s29.postimg.org/72gencr13/image.jpg

      Delete
    8. The position of the camera is not a problem Niclas. If you know a little bit of Geometry, you will know that with a still image and a line as a reference (in this case the midfield), you can make a totally precise line of offside with simple programs like AutoCAD for example . The problem may be something you mentioned above, which part of the body will be used as a reference.

      Delete
    9. Joaquin, you're right about Geometry but can you really evaluate if the attacker's shoulder is in front or behind this line? If you can, you've my full respect because I cannot... It is easy to evaluate his feets regarding an offside position but according to my opinion it is nearly impossible to evaluate his upper body for 100%.

      Delete
    10. As you can see in my last sentence, I agree with that. What part of the body is being used as a reference? But there are technologies today that could analyze offside with reference to upper parts of the body. But FIFA should explain what technology they are using, just know it is the same company responsible for hawkeye, but they did not explain how it works.

      Delete
    11. Don't worry, Joaquin. We are creating such lines with programmes like photoshop and others for years (and so does Offside Explained for example). The problem is, as Gitzlo underlined, about body parts which are 1m above the turf. You can only solve that if there is a camera from exactly the 2nd last defender height.

      Delete
  50. Predictions Matchday 2:

    RUS - POR Gianluca Rocchi (ITA)
    MEX - NZL Fahad Al-Mirdasi (KSA)
    CMR - AUS Milorad Mažić (SRB)
    GER - CHI Alireza Faghani (IRN)

    I still keep the hope of a very good appointment, but I have the feeling he will stay with only one game as it happened at WC. At any rate, 9 referees for "only" 16 matches are a questionable choice. 7 or 8 trios would have been a better solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry I was talking about Gassama, forgot to add his name :)

      Delete
    2. I agree with the predictions, and for the last 4 ones:
      POR-NZL Gassama
      MEX-RUS Faghani
      CMR-GER Roldán
      CHI-AUS Rocchi

      Delete
    3. BTW I'm wondering whether, in case, Mažić could be appointed again to Portugal after 2014 WC. What do you think? A long time has passed, but he was heavily criticized.

      Delete
    4. I think Busacca does not really care... if he remembers.

      Delete
  51. Answering on some questions:

    The evaluation should be focused on control, consistency (yellow cards), tactical approach and soft skills now.

    The big point referees have to work on is psychological resistance when an important decision needs to be reviewed or/and changed. Skomina got very nervous after the Chile's disallowed goal. It should be improved. (By the way, I don't like his decision to disallow Cameroon's goal due to alleged foul. Way too soft and almost never whistled.)

    The freezed frames made and shown by FIFA are real proofs that VAR made correct decisions regarding offsides:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCooS1dXYAAqmtZ.jpg:large
    http://img.fifa.com/mm/photo/footballtechnologyinnovation/videoassistantref/02/89/62/37/2896237_full-lnd.jpg

    I guess that regarding offsides they have so good tools to be 100% sure and indeed in a very tight situations the correct decision were made by VAR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but I have to ask: Why is the first screenshot a proof? Does it tell where the upper body is? :) I also hope that they have good enough tools to be 100% sure. But then I would expect FIFA shows the best possible video angle on TV.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, you are right. I guess it's almost exactly on the line, maybe some cm before that, and I really believe it was assessed correctly, but we can't be 100% sure about it.

      Delete
  52. Underneath the clips of the three situations regarding allowed/disallowed goals.\

    17' Disallowed goal CAM
    https://vimeo.com/222113367

    45+1' Disallowed goal CHI (offside) after VAR intervention
    https://vimeo.com/222114441

    90+1' Goal CHI awarded after VAR-intervention
    https://vimeo.com/222116698

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 90+1' GOAL awarded after VAR, when goalkeeper is infront of 2 players then ARs are following him, when Sanchez shooted Vargas was in a offside possition so what was the reason they allowed goal?

      Delete
    2. How can Vargas be in an offside position if there are two players between the ball and the goal line?

      Delete
  53. Small remark on yesterday`s game. I wonder what if there were no VARs and no additional angles with which we could asses this two offside incidents, would we call that as a mistake by assistants?
    I think rather not, so it`s quite interesting how much has evaluation of referee performance changed with these VARs.
    All in all good performance, no cards only for me a small mistake dissalowed goal for Cameroon althought I wouldn`t call it a clear mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have accepted both decisions regarding the offside goals. So yes, VAR changes everything there. Surely assistant referees can't make such difficult evaluations on the pitch. The fact that it happened twice in a game made it more sonorous, but I think we would have easily backed them. Assistant referees shouldn't feel under pressure in such circumstances.
      The only point for discussion is indeed the disallowed goal by Skomina in first half.

      Delete
    2. Theoretically one could blame AR2 for the 45' offside case as he was inappropriately positioned. But even accurately in line with the 2nd last defender, I could imagine most ARs would leave the flag down.

      Delete
    3. At this rate, and this logic, for 20 years, assistant referees will no longer exist.

      Delete
  54. RUS-POR: Rocchi, di Liberatore, Tonolini, Skomina, Ricci(!), Praprotnik, Hategan
    MEX-NZL: Gassama, Birumushashu, Range, Zitouni, Turpin, Vukan, Diedhiou

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the important news is that Ricci was backed regarding the penalty in RUS - NZL. But it is also possible that for some reasons Roldán was the only responsible of the poor management, let's wait for the next appearance of the Colombian...

      Delete
    2. And there seems to be seperation between VAR1s and AVARs as observed at the U20WC.
      Otherwise it would have been very logical to use Hategan and Diedhiou as VAR1s with referees from their continent.

      Delete
  55. I agree. But still with the camera angles that we had in Champions league, Europa league etc. I believe that large part of spectators/media would accept this as correct decison/s.
    And I wonder if referees or/and assistant referees would depend more and more on this VARs or will they be still confident enough to still make thought decisions by themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More cameras are needed for the purpose of difficult offside situations. Sometimes the assistant is correct but the camera angle is very bad and media thinks the assistant is wrong.

      Delete
    2. I think that AR raised a flag for the first situation, in the begining of the action.

      Delete
  56. 90+1' GOAL awarded after VAR, when goalkeeper is infront of 2 players then ARs are following him? When Sanchez shooted Vargas was in a offside possition so what was the reason they allowed goal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You basically explained by yourself why it isn't offside. 2 defenders closer to the goal line than Vargas.

      Delete
    2. If goalkeeper is infront of players then you are following him not 2 defenders closer to the goal..

      Delete
    3. Wrong. You follow the second to last defender as always.

      Delete
  57. Correct penalty given by Geiger. No VAR intervention needed, a very clear decision. One can think about a missed YC in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://streamable.com/g8kbn

      Is this a clear attempt to play the ball? If not, we could even discuss about a potential RC here for DOGSO.

      Delete
    2. Of course it's an attempt to play the ball. The Australian player has entered his tackle before the German player puts his foot in the way to shield it. Never a red card.

      The question of yellow is more interesting. It's close. I would say "yes," personally but I also think you can make an argument that the other defender was there and could have challenged, too.

      Delete
    3. I think given the dynamic, intensity and the potentially injuryy-causing character of the tackle (leg vs calf is always dangerous), I would prefer a yellow card. If not for DOGSO, then for reckless tackle.

      Delete
    4. In my opinion it was an attempt to play the ball but very very reckless. YC is mandatory there. DOGSO is an option as well. No card is a mistake in my opinion.

      Delete
  58. 56': Geiger consulted VAR to allow Australia's second goal. Claims for handball were there, but correct to allow the goal IMO. The decision was taken quite quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would prefer a whistle, tbh. But probably not clear enough (100%) to overrule the referee...

      Delete
    2. Will anyone make this a clip?

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLZnXar9E4k
      Here the video including the incident before the second AUS goal.
      In my opinion not a punishable handball, absolutely OK to allow the goal.
      If one wants to be very strict, could call this handball, but in any case never a mistake playing on...

      Delete
  59. The German goalkeeper wasted around 25-30 seconds, Geiger whistles twice to order the goal kick to be taken more quickly... and in the end, he nonetheless finishes the additional time during the goal kick execution without further enlargement. If referees enlarged the time added more strictly as a reaction to such subtle time-wasting, the IFAB would not have to think about ideas like reducing the game-time to 60 minutes..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched only the last minutes of the game and I noticed that: it is a nosense. You warn the keeper about time wasting but then you whistle the end just a few seconds later? Couldn't find a logic there.
      However, additional time is a big issue. Since it is at referee's discretion, one can't question but also here in Italy we had many controversial situations in serie A, goals were scored after the end of added time, in other occasions referees whistled without considering time wastings and so on...
      BTW it seems as Geiger had a good game including the penalty call?

      Delete
    2. Yeah, overall a good performance but again a very controversial situation involving the VAR (56', AUS goal).

      Delete
  60. I do not understand Busacca. With his pathological distrust against Gassama - why not Al Mirdasi for MEX-NZL - he gets in trouble. If we now predict KAM-AUS Mazic, GER-CHI Faghani,NZL-POR Al Mirdasi who gets MEX-RUS? Pitana had Mexiko before, RolDan the Russian Opener. So what? Skomina? Good bye to the neutral referee from other continent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Al Mirdasi could maybe get MEX-RUS. Then Geiger would be the only option for NZL-POR by the usual "rules"
      But at the last ConfedCup Aguilar had Nigeria twice in the group stage, so this is also possible and provides more options.

      Delete
    2. In my humble view our predictions posted 2 weeks before the competitions made much more sense than Mr Busacca's appointments, that are - this should not be forgotten - however also driven by political aspects such as "Will the national association X accept referee Y?"... that's how FIFA works for years.

      Delete
    3. Really... And that's where FIFA needs to grow a spine and simply have their say but unfortunately they're unable to do it!!! :(

      Delete
  61. Does anyone know if the Champions and Europa Leagues first round appointments have come out?

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger