21 SWENGA Ortubé
HIGHLIGHTS
Not a difficult game for René Ortubé, with both teams just focused on playing football. He had no problem taking charge of the game, his authority was quite natural, some of his play-on calls were perhaps a bit capricious. Overall - an 8,4 level performance.
The evaluation of his performance though depends on how well he decided in four in-box situations:
19' - Penalty to Sweden (tripping)?
Decision: PLAY ON
In my view the trickiest decision of all that Ortubé had to face in the game. On the most basic level, the defender makes a sliding tackle and ends up with the ball, which suggests no penalty. On a more sophisticated level, the defender goes through the attacker to win the ball, which almost certainly he does not play first - penalty. In my view however, the play on call is excellent - if the attacker carries on running in his natural path towards the ball, the defender's tackle is a perfectly clean one on the ball; however, noticing the defender's tackle, the attacker changes his running path, no longer being interested in playing the ball, but in ensuring he is tripped. For that reason I believe play on is the optimal call.
One can't be sure why Ortubé decided to play on - if he thought the tackle was just a clean one on the ball, then he should be assigned a crucial mistake. If he read the attacker's intentions, then he should be strongly praised for an excellent decision.
Well-positioned, he deserves the benefit of any doubt without the luxury of a debrief; (at least) supportable call.
24' - Penalty to Nigeria (charging)?
Decision: PLAY ON
No replay, but it seems as though a penalty would be the preferable decision, as the attacker wins the position before the defender purposefully barges him so that he cannot reach the ball. Perhaps one could argue that the charge was too trifling or it was a normal jostle for position.
Enough ambiguity to support the referee here.
31' - Penalty to Sweden (tripping)?
Decision: Simulation (YC)
Another tricky situation. My strong preference here is for a penalty, as the defender (barely) plays the ball in an uncontrolled manner, with the attacker still easily within reach of gaining possession when he tripped. As the defender does partly play the ball, no penalty is a supportable decision.
Caution for simulation is clearly wrong (- 0,1); not awarding a penalty is not a crucial mistake.
62' - Penalty to Sweden (holding)?
Decision: Penalty given, no sanction
Clearly correct penalty for holding that was given by the referee. However, Nigeria no.14 clearly denied a clear obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and should have been ejected.
While the penalty was correct, Nigeria no.14 had to be sent off for this clear DOGSO foul.
Crucial mistake.
ARs weren't really tested save for a tight situation at 13' for Mat Lazim Awang Hamat, where he should be supported as the decision was very, very tight (my feeling is just offside). Therefore, not much for the AR from Malaysia nor Miguel Giacomuzzi to do.
Not a difficult game for René Ortubé, with both teams just focused on playing football. He had no problem taking charge of the game, his authority was quite natural, some of his play-on calls were perhaps a bit capricious. Overall - an 8,4 level performance.
The evaluation of his performance though depends on how well he decided in four in-box situations:
19' - Penalty to Sweden (tripping)?
Decision: PLAY ON
In my view the trickiest decision of all that Ortubé had to face in the game. On the most basic level, the defender makes a sliding tackle and ends up with the ball, which suggests no penalty. On a more sophisticated level, the defender goes through the attacker to win the ball, which almost certainly he does not play first - penalty. In my view however, the play on call is excellent - if the attacker carries on running in his natural path towards the ball, the defender's tackle is a perfectly clean one on the ball; however, noticing the defender's tackle, the attacker changes his running path, no longer being interested in playing the ball, but in ensuring he is tripped. For that reason I believe play on is the optimal call.
One can't be sure why Ortubé decided to play on - if he thought the tackle was just a clean one on the ball, then he should be assigned a crucial mistake. If he read the attacker's intentions, then he should be strongly praised for an excellent decision.
Well-positioned, he deserves the benefit of any doubt without the luxury of a debrief; (at least) supportable call.
24' - Penalty to Nigeria (charging)?
Decision: PLAY ON
No replay, but it seems as though a penalty would be the preferable decision, as the attacker wins the position before the defender purposefully barges him so that he cannot reach the ball. Perhaps one could argue that the charge was too trifling or it was a normal jostle for position.
Enough ambiguity to support the referee here.
31' - Penalty to Sweden (tripping)?
Decision: Simulation (YC)
Another tricky situation. My strong preference here is for a penalty, as the defender (barely) plays the ball in an uncontrolled manner, with the attacker still easily within reach of gaining possession when he tripped. As the defender does partly play the ball, no penalty is a supportable decision.
Caution for simulation is clearly wrong (- 0,1); not awarding a penalty is not a crucial mistake.
62' - Penalty to Sweden (holding)?
Decision: Penalty given, no sanction
Clearly correct penalty for holding that was given by the referee. However, Nigeria no.14 clearly denied a clear obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and should have been ejected.
While the penalty was correct, Nigeria no.14 had to be sent off for this clear DOGSO foul.
Crucial mistake.
ARs weren't really tested save for a tight situation at 13' for Mat Lazim Awang Hamat, where he should be supported as the decision was very, very tight (my feeling is just offside). Therefore, not much for the AR from Malaysia nor Miguel Giacomuzzi to do.
| René Ortubé - 7,9(3) Miguel Giacomuzzi - 8,4 Mat Lazim Awang Hamat - 8,4 Tōru Kamikawa (BOL, PAR, MAS) | Sweden 2-1 Nigeria Group Stage |
 Mjällby (31.) - Simulation Alexandersson (70.) - Delaying the Restart | West (80.) - Tackle |
One of the least challenging matches based on the highlights, some pk scenes, but foul-wise rather tame. Disciplinary was so-so with a wrong YC for simulation and a overly harsh YC for DtR, especially since a clear case of that was not punished earlier (30'). Otherwise I only had two further possible bookings 5' (considered ok back then as the ball was involved) and 26' (hard to spot though).
ReplyDeleteOn the penalties: In 20', I'd prefer a penalty call since first he hits the Swedish player and than ball and man. Larsson's movement is for me trying to shield the ball, but it is the tackling player's fault if sth happens. Still, play on can be supported. Without replay, I'd say the same for 24' as well.
In 31' however, my view is that the defender clearly plays the ball and the Swedish player stumbles. No penalty, but not a dive either, so a wrong caution. Also, presentation of the card was on the borders of the Realm of Rendón. The fall by Larsson in 48' looked unnatural to me, so based on the footage whe have, I support the call. The penalty given was correct: small, but clear tug. Missed RC for DOGSO, but somehow that seemed accepted back then.