Semifinals (Matches 49-50)
 |
| West Germany and England would renew their rivalry with a World Cup final ticket at stake |
The semifinal matches at World Cup 1990. After a long committee session, it was finally agreed that Michel Vautrot would go to Naples to handle a white hot Italy against Argentina, while José Ramiz Wright notched up a highly impressive fourth inset with his designation to the other semi.
FIFA released these appointments late on Monday 2nd July (all times local, CEST).
49 Argentina vs. Italy (Tues 3July 2000, Naples) ||
Michel Vautrot – Peter Mikkelsen, Michał Listkiewicz
Reserve: Mohamed Hansal (ALG)
(FRA, DEN, POL)
50 West Germany vs. England (Weds 4July 2000, Turin) ||
José Ramiz Wright – Joël Quiniou, Armando Pérez Hoyos
José Ramiz Wright – Joël Quiniou, Armando Pérez Hoyos
Reserve: Vincent Mauro (USA)
(BRA, FRA, COL)
Match 49 - Argentina vs. Italy, Michel Vautrot
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239325)
If this semifinal was played in Rome, I'm certain that Italy would have won - the hosts clash with Argentina in Naples is the most remarkable World Cup finals games. A momentous night on which the officials played a huge part: for good and for bad. Find out Michel Vautrot and his teammates got on in the dedicated report which can be accessed below.
https://wc90ref.blogspot.com/p/in-focus-match-49-argentina-vs-italy.html
Match 50 - West Germany vs. England, José Ramiz Wright
ReplyDelete(https://vk.com/video400374426_456239326)
(1/2)
DeleteA very culturally significant event in my country - "One Night in Turin" - this semifinal was the easier of the two for its referee, José Roberto Ramiz Wright. No official took charge of as many games at Italia '90 as the Brazilian (4), and his performances were widely praised, by both the football public and referees themselves (such as recently-retired Agnolin, who declared him the best referee of the tournament).
His final performance in Italy was, like the other three, good. But maybe the picture can’t be exlcusively positive this time in my opinion. Ramiz Wright wasn't the type of ref who lived and died by trying to be in control of the players actions, but in this match, he did sail quite close to the wind in disciplinary control. The players clocked it, and procedings did feel a bit unhinged with regards tackles/challenges on a few occasions.
Blowing deliberately for a small handful of zero fouls and (relatively) harshly cautioning Paul Parker were the necessary reactions from a match control perspective. However with his: a) great fitness/movement despite not being an athlete-type profile (think top Orsato), and b) extremely sovereign manner and ability to command respect on the field of play, Ramiz Wright still delivered a quite sound performance.
I’ll talk through some specific moments with timestamps below. Given that Wright was considered by no.1 at WC 1990, I actually wonder whether he could consider his assignments (not performances), even slightly underwhelming everything considered. Italy’s opener was a big one, but an out-of-focus emergency appointment and two not-so-difficult knockout assignments followed.
That being said, the old adage that a great referee can make the hard games easy comes to mind. And certainly José Ramiz Wright was that. Most of all, his quelling of the Cameroon vs. Soviet Union and especially his very strong management skills in a couple Eire vs. Romania scenes will stay with me from his tournament. Of all the referees in 1990, perhaps no one came out of it after all fifty-two matches played better than him!
We should finish by commenting on both linesmen. I’d give a strong grade to J. QUINIOU’s performance. The Frenchman was only working his second flag match of the tournament, but I really liked his dutiful work as a team member (flagging fouls), and relaxed but concentrated impression. Nice work. A. PÉREZ HOYOS, the second linesman, also had a nice demeanour: visibly very ‘fresh’ and motivated, (trying to) always stay close in line with the second last defender.
That though is the limit of what counts in the Colombian’s favour. He only faced a normal difficulty match, but he still didn’t convince me, most of all making a quite important tight flag from a pretty ridiculous position (18:40). His appointment to the semifinal was exaggerated, even simply wrong, after his very bad call to disallow a goal in his quarterfinal. Whilst quite understanding why FIFA acted as they did, one has to reflect on his appointment to the grand final itself in much the same way.
(2/2)
Delete-- Analysis --
01:45 - good verbal warning for Thon after a foul tackle from behind (potential YC)
02:50 - deliberate elbow by Pearce is given as a freekick only, hence an anxious minute follows with a couple of ‘tetchy’ infractions
07:50 - no action taken against Parker after a (borderline) yellow card foul
10:25 - reckless tackle by Pearce was punished with a freekick only (FRG score from the resulting fk)
13:20 - acceptable/correct yellow card to Parker (challenge)
16:00 - potential second yellow card to Parker, advantage played
19:10 - ‘famous’ yellow card to Gascoigne (tackle); correct, but not the best card procedure at a moment when he had to calm the match
22:00 - yellow card to Brehme (tackle); with no bad studs contact, I guess you have a 45/55 reckless vs. tackle as an attack incident (think now about the context of the era for the final), but definitely no problem with yellow here in 1990, which Gascoigne’s reaction helps sell
22:40 - a remarkable moment! England had a goal disallowed for offside, I believe directly on Ramiz Wright’s call - his linesman, Joël Quiniou, had resumed his responsibility as a ‘goal judge’, as was the done thing, standing on the goalline having gotten the gesture from his team leader. At the time, nobody batted an eyelid about this decision, but on an ‘objective level’, England did have a goal wrongly disallowed in the second period of extra time (look at the feet). How different it would be nowadays! Back then: zero discussion about this.
-> No doubt, the culture of tackling in this match (in scenes not highlighted here) was more agricultural due to Wright’s quite passive approach. However, he definitely succeeded in this match overall. Furthermore, he also showed the ability to succeed in hotter games (CMRURS). This semifinal: an expected level performance IMO.
-- ends --
I've always thought that Brehme tackle was red, but... not red in that match or situation? It was bizarre. A full-on, unnecessary assault. The lack of reaction from the English players--indeed, Gascoigne's positive reaction--saved Brehme.
DeleteA lot was made in the tournament about Argentina's tactics and behavior. Rightly so. But this tackle was as brutal as anything they put out there. Worse than Monzon's tackle a few days later, in my opinion. In fact, imagine if Klinsmann had been the victim of such a "challenge." I don't think we'd have seen him up and shaking hands within 5 seconds.
The offside is interesting but, as you say, no discussion back then. It's objectively offside today. By standards back then, in the vicinity of an era where "even was off," I think it was simply accepted as a plausible offside decision. At the very least, even if anyone recognized it as wrong, it wasn't a travesty because decisions like that were regularly "wrong." So regularly, in fact, that I think they were just believed to be "right."
If I were in FIFA's stead, these would have been the final appointments I'd have made:
ReplyDeleteFINAL - Quiniou, Codesal, Listkiewicz, (Pérez H.)
3rd - Mikkelsen, Jouini, Mauro, (Takada)
Mikael i need your analysis for your appointment for the final and the 3 rd place
ReplyDeleteExplanations: Quiniou was the best (for me he beat R. Wright in the end to no.1), ITATCH and (especially) BRAARG were no small tests, he passed them both. He understood what FIFA wanted in 1990 and it delivered it very well. The risks one would be taking on the Frenchman (some doubtful KMI calls for 'self-preservation', repeating Argentina, potentially too lenient for Argentina, not confederationally neutral), were significantly smaller than for Codesal (relatively untried, not so tested in ITAUSA and CMRENG, some questions about style) and Mikkelsen (AGE, Giusti). Codesal as first 'assistant' would be a nice, and good, choice: the Mexican was a good linesman, he deserved it after CMRENG. Listkiewicz is somewhat reluctant, but who really was left besides. Mauro? An American would be too capricious for the final in 1990. Röthlisberger? Just slightly too passive as a team member, and basically untried with the flag. Better the devil you know. The Pole was very good in ESPYUG, at least. To balance out the trio confederationally, and also giving the CONMEBOL specialist linesman sth after UEFA's was there too, Pérez Hoyos as reserve. Mikkelsen deserved a third assignment, the playoff for third would be perfect, great tournament for him. With many weak linesmen, two of the stronger ones with him - Jouini and Mauro. Also politically valuable. AFC's Takada as a 'career reward', also meaning that all five confederations (no Oceania) represented too. Anything other than reffing the final would have not been Wright's vibe, handling four games was enough, his work was very good in Italy. Sorry for Röthlisberger, I'm glad in real life he got sth, but after two UEFA refs in charge, no room for the Swiss. Intercontinental final for him would be a nice compensation.
DeleteAbout FIFA's choices, I will (of course!) analyse that deeply as part of the final post.
One other general point. I found Listkiewicz's behavior during KFTM odd. Well, not odd. But in line with a linesman who felt he should be the referee. Not sure if tht was always Listkiewicz's modus operandi or was just him reacting to a heated moment. But it was peculiar enough to clearly strike me while watching.
ReplyDelete