Round of Sixteen (Matches 37-44)
 |
| The tie comprising outsiders Cameroon and Colombia would initiate the knockout stage |
The second round matches at World Cup 1990. The two biggest games - Sunday's - went to Joël Quiniou (Argentina vs. Brazil) and Juan Carlos Loustau (West Germany vs. Netherlands) respectively.
FIFA released these appointments late on Friday 22nd June (all times local, CEST).
37 Cameroon vs. Colombia (Sat 23June 1700, Naples) ||
Tullio Lanese – Jamal Al-Sharif, Berny Ulloa Morera
Reserve: Marcel Van Langenhove (BEL)
(ITA, SYR, CRC)
38 Czechoslovakia vs. Costa Rica (Sat 23June 2100, Bari) ||
Siegfried Kirschen – Armando Pérez Hoyos, Pietro D’Elia
Reserve: Rosario Lo Bello (ITA)
(GDR, COL, ITA)
39 Brazil vs. Argentina (Sun 24June 1700, Turin) ||
Joël Quiniou – Neji Jouini, Pierluigi Pairetto
Reserve: Aleksej Spirin (URS)
(FRA, TUN, ITA)
40 West Germany vs. Netherlands (Sun 24June 2100, Milan) ||
Juan Carlos Loustau – Vincent Mauro, Elías Jácome
Reserve: Jean-Fidèle Diramba (GAB)
(ARG, USA, ECU)
41 Republic of Ireland vs. Romania (Mon 25June 1700, Genoa) ||
José Ramiz Wright – Carlos Maciel, Jassim Mandi
Reserve: Carlos Silva Valente (POR)
(BRA, PAR, BHR)
42 Italy vs. Uruguay (Mon 25June 2100, Rome) ||
George Courtney – Zoran Petrović, Kurt Röthlisberger
Reserve: Mohamed Hansal (ALG)
(ENG, YUG, SUI)
43 Spain vs. Yugoslavia (Tues 26June 1700, Verona) ||
Aron Schmidhuber – Michał Listkiewicz, Alan Snoddy
Reserve: Pierluigi Magni (ITA)
(FRG, POL, NIR)
44 England vs. Belgium (Tues 26June 2100, Bologna) ||
Peter Mikkelsen – Helmut Kohl, Shizuo Takada
Reserve: Michel Vautrot (FRA)
(DEN, AUT, JPN)
-
[Changes from original appointments:
Brazil vs. Argentina
Aleksej Spirin (URS) as linesman 1 -> Neji Jouini (TUN)
Brazil vs. Argentina
Aleksej Spirin (URS) as linesman 1 -> Neji Jouini (TUN)
Neji Jouini (TUN) as reserve referee -> Aleksej Spirin (URS)]
Match 37 - Cameroon vs. Colombia, Tullio Lanese
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239312)
The knockout stages of Italia '90 began in relatively modest circumstances; iconic Roger Milla's netted two extra time goals to win the day. Victorious Cameroon and Colombia made for a pretty bohemian second round tie; the semi-full stadium in Naples watched on with light enthusiasm more than real fervour. Given that this was the only Ro16 tie where neither association had any real pull in the corridors of FIFA power, it offered the chance for a politically valuable refereeing appointment to be made.
DeleteTullio Lanese was the recipient of the compromise. With a successful performance in Korea vs. Uruguay, I'm sure that Lanese would have arrived in a quite different second round tie (IRLROU, even ENGBEL). However, his performance was not successful: in normal circumstances, the Italian would have been rejected almost certainly. But: FIFA had to give something to FIGC having controversially rejected Agnolin. So, Lanese was in, on the ‘weakest’ of the eight possible assignment options.
What makes this designation really ridiculous though is temporal factors: Tullio Lanese had less than forty-eight hours rest between the dramatic event of Korea vs. Uruguay, to this knockout appointment. Perhaps accordingly, this was definitely my least favourite of Lanese’s three WC 1990 performances, by quite some distance as well. Reasons:
1) His foul recognition was simply off this time, sometimes in doubt he just play carelessly go on, sometimes he decided for a pedantic line before then relenting, and what was most irksome, his tactic later in the match to just kill the play with a whistle when an ‘awkward’ duel occurred, and he preferred simply to avoid problems than to really detect offences;
2) No (or at least scant) preventative action against tackles from behind, especially in the 1H, he missed many chances to draw the lines with warnings, even cards on some occasions;
3) Not a real argument against him, but not really counting in his favour either - Émile Mbouh’s caution, one of six in this match, was a clear SFP in modern football (14:50);
4) His distant and irritated-seeming manner was quite chaffing as a viewer. This was the PERFECT sort of game for Vincent Mauro’s smiley manner from Belgium vs. Korea, and it would have won a referee many points here, but instead Lanese just looked aloof and annoyed throughout. Admittedly, Cameroon are a tough team to ref, but his demeanour just inflamed both sets of players, more than calming them down. Shouting at Colombia technical staff to get off the pitch between the end of 90mins and start of ET - there are really more important things - crowned this impression.
On the one hand, FIFA could be quite pleased. With little rest and a ‘polemic’ assignment, Lanese got through this game without controversy. Indeed, the Italian “passed the test” for sure. However, to be completely honest, I found this performance pretty weak and actually quite irritating, for the reasons aforementioned.
Coming to an overall judgement about Tullio Lanese’s tournament: it is difficult to say that his World Cup experience was not very exaggerated (especially compared to Agnolin and D’Elia). Italy’s progress to the quarterfinals (which ruled out their refs from the last eight matches) was convenient in this regard. Even Blatter admitted that. And, as such, the quite remarkable extensive drama of the Italian referees at their home World Cup, was now - very nearly - to be over.
In a kind of ‘catch-all’ political appointment, Lanese’s linesmen were Jamal Al-Sharif and Berny Ulloa Morera. Were they good? Well, contrary to his whole group stage, the Syrian was good, and I’m slightly surprised that FIFA (rightly, btw) sent him home before the quarterfinals. Ulloa meanwhile was rather shaky, even if one actually can’t draw on clear evidence of mistakes by the Costa Rican from television footage. Ulloa Morera would go on to survive another round, unlike his three teammates in Naples.
Match 38 - Czechoslovakia vs. Costa Rica, Siegfried Kirschen
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239313)
FIFA took a quite different view to Siegfried Kirschen's first performance (Belgium vs. Uruguay) than I - but perhaps not completely different. One of the names touted by newspapers to be in with a shout of the final, Kirschen was ported directly to a knockout assignment after his group stage showing (as he was in 1986). But whereas in Mexico that was for a quarterfinal, this time it was to be 'only' of the lesserly sonorous Ro16 ties for the East German official.
DeleteBelying the mostly flat atmosphere in Bari and indeed the final score, ČSSR vs. CRC was a quite competitive game; only their third goal with fifteen minutes remaining made Czechoslovakia’s progress safe. Despite still showing the limitations of his previous performances in some moments, Kirschen deserves praise for his performance, which was a good one. If you support his disallowing of a Czechoslovak goal in the first half (08:30), then without any doubt this was an expected level performance by the GDR ref.
Though it was to be his last one at the World Cup stage - on the premise, FIFA stated, of pending German reunification, FRG’s progress to the last eight was enough not only to rule AS out, but Kirschen as well. Given that FIFA also used the same sort of principle to explain why Brits Smith and Snoddy didn’t get retained (England), one might not read that at 100% face value. But given that West Germany would have been heavily favoured to reach the (semi)final from the tournament bracket, it does basically make complete sense.
It is fair to say, in my opinion, that Siegfried Kirschen’s refereeing in both 1986 and 1990 had their fairly ambivalent moments, but without doubt, he went out on a high note here; this game was no walk in the park for Kirschen, and he did a good job. The German Democratic Republic’s World Cup reffing story, including Glöcker’s 1970 final, was therefore finished with this match.
And politics played a part in this carefully balanced appointment too: a Warsaw Pact referee for TCH, meant that CRC had to get a Hispanic linesman (Armando Pérez H.), and the other one was ‘neutral’ (Pietro D’Elia). Both the nominated CONMEBOL specialist linesman and support squad member slated here as compensation for not being appointed as referee to this tournament, like their team leader, performed strongly.
D’Elia’s very visible competence does make him feel like a criminally underused resource, in every way, at this tournament; a shame. Pérez Hoyos had jumped through his first knockout stage hoop, so long as he now did nothing to spoil the impression of ‘specialist linesman’, FIFA’s thinking meant that the ultimate prized designation loomed yet closer for the Colombian if he could keep it up through the coming rounds.
Match 39 - Brazil vs. Argentina, Joël Quiniou
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239314)
(1/2)
DeleteWhat a great game. If the base level of matches at Italia '90 was of a similar intensity, drama and emotion, then FIFA would have had no problem on their hands at all. As I touch on in some preamble detail, Quiniou's appointment was a very remarkable one. The comparable appointment in Mexico - Igna (and let's be clear: the Romanian a very, very good referee) to such a game - would have been beyond suicidal. It shows how much football had changed in the four interceding years. And: FIFA were proved absolutely right in their own analysis that it had.
Whilst still performing on an expected level, the Frenchman didn't fully convince me in Italy vs. Czechoslovakia; in this South American Superclásico however, a much tougher brief, Quiniou was very good. I wondered in the early minutes, with some relatively heavy fouls coming in, whether FIFA had made the right choice, but the faith put in their more-discreet referee and his style proved to be on very safe ground. He modified his foul selection when required (mid-part of 1H), always acted against the most reckless/tactical fouls, aroused the players respect with his manner, and rightly sent off Ricardo Gomes for a professional foul minutes after Argentina scored the only goal (HL: 28:30).
Though he made more-or-less a complete mess of the final minutes (starting 32:35), in the bigger picture, that is rather a mere footnote of a well-delivered ultra-sonorous game. If Joël Quiniou’s next appointment was to the World Cup final, then it would have been a deserved one; this made for a quite fitting last test for him. Elías Jácome Guerrero, for instance, could have also reffed this game well. Perhaps even slightly better than the Frenchman. But, in the WAY that he succeeded, Quiniou’s performance was deeply impressive for me. Sporting, by-far, the most in-vogue style of all refs at Italia ’90, in a different set of circumstances: the Frenchman’s appointment to the grand final would have been a mere formality. As it happened, instead, having been saved in contention for it, this game was to be basically as big as it got for Joël Quiniou in 1990. Such is the World Cup lottery!
(2/2)
DeleteIf the referee appointment was a remarkable barometer of ‘the times’, then the appointments of Quiniou’s three teammates were simply the upshot of a remarkable political mess. Details:
- Aleksej SPIRIN was originally appointed as first linesman to this match. This was already quite a noteworthy choice. Admittedly, the other rejectees were adjudged to have failed in what were more medially-noted situations (Cardellino, Soriano, Fredriksson, Agnolin, H. Silva), but still his sole appointment to a field role amongst that group reads a bit strangely.
But it can be easily explained by politics: Spirin was very closely looked after by his compatriot in the referees committee, Zuev. More than the usual patriotism of such politics, the two were very close personal friends, both working as lecturers at one of the top science universities in Moscow. Their closeness was well-known by the other Soviet referees of the time, who considered Spirin to have been pushed beyond his ability by Zuev.
And the plot yet thickens. Spirin was pulled from his linesmen appointment at late notice. Actually, quite incredibly late notice. The second-round appointments were treated very delicately by FIFA and only confirmed late on the Friday (KO stage initiated on the Saturday afternoon). Spirin and Pairetto were the assigned linesmen then, and even on the graphic before the match, it read the call of the Soviet official.
So what happened? Unfortunately, I don’t have any hard-and-fast info, but, allegedly, Spirin was said to have personally infuriated Blatter by giving an interview in the midst of the tournament. The interview, to German media (as was Blatter’s) was said to have been criticising (the nature of) his rejection by the Swiss politician. FIFA’s general secretary was apparently so irate at this, that he personally had the appointment changed at the last minute. Spirin would no longer work as linesman, but instead as reserve referee.
- Neji JOUINI was the designated reserve referee for this match, and was quickly elevated to swap places with Spirin. That this was the arrangement, makes you wonder just how late the change was made. In any case: what a game to be thrust into! From token CAF ‘fourth official’ to linesman for Brazil vs. Argentina is quite some turn. And unfortunately, Jouini showed rather his Korea vs. Uruguay form than his impressive level before, mistaken in both offside and team member scenes over the piece. That being said, the Tunisian still wasn’t bad, and had a “passing the test” level performance IMO.
- Finally, Pierluigi PAIRETTO was the far-sided linesman. A member of the reserve squad, he was obviously FIGC’s personal choice to stand here, FIFA needing to still appease them after Agnolin’s deeply felt rejection earlier in the tournament. Obviously, the Italian association had slated this up-and-comer to be their number one after Lanese, and hence wanted to use this opportunity to build his experience and palmares a bit.
Pairetto was a poor choice. Some refs made quite good linesmen, others didn’t. And Pairetto fell into the latter category. He was a good referee, but a passive personality on the pitch, never well-suited to the concentration-heavy ‘assistant referee’ work. Perhaps fittingly, the anachronism of the local support squad in World Cup history ended with a big mistake - Pairetto wrongly ruling out a Claudio Caniggia ‘goal’ in the first half (05:30).
Everyone can make a mistake, but his later blatant error at 76’ to flag, showed this was no one off by the Italian. Rosario Lo Bello, Pietro D’Elia or even Carlo Longhi, would have better, wiser, and more deserving choices to stand in this role than P. Pairetto.
Match 40 - West Germany vs. Netherlands, Juan Carlos Loustau
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239315)
The spat that turned into an infamous spit - the story of how referee Juan Carlos Loustau missed Frank Rijkaard's water-based attack on Rudi Völler, sent the German off with him, and how the Argetine official performed besides the double red card incident that lives long in the memory.
Detailed report can be accessed in the link below:
https://wc90ref.blogspot.com/p/in-focus-match-40-west-germany-vs.html
Match 41 - Republic of Ireland vs. Romania, José Ramiz Wright
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239316)
Admittedly not for the want of Ireland's or (especially) Romania's trying, the scoreless second round clash between the two, decided by a penalty competition (5-4, Timofte missed), was a pretty tedious event. And one which was very well refereed by José Roberto Ramiz Wright, who ascertained the impression that he was (one of) the very best in Italy. His management of the repeated careless tactical fouling of Hagi in the first half - and identification of Ireland’s no.4 McCarthy as a problem player - was too passive. Besides that: this was a quite supreme performance by the Brazilian ref.
DeleteUnmatched at Italia '90 in how sovereign he was on the pitch, his management of the (both already-cautioned) McGrath/Hagi set-to in the dying minutes of extra time was quite formidable in my opinion (see below). To summarise: as per Brazil’s outing, a fourth(!) WC appointment was simply a given for Wright! He was assisted on this hot afternoon, mostly ably, by Maciel of Paraguay and Mandi of Bahrain, but one clear crossover mistake by the latter was probably enough to end his tournament (14:30). Instead, Maciel went home, and Mandi went on.
118’:
https://vk.com/video400374426_456239316?t=22m31s
Mikael in my opinion Wright was the best referee in wc 1990 and he deserved the final
ReplyDeleteMatch 42 - Italy vs. Uruguay, George Courtney
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239317)
Very good performance by George Courtney, who finally received a nice knockout assignment at the World Cup finals. The Italian press raised alarm with his appointment - prognosing that an Englishman would be too lenient to deal with Uruguay - but what played out couldn't have been much more different. Courtney was a master of proactive, preventative officiating and was the perfect choice for this match, won by the Italians two-nothing. With many other referees in charge, this game could have been quite a mess, but not Courtney, who was firmly in control of proceedings from start to finish.
DeleteHis ability to keep the match in the 'palm of his hand' by closely patrolling every-single-incident, and to simultaneously have the players 'eating out of his hand' with superb soft skills, was very impressive. As in his first match, disciplinary was perfect (19:05 the most noteworthy scene); five cautions shown here. Both teams played it relatively cautiously until Schillaci's stunning opening goal mid-way through the 2H, and the minutes after that were quite angsty - a Uruguay penalty appeal at 67' was the hottest moment (23:00) - but Courtney brought everything back under control.
It was a more-or-less faultless night at the Olimpico then for the English referee. His linesmen were fellow top UEFA officials, Zoran Petrović (Yugoslav) and Kurt Röthlisbeger (Swiss), and both performed on an expected level. A doubtful offside call in the 1H and being a bit passive as a team member respectively counted against them, but overall, both did well. Both Courtney and Petrović say that they watched the next day’s games in the company of ‘Marcel’ and ‘Emilio’ respectively, knowing that their fates lay in the balance.
The results delivered meant that all four would end up on the plane home. Soriano Aladrén and Van Langenhove had already been rejected, and the Yugoslavian / English wins ensured that their national teams would progress, and their match officials not. FIFA had already decided that the referees from the eight quarterfinal nations would not be amongst the sixteen retained officials for the remaining games. That must have been a very tough pill to swallow for top performing Courtney and Petrović, who had done very well thus far and still had much to give this World Cup, really. Röthlisberger, without such worries, would continue.
Match 43 - Spain vs. Yugoslavia, Aron Schmidhuber
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239318)
A normal-difficulty World Cup knockout tie for the West German referee, in which Yugoslavia edged out Spain (after extra time) by a two-one scoreline, this a tight second round match, which yielded a quarterfinal against Argentina for the victor. Aron Schmidhuber officiated the match with an expected level performance. With his imposing stature and natural-leader authority, Schmidhuber was easily able to ‘boss’ the players on the pitch and assure match control. He used these attributes to effectively set his expectations early in the match - two very clear warnings (LoR-ish holding, tackle from behind) were followed by a deserved caution to Katanec in the first ten minutes.
DeleteSpain and Yugoslavia played more of a psychological than real battle (leading to some paying neutrals in the crowd even booing what they saw as a tedious spectacle at some moments), so despite a relative lack of exciting action, the participants of the match must have been quite drained at the end. Perhaps accordingly, Schmidhuber’s accuracy in taking the best decisions decreased as the match went on, but nothing too serious really (disciplinary was optimal). There were a couple of controversial moments - see below - but on both occasions Schmidhuber reached the right decision in my opinion.
As BRD had reached the quarterfinals, Schmidhuber had known for a couple of days that this was to be his last appearance at Italia ’90; the curtain fell on the German referee’s tournament at a fair time I think, and he ended with a good performance. This also a caesura for Alan Snoddy: a quiet afternoon for him as second linesman, fulfilling his tenth and final World Cup finals appointment. A remarkable adventure for the Belfast bank clerk, which started at Jan Keizer’s side in Mexico four years previous, had come to an end.
Michał Listkiewicz meanwhile was the first linesman - in more than one sense! The Pole’s group stage had been fine, though with a small number of rather indifferent decisions, but he showed his top class here with a really good performance. The best flag work of the tournament so far. A visibly very concentrated showing featuring a number of really solid onsides, he gave a strong recommendation indeed for further work as a linesman at Italia ’90. This was the afternoon that Listkiewicz really set himself on course for the World Cup final appointment I’d say!
-- KMI Analysis --
13’ • https://vk.com/video400374426_456239318?t=4m35s
<< Cautioned five minutes earlier, Srečko Katanec’s heart must have skipped a beat after his crashed into Martín Vázquez, fearing that he was going to be sent off. His intervention looks very reckless for us, but in 1990, probably fell into something like “heavy, but clumsy”. Schmidhuber gave him a firm final warning - the best solution IMO. >>
83’ • https://vk.com/video400374426_456239318?t=18m36s
<< With Spain still one-nothing down at this point, they appealed quite vociferously for a penalty to be awarded for Zoran Vulić’s tackle on Julio Salinas. Schmidhuber gestured for play to continue. My reaction from the live sequence was the same as the Dutch commenter: penalty to be given. After viewing the replay angle, my opinion changed. Vulić plays the ball at Salinas with his right foot, before somewhat-untidily then sweeping the ball away with his left (no, even careless, trapping contact takes place IMO). Vulić definitely took a risk, but in the end he actually just performed a very good defensive tackle - correct play on IMO. >>
-- ends --
[NB: Magni’s appointment as reserve, especially to Spain, did surprise me :) hence, it was only Longhi of the Italian group, plus of course Agnolin, who didn’t work in the R16].
Why elias jacome Ecuador and maciel Paraguay and Al sharif Syria not in quarter finals Mikael ?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, thanks for the nice words under the first Mikkelsen link! There were a processing error so I had to reupload the highlights accordingly.
DeleteI too found Al-Sharif's sending home quite surprising, especially after not having any problems in CMRCOL. But firstly: it was quite deserved. Both AUTTCH (linesman) and AUTUSA (referee) were rejection-worthy performances. Probably, Al-Sharif was the victim of a Bouzo compromise; FIFA must have told him that the Syrian ref's tournament as ref/line was over, so the Syrian politician threw all his weight behind Mandi instead. I'm sure that Bouzo would rather have kept Al-Sharif over Takada (who's only work having been retained was being reserve for ARGYUG QF). But, with Takada having 'suffered' for Al-Sharif and Al-Shanar to reach the knockouts in Mexico, I guess AFC/FIFA wanted to keep Japan onside and not feel 'victim' to Bouzo and the Arab lobby, so hence that was the arrangement.
Jácome Guerrero was a very talented referee, + competent linesmen, but after what happened in ESPKOR (missed penalty, accepting Magni's ridiculous call) and FRGNED (too many mistakes), I guess they couldn't really keep him on. That's a shame, but 'that is how the cookie crumbles', I guess. Maciel was definitely not as able as Jácome, the Paraguayan rather a 'safe pair of hands', but according to performance, he was unlucky. For sure, to switch Maciel for Ulloa Morera would have been better. Remember though - FIFA had internally decided by this point in the tournament that specialist linesmen were the future. So: they slightly drunk the 'Kool Aid' I think, and told themselves that some, like Ulloa (of the 86 final too), were actually specialist linesman material, when in reality, they were 'specialist' in name only. Leoz was CONMEBOL president by this point, so Maciel's absense is pretty surprising IMO.
The problem is that Bahrain referee Jassim mandi and Algerian referee Mohamed hansal deserved match in centre at least in there time they refereed in centre asian club final and African club final in in Asian cup of Nations and African cup of Nations
DeleteYes. If I recall an interview I read correctly, Mandi was pretty furious at Bouzo: the Syrian had actually promised him that he'd referee a game at Italia '90. Listkiewicz also expressed his disappointment (and surprised) that he was designated as a specialist linesman only, too. I'm sure that the tentative plan was for the same system as WC 1986, but in making the appointments in blocks of six, they decided to repeat some referees in the group stage instead.
DeleteFor sure, compensating these referees (and their associations) was a big part of why FIFA acted as they did.
Match 44 - England vs. Belgium, Peter Mikkelsen
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320)
-- Relevant incidents --
Delete26' - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=4m6s
31' - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=6m40s
39' - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=9m36s
50’ - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=12m23s
70’ - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=15m22s
83’ - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=17m40s
88’ - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=20m53s
119’ - https://vk.com/video400374426_456239320?t=29m7s
-- ends --
The man of the moment was back in the spotlight. Thirty-year-old Dane Peter Mikkelsen, having announced himself with a spectacular performance in W. Germany vs. Yugoslavia, was saved by FIFA specially to directly handle a sonorous round of sixteen tie. That transpired to be England vs. Belgium, a game which was won by 'The Three Lions' courtesy of a goal in the last minute of extra time, and proved an easy fit for Mikkelsen's background-based way of refereeing.
Very untypically Italia '90, there were only 27 fouls whistled in the whole match, and the effective playing time of the first ninety was a remarkably high 68mins (for comparison, ESPYUG at the same stage was 51mins...). The players tired later on, but overall, both teams put on a good show with a nice piece of football. It was therefore a pretty free-flowing, fair-spirited encounter, and Mikkelsen reffed it well; this is an occasion that the old adage “the best referee is the one you don’t notice” is quite true.
The Danish referee could stay in the background, but he did not do so obsequiously, jumping in with whistles, warnings etc. when the game required it. I perfectly understand why he didn’t caution Bruno Versavel at 31’ - the warning was well-delivered and proved a sound choice for the game - but didactically, this was a clear reckless tackle. Instead, the only caution was for a (fateful!) Paul Gascoigne tackle at the 2H’s end. A clearly correct call, Gascoigne recklessly flew through the back of his opponent.
Bad luck could have struck Mikkelsen a cruel blow in the fiftieth minute though, if Vincenzo Schifo had scored his long shot at 50’. Fortunately for the referees, Schifo’s shot only hit the post and came out. Besides that, definitely the most interesting call for the Danish ref was at 26’ - Belgium were quite unlucky not to be awarded a penalty in a weird situation. Des Walker, whilst facing the other way, clearly tripped Versavel, putting the goal-bound defender off-balance. A penalty would have been the better call, I think. However, it is slightly oxymorous to look so deeply into a situation in this sort of era, so I wouldn’t rate this as a (big) mistake.
Less-challenged than W. Ger vs. Yug, hardly noticed, and again very good - this was another great night for Peter Mikkelsen on the world stage. He deserved more than just two games at Italia ’90! Probably, FIFA were careful not to ‘burn’ him too much, and he would collect further experience for the future with the flag in this World Cup. Wholly speaking, Mikkelsen had a quite superb tournament, coming from absolutely nowhere to really impress with his elegant style. His two games in 1990 were the thesis for his very successful international career!
A rather more mixed picture for his ENGBEL linesmen though, who were Helmut Kohl and Shizuo Takada. Kohl’s appointment was a quite stupid risk - this was his very first linesmen’s duties of the whole World Cup (consider Van Langenhove’s flag debut…). Perhaps invariably the Austrian - a very good referee, and a great team member (eg. 70’) - made a big mistake (39’). A cast-iron clear match error. Takada’s appointment was deserved recognition for his work at two World Cups, but he didn’t recommend himself for higher tasks. The Japanese official had a few erroneous raised flags on the night.
Mikael when will you analysis quarter finals?
ReplyDeleteHi Mohamed. Apologies for the late(r) reply. Thanks as ever for your interest in the blog! About your question: this is quite a busy week for me, so my plan is to tackle the first two quarterfinals on Saturday, with them all hopefully completed by Monday night. :)
DeleteThanks and good luck my best friend
ReplyDelete