In Focus: Match 1 - Argentina vs. Cameroon, Michel Vautrot
African outsiders Cameroon stunned Argentina in the first game of Italia '90, defeating the reigning world champions by a goal to nothing.
This opener is an all-time classic, with French referee Michel Vautrot
showing two red cards - Cameroon achieved their seismic upset despite
finishing with nine men.
Vautrot
caused quite a splash in match number one as its referee. Here, we look
at the merits of both expulsion calls, in addition to the whole
officiating performance in World Cup 1990's famous curtain raiser.
Refereeing Highlights
Preface
Argentina came into 1990 as the World Cup holders, after Diego Maradona's spellbinding performances catapulted his nation to triumph in the Mexican tournament. Huge favourites to retain the trophy this time they weren't, but they remained very much in the conversation as potential winners without doubt.
Certainly, they were favoured to beat the 500/1 outsiders Cameroon in the opening game in Milan. Though impressive and unbeaten in 1982, they were mostly an unknown quantity coming into the curtain raiser, with half of their squad playing in their domestic competition; the other half mostly played in France.
Certainly, they were favoured to beat the 500/1 outsiders Cameroon in the opening game in Milan. Though impressive and unbeaten in 1982, they were mostly an unknown quantity coming into the curtain raiser, with half of their squad playing in their domestic competition; the other half mostly played in France.
Choosing the curtain raiser for the World Cup is always a tricky task for FIFA - they have to balance a number of factors in making in an always delicate assignment:
- which referee will best display what will be a 'typical' ref performance at the tournament, with regards to interpreting the laws in light of the guidelines the referees have been given
- more than appointing for 'the opening game', keeping in view what kind of match it will be between the two teams, as for any other match at the tournament
- which referee will best display what will be a 'typical' ref performance at the tournament, with regards to interpreting the laws in light of the guidelines the referees have been given
- more than appointing for 'the opening game', keeping in view what kind of match it will be between the two teams, as for any other match at the tournament
- given the prestige involved in opening the tournament, political considerations are important
In my view, FIFA rightly resisted letting an Italian open the tournament (Tullio Lanese was in the race), and denied South America having a 'turn' at blowing the first whistle of the tournament (Hernán Silva could have gotten it), despite UEFA officials handling openers in both 1982 and 1986.
All things considered, I would say that Michel Vautrot was a good choice to referee this Argentina vs. Cameroon tie. A European for a CONMEBOL vs. AFC clash, and an experienced one at that - with a EURO final and extensive World Cup experience (he missed 1986, but went very far in 82) in the palmares.
Stylistically, Vautrot was the best fit for the middle-of-the-road referee, moreso than other top UEFA officials in my opinion (eg. Agnolin, Courtney, Kohl). Maybe Erik Fredriksson could have rivalled him in this regard, but having had the Mexico 1986 opener, was naturally out.
With regard to the politics, much keener attention was payed to which three officials would join Vautrot in the corridors of power than in wider media coverage. Like their team leader, both of the two linesmen were also confederationally neutral.
The political pull of the American association in FIFA had grown significantly in the 1980s, and the appointments of David Socha across this decade are testament to that. Socha was competent official for sure, and a very good linesman - Vincent Mauro was appointed on the same premise being true for him.
Poland's Michał Listkiewicz was the other 'assistant referee'. He was identified being a very able linesman after his strong performances at eg. the Seoul 1988 Olympic tournament, though contrary to popular belief, he was selected by FIFA for this World Cup on the premise that he would also referee a match too.
All things considered, I would say that Michel Vautrot was a good choice to referee this Argentina vs. Cameroon tie. A European for a CONMEBOL vs. AFC clash, and an experienced one at that - with a EURO final and extensive World Cup experience (he missed 1986, but went very far in 82) in the palmares.
Stylistically, Vautrot was the best fit for the middle-of-the-road referee, moreso than other top UEFA officials in my opinion (eg. Agnolin, Courtney, Kohl). Maybe Erik Fredriksson could have rivalled him in this regard, but having had the Mexico 1986 opener, was naturally out.
With regard to the politics, much keener attention was payed to which three officials would join Vautrot in the corridors of power than in wider media coverage. Like their team leader, both of the two linesmen were also confederationally neutral.
The political pull of the American association in FIFA had grown significantly in the 1980s, and the appointments of David Socha across this decade are testament to that. Socha was competent official for sure, and a very good linesman - Vincent Mauro was appointed on the same premise being true for him.
Poland's Michał Listkiewicz was the other 'assistant referee'. He was identified being a very able linesman after his strong performances at eg. the Seoul 1988 Olympic tournament, though contrary to popular belief, he was selected by FIFA for this World Cup on the premise that he would also referee a match too.
This was the final World Cup where FIFA didn't publicly communicate who the appointed reserve referee was, only on private press sheets provided to the media. If they had have done, the name of CAF official Neji Jouini (TUN) would have appeared.
Match
Cameroon were good value for their one-nothing victory over Argentina, who were stymied by both their opponents' skilfulness and physical tactics. By the final whistle, Michel Vautrot would have known he was deeply tested by this game - and his performance was definitely not wholly satisfying.
The instructions given by FIFA had aroused a significant amount of medial resonance, and all eyes were on Vautrot to see how they would practically be applied. In that regard, this performance was simultaneously a missed opportunity, an unmitigated disaster, and a valuable warning shot by FIFA.
The story then -
The instructions given by FIFA had aroused a significant amount of medial resonance, and all eyes were on Vautrot to see how they would practically be applied. In that regard, this performance was simultaneously a missed opportunity, an unmitigated disaster, and a valuable warning shot by FIFA.
The story then -
Without doubt, Vautrot started very well in this match. His tactic for the first five minutes of pedantically whistling small contacts and being 'present' in giving these decisions was a good one. The game's first caution, in the tenth minute, was of the roadblock variety - Benjamin Massing deliberately kicked Diego Maradona from behind, and while the ball was still in the vicinity, taking Massing's name was a very good decision both for Vautrot and the game itself.
In tactical approach, the proof is always in the pudding, and this call definitely succeeded in calming the game and curtailing Cameroon's players for a while. Only a short while though, and Vautrot was again on the scene when they tried to transgress, with a deliberate late charging foul on Maradona (20'), and then rightly warning Cyrille Makanaky when he committed a heavier-careless tripping offence a few moments later. It seemed Vautrot certainly had the game in his grasp at this point.
And he did. The referee definitely didn't have luck on his side with what happened next, to be fair.
Key Match Incident: 23' - Challenge by Victor N'Dip (link)
What an awful karaté-kick challenge by N'Dip, the darkest of dark red cards in a modern context without any doubt. Flying at Diego Maradona, actually well after the ball had been already played, such fouls actually constitute assault more than serious foul play. I don't recall one such challenge which was so flagrantly egregious as this one in the whole of the previous, more agricultural, World Cup as this one.
And yet - I think it is quite possible that FIFA were more-or-less okay with Vautrot's caution decision here. The way that challenges were assessed back then was very different to nowadays, with hitting points and so on, not really considered as they are today. Against this background, I strongly suspect that a yellow card was evaluated as okay here (in all his deliberate interviews during the tournament, not once did Sepp Blatter allude to this situation, so I suspect that rather gives us our answer).
However, the Argentina players quite saw what a brutal challenge this was, and actually, giving a red card here would have been a brilliant signal to the tournament. And for Vautrot's management of this game, though it would surely have set it on a different course if he had have shown red here.
The game changed after N'Dip's foul. The (Argentina) players were much more on edge, Cameroon's rather emboldened. Vautrot, hitherto very good, began to slip too - another agricultural foul by the African side at 26' went completely ignored, and the foul count began to mount. Roberto Sensini was rightly booked for a lack of respect handling, but the French ref's tight grip on the match significantly loosened. 32', 36', 37', 42' - these weren't missed cautions, but certainly a signal that Vautrot was in trouble.
However, the Argentina players quite saw what a brutal challenge this was, and actually, giving a red card here would have been a brilliant signal to the tournament. And for Vautrot's management of this game, though it would surely have set it on a different course if he had have shown red here.
The game changed after N'Dip's foul. The (Argentina) players were much more on edge, Cameroon's rather emboldened. Vautrot, hitherto very good, began to slip too - another agricultural foul by the African side at 26' went completely ignored, and the foul count began to mount. Roberto Sensini was rightly booked for a lack of respect handling, but the French ref's tight grip on the match significantly loosened. 32', 36', 37', 42' - these weren't missed cautions, but certainly a signal that Vautrot was in trouble.
Everything was beginning to come to a head in a mini-confrontation scene at 43' after a challenge-after-the-whistle incident. He then very interestingly pulled out Diego Maradona to clearly warn him for persistent dissenting(-ish) behaviour. The format of the warning was interesting - the charisma possessed by this referee is more in self-assurance, determination in his gestures, quite unique use of whistle tone to create authority, more than being a charismatic chat-er. This warning displayed that quite perfectly.
Halftime
Halftime
The start of the second half continued the way that the first ended - with Vautrot's grip on the match sliding. More specifically, there was an array of potential SYC incidents. In the 1990 imagining of refereeing, sending Massing off at 47' would have been much too harsh. However, after a further deliberate foul by him at 49', the French ref really should have publicly pulled him out - à la Maradona at 43' - and said "after your next deliberate foul, I will send you off!". But alas, no warning, freekick only.
N'Dip's latest foul (53') was correctly assessed as careless in 1990, but what followed next showed us that we had a referee who was beginning to panic. It seems weird for us now, but defensive walls simply not listening to referees guiding them back ten yards was a real problem in 1980s / early 1990s, so referees had licence to caution such players from the powers that be.
N'Dip's latest foul (53') was correctly assessed as careless in 1990, but what followed next showed us that we had a referee who was beginning to panic. It seems weird for us now, but defensive walls simply not listening to referees guiding them back ten yards was a real problem in 1980s / early 1990s, so referees had licence to caution such players from the powers that be.
However, Émile Mbouh can hardly have been said to be doing that. He only stood in front of the ball for two second anyway, Vautrot had Argentina waiting for the whistle anyway, and he was listening to the French referee and running into the wall position which the ref was asking for. Vautrot's booking of him was way, way too harsh - and only performed in order to prove a point.
Vautrot was perfectly presented such an opportunity to do that at 49', but passed it up, and was trying a bit too hard to wrench the match back into his grasp. The 53' booking didn't help him in that regard; actually, it was simply an erratic call which put both sets of players even more on edge in fact. A much more memorable capricious call would follow some minutes later.
Key Match Incident: 61' - Challenge by André Kana-Biyik (link)
Vautrot was perfectly presented such an opportunity to do that at 49', but passed it up, and was trying a bit too hard to wrench the match back into his grasp. The 53' booking didn't help him in that regard; actually, it was simply an erratic call which put both sets of players even more on edge in fact. A much more memorable capricious call would follow some minutes later.
Key Match Incident: 61' - Challenge by André Kana-Biyik (link)
On a purely didactic level, Michel Vautrot's expulsion delivered to A. Kana-Biyik was, and is, quite terrible - absolutely no way was this (even that close to) an example of Serious Foul Play or the new Professional Foul which FIFA had coined for this tournament. And yet, Vautrot did have his reasons (or rather, flawed theses) to decide on such a severe punishment for Kana-Biyik. As follows:
> To be honest, I think the French ref lost his composure a bit, and the red card was almost a decision made in anger, almost for 'persistent (team) infringement'. Indeed, Kana-Biyik's foul was a perfect example of cynicism, with no kind of apology (if he had have instantly apologised to Vautrot, there is no way he'd have ended up being red carded) from a team who had practiced exactly that from minute one.
> Contrary to the DOGSO which we are all familiar now, the professional foul concept was a much more vague; indeed, it was a brand new and prototypal concept with which FIFA were experimenting. It offered quite some room for interpretation, with much emphasis being on, again cynical fouls. Without clear, rigid, guidelines urging Vautrot otherwise, the professional foul concept offered Vautrot a route through which to eject Kana-Biyik, and he took it.
> Furthermore to this point, Vautrot interpreted his role as referee for the opening game as the man to set the tone for this tournament - in explaining this call, he speaks of the match being the opener as quite a big part of how he reached for the red card. It was a 'special' kind of decision, one to caution against such illicit play throughout the tournament. Flawed logic unfortunately, this was no red card at all.
> If he didn't eject Kana-Biyik, then I have the feeling (probably Vautrot the same), that only issuing a yellow card would have resulted in Argentina becoming too frustrated and probably the game would have descended into pure chaos. On some kind of level, if the players aren't listening with warnings and yellows, you only have one route left; Vautrot took it.
->> Vautrot had his reasons, and for them, you can understand how he decided to send off André Kana-Biyik. Probably they were decisive in the Frenchman avoiding rejection on this call - though if Cameroon had ended up losing, one can wonder whether that would have been the case.
From there, Vautrot's performance level then decreased - he missed a clear holding foul on Maradona (63'), messed up a minor delayed whistle scene (65'), and the freekick decision resulting in the game's only goal came about very curiously. The decision by itself looks supportable, though it is hard to tell; Argentina protested quite loudly. As some kind of compromise then, he made the freekick an indirect one, for playing in a dangerous manner. Though in the mechanics of the goal, it didn't matter.
The Frenchman was now in real trouble - the game was continuing to degenerate with blatant fouls (68', 75', 77', 88'), and wrongly assessed duels (70', 86', 87'), but he was by now de facto powerless to really be in a position to do anything about it, in terms of either verbal admonishments or cards given. In some kind of way, the famous triple-foul sequence on Claudio Caniggia - since he came on, the new target of Cameroon's physicality after Maradona - an inevitability.
Key Match Incident: 89' - Challenge by Benjamin Massing (link)
The Frenchman was now in real trouble - the game was continuing to degenerate with blatant fouls (68', 75', 77', 88'), and wrongly assessed duels (70', 86', 87'), but he was by now de facto powerless to really be in a position to do anything about it, in terms of either verbal admonishments or cards given. In some kind of way, the famous triple-foul sequence on Claudio Caniggia - since he came on, the new target of Cameroon's physicality after Maradona - an inevitability.
Key Match Incident: 89' - Challenge by Benjamin Massing (link)
At least the end result was right. Massing deserved to be sent off 100% for this ridiculous example of an excessive force challenge, though it is quite unsatisfying that it was via the second caution route. Again, as in the 23' and 61' key scenes (and this match as a whole, to be fair), Vautrot was rather fortunate to come out of this match as unscathed as he did.
Besides the very crafty stamp performed by Jorge Burruchaga, an interesting wider note from the SYC: this World Cup was the first major tournament where referees were clearly instructed to delineate between straight red cards and second yellows, by showing the caution bit first. That explains Vautrot's rather comical card procedure in this incident. A positive development for refereeing without doubt.
Actually, the end to the game was basically quiet, at least on a refereeing front, after that. Though a final remark can be made: officials were much more free to compensate for lost time than in the previous World Cup, which is a very welcome development from my end. Still, Vautrot's lost time compensation here was pretty terrible, though yet, the moment he did curtail the game, 'felt' like a relatively appropriate one.
Linesmen
Quite strong impressions from both linesmen in this match, though with their respective crudities.
Vincent Mauro was quite unlucky to have wrongly flagged at 30', and showed to be an active (if one can debate whether also, in this scene, accurate) team member at 81'. Assessing the American's performance depends quite a lot on a 42' scene, where Peter Brackley reports that he flagged - if for offside, then a very poor call; if for a handling offence, then quite excellent work as a team member to detect that handling on Vautrot's blinder side. In any case, still expected level by Mauro I think.
The second linesman, Michał Listkiewicz, also performed quite well. In terms of detecting offside and sideways movement, the Pole showed very well. He was a bit passive as a team member in some scenes, but more of an observation than a real criticism here.
Vincent Mauro was quite unlucky to have wrongly flagged at 30', and showed to be an active (if one can debate whether also, in this scene, accurate) team member at 81'. Assessing the American's performance depends quite a lot on a 42' scene, where Peter Brackley reports that he flagged - if for offside, then a very poor call; if for a handling offence, then quite excellent work as a team member to detect that handling on Vautrot's blinder side. In any case, still expected level by Mauro I think.
The second linesman, Michał Listkiewicz, also performed quite well. In terms of detecting offside and sideways movement, the Pole showed very well. He was a bit passive as a team member in some scenes, but more of an observation than a real criticism here.
Balance
Michel Vautrot faced a much more challenging opening game than anyone could have bargained for - whomever was referee would have been in big trouble with Cameroon's way of playing. Vautrot started very well, and was a bit unlucky to face N'Dip's incident so early: in 1990 this was really not a red card yet for the powers that be, but both sets of players quite rightly saw it as more than a yellow.
The rough play continued through the first half and into the second, where the ref missed a golden oppotunity to draw a line when Benjamin Massing fouled again at 49' - passed up. Then, Vautrot realised he was in trouble, but was unable to draw the game back into his grasp. The (explicable) red card which followed was completely wrong according to the laws, particuarly problematic in the tournament opener.
The rough play continued through the first half and into the second, where the ref missed a golden oppotunity to draw a line when Benjamin Massing fouled again at 49' - passed up. Then, Vautrot realised he was in trouble, but was unable to draw the game back into his grasp. The (explicable) red card which followed was completely wrong according to the laws, particuarly problematic in the tournament opener.
After that, the game became very chaotic indeed, and the result was Massing's all-time famous assault on Claudio Caniggia, who was only shown a second yellow, not a straight red. In a weird kind of way, despite creating such a splash in this opener, given that Cameroon won, Michel Vautrot managed to evade huge controversy, at least of the format that would end this World Cup.
His performance did send a warning shot across the bow, though - even if he picked the wrong incident(s) to be tough on (61'), FIFA had clearly sent the message that referees weren't afraid of getting out their red cards to punish foul play. To be fair, 61' was kind of a unique incident, at least in the context of this game, and on a standardisation level, wasn't as problematic for FIFA as it might have been.
On a technical level, Vautrot did not fare strongly, even when keeping the level of difficulty that he faced in mind. Also, this opener was a missed opportunity - instant reds for N'Dip (23') and finally Massing (89'), or even showing the watching world that Massing's PI was being watched, would have sent an even bigger signal to the tournament. This unfortunately got lost in the midst of a crazy afternoon.
All three officials would go on - though Vautrot was rather fortunate indeed. Probably, it was actually the N'Dip incident in the first half which cost him most in a final analysis; if the instructions allowed him to eject N'Dip for his crazy intervention then: a) it wouldn't have happened, and, b) he would have been able to stay in close control of the game afterwards.
On a technical level, Vautrot did not fare strongly, even when keeping the level of difficulty that he faced in mind. Also, this opener was a missed opportunity - instant reds for N'Dip (23') and finally Massing (89'), or even showing the watching world that Massing's PI was being watched, would have sent an even bigger signal to the tournament. This unfortunately got lost in the midst of a crazy afternoon.
All three officials would go on - though Vautrot was rather fortunate indeed. Probably, it was actually the N'Dip incident in the first half which cost him most in a final analysis; if the instructions allowed him to eject N'Dip for his crazy intervention then: a) it wouldn't have happened, and, b) he would have been able to stay in close control of the game afterwards.
If what started it off was more bad luck than bad judgement, tactical errors would then begin to follow - Cameroon's persistent infringement at the start of the second half gave the French referee a brilliant chance to reassert his authority on the match. He sensed the moment, but chose the wrong one. Cautioning M'Bouh for his wall offence at 53' actually made the players more anxious; it was counter-productive.
While André Kana-Biyik was completely wrongly sent off, one can understand the mitigating circumstances in Vautrot not being rejected on this incident - the guidelines, the opener, the cynical nature of the Cameroon team, the valuable signal it (kind of?) sent the other teams by FIFA. In this regard, Vautrot was extremely fortunate that Argentina didn't roll their opponents over 3-0 after the ejection.
Cameroon scored in the next period, and the game further descended into chaos which the somewhat inevitable conclusion was suffered by Claudio Caniggia. The bizarre way in which Vautrot delivered his second yellow (it had to be straight red, too), was somehow a microcosm of the whole performance, at least after the first twenty minutes or so.
So Vautrot survived this game. He was very lucky to do so, and by the skin of his teeth too, but overall, in FIFA's position, I believe that not rejecting him was the right decision. After a remarkable opening game, all three teams on the pitch would have much more to say in the final tournament narrative; about which this opener deserves at least a chapter or two of it's own!
While André Kana-Biyik was completely wrongly sent off, one can understand the mitigating circumstances in Vautrot not being rejected on this incident - the guidelines, the opener, the cynical nature of the Cameroon team, the valuable signal it (kind of?) sent the other teams by FIFA. In this regard, Vautrot was extremely fortunate that Argentina didn't roll their opponents over 3-0 after the ejection.
Cameroon scored in the next period, and the game further descended into chaos which the somewhat inevitable conclusion was suffered by Claudio Caniggia. The bizarre way in which Vautrot delivered his second yellow (it had to be straight red, too), was somehow a microcosm of the whole performance, at least after the first twenty minutes or so.
So Vautrot survived this game. He was very lucky to do so, and by the skin of his teeth too, but overall, in FIFA's position, I believe that not rejecting him was the right decision. After a remarkable opening game, all three teams on the pitch would have much more to say in the final tournament narrative; about which this opener deserves at least a chapter or two of it's own!
| Michel Vautrot (FRA) Vincent Mauro (USA) Michał Listkiewicz (POL) Neji Jouini (TUN) Officials | Argentina 0-1 Cameroon Group Stage Friday 8th June at 6pm (Milan) |
 Sensini (27') - Lack of Respect (Handling) | Massing (10') - Challenge N'Dip (23') - Challenge M'Bouh (53) - Delaying the Restart |
 Massing (89') - Challenge | |
 Kana-Biyik (61') - Professional Foul |
