In Focus: Match 49 - Argentina vs. Italy, Michel Vautrot
Having romped through in Rome (five matches played, five wins, no goals conceded), hosts Italy headed down to Naples to play their semifinal at World Cup 1990. Opponents Argentina meanwhile had spluttered and blundered their way through to the last four, not winning too many friends in doing so.
Least of all Diego Maradona. Spellbinding in Mexico, owing to a toe injury, he never hit the same heights in 1990. Roundly booed by the public in all the other games, he found great solace in Naples - deified by the locals as an SSC Napoli, and indeed class hero, the Argentine encouraged the locals to defy their nation's team and cheer for him and his teammates at the San Paolo.
The context then for a game of pure World Cup legend. Flown in to run the rule over it were a European trio of referees, headed by Michel Vautrot of France. Vautrot's route to the semis was perhaps more reminiscent of Argentine than Italian convincingness, but FIFA backed their most experienced referee to do the job here. I think they were proved right, but the final conclusion must be still very mixed.
The context then for a game of pure World Cup legend. Flown in to run the rule over it were a European trio of referees, headed by Michel Vautrot of France. Vautrot's route to the semis was perhaps more reminiscent of Argentine than Italian convincingness, but FIFA backed their most experienced referee to do the job here. I think they were proved right, but the final conclusion must be still very mixed.
Refereeing Highlights
Preface
For me, this has to be one of the most fascinating World Cup finals matches of all time. It would have been completely, completely different if it was played at the Stadio Olimpico in Rome! Or indeed in Turin, whose ground would have been (to me looking from the outside anyway), the more logical choice to place in Italy's route, whilst keeping the two semifinal venues the same.
The ultimate backs-against-the-wall team Argentina, therefore, had their backs not so much against the canvas at the San Paolo. Still: the Italians feared a very rough match. In fairness, I don't actually think the Argentines had played that rough thus far (though maybe watching Uruguay in 1986 is desensitising!), but for sure they tested the line closer and closer, as they went through the knockout games.
Therefore, the choice (and style) of the appointed referee became a very fraught issue in the referees committee, with the semifinal designations only agreed not much more than twenty-four hours before kick-off in Naples. Interestingly, Italy were absolutely desperate for Austria's Helmut Kohl to referee the game - perhaps the best compliment possible for Kohl as referee, whom FIGC were convinced would be able to deal with the probable rough and unsporting play of the Argentina team.
Appointing Kohl would have been a big misstep in my opinion. This match was on the Tuesday night, and the Austrian would have surely been shattered after Czechoslovakia vs. West Germany (report), played on the late Sunday afternoon. No way would he have been fresh enough to do a good job here. And: I believe that the performance principle was adhered to in ending Kohl's tournament there (also after ENGBEL).
The ultimate backs-against-the-wall team Argentina, therefore, had their backs not so much against the canvas at the San Paolo. Still: the Italians feared a very rough match. In fairness, I don't actually think the Argentines had played that rough thus far (though maybe watching Uruguay in 1986 is desensitising!), but for sure they tested the line closer and closer, as they went through the knockout games.
Therefore, the choice (and style) of the appointed referee became a very fraught issue in the referees committee, with the semifinal designations only agreed not much more than twenty-four hours before kick-off in Naples. Interestingly, Italy were absolutely desperate for Austria's Helmut Kohl to referee the game - perhaps the best compliment possible for Kohl as referee, whom FIGC were convinced would be able to deal with the probable rough and unsporting play of the Argentina team.
Appointing Kohl would have been a big misstep in my opinion. This match was on the Tuesday night, and the Austrian would have surely been shattered after Czechoslovakia vs. West Germany (report), played on the late Sunday afternoon. No way would he have been fresh enough to do a good job here. And: I believe that the performance principle was adhered to in ending Kohl's tournament there (also after ENGBEL).
Kohl was out. As was José Ramiz Wright - unlike Arppi Filho, he wasn't going to be allowed on an Argentina match. The Brazilian ref was actually much (much) closer to the final appointment than many realise. Ramiz Wright had stood out (so) positively for the media that he could be considered as a deserved choice in his own right, more than 'a third straight Brazilian'. With Havelange now ruling FIFA as a de facto dictator, the political will was there too. But, the Argentina factor remained. Instead, they opted to give Wright a semifinal, rather than gamble with the result of this match on a potential final.
In the end, Michel Vautrot was a somewhat compromise option, accepted by both sides. Argentina were mostly ridiculed at the time for stating that he was too lenient in his controversial officiating of the(ir) opener against Cameroon. Of course, they were actually right. But, in red carding two Cameroon players, they couldn't really hold too much against him either.
In the end, Michel Vautrot was a somewhat compromise option, accepted by both sides. Argentina were mostly ridiculed at the time for stating that he was too lenient in his controversial officiating of the(ir) opener against Cameroon. Of course, they were actually right. But, in red carding two Cameroon players, they couldn't really hold too much against him either.
Vautrot's tournament was a bit 'weird'. Actually, I'm sure that FIFA made the decision to keep the Frenchman 'quiet' straight after Match 1, in order to specially save him for 'this' (sort of) match in the very late stages. His other appointment, Netherlands vs. Republic of Ireland, was a crucial one, but one has to also temper the 'sonorousness' of that assignment by the same token.
FIFA weren't messing about, and appointed two Europeans to accompany him as linesman. First assistant was young Dane Mikkelsen, who was experiencing a big breakthrough tournament. In the last World Cup before specialist linesmen, this was a great choice in my opinion. Listkiewicz as second assistant was a sound one too. The 'proto-specialist' flag-bearer had a (very) good knockout stage thus far.
FIFA weren't messing about, and appointed two Europeans to accompany him as linesman. First assistant was young Dane Mikkelsen, who was experiencing a big breakthrough tournament. In the last World Cup before specialist linesmen, this was a great choice in my opinion. Listkiewicz as second assistant was a sound one too. The 'proto-specialist' flag-bearer had a (very) good knockout stage thus far.
Finally, completing team for Italy's semifinal was (of course :D), Mohamed Hansal of Algeria. Of Italy's six matches, Hansal had been reserve referee for four.
Match
The whole of Michel Vautrot's performance be explained through two key decisions, and their respective contexts. Both involved Argentina's Ricardo Giusti - in turn, the Argentina defender's sparing early in the second half, followed later by his expulsion in extra time. I provided dedicated clips of both below.
Proceedings started exactly as the Italian association had predicted - roughly. As early as the first five minutes, Vautrot faced a tough task to ensure match control. Oscar Ruggeri clattered into the back of Gianluca Vialli after seventy-five seconds, and when he committed a very heavy sliding tackle foul a mere forty seconds later, the consequent decision would have been to draw a caution to Ruggeri. To send a message to both teams, and to punish Ruggeri's persistence too. For some, it would have been the opening caution on a platter.
Vautrot didn't show a yellow card. As a referee, he faced a similar kind of 'issue' as Kurt Röthlisberger - even if he wanted to issue cards a law-enforcer, his 'dynamics' simply wouldn't allow it. Actually, this reminds me of László Vágner, who like Vautrot, dealt with incidents not passively, but certainly quite frenetically. More specifically though, there was another problem facing the Frenchman. Due to their prior unfair play, Argentina had racked up a very large number of cautions during the tournament. Chances were, if Vautrot did decide to caution an Argentina player, then he was probably going to book him out of a potential final.
Understandably, the French ref wanted to avoid that. I am certain that the chat he has with a small gaggle of Argentina players just before kick-off was orientated in this regard. Keeping all of that in mind, I think Vautrot did a great job in the first half, very impressive in my opinion. With his really excellent personality skills (we didn't see this so much in Argentina vs. Cameroon) and unique style, Vautrot brilliantly managed to keep everyone in check, with a huge amount of nervous tension around. His ability to lead the players on the pitch and connect with them, was simply fantastic. His warning to Claudio Caniggia (13:35): majestic.
Vautrot didn't show a yellow card. As a referee, he faced a similar kind of 'issue' as Kurt Röthlisberger - even if he wanted to issue cards a law-enforcer, his 'dynamics' simply wouldn't allow it. Actually, this reminds me of László Vágner, who like Vautrot, dealt with incidents not passively, but certainly quite frenetically. More specifically though, there was another problem facing the Frenchman. Due to their prior unfair play, Argentina had racked up a very large number of cautions during the tournament. Chances were, if Vautrot did decide to caution an Argentina player, then he was probably going to book him out of a potential final.
Understandably, the French ref wanted to avoid that. I am certain that the chat he has with a small gaggle of Argentina players just before kick-off was orientated in this regard. Keeping all of that in mind, I think Vautrot did a great job in the first half, very impressive in my opinion. With his really excellent personality skills (we didn't see this so much in Argentina vs. Cameroon) and unique style, Vautrot brilliantly managed to keep everyone in check, with a huge amount of nervous tension around. His ability to lead the players on the pitch and connect with them, was simply fantastic. His warning to Claudio Caniggia (13:35): majestic.
One could have shown more, but Vautrot only (needed to) show two cautions in the opening forty-five minutes. Both became extremely relevant later. The second was a crystal clear one, to Ricardo Giusti, for a tactical foul. But the first was very interesting. On twenty-three minutes, the French ref opened his cards on a slightly-bizarre lack of respect handling offence by Giuseppe Giannini (09:30). Especially in 1986, but also in 1990 (Ramiz Wright in CMRURS is the one that comes to mind), referees basically always turned a blind eye to such offences, deciding that a freekick was enough. On this occasion, as in all the others I can recall from 86/90, the players were completely nonplussed, and would have easily accepted a freekick only without any fuss (I think).
Vautrot was not wrong at all, he was even quite right, to caution Giannini - 100%. But the choice itself was quite interesting. I think the Frenchman always had in the back of his mind that the match could get away from him. That idea is supported by a couple of foul calls in the first half where play on would have been better - he was just slightly anxious to 'play it safe' on some occasions. So, when the chance presented itself to take the initiative using a potential LoR handball by Giannini, Vautrot took it. I perfectly understand why he did it, but I think the more courageous and better choice for the game (and for him) would have been to give a freekick only. That choice was to prove crucial later (see figure 1).
Vautrot was not wrong at all, he was even quite right, to caution Giannini - 100%. But the choice itself was quite interesting. I think the Frenchman always had in the back of his mind that the match could get away from him. That idea is supported by a couple of foul calls in the first half where play on would have been better - he was just slightly anxious to 'play it safe' on some occasions. So, when the chance presented itself to take the initiative using a potential LoR handball by Giannini, Vautrot took it. I perfectly understand why he did it, but I think the more courageous and better choice for the game (and for him) would have been to give a freekick only. That choice was to prove crucial later (see figure 1).
----
Fig.1:
----
At 54', Ricardo Giusti commits a (very) blatant handling in aid of a potential attack, palming the ball away from Paolo Maldini. Probably, Giusti thought he was caught upfield, and gave away this freekick in order to run back into position. Vautrot gives the freekick. After a small delay, probably with both 23' and the rationale behind it (use opportunities given to underline authority) cognisant, Vautrot pulls out his yellow card, whilst facing the other way as Giusti. Either having glanced at his notes or having turned around and realised who it was, he snuck the card back into his pocket - he realised that he'd have to send Giusti off, and this was not a 'second yellow card offence'.
Actually, there wasn't too much controversy about this(!) - the public widely agreed with Vautrot, this wasn't a SYC at all - but those observant realised what an error this was by the French referee. He definitely realised too, and his performance level significantly dropped after this moment. He still beckoned Giusti, and gave him a firm final warning. Giusti understood.
Actually, there wasn't too much controversy about this(!) - the public widely agreed with Vautrot, this wasn't a SYC at all - but those observant realised what an error this was by the French referee. He definitely realised too, and his performance level significantly dropped after this moment. He still beckoned Giusti, and gave him a firm final warning. Giusti understood.
It was rather in the downhill direction from there. He was basically forced to caution Caniggia harshly out of the final (28:10), also for a handling offence (Caniggia, like Giusti, was an idiot for even risking it, but still), he started falling for some dives, and generally his grip on the game was waining. Without wishing to state anything too controversial, the 54' scene was crucial for the whole match. Firstly, of course it would have been quite different 11 vs. 10, but secondly, the whole incident proved a whole turning point for the two teams. Vautrot was less in control, and Argentina amidst Italy panicking, could take a grip on the play and score an equaliser through Caniggia. Giusti's escape was a fascinating moment indeed.
But the memorable erring in this performance was yet to come. The end of the first period of extra time was littered with stoppages. One because Vautrot - again this theme of trying to underline authority and not necessarily succeeding - gave a slightly bizarre warning to both captains about team dissent, but also a couple of injuries too. So, we sauntered to the 105min mark. It was quite right to compensate for the lost time, probably about three minutes. But we went way beyond that. And another decisive turn on this game: in the fifth extra minute, Giusti appeared again in the lights (see figure 2).
But the memorable erring in this performance was yet to come. The end of the first period of extra time was littered with stoppages. One because Vautrot - again this theme of trying to underline authority and not necessarily succeeding - gave a slightly bizarre warning to both captains about team dissent, but also a couple of injuries too. So, we sauntered to the 105min mark. It was quite right to compensate for the lost time, probably about three minutes. But we went way beyond that. And another decisive turn on this game: in the fifth extra minute, Giusti appeared again in the lights (see figure 2).
----
Fig.2:
(I used the widescreen Japanese version for the clip; it gives an interesting different perspective I think. It is still remarkable to me that in 1990, between the normal feed, the NHK widescreen and FIFA film, not one of them actually managed to catch the actual incident! Click here for the standard feed version.)
----
Those in the stadium reported that Ricardo Giusti elbowed substitute Roberto Baggio in the head, in riposte to Baggio pushing him, which itself was surely a response to the Argentine defender's 'close marking'. As aforementioned, we can't actually analyse the merits of this call! But there is still much to say about it. First, much praise for Peter Mikkelsen, who acted perfectly as a team member. He didn't raise his flag to call Vautrot out to him, but he deliberately (and immediately) entered the field of play, to show his team leader that if he needed information, the Dane had seen the incident clearly. Remember, Vautrot was actually closer, but, turning, he probably only saw the strike in his periphery.
Many things need underlining in praise of young Mikkelsen here: he was a referee, not a specialist linesman; he was very far away from the incident, relatively speaking; he was a youngster who had the courage to act (quite decisively); and he was left to face much mobbing by Argentina players which he handled calmly. Vautrot could count himself very fortunate that he had a teammate who distinguished himself, and saved his skin to some extent. It was clear that Vautrot was in big trouble after the incident, not quite sure what to do. Though: one must say that this incident occurred during the questionable time-keeping period, and Vautrot eventually finished the extra half on twenty-three-and-a-half minutes.
Many things need underlining in praise of young Mikkelsen here: he was a referee, not a specialist linesman; he was very far away from the incident, relatively speaking; he was a youngster who had the courage to act (quite decisively); and he was left to face much mobbing by Argentina players which he handled calmly. Vautrot could count himself very fortunate that he had a teammate who distinguished himself, and saved his skin to some extent. It was clear that Vautrot was in big trouble after the incident, not quite sure what to do. Though: one must say that this incident occurred during the questionable time-keeping period, and Vautrot eventually finished the extra half on twenty-three-and-a-half minutes.
Vautrot himself says he has no explanation for how he 'forgot' to curtail the first extra period, especially as he visibly looks down at his watch on multiple occasions (he used this same one during NEDIRL, by the way, for ARGCMR he used the tournament official watch given to all the refs). He adds that he gets a cold sweat whenever thinking about the incident, and that he was extremely fortunate that there were no goals in the 'compensated' time. Also even the Giusti incident was, kind of, 'no harm done': his nailed on first half caution already knocked him out of the final, and Argentina went on to win despite being down to ten.
Besides (rightly) booking Batista out of the final in the very last minute, the rest of the match was played out without bigger incident. The dramatic penalty competition which followed saw Argentina elevated to the final, while misses from Donadoni and Serrena consigned Italy to a maximum of third place. A deeply emotional shoot-out, in keeping with the night in Naples.
Besides (rightly) booking Batista out of the final in the very last minute, the rest of the match was played out without bigger incident. The dramatic penalty competition which followed saw Argentina elevated to the final, while misses from Donadoni and Serrena consigned Italy to a maximum of third place. A deeply emotional shoot-out, in keeping with the night in Naples.
Linesmen
Even besides the +111' incident, Mikkelsen was really good as a linesmen, and would have fully merited a final place with the flag, were it not for the controversy generated by the Giusti red. The camera picked up on some very nice facial expressions he pulled, and he was an eager and correct computer of offsides. He had one more appointment to fulfil, but this would end Peter Mikkelsen's 'active' involvement in Italia '90 - what a brilliant tournament he had, all the more remarkable as a mere thirty year old. Respect!
Unfortunately, one has to be less positive about Michał Listkiewicz's performance. The Pole was good, even great, in the knockout stage so far. But on this evening he didn't perform well - too many mistakes (24:45, 29:35, 43:45, 45:10). This was certainly the worst World Cup for the level of linesmanship in the last forty years (2002 runs it somewhat close), and FIFA's options were very limited. But: one has to say that the Pole's appointment to the final was, ultimately, exaggerated.
Balance
Interestingly, FIFA actually rejected Michel Vautrot's performance in this match. While they were relatively forgiving about the extra minutes, they thought that Vautrot struggled generally, and took a very dim view of his management in 54' (pulling out the yellow card only to forgive Giusti).
Rejections late in the tournament are more arbitrary and not especially important (compare to the fight over Agnolin's in the group stage, eg.), but I do see this performance the same way as FIFA. Vautrot was doing very well until the first Giusti incident blew him off course, but in the end, one can't really call his performance satisfying. 54', the added time in 1ET, and his wider troubles: these actually do become too much in the final analysis, in my opinion.
Analysing Michel Vautrot's tournament as a whole, it is hard to come a definitive conclusion. Netherlands vs. Republic of Ireland was no trouble for him, good performance. But in the other two games, more-or-less the same thing happened: he was doing very well, but then some individual incidents put the Frenchman off, and the end result was something of a mess. I'd still be relatively positive however - if one could have had some doubt about his style, he certainly showed his class in this match, even if it was to go wrong later.
Many felt the 'wrong' team went through to the final from this match, and perhaps one can make a partly similar analysis about the two linesmen Peter Mikkelsen and Michał Listkiewicz had combined mostly good with somewhat doubtful appearances hitherto, but it was the Dane who stood out so positively here: if not for the 'controversy factor', perhaps the man waving the UEFA flag in the final might have been switched here. Infamously, this match's reserve ref would fulfil a final appointment too, though it was the Italians in Bari, not the big one, whom he would join.
Unfortunately, one has to be less positive about Michał Listkiewicz's performance. The Pole was good, even great, in the knockout stage so far. But on this evening he didn't perform well - too many mistakes (24:45, 29:35, 43:45, 45:10). This was certainly the worst World Cup for the level of linesmanship in the last forty years (2002 runs it somewhat close), and FIFA's options were very limited. But: one has to say that the Pole's appointment to the final was, ultimately, exaggerated.
Balance
Interestingly, FIFA actually rejected Michel Vautrot's performance in this match. While they were relatively forgiving about the extra minutes, they thought that Vautrot struggled generally, and took a very dim view of his management in 54' (pulling out the yellow card only to forgive Giusti). Rejections late in the tournament are more arbitrary and not especially important (compare to the fight over Agnolin's in the group stage, eg.), but I do see this performance the same way as FIFA. Vautrot was doing very well until the first Giusti incident blew him off course, but in the end, one can't really call his performance satisfying. 54', the added time in 1ET, and his wider troubles: these actually do become too much in the final analysis, in my opinion.
Analysing Michel Vautrot's tournament as a whole, it is hard to come a definitive conclusion. Netherlands vs. Republic of Ireland was no trouble for him, good performance. But in the other two games, more-or-less the same thing happened: he was doing very well, but then some individual incidents put the Frenchman off, and the end result was something of a mess. I'd still be relatively positive however - if one could have had some doubt about his style, he certainly showed his class in this match, even if it was to go wrong later.
Many felt the 'wrong' team went through to the final from this match, and perhaps one can make a partly similar analysis about the two linesmen Peter Mikkelsen and Michał Listkiewicz had combined mostly good with somewhat doubtful appearances hitherto, but it was the Dane who stood out so positively here: if not for the 'controversy factor', perhaps the man waving the UEFA flag in the final might have been switched here. Infamously, this match's reserve ref would fulfil a final appointment too, though it was the Italians in Bari, not the big one, whom he would join.
Listkiewicz was the man appointed for the grand final, and his five days rest between this appointment and that was much needed. It was a deeply emotional and challenging evening, a real World Cup classic. In every way - refereeing included (for better and worse) - a game from quite another time indeed.
| Michel Vautrot (FRA) Peter Mikkelsen (DEN) Michał Listkiewicz (POL) Mohamed Hansal (ALG) Officials | Argentina 1-1 Italy (aet, Argentina win 4-2 in a penalty competition) Semifinal Tuesday 3rd July at 8pm (Naples) |
 Giusti (31') - SPA (Challenge) Ruggeri (71') - Tackle Olarticoechea (77') - Challenge Caniggia (83') - Lack of Respect (Handling) Batista (+121') - Challenge | Giannini (23') - Lack of Respect (Handling) |
 Giusti (+111') - Violent Conduct |
