25 ITACRO Poll
HIGHLIGHTS
One of the most controversial games of the group stage, with the antagonist of the officials team not referee Graham Poll - who did have to face a quite tricky match by the way - but his AR, Jens Larsen. The assistant referee from Denmark disallowed two goals for Italy; both decisions were universally judged as incorrect at the time. Poll and his other AR Philip Sharp didn't have to judge any important controversial situations themselves; Sharp unchallenged, Poll did overall fine.
This time it is better to start with those two disallowed goals, in the control of AR Larsen:
49' Goal for Italy disallowed (offside)
Certainly the worst mistake of the competition so far made by an assistant referee, with goal-scorer Vieri very clearly onside when he was passed the ball. It looks very simple for the untrained eye but this is a very particular situation.
Larsen can't have assessed the position of Vieri, this for two reasons:
1) Indeed, it was very unlikely that Vieri was to be passed the ball from that position, on an expectation-perception-recognition level, Larsen's subconscious would not have been looking for attackers there.
2) Vieri was onside whilst still being ahead of the second-last defender. Why? - he was behind his passing teammate. So Larsen probably did not even clock his presence when the pass was made.
Then, AR from Denmark was in guessing territory. What probably threw him was the speed, or lack of, with which the pass was made. Usually with a ball being played the goal area, the pace the ball is flying at is quite high, weirdly this time it wasn't. The whole thing smelt offside, and even the English commentator remarked "that must be offside"; AR must have thought the same.
The odds in his favour, Larsen's guess was this time wrong, and crucially so. Even the scoreline conspired against him...
Though whether it is acceptable for a World Cup official to disallow a goal with a(n educated) guess might be another question.
+92' Goal for Italy disallowed (foul - holding)
Assistant referees until this point had not shown enough courage to intervene in Key Match Incidents; Larsen here probably showed a bit too much courage, in the bigger picture (not that he was to know he was, but at 49' he had incorrectly already disallowed two goals for Italy).
Irritatingly, the match director never shows us a good angle, the live sequence isn't particularly helpful, so our impressions rely on the wide shot that is best used to assess offside. Hence, rather than actually evaluate the situations, I will just post some reflections / considerations:
- The long ball into the penalty area understandably catches Poll out, and he is probably well-away from the penalty area. This increases the responsibility of the assistant to referee what happens.
- Has the attacker initially won the position by good play or unfairly?
- Is the fall of the defender natural?
- Does the attacker's look out to the AR after the ball goes in suggest anything?
- Does the defender not appealing for a freekick after the balls goes in suggest anything?
- If the holding is genuinely mutual, is it fair to disallow the goal?
- From Larsen's angle, does any holding by attacker-on-defender rather than vice versa seem clearer?
- Is it actually possible for Poll to wave down his AR's flag in that situation and allow the goal? Does his position matter?
- Could Poll publicly go out to Larsen? Useful on a decision selling or decision making level? And does that put the AR under too much pressure.
I would finish by saying the practitioner of self-preservation would probably not flag a freekick and disallow a second (equalising) goal for the same team (when the dissent of the attacker in the first situation seems more genuine than the average anger at a goal being disallowed).
-
ARs besides that had very little to do!
Poll himself had to face a tricky game, especially in the first half, with a lot of duels to evaluate and despite a high number of fouls, not any real number of bad ones to issue cautions in order to calm the match down. Clearly reckless tackle at 39' came at the right time for the referee from England, perhaps a caution for persistent infringement by Italy no.6 some minutes earlier would have been valuable. His recognition of striking offences wasn't very good, and some of his other play on decisions made the players more anxious. Second half was a bit easier with Poll kept on his toes but his control was never seriously endangered, he stepped in well a couple of times to stop player-player conflicts from escalating. Referee from England always had a hand on the game.
I liked his manner, with a mixture of friendly and firm tones, which aroused trust from the players.
One of the most controversial games of the group stage, with the antagonist of the officials team not referee Graham Poll - who did have to face a quite tricky match by the way - but his AR, Jens Larsen. The assistant referee from Denmark disallowed two goals for Italy; both decisions were universally judged as incorrect at the time. Poll and his other AR Philip Sharp didn't have to judge any important controversial situations themselves; Sharp unchallenged, Poll did overall fine.
This time it is better to start with those two disallowed goals, in the control of AR Larsen:
49' Goal for Italy disallowed (offside)
Certainly the worst mistake of the competition so far made by an assistant referee, with goal-scorer Vieri very clearly onside when he was passed the ball. It looks very simple for the untrained eye but this is a very particular situation.
Larsen can't have assessed the position of Vieri, this for two reasons:
1) Indeed, it was very unlikely that Vieri was to be passed the ball from that position, on an expectation-perception-recognition level, Larsen's subconscious would not have been looking for attackers there.
2) Vieri was onside whilst still being ahead of the second-last defender. Why? - he was behind his passing teammate. So Larsen probably did not even clock his presence when the pass was made.
Then, AR from Denmark was in guessing territory. What probably threw him was the speed, or lack of, with which the pass was made. Usually with a ball being played the goal area, the pace the ball is flying at is quite high, weirdly this time it wasn't. The whole thing smelt offside, and even the English commentator remarked "that must be offside"; AR must have thought the same.
The odds in his favour, Larsen's guess was this time wrong, and crucially so. Even the scoreline conspired against him...
Though whether it is acceptable for a World Cup official to disallow a goal with a(n educated) guess might be another question.
+92' Goal for Italy disallowed (foul - holding)
Assistant referees until this point had not shown enough courage to intervene in Key Match Incidents; Larsen here probably showed a bit too much courage, in the bigger picture (not that he was to know he was, but at 49' he had incorrectly already disallowed two goals for Italy).
Irritatingly, the match director never shows us a good angle, the live sequence isn't particularly helpful, so our impressions rely on the wide shot that is best used to assess offside. Hence, rather than actually evaluate the situations, I will just post some reflections / considerations:
- The long ball into the penalty area understandably catches Poll out, and he is probably well-away from the penalty area. This increases the responsibility of the assistant to referee what happens.
- Has the attacker initially won the position by good play or unfairly?
- Is the fall of the defender natural?
- Does the attacker's look out to the AR after the ball goes in suggest anything?
- Does the defender not appealing for a freekick after the balls goes in suggest anything?
- If the holding is genuinely mutual, is it fair to disallow the goal?
- From Larsen's angle, does any holding by attacker-on-defender rather than vice versa seem clearer?
- Is it actually possible for Poll to wave down his AR's flag in that situation and allow the goal? Does his position matter?
- Could Poll publicly go out to Larsen? Useful on a decision selling or decision making level? And does that put the AR under too much pressure.
I would finish by saying the practitioner of self-preservation would probably not flag a freekick and disallow a second (equalising) goal for the same team (when the dissent of the attacker in the first situation seems more genuine than the average anger at a goal being disallowed).
-
ARs besides that had very little to do!
Poll himself had to face a tricky game, especially in the first half, with a lot of duels to evaluate and despite a high number of fouls, not any real number of bad ones to issue cautions in order to calm the match down. Clearly reckless tackle at 39' came at the right time for the referee from England, perhaps a caution for persistent infringement by Italy no.6 some minutes earlier would have been valuable. His recognition of striking offences wasn't very good, and some of his other play on decisions made the players more anxious. Second half was a bit easier with Poll kept on his toes but his control was never seriously endangered, he stepped in well a couple of times to stop player-player conflicts from escalating. Referee from England always had a hand on the game.
I liked his manner, with a mixture of friendly and firm tones, which aroused trust from the players.
| Graham Poll - 8,3 Philip Sharp - 8,4 Jens Larsen - 7,9(4) William Mattus (ENG, ENG, DEN) | Italy 1-2 Croatia Group Stage |
 Vieri (51.) - Dissent | R. Kovač (39.) - Tackle |
Interesting performance. As for the major scenes: Offside decision in 50' is clearly wrong, really bad mistake. As there is no good footage available, I support the decision to cancel the goal in +92'. From the footage we have, it seems there was indeed a tug of the shirt. No penalty in 62' was very good, I had doubts about seeing it first, but the replay cleared it all up.
ReplyDeleteI found the disciplinary measures not really satisfying. Scene in 7' was a textbook reckless tackle for me and should have been the opening card. Elbow strike in 16' was another clear YC, for me even a RC for VC. Prevention in 35' for PI was good, maybe the same for LoR offences (9' [x2], 71') could have been done. I'd also would add missed cautions in 41' (and a good free kick as well!), 43' & 84' (Reckless use of arms) and 50' (Reckless tackle).
A performance that reminded me much of Collina and Bujsaim, but considering the major scenes, one that got mostly overlooked. Still harsh that he did not get another game.