Group Stage (2/3 - Matches 13-24)
 |
| Euro heavyweights England and the Netherlands would face off in one of the first phase's marquee ties |
The second round of group fixtures at World Cup 1990. Twelve more referees handled their first match in the Italian mondiale. FIFA released these appointments in two blocks, matches 13-18 on Tuesday 12th June, and matches 19-24 on Friday 15th June, all times local (CEST).
13 Argentina vs. Soviet Union (Weds 13June 2100, Naples) ||
Erik Fredriksson – José Ramiz Wright, Jamal Al-Sharif
Reserve: Rosario Lo Bello (ITA)
(SWE, BRA, SYR)
14 Cameroon vs. Romania (Thurs 14June 1700, Bari) ||
Hernán Silva – Carlos Silva Valente, Armando Pérez Hoyos
Reserve: Pietro D'Elia (ITA)
(CHI, POR, COL)
15 Yugoslavia vs. Colombia (Thurs 14June 1700, Bologna) ||
Luigi Agnolin – Jean-Fidèle Diramba, Neji Jouini
Reserve: Pierluigi Pairetto (ITA)
(ITA, GAB, TUN)
16 Italy vs. United States (Thurs 14June 2100, Rome) ||
Edgardo Codesal – Berny Ulloa Morera, Juan Daniel Cardellino
Reserve: Mohamed Hansal (ALG)
(MEX, CRC, URU)
17 Austria vs. Czechoslovakia (Fri 15June 1700, Florence) ||
George Smith – Jamal Al-Sharif, Richard Lorenc
Reserve: Marcel Van Langenhove (BEL)
(SCO, SYR, AUS)
18 West Germany vs. United Arab Emirates (Fri 15June 2100, Milan) ||
Aleksej Spirin – Shizuo Takada, Pierluigi Pairetto
Reserve: Pierluigi Magni (ITA)
(URS, JPN, ITA)
--
19 Brazil vs. Costa Rica (Sat 16June 1700, Turin) ||
Neji Jouini – Jassim Mandi, Jean-Fidèle Diramba
Reserve: Luigi Agnolin (ITA)
(TUN, BHR, GAB)
20 Sweden vs. Scotland (Sat 16June 2100, Genoa) ||
Carlos Maciel – Michał Listkiewicz, Vincent Mauro
Reserve: Tullio Lanese (ITA)
(PAR, POL, USA)
21 England vs. Netherlands (Sat 16June 2100, Cagliari) ||
Zoran Petrović – Mohamed Hansal, Edgardo Codesal
Reserve: Carlo Longhi (ITA)
(YUG, ALG, MEX)
22 Republic of Ireland vs. Egypt (Sun 17June 1700, Palermo) ||
Marcel Van Langenhove – Joël Quiniou, Rosario Lo Bello
Reserve: Richard Lorenc (AUS)
(BEL, FRA, ITA)
23 Belgium vs. Uruguay (Sun 17June 2100, Verona) ||
Siegfried Kirschen – Peter Mikkelsen, Aleksej Spirin
Reserve: Helmut Kohl (AUT)
(GDR, DEN, URS)
24 Korea Republic vs. Spain (Sun 17June 2100, Udine) ||
Elías Jácome – Juan Carlos Loustau, Pierluigi Magni
Reserve: Michel Vautrot (FRA)
(ECU, ARG, ITA)
Match 13 - Argentina vs. Soviet Union, Erik Fredriksson
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239285)
The story of how Diego's hands were at it again, and in getting away with it, ruined an otherwise neigh-on perfect night for Erik Fredriksson - detailed report can be accessed in the link below:
https://wc90ref.blogspot.com/p/in-focus-match-13-argentina-vs-soviet.html
(nigh-on, not neigh-on, of course :))
DeleteThis match was the main reason to end this world cup for excellent referee fredriksson who before wc 1990 was one of the strongest referees to referee the final
ReplyDeleteMatch 14 - Cameroon vs. Romania, Hernán Silva
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239286)
Señor H. Silva Arce of Chile returned for a second World Cup refereeing foray - in 1986, he wasn't really challenged in Canada vs. France, and despite being retained until the end of the tournament, his only appearance in the whole knockout rounds was to run the line on the match to determine third and fourth place. Unexpected first-time-out victors Cameroon and Romania, especially the CAF nation, could be expected to test this Chilean referee's mettle a bit more in his 1990 opener.
This officiating performance was a controversial one, with two of the three goals (especially the crucial first score of the game, after seventy-seven mins) were under close focus:
15:45 • Should Roger Milla have been pulled up by the ref for a foul on the defender, no goal? (1-0)
19:20 • Romania consolation; did linesman Carlos Silva Valente miss an offside; even a handball there? (2-1*)
-- I think the unequivocalness with which both the football world (and FIFA refs department) determined that Milla's goal should definitely be ruled off, would be a little surprising for many nowadays (I can almost hear my father angrily screaming at the defender "why did he let it bounce!" :D). Ioan Andone judges the ball quite well, but in a way so does Milla, and with a only small charge while Andone is airborne, can sweep the ball up to score. The striker's 'dirty work' was done with the ball in the air, so for me defensive fk is the better call, but I guess many in modern refereeing would allow the goal.
(I wonder what Nasser Al-Khelaifi would say about this scene ;)). Interesting notes from the replay sequences show that Silva both put his whistle to mouth initially before relenting on blowing and validating the goal, and also that the Chilean referee looked straight out to his Colombian linesman (namely Armando Pérez Hoyos, who had a quiet game), perhaps hoping that he'd be flagging(?). It does need to be underlined how game-changing a call that referee Silva faced here too - at the time, the game was nil-all and there were less than fifteen minutes left. Unenviable circumstances!
About Romania's goal - I do actually think that our contemporary VAR lines would have proved Silva Valente (the Portuguese linesman) correct not flag; look at the shading of the pitch. Indeed - while the laws changed for the 1990/91 season - level no longer meaning offside - FIFA had instructed the linesmen to apply this premise for the Italian World Cup. Silva Valente, ever the politician's man to the outsider looking in, took this quite to heart, which was visible in both CSV's games in Italy with the flag.
In the wider media this onside call was considered a clear mistake, and internally, FIFA probably reached the same conclusion; though, I guess the non-refereeing politicians would probably have viewed this call a bit more favourably. Silva Valente never worked as linesman at this World Cup after this game, but given his assignments as a referee which followed, I don't think we can state anything too unequivocally about that. Concerning the handling, maybe I'm missing sth, but even after frame-by-frame, I feel none the wiser as to whether it was handball or not; so should be supported. --
Those scenes aside, Hernán Silva's performance was okay and not really more. He visibly lacked soft skills (8', 16', 21' all 1H scenes which displayed that), so rather acted as a dictator-type leader on the FoP to compensate for that. His manner was a bit too abrasive at times, to be honest. Despite failing in a mobbing scene at the first caution, his use of yellow cards as a mgmt tool was quite strong though. To use a bit of vernacular, a "more meh than yeah" performance overall. But ultimately it mattered not.
DeleteHernán Silva's performance in this game was rejected by FIFA. For them, allowing the goal in the seventy-seventh minute and not penalising Roger Milla was a clear match error for them.
Match 15 - Yugoslavia vs. Colombia, Luigi Agnolin
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239287)
A game handled by the star of Mexico 1986, with the (important) match itself only being one chapter of an episode steeped in FIFA politics; the story of referee Luigi Agnolin’s home World Cup in 1990.
Full report can be accessed in the link below:
https://wc90ref.blogspot.com/p/in-focus-match-15-yugoslavia-vs.html
Hello my best friend where is the rest of matches from 16 to 24
ReplyDeleteHi Mohamed, thanks for your interest in the blog! We took a break for the week of international matches just played, and will return starting from today.
DeleteMatch 16 - Italy vs. United States, Edgardo Codesal
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239288)
‣ Preface:
FIFA had already determined that Mexico's Edgardo Codesal could be amongst their upper echelon of officials before the tournament (his appointment to, and expected level performance in, the second leg of the Colombia vs. Israel playoff displayed that), but that they themselves didn’t really know much they rated this referee. Hence, an appointment to the host's game (sonorous factor) with the weak-looking US side who had been beaten 1-5 last time out (not-so-sonorous factor), was somehow a good compromise appointment.
‣ Match:
Ironically then if they wanted to test Codesal a bit, this game was amongst the most boring so far with regards the refereeing - in a (successful) attempt to avoid another Czechoslovakian humilation, the States sat back, Italy were pretty blunt having scored early, and there was very little tempo to the play at all. Nevertheless, surely a career highlight reel moment to handle such a game at the Olimpico; another super atmosphere in Rome.
‣ Key Match Incidents:
21’ - (04:25) • Potential penalty to Italy (charging)
32’ - (07:15) • Penalty given to Italy (tripping)
47’ - (11:45) • Tackle by Italy’s De Napoli
The key call of the game was the penalty awarded to Italy at 32’ and the situation is surely quite interesting to analyse. I think the Mexican ref definitely made the right call here. Nicola Berti is simply too clever for Paul Caliguiri, whom the Italian teases into a careless foul. Codesal didn’t have the best angle (‘wrong side’, looking ‘at’, rather than ‘into’, the duel), and while Berti definitely played for it, the Mexican’s instant decision to signal a penalty was the right one in my book.
‣ Disciplinary:
Contrary to Israel vs. Colombia, I wasn’t completely convinced by Codesal in this regard. For the first hour, he didn’t really send any preventative signals after borderline fouls (32’, 40’, 46’, (47’), 58’), so the players got a bit anxious on the pitch. However by sound and very good cautions in 62’ and 69’ respectively, Mexico’s referee brought everything back under control. In such a flat game, I guess Codesal realising he had much more credit to lose than he did gain, and therefore wanting to use his munition sparingly, would explain that.
‣ Style:
Edgardo Codesal is the third last referee in FIFA World Cup history to use the neck-lanyard whistle way of running the game, and as the Edward Lennie study showed in 1998, I think selecting this way of handling the match is a negative choice. While Codesal was a much better referee than, say, Leslie Mottram, the chaffing elements of this way of officiating were still evident - a relatively significant handful of irritating freekick decisions, where it was better to play on; a normal football contact had occurred. The common denominator of refs who choose this style is a lack of soft skills; I don’t think this true of the Mexican.
So I guess this choice was force of habit more than anything else. I would have liked to see him change his neck-lanyard set-up, personally.
‣ Linesmen:
For the Juan Daniel Cardellino from Uruguay, this was the end of the line - FIFA had decided that his tournament was going to be over after this match (before it). He went out in a positive way: good performance as linesman 2, correctly ruling an Italy score offside (09:45). Also positive showing for Berny Ulloa, returning from the 86 final - though the one time he raised the flag (rightly) and we could see his positioning, he was way in front of the ball.
‣ Balance:
Edgardo Codesal came through a potentially thorny evening handling the hosts, with an expected level performance. I don’t think that this match did anything to change FIFA’s interpretation of how they wanted to use Codesal in 1990 - a referee who could solve challenging (more than top, per se) games. The Mexican would have to wait nearly thirty more matches played to get his next appointment, which definitely fitted that brief.
In your opinion was codesal big candidate for wc 1990 final before this tournament or the strongest referees conditions helped him to referee this final such as vautrout mistakes in the opening match and fredriksson big mistake in Argentina vs ussr and Brazilian referee Wright who very unlucky as his colleagues from Brazil coleho and filho refereed previous 2 wc finals
ReplyDeleteHi Mohamed, thanks for your question, and it is a very good one!
DeleteI don't want to preempt later discussions, but I would say that Codesal was probably as as big of a final candidate before the tournament as, say, Belqola was in 1998. The status of the others in contention, and particularly the two countries comprising the final match (not only politics, but what 'kind' of match would likely be played out), really helped both Belqola and Codesal get their respective appointments to the World Cup final I think.
Hopefully I can answer your question in more intricate detail when we reach the final matches on the blog. :)
Thanks my best friend
DeleteMatch 17 - Austria vs. Czechoslovakia, George Smith
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239289)
One of the tougher games so far for the Scotsman George Smith, which caused him to break the record for sanctions given at a WC 1990 game unto then (even beating eg. Vautrot) - seven cards were shown by him, all cautions. Smith was a quite competent referee and he had an okay/decent performance, getting the key decision, awarding Czechoslovakia a penalty which by virtue of scoring earned them a one-nothing victory, quite correct; goalkeeper Lindenberger wiped out Jozef Chovanec in the box (08:05)
I think Smith did the best he could given the tools he had as a referee, but on the highest level, that left some relatively big deficiencies - his line in cards was definitely consistent and still not bad, but with more preventative action against rough fouls, he could have savoured more match control and needed to show less cautions. I guess his athletic profile and (lack of) softer skills also hindered him as well; the caution scene after the final whistle didn't paint the Scottish referee in the best light, to be honest.
Also - it is remarkable that FIFA, especially having rejected Agnolin for what they did, considered the caution at 23' as not a professional foul (06:20); certainly, nowadays it would be a cast-iron DOGSO case, but nobody back then raised the alarm back then about this non-RC. As a summary, I wouldn't have begrudged George Smith a second (group) appointment, but, I think FIFA made the more correct decision by not assigning Scotland's World Cup referee (their first in 8yrs) to ref another tie.
A Scottish referee with linesmen from Syria and Australia is a brilliantly exotic trio, so typical of the pre-2006 era World Cups, but the respective performances of these flag-bearers, Jamal Al-Sharif and tournament debutant Richard Lorenc, were quite far from brilliant. Al-Sharif made three poor mistakes in the 1H (the first unacceptable); FIFA should have immediately discontinued the Syrian from linesmen's work at this World Cup after the match. Lorenc was a bit better, though I fear only by virtue of being quieter - his call to deny TCH a 1-on-1 and probable goal at 75' was a really jarring error.
Match 18 - West Germany vs. United Arab Emirates, Aleksej Spirin
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239290)
After Agnolin, it was Aleksej Spirin who was the other referee jettisoned in Sepp Blatter's trial by impromptu appearance on German television show at World Cup 1990. Like the Italian, FIFA's General Secretary determined that by not giving what he assessed as a clear red card, that Spirin had made a clear match error, and was hence to have his tournament terminated. The mistake? Not ejecting Khalil Ghanim for a crude tackle-from-behind on Jürgen Klinsmann in the thirtieth minute of this game, won comfortably (5-1) by West Germany, who had continued their imperious form from the Yugoslavia game.
This time, I am quite with that interpretation - Ghanim flew right through the back of Klinsmann in a violent foul, the sort which FIFA had explicitly instructed the referees to punish with the red card ('DOGSO' was not their only target at this WC); this was quite a clear SFP, to be honest. Spirin didn't even give a card, the ITV commentators didn't see the foul as interesting enough to abate discussing an extremely tangential anecdote about an umbrella - you can see why Blatter thought he was fighting an uphill battle at this World Cup with his guidelines issued to the officials.
Spirin was still a bit unlucky for my taste (think about which nation’s television Blatter appeared on), but there is a chasm of difference between this and the Agnolin case - not least because the Soviet official displayed much (much) more modest capabilities in his match. His action against DtR was really good, but the rest was quite average indeed (particuarly in leadership style). Especially given that, really, this match was quite an easy one, I wouldn’t quibble too much with Spirin only reffing this one game at Italia ’90.
Pierluigi Pairetto stood as linesman in this match, the first support squad member to get his one chance on a group match. Indeed, Pairetto was one of two Italian reserves who got elevated to assistant on a knockout game (Brazil vs. Argentina no less) - but one can’t say that it was really deserved to be honest. Even if his performance besides was okay, his mistake at 44’ was too big and too poor (positioning…); this should have been his first and last appearance with the flag. On the other hand, Shizuo Takada had a steady performance on the near side, a good one, besides an incorrect offside call at 45’.
---
Video clips of the relevant incidents, the scene assessed as a clear match error is the one at 30':
10’ | 02:05 • Foul challenge by Hussain Ghuloum (warning)
24’ | 04:30 • Warning to Khalil Ghanim (time-wasting)
27’ | 05:10 • Caution to Yousuf Hussain (time-wasting)
30’ | 05:50 • Foul tackle by Khalil Ghanim (no sanction)
30’ | sequ. • Caution to Hussain Ghuloum (not retreating)
30’ | sequ. • Caution to Andreas Brehme (reckless tackle)
39’ | 11:05 • Mobbing by UAE players after freekick decision
43’ | 12:35 • Potential penalty to FRG (tackle)
44' | sequ. • Incorrect offside call against UAE (P. Pairetto)
47’ | 16:00 • Potential offside before 3-1 goal, (Pairetto); mobbing
63’ | 18:30 • Blocking foul by Guido Buchwald (no sanction)
75’ | 19:30 • Potential penalty to FRG, handling (5-1 goal then scored)
Match 19 - Brazil vs. Costa Rica, Neji Jouini
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239291)
Of all fifty-two matches at World Cup 1990, only one was refereed by an African (making this a 1.92% CAF-officiated tournament, a record low since Africa had officials at the WC). If FIFA wanted to display that they were only choosing officials on merit after the controversies echoing from Mexico, then in selecting Neji Jouini over his two CAF compatriots at the tournament was a sound choice; the Tunisian definitely fulfilled his brief, displaying a competent, good performance in this normal difficulty tie.
Jouini was evidently a referee with sound game-reading skills, and his very good disciplinary measures (four cautions, all correct, plus jumping in at the right moments) ensured that match control was never going to be an issue for the Tunisian official. However, in the softer sides of refereeing, Jouini was a bit deficient in 1990 - while he had no problem taking the initiative in the game generally, he came across as quite a shy leadership figure indeed (I guess Maidin/Kavanagh is a good comparison in this specific area).
Still a good referee in 1990, I guess we can say that Neji Jouini took quite big strides in the four interceding years leading up to USA ‘94. Given FIFA’s outlook for this tournament (which was: keep CAF/AFC at arm’s length, compensate them with linesmen’s duties) - I guess Jouini was never going to get a match no.2 in the middle. But on a technical level, I’d say that is a fair conclusion to draw from this performance too; in a harder game at Italy ’90, I think Jouini may have been tripped up. Though - I'd also be firm in saying that he was a well-deserved member of this WC's refs squad too (also as linesman).
Early on in the match, the camera very often panned onto our Tunisian referee (much more than for other referees in other games I can say); I do think there was quite a lot of pressure on Mr Jouini owing specifically to his origin. I guess the same was true for our linesmen from the so-called ‘refereeing third world’ (Bahrain and Gabon). They both did fine, only challenged by Costa Rica counters - Mandi (BHR) made one mistake at 20’, and while the two scenes most important to assess Diramba (GAB) were not (properly) replayed, I had the impression of a basically decent performance by him either way.
Match 20 - Sweden vs. Scotland, Carlos Maciel
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239292)
If the British duel between England and the Republic of Ireland got a probably logical referee appointment, then the match fought in Northern European by Sweden and Scotland received a rather more left-field choice - Carlos Maciel from Paraguay was to referee the must-win Group C tie. While some appointments of this format can be inspired (I'm thinking of Torres Cadena's second match at WC94), this felt a little more like finding a match for Maciel, than finding a ref for Sweden vs. Scotland.
Nevertheless, Maciel was a good referee and his performance was sound. One might have been worried when in the first ten minutes he both got terribly caught in the centre-circle too close to play and gave a number of dubious play on calls in a matter of seconds, and whistled down a clearly fair sliding tackle some minutes, but actually it all turned out quite okay for the Paraguayan referee. Correctly awarding Scotland a second half penalty (11:25) - look for the clip at the feet - was the biggest call of the evening; his use of cards was fine, and despite being a touch pedantic in some moments, so was his foul recognition.
A solid showing which definitely deserves a passing grade, but not really a candidature for a second assignment at the same time. Maciel had two of FIFA's most favoured linesmen helping him out for this one, forming a PAR-POL-USA trio. Vincent Mauro had an above-average level performance, correctly perceiving all of his situations, bar one at the very end, where it would be unreasonable to expect the 1990-lino to keep his flag down. Michał Listkiewicz (like his compatriot far-side) wasn't too challenged, but in the one call where we can assess his work in this match, he actually made a very poor error (14:15).
Match 21 - England vs. Netherlands, Zoran Petrović
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239293)
Calm, unflustered and unobtrusive - then thirty-eight year old Zoran Petrović was a referee who had been held in high regard by FIFA for some time. The Yugoslav was seen as a somewhat surprising choice for this (ultimately very sterile) tie, but Petrović earned both the respect of the football public and deeper trust of the governing body with a very assured and sovereign performance in this top clash.
The two biggest calls that Z. Petrović had to make were ruling off two potential England goals in the 2H:
• https://vk.com/video400374426_456239293?t=10m49s
(52': detecting a handling offence by Linekar, which had allowed him to control the ball and 'score')
• https://vk.com/video400374426_456239293?t=14m36s
(+92': awarding a goalkick when Stuart Pearce shot an indirect freekick straight into the net)
Spotting Linekar's handball was a simply brilliant call, well worthy of praise; though of course expected, the IFK incident was well-seen at a hugely important moment. All-in-all, it was a really (really) good night for Zoran Petrović! As for his linesmen - his trio seemed to have come about from quite careful political crafting, the Yugoslav being joined by colleagues from Algeria and Mexico (M. Hansal, E. Codesal).
The Mexican looked sound, and unchallenged, so did Hansal but for one moment - the Algerian flagged down a Dutch attack which was yards onside (13:05). With all respect, I don't understand how they could continue appointing Hansal on the level that FIFA did, when he so obviously hinted at huge inadequacies as a linesmen. In the end, FIFA got exactly what they deserved with Hansal's later performances, to be frank.
Match 22 - Republic of Ireland vs. Egypt, Marcel Van Langenhove
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239294)
While my expectations weren't high for 'the game so bad that it forced FIFA to change the backpass rule', in actual fact I believe you could make quite a creditable case that this match was the best of the four so far from the island-played Group F. While it was only in the last twenty-ish minutes that Egypt went on their mission to make the game as tedious as possible, at no point was the game a thriller either. As it happened, that was rather quite unhelpful for the match referee, Marcel Van Langenhove from Belgium, and his World Cup progression thereafter.
Before a ball was kicked, Van Langenhove was the 'Martin Hansson' of this World Cup. Having had to wait patiently behind Alexis Ponnet for his chance during the whole of the eighties, Van L. finally got to attend a major tournament (Ponnet retired at the end of '89), at Italia 90. A much-deserved chance too; Van Langenhove was an excellent referee. Accordingly, UEFA assigned him to handle the second leg Benfica vs. Marseille European Cup semi in April 1990. After a strong performance for the whole match in the white hot old Estadio da Luz, a Hanssonian-level (and type of) disaster would occur.
Vata Matanu Garcia handled the ball into the goal, undetected by both unsighted Van Langenhove and his linesman Joannes Moons, to score a decisive ninetieth minute away goals (remember them ;)) winner for Benfica. The handling was so blatant, that Van L. was actually summoned to a UEFA investigation, which actually forced him to join up with the refs squad in Italy later than the official deadline. The wider conclusions were the same as for the Swede - the referee, unsighted, was unlucky, but the mistake is so blatant, and naturally very hard to accept.
Marcel Van Langenhove therefore arrived as 'damaged goods' at World Cup 1990. Whereas Hansson was only appointed as fourth official, essentially the same (sort of) thing happened to Van L. - they gave him the low-profile Eire vs. Egypt tie to referee. In a game with lots of incidents and giving a chance to shine, perhaps FIFA would have given the Belgian a second game, but what played out was quite the opposite to that, a mostly drab and unremarkable affair. And Van Langenhove was really good by the way in this match; he had a super style (what an ability to communicate with players(!) + natural authority), up there with the best naturals that I've ever seen referee. He was well above this tie, to be honest.
Regarding specific incidents, a couple of penalty appeals are worth a look (05:30, 11:30), besides formidable management skills in other scenes. This was the opposite of a performance that recommended no further matches for the ref in question, but exactly that was how it played out for the Belgian whistler. If not for Vata and Lisbon, I'm certain that his World Cup would have been really quite different indeed. Van Langenhove was a brilliantly-able referee, and FIFA completely wasted this resource (while you can understand them) at Italia '90. A real shame. In any case, it was a pleasure to watch him officiate this match; I would have loved to see him ref some more at this tournament!
Van Langenhove's two linesmen were highly-rated Joël Quiniou, in working here becoming the final of the forty-three officials to stand i(n any role) at WC90, and support squad's Rosario Lo Bello (his father Concetto was a top ref in the sixties). Both were basically quiet and functioned strongly as team members. However - Quiniou had an extremely doubtful and actually poor-looking offside call with seven minutes to go (16:55); irritatingly, the Frenchman's next line assignment was directly to a semifinal. Mr Blatter could rightly criticise the level of linesmanship at this World Cup, but with such assignments (rewarding reffing, not 'AR-ing' performances), FIFA also quite brought it on themselves as well.
Match 23 - Belgium vs. Uruguay, Siegfried Kirschen
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239295)
What a disastrous refereeing performance. East Germany's Siegfried Kirschen was a very experienced international official (since mid-70s), attended the previous WC handling a quarterfinal, and was one of a small gaggle whom FIFA considered to have the level for a final appointment - but only one referee (Mauro) presented such a weak and deficient overall performance so far at Italia '90. Kirschen certainly teetered in Mexico, but here he finally fell. Given what FIFA were rejecting for, it is quite remarkable that not only did the GDR ref escape that, but he was actually praised for this poor showing by them.
Belgium scored twice early doors, and Kirschen was simply unable to take the heat out of the game (I don’t think even the Uruguay team set out with a particularly malicious attitude). With his slightly bizarre foul recognition, and lack of preventative skills, the E. German simply presided over players who were getting simultaneously anxious and emboldened. The result was Kirschen more-or-less losing the plot, with a quite ridiculous expulsion (by 2nd caution) to Eric Gerets - quite right to take his name at 36’, Gerets then fell victim to both clever Uruguay play and the referee’s inability to manage the game.
A very reckless off-the-ball striking by no.4 Herrera minutes before showed what the (Uruguay) players had calculated they could get away with based on the first half-an-hour, but after Geret's first booking (HL: 10:00) the game descended into chaos. Belgium's right back conceded three fouls after that, none of which were correctly given in my opinion (attacker blatantly generating the contact all three times), and the Uruguayan who had won all these freekicks, Rubén Sosa, had actually clearly lost his head, and was finally cautioned himself for deliberately bumping into opposition goalkeeper Michel Preud'homme at 41’.
What no.2 Gerets was finally sent off for was quite ridiculous in my opinion (42’: 13:10) - if anything, it is a foul on him! Even so, one can hardly call it reckless or SPA either way. When cards are your only disciplinary weapon, and the game became hot as it did, then Kirschen had to flash them somewhere. Maddeningly, FIFA didn't just accept this decision - "finally some action against persistent fouling" - they openly praised it. Quite incredible that such a cast iron (clear match) error, when others have been rejected more spuriously, can be the source of praise based just on a tournament's narrative.
Especially when actual action against rough play was actually so lacking in this match. Kirschen was lucky that Belgium finished as winners (comfortably so too), though he continued the caution-less second half as he had in the first. The most interesting individual incidents were a couple of penalty appeals (18:15, 19:25), a warning scene (26:35), and an undetected assault by Rubén Paz in the game's last minutes (27:35). All-in-all, while I guess that Siegfried Kirschen avoided a real scandal as Belgium won, this was a poor refereeing performance. If Mauro's earned a mark of three, this would deserve in my opinion a four.
I already posted an explanation on the 86 blog as to why FIFA consider referees like Kirschen amongst their top class, and despite his technical shortcomings, this showing did nothing to change that high consideration. For me, the East German should have been rejected, but for FIFA, he went on. As for his linesmen: Peter Mikkelsen did make a couple of flagging mistakes, but they were relatively tight, and I think he still earned a good performance (7); Aleksej Spirin (who by now knew he was going to be rejected for FRGUAE; this appointment made before that game) was a bit weaker (6), but still not failing the test.
Match 24 - Korea Republic vs. Spain, Elías Jácome
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296)
The then-president of our (English) Refs Association dismissed Elías Jácome Guerrero - a "weak" official - but that is exactly what Jácome wasn't. The first ever Ecuadorian to handle a World Cup tie, in properly assuring match control of a Korea Republic game at the finals, he succeeded where four referees had failed before him. Elías Jácome had a very good (and very South American) style, and generally deserved a second reffing birth at Italia '90. Probably, FIFA had pre-determined that one was enough for Ecuador's representative anyway, but this game requires quite a detailed look at a number of scenes:
-- KMI Analysis --
⌚ - Min. 22
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=4m0s
⚖️ - Should Spain have been awarded a penalty for this tackle incident? I had to watch it many times to be completely sure what happens, but I got it - the defender makes a trapping contact by his sliding tackle on the attacker’s left leg. That makes it reckless enough for the fact that it was an extraneous incident after the attacker had already passed the ball to be irrelevant - penalty. Tricky incident though.
⌚ - Min. 42
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=8m52s
⚖️ - Correct freekick decision, Korea score (a super!) equaliser having taken it.
⌚ - Min. 49
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=12m28s
⚖️ - Spain ‘goal’ correctly ruled off after a blatant infringement on the goalkeeper.
⌚ - Min. 61
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=13m24s
⚖️ - Decisive score for the match (Spain went 1-2 up, ultimately winning 1-3) from this freekick struck straight into the net. Too soft? For me, no - the defender is too impatient and compromised the attacker’s position. Jácome had blown up for these types of offences all match, having a consistent and balanced foul recognition. However, perhaps we can say that the result was not so satisfying either?
⌚ - Min. 64
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=15m6s
⚖️ - Given the only two camera angles that we get, I wouldn’t want to bet the health of my family and friends that the Korea defender gives away what should be an ultra-blatant penalty for handling, but the evidence seems clear enough to assign a CME. Surprisingly, no Spain players really appeal, but they’d have been justified in doing so - arm high in the air, the defender takes the ball away from the attacker’s head by (seemingly) giving the ball a slightly deflection with his hand. I’m sure that the hypothetical World Cup 1990 video (assistant) referee would have intervened here.
⌚ - Min. 65
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239296?t=15m57s
⚖️ - It would later be beaten, but support squad linesman Pierluigi Magni’s offside call here is, for me, comfortably the most scandalous of the tournament so far. While much worse calls have taken place with regards to how many yards onside the player in question was, this was not even a crossover, and, as such, not ONE player expected a flag here. You can only guess that Magni missed the no.3 on his far-side? Unacceptable call by Signor Magni, a big big mistake. Once again, an Ecuadorian referee (they presented quite similarly, actually) might have saved his World Cup by overruling a linesman, but didn’t.
-- ends --
Managing to ‘tame’ Korea Republic with very good disciplinary + general style was no small feat, but in the end this performance was too controversial / doubtful to give Elías Jácome a second assignment - he was unlucky, but that treatment is also fair IMO. That the error at 65’ was one committed by a support linesman, only there as an anachronism and political ode, makes it even more irritating. Juan Carlos Loustau from Argentina was the Ecuadorian’s first linesman (the comparison continues ;)), and we didn’t miss much given that this was his only line work of the tournament - he was 5-10 yards ahead of play when making his, sometimes correct and sometimes erroneous, offside judgements.