Group Stage (3/3 - Matches 25-36)
 |
| Carlos Silva Valente and his two linesmen at Argentina vs. Romania's coin toss (thanks to Juha Tamminen, twitter) |
25 Argentina vs. Romania (Mon 18June 2100, Naples) ||
Carlos Silva Valente – Berny Ulloa Morera, Carlo Longhi
Reserve: Edgardo Codesal (MEX)
(POR, CRC, ITA)
26 Cameroon vs. Soviet Union (Mon 18June 2100, Bari) ||
José Ramiz Wright – Kurt Röthlisberger, Pietro D’Elia
Reserve: Aron Schmidhuber (FRG)
(BRA, SUI, ITA)
27 West Germany vs. Colombia (Tues 19June 1700, Milan) ||
Alan Snoddy – Jassim Mandi, Tullio Lanese
Reserve: George Courtney (ENG)
(NIR, BHR, ITA)
28 Yugoslavia vs. United Arab Emirates (Tues 19June 1700, Bologna) ||
Shizuo Takada – Michel Vautrot, Peter Mikkelsen
Reserve: Helmut Kohl (AUT)
(JPN, FRA, DEN)
29 Austria vs. United States (Tues 19June 2100, Florence) ||
Jamal Al-Sharif – Richard Lorenc, Zoran Petrović
Reserve: Rosario Lo Bello (ITA)
(SYR, AUS, YUG)
30 Italy vs. Czechoslovakia (Tues 19June 2100, Rome) ||
Joël Quiniou – Marcel Van Langenhove, George Smith
Reserve: Mohamed Hansal (ALG)
(FRA, BEL, SCO)
--
31 Brazil vs. Scotland (Weds 20June 2100, Turin) ||
Helmut Kohl – Siegfried Kirschen, Michał Listkiewicz
Reserve: Aleksej Spirin (URS)
(AUT, GDR, POL)
32 Sweden vs. Costa Rica (Weds 20June 2100, Genoa) ||
Zoran Petrović – Alan Snoddy, George Courtney
Reserve: Shizuo Takada (JPN)
(YUG, NIR, ENG)
33 Belgium vs. Spain (Thurs 21June 1700, Verona) ||
Juan Carlos Loustau – Carlos Maciel, Vincent Mauro
Reserve: Elías Jácome (ECU)
(ARG, PAR, USA)
34 Korea Republic vs. Uruguay (Thurs 21June 1700, Udine) ||
Tullio Lanese – Jean-Fidèle Diramba, Neji Jouini
Reserve: Pierluigi Pairetto (ITA)
(ITA, GAB, TUN)
35 England vs. Egypt (Thurs 21June 2100, Cagliari) ||
Kurt Röthlisberger – Edgardo Codesal, Berny Ulloa Morera
Reserve: Armando Pérez Hoyos (COL)
(SUI, MEX, CRC)
36 Republic of Ireland vs. Netherlands (Thurs 21June 2100, Palermo) ||
Michel Vautrot – Mohamed Hansal, Richard Lorenc
Reserve: Hernán Silva (CHI)
(FRA, ALG, AUS)
-
[Changes from original appointments:
Argentina vs. Romania
Armando Pérez Hoyos (COL) as linesman 1 -> Berny Ulloa Morera (CRC)]
Armando Pérez Hoyos (COL) as linesman 1 -> Berny Ulloa Morera (CRC)]
Match 25 - Argentina vs. Romania, Carlos Silva Valente
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239297)
Silva Valente survived. What a crunch game that FIFA saved this Portuguese referee specially for: if the Soviet Union beat Cameroon by four (and they did), then a loss would have meant automatic ejection for a loser between Argentina and Romania. One could suspect that a game which if drawn would have taken both through at 'the most boring World Cup ever' would have been no spectacle, but actually quite the opposite occurred; I think it was the most thrilling and exciting game so far at the whole tournament, full of dynamic play and the result always feeling like it was on a knife-edge.
Mercifully, Carlos Silva Valente had changed his neck-lanyard style in the interceding years between his 1986 WC appearance and this - though presumably quite close to Italia ’90, as when refereeing the Women’s EURO final in 1989 (his biggest UEFA appointment ever), he still had the whistle round his neck optic. Honestly, I find the whole Silva Valente thing a complete mystery - looking through the palmares of all European WC referees in 86/90, UEFA always gave them some quarterfinal or semifinal in one of the three club competitions, even as a token gesture, but not Carlos Silva Valente, never.
The mystery deepens - Silva Valente only attended Mexico 1986 as a replacement for Scotsman Brian McGinlay who had to resign from the list for personal reasons, but having gotten there, FIFA considered him élite, despite disastrous performances both as a ref and especially on the line, where they elevated him to stand in both the warzone Argentina vs. Uruguay and a semifinal, the latter of which he really badly messed up. But to give the Portuguese his due, he had already shown huge improvements on the line by 1990, and I can confirm, he also was a vastly better referee than we saw take the whistle in 86. While UEFA basically wanted nothing to do with the guy, for FIFA, he was at the very top.
By 1990 then, who was right? Well, kind of both. What a fascinating performance this was by Carlos Silva Valente in a highly challenging game. On the one hand, his style had improved so dramatically from his HUNFRA game in Léon; he looked like a top European Cup ref, very assured and at home in one of the biggest Italia ’90 matches to date. His early action taken with the yellow card can, in principle, be praised too. On the other hand, all the weaknesses from Mexico still absolutely shone through, in disciplinary measures and foul recognition especially, but also in manner - as our television director noticed, much more often panning onto him than other referees.
Tested quite close to the limit, Carlos Silva Valente managed to survive a tough assignment. Essentially what saved him was that the Romanian team were not on the warpath in this match - never really protesting that much, never really taking discipline into their own hands. Argentina’s first caution came at 73’, they had been forgiven so much prior to that, especially right back Batista, who was a serial and blatant repeat offender, finally cautioned (cheaply) with a few minutes remaining. Both his crazy play ons, especially in impeding scenes, and phantom freekick calls, astonished the players on occasion, but somehow, Silva Valente kept a grip on everything - and actually looked pretty solid in doing it. I wouldn't say I'd agree with the FIFA estimation of him in 90, but I can definitely understand what they saw.
Argentina and Romania passed through a nervy night to progress to the knockout stage, and so did their capricious Portuguese referee. I’d strongly recommend watching the whole highlights to see how! It was mostly quiet work for his three teammates though:
Delete- ULLOA M. earned the ire of the Romanian commentator with one (surely wrong) offside, but besides that, fared fine with a normal/easy body of work
- LONGHI was the best reservist on the line so far, though admittedly he didn’t face challenging scenes; he deserved a KO appearance more than at least one of the support Italians who actually made it it there
- CODESAL had to warn Carlos Bilardo to sit down after a late Argentina penalty appeal was (rightly) rejected, foreboding not only for later in this tournament, but latterly for what the role of ‘fourth official’ has become; in 1990, it was mostly sitting down in a chair with the match commissioner and just holding up the subs board when required
Match 26 - Cameroon vs. Soviet Union, José Ramiz Wright
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239298)
The first referee to handle his second match at Italia '90, José Roberto Ramiz Wright's appearance in the Soviet Union's do-or-die tie with Cameroon was of the emergency appointment variety - after the scandal-worthy mistakes made against the USSR in their first two matches, in addition to the challenges that Cameroon brought on their referees so far, FIFA weren't messing around. They put their top man in the middle. Group B had proved something of a 'group of death' for referees between it's six games - it had claimed three referees with rejections, with another two only scraping through by a fine margin.
Not Ramiz Wright though, who officiated this game in an exemplary manner. Nor the previously-aggrieved Soviet side or rough-playing Cameroon could have any cause for complaint with the Brazilian at all. The highlight was a well-detected dive by Igor Dobrovolski (15:45), one of a number of scenes where R. Wright's respect-arousing manner shone through. He was more forgiving than most in 1990 when judging the foul tackle, but drew the game's first yellow at the right time, after a deliberate one that clearly crossed the line at 61'. The other two cautions were for problem-player Roger Milla losing his rag (66'), and an acceptable / correct card to Oleg Protasov (76') to balance the two previous bookings for CMR.
Overall, this was an unconditionally satisfying performance by José Ramiz Wright in a politically-important and not-always-easy game. If there is a better referee than the Brazilian at World Cup 1990, then I haven't seen him in action yet! If not for Coelho and Arppi Filho having reffed the last two, then Ramiz Wright would be a natural choice to handle the final at this stage. The game's linesmen - K. Röthlisberger and reservist P. D'Elia - were not really challenged. That being said, the Swiss made a good call to validate the third Soviet goal, but was a notedly passive team member on just a few occasions; though nothing too major. Very quiet indeed for D'Elia; he was an acceptable choice to go on from the support group.
Wright deserved to referee wc 1990 final but as Brazilian coleho and Brazilian filho refereed wc 1982 and wc 1986 finals and germans lost the 2 finals so germans can't allow another Brazilian referee to referee the final another one FIFA referees committee didn't allow Wright to referee the final when they but him in semi final between west Germany and England and codesal refereed the final
ReplyDeleteMatch 27 - West Germany vs. Colombia, Alan Snoddy
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239299)
(1/3)
DeleteIn 1986, FIFA visibly underestimated the (final round) group stage tie which they designated the inexperienced Alan Snoddy to, resulting in the Northern Irishman being (understandably) quite out of his depth, in charge of a highly intense and challenging game. While the resulting performance was not a scandalous disaster containing big and visible mistakes, it was far, far from satisfying on the refereeing front - I strongly disagree with the-then FIFA refs committee chairman Harry Cavan (from NIR), who told the Belfast Telegraph that Snoddy refereed that Portugal vs. Morocco game well.
In 1990, FIFA visibly... well, this game was a tough assignment. Despite reaching the quarterfinals of his first WC as a linesman, the interceding four years between that and Italia '90 had brought West Germany vs. Colombia referee Alan Snoddy still scant experience in UEFA club competitions; while, say, Carlos Silva Valente's appointments in Europe were very modest, Snoddy's by contrast were more-or-less non-existent. Colombia succeeded in their highly unenviable task on this afternoon - take a point from the hitherto-imperious West German side, who had already netted nine at the San Siro in the tournament, to progress.
Snoddy was placed in very deep waters here: the match was intense and challenging, right from the get-go too. The first ten minutes were tough (kick-off at HL, 01:30):
-- understandable that he wanted to present a firm and determined image to the players, but his demeanour in a couple of scenes was definitely too aggressive
-- dubiously whistling down a fair-looking Völler challenge on a sortying Higuita, which denied FGR a very considerable goal chance
-- by not jumping in and warning Littbarski for a little hit out after he was fouled, two mini-confrontation scenes then followed after later foul calls in following minutes
-- finally, he made a terrible play on call after Klinsmann was flagrantly wiped out, even daring to suggest that the striker had dived with clear gestures!
Fortunately, the game then settled a bit after that.
The first caution went to no.4 Herrera of Colombia, an okay application of the 1990 guidelines regarding not retreating (15’, 06:00). Colombia’s no.8 Gabriel Gómez was the second man booked, but it would have been much better had his name been taken earlier - Gómez’s booking at 30’ was one that Snoddy couldn’t avoid, but already he had lunged into Uwe Bein undected (Bein taken off at HT as a consequence), and somehow avoided a caution after a blatantly reckless foul at 24’ before that. (these three fouls in order: 07:20, 08:10, 09:45).
Then, followed definitely the game’s most remarkable and famous sequence:
(2/3)
Delete-- Snoddy vs. Valderrama (HL: 11:10) --
This episode has reached cult status in Northern Ireland - for them, a plucky bank clerk from Belfast standing up to a ‘cheating’ world soccer star and holding his nerve on the biggest stage. That isn’t actually an unfair rendition of events, but it certainly isn’t the whole story. Let’s go from the top.
The whole thing starts with a correct freekick awarded for a careless trip on Valderrama, no problems. With halftime now approaching (37’) and Colombia then holding the draw they need, the mercurial midfielder decides to stay down. Snoddy senses that he isn’t injured - rightly so, the Colombian was definitely playing for time and when he returned to the field of play - he was fine. Snoddy says in interviews that this was “a battle of wills” between himself and Valderrama - he is quite right, but with his management, the Northern Irishman ensured that they both managed to lose it.
The referee inspects Valderrama, tells him he is okay, and then runs into position and waits for Colombia to take the awarded freekick, with Germany wall set up. Nothing happens for a few seconds. Snoddy’s next move was going to be booking Valderrama, you can see him reach for his notebook-residing right shorts pocket, but he is too hesitant. Colombia call his bluff and shoot the freekick at goal before the ref made his move; from there, he lost control of the scene and then is at the whim of the now-furious Colombia players - the result is no.14 Leonel Alvárez’s crazy tackle, for which he should actually be sent off. Snoddy books him.
FIFA focused very much on tasking the referees with keeping the effective playing time as high as possible during Italia ’90; so cautioning Valderrama for “Simulation - Injury” would have been well-supported by them. But to book for this reason is a very brave and risky choice. To pull off such decisions, you need not only a lot of ‘cojones’, but charisma and fierce determination. Actually, the best such decision I have ever seen of this format was taken by this match’s reserve referee, to star Mexico player Hugo Sánchez at the last WC (Orsato did another in Saudi). It takes a very talented official indeed to pull it off.
If not for the crazy tackle committed by Alvárez, then you could say that Snoddy did okay in this scene. But one must say that the Northern Irishman ended up shooting himself in the foot - he HAD to have Valderrama back up on his feet before that initial freekick was taken. His hesitancy in taking the necessary action in order to make that happen was what Snoddy paid for in the end. Because FIFA didn’t reject Snoddy for not sending Alvárez off (honestly, after Spirin’s, they should have done), this whole speech becomes slightly irrelevant!
But a fascinating moment nonetheless, I think. After it, Rincón later feigned an injury in order to allow Valderrama back on, to a chorus of boos from the majority pro-Germany crowd. But nothing too serious occurred. Halftime would shortly follow.
-- ends --
(3/3)
DeleteWith Colombia playing for a point, the second half was much less incident-filled for Alan Snoddy. There were a couple of particularly noteworthy moments, both in quick succession of each other (22:35). First, a small contretemps scene which Snoddy failed the deliver the needed verbal warning, followed by a caution to Berthold - this was a balancing call (cards were 0-3 before this), trying to calm the Colombia players a bit.
Especially in the last fifteen minutes, the game was mostly pedestrian for Snoddy as Colombia tried to shut play down - of course besides the two late goals, the latter of which was a pretty enchanting sporting moment, scored by Freddy Rincón, who sadly this week passed away - RIP :/. Peter Brackley commentated this match quite beautifully for Eurosport on my version, but the Barry Davies commentary for Rincón’s goal remains a spine-tingling moment for me, still all these years later!
You could argue the major difference between Snoddy’s match in 1986 to this one, is that unlike in Zapopan, one of the teams had already qualified, but I’d also like to give Snoddy credit here. His firmness, not so much in the famed Valderrama scene, but in the two lattermost cautions when facing mobbing, and also in warning a young Hernán Dario Gómez on the benches (08:30), was quite noteworthy; he gave a much more steely and firm impression than we could recall from Mexico.
Coming to an overall conclusion, I think Alan Snoddy can be pretty satisfied with his performance all-things-considered. FIFA thrust him in the deep end with this appointment, and besides the kind of deficiencies which could be expected (and were very glaring at some moments), I think Snoddy did about as well as he possibly could have. While I’d have given him a failing mark for Portugal vs. Morocco, Snoddy would deserve a passing grade here in my opinion (if only just), Alvárez’s non-ejection included.
Alan Snoddy, by his own admission (which is much to his credit), was a beneficiary of political constellations in attending both Mexico 1986 and Italia 1990. Probably, experience improved him further by the time that 1994 and 1998 came around, but FIFA would never show an interest taking this ref to the World Cup again. Snoddy would become one of the top refereeing educators and politicians of his time after retirement; if nothing else, the World Cup experience, including this game at a full San Siro, must constitute simply amazing memories for him!
Snoddy headed what appeared a trio of political crafting - Bahrain’s Jassim Mandi representing AFC and the Arab world, and Italian Tullio Lanese standing for the first time as linesman as the only ref from the host nation left standing. Lanese was pretty quiet (this was his only line appearance of the competition), whereas Mandi’s performance is harder to assess - in the first half, he had a number of subjective active vs. passive offside questions (for 1990), in the second, he had one quite poor flag, in addition to another quite good onside. Still after three matches, it is hard to make a clear judgement regarding the quality of this Bahraini specialist linesman!
Match 28 - Yugoslavia vs. United Arab Emirates, Shizuo Takada
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239301)
It actually turned out to be a rather enjoyable game, but I don't think it is unfair to class this YUG vs. UAE clash as the 'least relevant' match of the whole tournament on paper - Emirates already de facto out, and an easy victory expected for Yugoslavia, who only needed a point to be basically sure of going through. Having been tasked with running the line on the first two UAE group games, FIFA decided that this would be the reffing assignment for Mexico 1986 attendee Shizuo Takada (JPN) at the Italian WC.
Unfortunately, Takada couldn't really confirm the positive impression from his game four years previous - though his performance in Bologna was far from bad or anything like that. As the duo of twice ‘mundialistas’ who would later follow him from Japan, Shizuo Takada convinced significantly in the World Cup where the refs had a 'free hand' in terms of approach (and deserved more than what they received on each occasion) but in a second appearance, where the style of refereeing was much more dictated to them by FIFA (-> stay in the background more!), all three couldn't really adapt effectively.
To compare to another official from the so-called 'third world' in football - whereas Neji Jouini from Tunisia offered strong decisions but a shy manner, Takada's calls as well were a bit too shy for my taste: often in smaller areas, such as both not calling back flagrantly stolen meters at a throw-in or an attacker entering the box too early after a goalkick taken, etc. Disciplinary in principle was okay, cards for their corresponding actions. Funnily enough, FIFA carried this performance by him and (wrongly) rejected him in Mexico (Algeria vs. Spain); but unlike 1986, I did not have the feeling that Takada would have been prepared for higher and more challenging tasks at this World Cup.
There are couple of key match incidents to highlight with clips for readers. While for sure neither are clear match errors for me (and indeed the right ultimate outcome was reached in the latter scene), both scenes do not paint the Japanese referee’s performance necessarily in the best light:
⚖️ - Professional Foul?
⌚ - Min. 14
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239301?t=3m39s
⚖️ - Violent Conduct?
⌚ - Min. 76
📺 - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239301?t=19m7s
To summarise: Shizuo Takada was a good referee. Maybe it was at the ‘wrong’ tournament, but I’m glad that the Japanese got a shot at the knockout stages of the World Cup in some role - he deserved that in his career. Perhaps he could have even been a bit unsatisfied with this appointment, but in the end, I think FIFA were justified based on the performance.
Joining Takada as teammates were (top) Europeans, equalising the non-confederational neutrality of the appointment. I guess all three were expected to have ‘a quiet one’, with FIFA needing to save these refs for tougher days later in the tournament. Vautrot and Mikkelsen were the linesmen. The Frenchman had a very solid showing indeed, Mikkelsen’s was significantly more doubtful, with some not-too-challenging crossovers assessed incorrectly by the Dane. Both still ‘passed the test’ though.
Match 29 - Austria vs. United States, Jamal Al-Sharif
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239302)
(1/2)
DeleteTo be fair to Jamal Al-Sharif - the Syrian official who sent off one player and cautioned a record-setting nine in this game - any referee would have been in big trouble here. The circumstances weren't promising: miserly and uncompromising Austria, who had proved very tough to handle for George Smith, needed to win big if they had any chance of advancing, pitted against an American side, buoyant after a positive performance last time out, who also showed they could put themselves about against Czechoslovakia. Add to that a frenzied atmosphere in Florence, where the crowd were happy to lap up all the aggro, whilst wildly cheering announcements of Italy goals on the big screen, made for a disastrous recipe.
Unlike both teams, Jamal Al-Sharif was a survivor from the last World Cup, and his performances there didn't exactly look to set us fair either - the protege of powerful compatriot Farouk Bouzo in the referees committee, Bouzo had secured Al-Sharif a knockout assignment which was not really coherent with the performance principle. The young Syrian ref then preceded to realise a very poor performance in that game, England against Paraguay, where he lost control of the tie by not taking preventative action. FIFA had found Al-Sharif a rather easy-going group stage match at that tournament, but as in any World Cup where a majority of third placers progress, the number of 'dead-rubbery' games are actually very low - making it quite hard to find assignments for certain referees. So, in 1990, FIFA plumped for giving him this game, in a group on 4 4 [0 0] pts, I guess on the premise that it was relatively 'out of focus'.
The result was that Austria vs. United States bore out into absolute chaos; rarely have I ever seen a rougher, more unfair game at the finals in any modern World Cup. Keeping control of this match would have been a gargantuan task for any referee - and Jamal Al-Sharif certainly wasn’t that man. The players started as they meant to go on (a contretempts as quick as minute 2; HL: 01:20), but I think you can pick out the one key moment that the Syrian ref lost control of this match. Al-Sharif actually started started okay, but he was condemned from the fifteenth minute, where he gave three crazy play on calls in quick succession (04:45). The players took note. Remember how Kurt Röthlisberger in his very good USATCH performance, reacted instantly after EVERY single ‘dangerous’ incident in order to keep control of that game (and Austria were much rougher and more desparate than the Czechoslovakia team then); Al-Sharif had to try and replicate Röthlisberger in order to survive this game, but the Syrian never even came close, with the players frequently taking the laws into their own hands in a game littered with freekicks and ugly incidents.
15’ was one of the worst, but over the whole match, Jamal Al-Sharif had a complete absense of preventation against hard fouls in all but one facet - cards. The sanctions given were a mixture of: genuinely good trying-to-get-control-back decisions, completely mandatory bookings, some partly unwise calls where he used his munition a bit poorly, and also examples of a slightly too slavish following of the guidelines. Al-Sharif reached into his notebook ten times, showing one red once (there should really have been (at least) two more, both amongst the timestamps), below is the full disciplinary record.
(2/2)
Delete23’ 🟨 • Austria no.6 for unsporting behaviour (09:10)
27’ 🟨 • US no.20 for foul tackle (11:05)
29’ 🟨 • US no.4 for spa challenge (12:05)
32’ 🟨 • Austria no.3 for foul tackle (13:15)
34’ 🟥 • Austria no.8 for serious foul play (14:20)
42’ 🟨 • US no.16 for aggressive behaviour (18:25)
49’ 🟨 • Austria no.16 for not retreating (25:55)
59’ 🟨 • US no.5 for foul tackle (29:35)
84’ 🟨 • Austria no.1 for delaying the restart (37:50)
90’ 🟨 • Austria no.18 for not retreating (41:45)
Talking points: 23’ should have been a word for moving the ball with ref’s back turned, was no opening card at all; 27’ and 29’ better managed by strong presence than yellow(?), 32’ surprised everyone but was probably a sound call, good that he tried to take the initiative in showing procedure; 34’ was Bujsaim-on-Burley-esque but definitely the right decision at the end, clear SFP, or rather assault; 42’ remember that Al-Sharif SAW it (played advantage…), and Petrović had to tell him…; 49’ guidelines; 59’ correct, not quite RC; 84’ was for keeper trying to hold onto the ball and not allow US players to collect the ball, missed by camera; 90’ blatant lack of courage in not ejecting said keeper, weak.
To steal from TTT: FIFA had Stevie Wonder and sent him to the darts tournament. This was always going to be an absolute nightmare game to referee, and the appointment of Jamal Al-Sharif as that referee, was also a nightmare choice. The record-breaking result then, was quite predictable indeed. If one would give the Syrian a ‘four’, then his two linesmen would deserve a ‘six’ - second line Zoran Petrović worked very well as a team member, but despite reaching the semis in ’86 with the flag (this was his first such assignment in Italy), was disappointing in crossovers. Aussie Richard Lorenc had the near-side, and was okay in that regard, but definitely not more, making some clear mistakes along the way.
Match 30 - Italy vs. Czechoslovakia, Joël Quiniou
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239303)
(1/2)
DeleteThe game famous for Roberto Baggio's epic solo goal, Joël Quiniou reffed it (Van Langenhove, Smith). No referee started his World Cup later than the Frenchman who had José Batista off in double quick time four years previous, and I am quite sure that Quiniou, now a very different format of referee than in '86, was FIFA's candidate number one to referee the grand final in 1990. What a remarkable, 'back to the future', performance this was by him. Besides small necessity and guidelines-related differences, this was the tactical approach of the Champions League this year(!!); with the first goal being to remain as completely invisible as possible, with all foul selection, disciplinary and even manner / presence decisions guided by that principle. Remember this was all the way back in 1990, when football was so different: WOW!
Of course, we had many referees who opted for the 'staying in the background' style in the past WCs, but I have NEVER seen such a performance where invisibility in ALL areas of refereeing - such as what we see nowadays - was ever the goal of a referee. Besides tiny elements, there was actually no difference in approach to the PAOK Thessalonika vs. Marseille game (Makkelie) that I watched last week. Over thirty years ago too! So, how did this style work for Quiniou in 1990, how did he get on? Mostly, well, and with Blatter in the stands, he surely gave himself the highest possible recommendation given this was the most talented application of the 1990 vision so-far. While of course at the time (same as 2006 btw), it was the cards that stuck out for the general public from the reffing of this WC, that was NOT the imperative instruction; instead, it was all about staying in the background as the referee.
Obviously less technically gifted and more in need of an active approach to match control, Quiniou hit some problems trying to apply this vision to the players of Italia '90. Having operated a more-or-less non-existent disciplinary control for the first 20mins (where as many as four might have been booked), a small contretemps incident at 24' caused the Frenchman to realise he was slipping - he then whistled for two pedantic freekicks (breaking his prior line), and was then forced to open the cards at 27' for a standing kick from behind foul, having played advantage off it. The rest of the first half was a slightly panicky affair for Quiniou, where a clear line in foul recognition rather disappeared, and he was anxious not to lose control. He succeeded, and the 2H was quieter, though there was this bizarre scene (17:40).
(2/2)
DeleteQuiniou had a good game when all was said and done, and it was simply remarkable to watch this kind of refereeing in 1990 - his default setting for each incident was to react, in every way, as minimally as possible, and only change that tactic in incidents where match control was perceived to be a threat. Of course, the amount of control over the players actions widely suffered for that, but FIFA knew that when briefing all of the refs for this World Cup. Making a general judgement about all of the referees, I don't think Quiniou was the very best so far, but certainly, it seems obvious he was FIFA's referee no.1 for this WC. After Rome, an appointment to Brazil vs. Argentina in the next round immediately followed!
Quiniou was joined by mid-ranking UEFA officials as linesmen - Marcel Van Langenhove and George Smith - one of whom had a simply disastrous (and actually scandalous) evening. When the Belgian representative at this World Cup looked out twice at his linesman (Quiniou, actually) as if in disbelief at a simple crossover onside call in Eire vs. Egypt, one could fear for Van Langenhove when it was his turn to run the line. And it so proved. Three clear mistakes stand out (08:20, 18:25, 21:05), but the final one, the crucial disallowing of a Czechoslovak equaliser, leaves a very sour taste in the mouth indeed. I would argue that Magni's mistake is still worse, but this obviously runs it close - Van L. obviously didn't perceive where the scorer was when the centre was played, panicked, and decided to flag. The worst performance so far, Van Langenhove was gone. George Smith didn't get also didn't get anything in the KO stage, he was bit unlucky to be honest, as contrarily, the Scotsman's showing here was sound.
My best friend you said that quiniou was the referee fifa number 1 in wc 1990 why he didn't referee the final as France was out and not qualified for wc 1990 ?
ReplyDeleteThanks for another good question Mohamed! Much appreciated from my side. Quiniou was very unlucky - if the Naples semifinal penalty competition had gone the other way, I feel sure that the two final appointments would have been reversed. More on this later on in the blog!
DeleteYou meant that quiniou could be in the final if italy beaten Argentina in semi final in that case 2 teams from Europe in the final
DeleteMikael please my best friend i need your analysis to penalty appeal for skylitchi in the second half that quiniou didn't whistle it
DeleteA clip for reference / ease-of-reading for other readers
Delete55': https://vk.com/video400374426_456239303?t=17m38s
The whole scene is really bizarre. And really interesting! (so thanks for asking explicitly about it :))
I was convinced that Quiniou had already blown up for an IFK for an offside signalled by Smith prior to the Schillaci/Skuhravý incident - he puts whistle to mouth and hand in the air - but on reflection, he doesn't, does he? Play is very much still live at that moment.
It seems that the referee is instead playing some kind of bizarre 'passive' advantage from the potential blocked/handling offence(s) when the shot is deflected. In that sense, I would say this is very similar to Numan's SYC by Brizio Carter - in the ref's mind, he has kind of already stopped the game, but of course, play is still going on, and the game is not stopped at all.
After that, well, Schillaci is wiped out by Skuhravý. The correct decision would be a penalty, wouldn't it?
Quiniou's decision is to award Czechoslovakia an indirect freekick for simulation; the ref punished Schillaci for a 'dive'. But no yellow card? Yes, the cautions having punished simulation actually weren't mandatory in the laws until the 1997 re-write. Quiniou used this IFK (simulation) + no YC at least once at USA 1994 as well, I recall.
Essentially, Schillaci gets punished for taking evasive action! Pyschologically, if you will, this reminds me of Bowen vs. Ramsdale very much - the attacker, I would say, goes into 'fight or flight' mode, of forgetting about the game, the context and so on for a second, instead just acting to protect his own safety in the heat of the moment. I'm SURE that this is why Bowen and Schillaci accept the respective (clearly wrong!) decisions as well as they do!
The final aspect of this is what it says about Quiniou as a referee specifically. Because of the obfuscating factors touched upon, this situation basically managed to escape everyone's gaze as being a "clear penalty" (which is exactly what it is, to be honest) - really, the Frenchman takes the easy way out here, the path of least resistence.
I find Quiniou fascinating as a WC referee because at each tournament he had a very different focus, and accordingly, refereed very differently each time: 1986 - surprisingly selected youngster; 1990 - candidate no.1 for the final; 1994 - experienced, almost 'wildcard' referee. Each time, he actually presented very different styles of refereeing, too.
At each tournament he showed to be a 'player of the game', in addition: Batista's RC was after FIFA demanded a mid-tournament crackdown (nausiatingly, Blatter tried to claim personal credit for that courageous call); the penalty he gave Sweden vs. Russia was more-or-less a balancing call from his perspective, again a quite fascinating one as well.
But in 1990, he played the role of the ultimate politician's referee. Actually, one can DIRECTLY compare him to nowadays Makkelie (also in style, mental strength, etc). More than anything, I think this scene is further evidence that Joël Quiniou had his eye on the prize (8th July in Rome) and tried very hard to avoid any controversy in order to obstruct that.
Mikael if quiniou in wc 1990 to he was n.1 to referee the final why he didn't referee the final in 1994 fifa can avoid appoint him in semi finals and appoint him directly in the final after Brazil vs usa in sixteen round
Delete(EDIT: I just remembered that Quiniou did exactly the same thing in Brazil vs. Argentina(!) - not awarding a clear penalty in 'weird' circumstances for self-preservation reasons. He was lucky that Brazil didn't score a very late equaliser!
DeleteClip: https://vk.com/video400374426_456239314?t=35m31s)
Yes, you are right: personally I would have given him the final in 1994 (Mikkelsen + Lamolina with the semis; Torres C. alternate choice). FIFA had already determined before the tournament that it would be a European referee, and he showed a better overall level than both Mikkelsen and Puhl, the two candidates, in my opinion.
But somehow, Quiniou was never considered an option. That is what is trying to say when I called him a 'wildcard' - despite his vast experience, it seems he was a slightly forgotten man by 1994. Unlike in 1990, when he knew all the spotlights were on him, in the States he could make his way more quietly through the tournament, getting better and better assignments as it went on.
Depending on performance in wc 1994 colombian referee torres deserved the final
DeleteMatch 31 - Brazil vs. Scotland, Helmut Kohl
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239304)
Second match of the competition for the highly rated Austrian official, and the second really convincing performance by him too. This game was admittedly easier than his opener between Uruguay and Spain, but was Helmut Kohl's merit also - his strict start to the game early on, set the tone for a tie where match control was never in doubt. Pulling out to early cautions to combative Scotland (from 02:10) was a brave choice; observe his whistle tone, manner and so on (cards are just bits of plastic!) - this was simply a masterclass in how to effectively use a roadblock disciplinary approach. After that, the game was not challenging, officiated very sensibly by the Austrian referee. Good performance! Unlike Scotland who conceded late to lose 1-0, it was safely through to the knockout stages for Kohl (and Brazil). A good performance also by Siegfried Kirschen and Michał Listkiewicz on the lines, who weren't much challenged.
Match 32 - Sweden vs. Costa Rica, Zoran Petrović
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239307)
A decisive clash to determine the outcome of Group C, and FIFA couldn't find anyone to referee it. For one reason or another, only Kohl and Vautrot were left from the Northern group who could be assigned this clash, and they were appointed elsewhere. So for one of only two occasions in the whole group stage, FIFA broke their own 'rules'. Zoran Petrović (South) was to be immediately reappointed after England vs. Netherlands in Sardinia, to first run the line in Florence the night before (the most northern of the southern venues), before travelling to Genoa in order to handle Sweden against Costa Rica.
One could hardly say that his evening helping Al-Sharif was a chilled run-out either. Needs must, but to be honest, I think Zoran Petrović recommended himself for rather higher tasks than this as a second appointment, after his especially after his particularly performance last time out. As important as this match was regarding the qualification (a direct playoff; Sweden needed a victory, Costa Rica only a draw, the latter won it sensationally, 1-2), it was not a game where you could really win very much as the ref.
And while it was far from a disaster, it wasn't Zoran Petrović's best evening either. The Yugoslav just never really caught the rhythm of it; the crowd was flat, a more psychological than 'real' battle between the players, etcetera. I'm sure he fulfilled the FIFA brief though, in delivering the tie controversy-free.
--
Some incidents worth chatting about (24', 36', 54', 84'):
04:40 • Having taken a too permissive attitude to a couple of heavy tackles prior to that, a crashing foul from behind on Thomas Brolin injured the Sweden star out of this game, with Brolin substituted some minutes later, unable to continue. Petrović played advantage from this offence, no sanction.
07:40 • Interesting penalty appeal by Costa Rica. This situation reminds me a lot of the penalty Nicola Rizzoli gave Spain at WC2014 vs. Netherlands. Very good play on here by Zoran P. in my opinion!
13:40 • Hands down, the craziest two-footed lunge I've ever seen. Wow. Punishment was a yellow card.
19:40 • Penalty area incident as Costa Rica attacked, management after that.
--
And that was that for Zoran Petrović. One more linesmen's duties aside, this was the end of the World Cup road for him. This appointment was a too careless one in my opinion. I'm sure it left FIFA's thinking that a (quite probable) Yugoslavia qualification for the quarterfinals would have sent Petrović home, but still. Of course, nobody was to know that being 'Karasëv-ed' would deny him any more major tournaments in the future, but Petrović definitely deserved better than being used essentially for convenience as he was here (remember, FIFA had six months to plan the compositions of the north/south groupings).
Having somewhat unexpectedly being elevated to a knockout assignment in 1986 (and showing that he deserved it), this was quite an anti-climactic end for Zoran Petrović in 1990, especially after his very (very) good performance in England vs. Netherlands. Such is the nature of the FIFA World Cup beast, I suppose. Brits couldn't be appointed to ref a game which directly implicated Scotland, but running the line was fine, so Alan Snoddy and George Courtney stood here with the flag(s) - besides one evident mistake by the Englishman in the second half, both basically performed okay.
Match 33 - Belgium vs. Spain, Juan Carlos Loustau
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239308)
Besides fifteen slightly tetchy minutes at the start of the second half, the game to determine the leadership of Group E in the final standings wouldn't really have looked out of place at EURO2020. Hence, not too much work for the Argentine referee Juan Carlos Loustau over the piece - besides awarding two penalties, one for each team, correctly on both occasions (clips below). Loustau got through the whole group stage without showing one card, and while he came closer to flashing yellow here than in his first game, I don't think you can really point to any clear missed cards by the Argentinian (though there was a modern-SFP foul at the start of the 2H, undetected as an offence by the officials).
His slight inability to extinguish the game of tension in the slightly edgy 46'-60'(ish) period might be slight cause for concern, but overall, clear expected level performance for J. C. Loustau. He would enter the knockout stage having had a basically convincing group stage, whilst at the same time not really having been challenged. Both linesmen of this Spanish-speaking quartet would join him there - Carlos Maciel was faultless, Vincent Mauro had a larger body of work; the American was always correct in the 'base level' calls he had to make, but was mistaken in the more challenging scenes faced.
Penalty calls:
vk.com/video400374426_456239308?t=04m17s • 26' to Spain (scored)
vk.com/video400374426_456239308?t=14m55s • 59' to Belgium (missed)
Match 34 - Korea Republic vs. Uruguay, Tullio Lanese
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239309)
(1/2)
DeleteDaniel Fonseca's (offside :/) dramatic header at the very, very death might have been the only goal of the game - Uruguay had to win or be eliminated, rather humiliatingly, facing the hitherto pointless Korean minnows last - but it was the final act of a match which had been simply epic. The South Americans had played very poorly all afternoon, and just when it seemed that all was lost, Fonseca popped up unmarked in the penalty area to score an almost trivial goal, quite contrasting the tight battle of the ninety-two minutes that had preceded it. Korea might have been already eliminated, but played very bravely, as if qualification was on the line, and were completely sunk by this almost-random late winner.
Being honest - I wondered if FIFA had completely lost the plot with this referee appointment. Not that Tullio Lanese was a bad referee, actually I was sure that the contrary was true, but he seemed very poorly suited to this game. Lanese's unobtrusive attitude from Brazil vs. Sweden seemed a terrible fit for the very rough Koreans vs. the very rough Uruguayans, in a completely crucial game for the latter too. Besides that, this was exactly the game you would NOT give the last home ref left standing, needing to protect controversially-rejected Agnolin's compatriot. With nothing against CAF officials, giving Lanese linesmen from Africa seemed to crown the suicidalness of the designation.
Belgium vs. Spain seemed to be the perfect appointment for Lanese, but in assigning him here, FIGC and FIFA had agreed to put the younger Italian into deep waters indeed. It certainly gave him something to prove. He must have awkwardly watched on as the playing out of Luigi Agnolin's rejection was a quite deeply emotional event in Italian football, leaving only him left to represent his country. Lanese was the unfancied man of this World Cup - before it, he had to field many questions from media about whether he believed Agnolin and not-selected D'Elia were better than him (the answer implied from the question), considered, as the Italians would say, "a recommended" - a political choice against merit.
Korea vs. Uruguay played out to be exactly as challenging as one would have expected. And, quite to my surprise, Lanese reffed it very well. The Italian was perfectly prepared for what he would face in Udine. At first, I believed his more pedantic whistling in some scenes was a cog of a deficient foul recognition, but it quickly became clear that it was an active and apt tactical choice. A somewhat hesitant carder in BRASWE, here he instantly reacted against reckless play by reaching for the notebook. Sure there were some off-the-ball incidents which maybe weren't handled in the most optimal way, but absolutely no doubt at all - Lanese had proved everyone (Mikael included) quite wrong with a very good performance.
Or at least he had done. Strangely, considering he was basically nailing it, Lanese was never a picture of outer confidence throughout. With about twenty-five minutes remaining, it was visible that the Italian was beginning to slip in concentration / mental strength too, and not soon after he would deliver the decision that would sink him - presumably having forgotten that Yoon Deuk-Yeo was one of five names in his notebook, he ejected the Korea defender for 'Delaying the Restart: time-wasting', showing the Korea defender a second caution having taken too long in playing one of his goalkeeper's restart kicks. Yoon was about to actually take it too; the decision appeared very harsh indeed.
(2/2)
DeleteLanese lost it after that, though the game's difficulty did decrease thereafter. The Italian media absolutely massacred him for this performance - "the only ones not laughing at Lanese were the poor Koreans", "brazenly pro-Uruguay", "the most terrifying performance of the whole World Cup" - and this mattered; Lanese's reputation as an overestimated referee confirmed for most on this afternoon. It didn't end his World Cup, but it was obvious that his knockout assignment was indeed a political one, having to give FIGC something after they had harshly rejected Agnolin. Lanese came so close to proving everybody wrong (and he actually mostly did in terms of refereeing itself); while Italians were proud to talk of Agnolin as their compatriot, Lanese was quite shunned in his country after this game.
And what of his African linesmen then? Well, both Neji Jouini (Tunisia) and Jean-Fidèle Diramba (Gabon) also 'dipped their hands into the blood', so to speak. Unto now, I think Jouini was the no.1 linesman of this whole tournament, but he faltered here, denying the Tunisian any chance of getting anything more than as a 'CAF token' at this tournament - his mistakes were not infrequent on the afternoon. But the biggest tragedy, maybe even more than Lanese, was reserved for Diramba. This was a very solid piece of work by the Gabonese official indeed, and FIFA ever keen to push sub-Saharans too, had probably assured himself some knockout stage work. Until Uruguay won a freekick in additional time at the end of the 2H.
Incredibly, Daniel Fonseca was clearly offside when he scored his decisive header, missed by Jean-Fidèle Diramba - an unacceptable error by the Gabonese linesman. What sunk him? Quite remarkably, Diramba had turned away from patrolling the offside line just for a second, to ball-watch(!!), and by the time he had turned back, Fonseca's mini reverse crossover had fooled him. The freekick took an age to be kicked after Lanese had blown for Uruguay to take it, and Diramba's impatient hesitation had unquestionably ended his World Cup (and Austria’s / Scotland’s). A clear match error on steroids...
It was a dramatic afternoon which had, more-or-less, simply claimed all of its participants. Maybe not Jouini, but even for Uruguay and Lanese who escaped elimination and progressed to the next round, their respective victories proved to be pretty pyrrhic. For our Italian referee, the starring in the latest episode in that particular saga, it was one that had all so avoidably got away; he had done so well for most of the game.
Video clips:
https://vk.com/video400374426_456239309?t=32m13s • Lanese's SYC to Yoon (71')
https://vk.com/video400374426_456239309?t=38m10s • Diramba's blown offside (+92')
I must add sth on the SYC to Yoon: the sequence was slightly more complex than is actually recalled in the report above. Preceding the scene, linesman Jean-Fidèle Diramba had flagged (rightly) for an offside inside the penalty area, whistled by Lanese, so the restart was for an IFK inside the Korea penalty area, and not a goalkick.
DeleteDid the Italian referee caution Yoon for deliberately placing the ball for a goalkick, knowing he was going to be asked forward? I don't think so, actually:
a) I watched Yoon (no.4) closely in the offside sequence, it seems he doesn't note the flag of the Gabonese linesman at all. He just turns around quickly to prepare for a goalkick after the ball is poorly centred by Uruguay (straight out of play behind the goal line).
b) In general, Korea weren't really time-wasting in this game. With an unlikely three goal victory, they would have actually taken Group E's third place ahead of Uruguay. Despite the need of the South Americans, they didn't really sit back either, at least until the final stages (which helped make this game so spectacular, at least in my opinion!).
c) It also seems that Lanese forgot(!) about Diramba's flag, and he just cautioned Yoon for a 'pure' time-wasting in his execution of the goalkick. Another argument in favour that the Italian referee lost the overview by the end of the game. The camera pans away into the stands at the execution of the indirect freekick/goalkick, and both English commentators for the match were offtube, but given the Italian's gestures and close temporal proximity to the ball being spotted down in the goal area and then kicked forward, this must have been taken as a goalkick, I'm sure.
Yoon was really unlucky. He genuinely didn't realise that it was an IFK given (neither did Lanese...) and his team wasn't trying to waste time in the game. Of course, you can argue that he was too 'careless', and it is his own fault he didn't realise, and the Italian was just interpreting the clear FIFA guidelines about 'keeping the game going' consistently and fairly. But that isn't really my vision of refereeing to be honest.
The story of the Italian referees at their home World Cup could be a book of its own with many dramatic moments and storylines. Yoon's ejection also highlighted what a caesura tournament this was for top officiating - while Agnolin was lascerated for not sending off Hažibegić in YUGCOL, Lanese followed the guidelines strictly here, when a bit of 'common-sense' would have brought a more satisfactory conclusion than strictness and cards. The contrast between the two Italians at this tournament (I do want to underline: Lanese was a good ref!) is quite marked.
This decision in some way actually serves as a fitting microcosm of the whole World Cup 1990, and how different the overall 'idea' was behind the refereeing, the role of the referee, compared to the previous tournament in 1986. For better and worse!
Match 35 - England vs. Egypt, Kurt Röthlisberger
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239310)
Introduction: The pressure was notched up on Herr Röthlisberger for his second game - after a very good performance in United States vs. Czechoslovakia, the Swiss referee was appointed to handle one of the dead-level Group F's de-facto playoffs. The game was competitive, but never reached more than normal-difficulty from a reffing perspective. Röthlisberger's performance was mostly satisfying/decent, but unlike his first showing, did leave some areas for doubt. A look at some specific scenes is below.
Analysis:
Delete-- Clips --
05:00 • 25' - Clear dissent by Paul Gascoigne overlooked by the referee. Okay, play is restarted and nobody was any worse for it, but ref should have underlined his authority here.
05:50 • 37' - Very good caution to Magdi Abdelghani for DtR. Strict guidelines about that for this tournament and he clearly tried to take the p*ss with that 'pass', good call.
07:45 • +47' - In modern refereeing we are obviously more clued-up as to how dangerous tackles like Hossam Hassan's are, but still, a missed YC in 1990 I'd say. Gascoigne's angry tirade is surely referee-aimed, but can't be sure.
09:10 • HT - Very flagrant dissent by Gascoigne after the half ended, again no action taken at all by the referee. Quite poor and weak image here by doing nothing, truth be told.
10:45 • 48' - Amusingly-long throw-in run up :D. If the ref thought that it was used as time-wasting ploy and again to take the p*ss, then good he took action against it.
13:05 • 58' - Ibrahim Hassan was the player cautioned ten minutes previous, and he committed a sliding tackle foul (SYC?) here.
13:45 • 59' - That freekick was aerially centred and headed in by Mark Wright, scoring the only goal of the game, leading to an interesting management incident. Gascoigne was taking the kick and found that he couldn't run up properly to the ball given with fouled-Desmond Walker receiving treatment just off the FoP where Gascoigne was going to finish his run up. Hence, Gascoigne moved the ball, briefly gestured what I've just explained, and then quickly got the cross in - goal. Not a KMI or anything like that, but it does feel like Gascoigne called the ref's bluff, and won. Not the most satisfying moment.
14:40 • 63' - In theory at least, potential SYC to Abdelghani after a holding foul.
15:25 • 64' - Key Match Incident. Ibrahim Hassan should (actually) have been cautioned for the second time and sent off here: a clear encroachment offence from this corner, not respecting the required distance quite flagrantly. Especially given that Hassan then aggressively pushes the ball into corner-taking Gascoigne's chest, it felt like this scene rather overtook the referee a bit.
17:30 • 76' - Is hard to make a conclusion judgement about this penalty appeal for handling, not only for the not so good footage, but also for the passing of thirty-two years and different interpretations. At least from the live footage, M. Wright did look quite fortunate. One can criticise the referee though; too static from the throw-in and by not moving left, he couldn't assess the incident at all.
18:35 • 80' - A further foul by Ibrahim Hassan, whom the referee ostensibly didn't identify that the Egypt right-back was a problem player in this game (Gascoigne was the other one).
19:35 • 86' - Potential penalty to Egypt after alleged foul by Peter Shilton from a corner.
20:40 • 89’ - Caution to Peter Beardsley, I was convinced that the referee was going to send off Hassan having finally had enough of him, but that would have been wrong, he did nothing this time. Beardsley crashed in from behind and was booked.
-- ends --
Conclusion:
DeleteProbably that analysis gives a slightly more-negative impression than the whole picture, but Röthlisberger did present not-always insignificant deficiencies at some moments in the game. With his athletic profile and lack of body tension in gestures, the Swiss was a bit limited in what he could do in his games. I think this left, or at least should have left, FIFA in a bit of tricky spot as to what to do with Röthlisberger - on the one hand he showed the nous to assure match control even in difficult clashes, but on the other, showed quite big gaps in his style with regards to authority, taking the initiative, etcetera.
In the end, they came to the conclusion that they would back him, and Röthlisberger's next appearance as a referee would be handling a quarterfinal tie. Slightly amusing note about his teammates in this match - of all four members, only the Swiss would finish his career without an appointment to the World Cup final in some role! This group felt more susceptible than most to having politically-formed trios, and Röthlisberger had Edgardo Codesal and Berny Ulloa Morera on the line here. Both were very quiet.
Though - while both were a trifle passive as team members, the Costa Rican was more-or-less completely anonymous in this regard, even in very blatant scenes right in front of him; pretty poor, to be honest. The 'specialist' in "specialist linesman" could have been used in rather loose sense with rather quite a few of the officials whom FIFA had in this role for World Cup 1990.
Match 36 - Republic of Ireland vs. Netherlands, Michel Vautrot
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239311)
After his controversial handling of the opener, Michel Vautrot was back - FIFA broke their groupings entirely to bring the Frenchman down to Italia 90's most southernly point to handle the more sonorous of the two Group F 'playoff' matches at the end of the group stage. Back, and back in business too - I guess the most important thing for Vautrot to confirm for the powers-that-be was that Argentina vs. Cameroon was an extra-ordinary event, and that he hadn’t become referee who brought excess controversy to his games. The famed French ref certainly succeeded in that brief here.
Vautrot called it quite tight in the early stages, and with his experience and strong manner, had absolutely no problems in this game at all. Some Eire penalty appeals and a caution to Rijkaard for a flagrant dissent (kicking the ball away having been punished for a zero foul) were the most interesting moments (see below). Besides - a chat which he had with both captains about ten minutes from the end: not just a team DtR warning, but a both teams DtR warning! Naturally, the Frenchman could do nothing about the endless backpasses that would continue afterwards, with a 'useful' draw being played out.
If it was in danger of going 'off-track', then Michel Vautrot's World Cup was certainly back 'on-track' after this game; all the reasons why FIFA considered Vautrot at such a high level were underlined (big-name + experience, high football understanding, able to present himself as 'football’s friend’) and the controversy from the crazy opener now offset. The Frenchman could now reset for the knockout stages.
Another Group F trio of political conception - officials from four different continents - and, much to my surprise, a very good performance from the first linesman, Mohamed Hansal. Maybe an impression helped somewhat by a lack of replays (a disallowed Eire goal at 12' most imperatively), but I am quite sure that the Algerian's accuracy was pretty high this time. Aussie Richard Lorenc was both quieter and poorer than Hansal. Having not really convinced in any of his group assignments, he was rightly done in Italy.
-- Clips --
Eire penalty appeals:
03:15, 04:35, 10:50, 14:00
Rijkaard’s booking:
07:10
Captains chat:
15:35
Linesmen’s key calls:
03:25, 06:10
Where are matches sixteen round Mikael please?
ReplyDeleteAt the earliest sth like next weekend. I would have preferred to be yet sooner, but personal circumstances have gotten in the way.
DeleteAbout Quiniou: somehow, I don't think UEFA ever really 'took' to him that much, considering him a kind of 'tournament referee' (the same reason why FIFA really liked him), less suited to the rougher-type football of European Cup matches. In the season after WC 1990 he got a lot in UEFA club competitions, but afterwards, not really so much to be honest. An odd sort of situation which would never happen nowadays.
Strange that quiniou refereed 3 worldcup and not refereed Euro never and not refereed ucl final never
ReplyDelete