6 PARRSA Micheľ
HIGHLIGHTS
What a game for him! My view of the incidents as follows:
1' Penalty? Yes! Slovakian missed a penalty in the first thirty seconds in his WC début, clear touch (if hard to see) touch by the GK on the attacker
CRUCIAL MISTAKE
2' Not the best warning, but at least he said sth for the not LoR, not SPA pull
3' Correct YC after advantage - very flying tackle, SFP possible there, I prefer YC this time
9' Correct YC (tackle)
14' More reckless than not stamp, but no card is understandable
19' Missed late kick (referee signals "get up!") and YC
22' Actually missed penalty (holding (opponent's arm)) but probably not enough for a WC game
25' Considering the low chance of actually playing the ball and the intensity of the kick, YC should be given (weird situation where you can, theoretically understand: careless (trying to kick the ball); reckless (not much chance to play the ball) and even VC (just trying to boot his opponent))
26' If the foul was trying to play the ball, no card is fine, otherwise a caution should be given
35' Correct YC, rather SPA than LoR for me
37' Okay to play advantage, but YC is a MUST here; poor
38' Correct YC for a reckless kick; referee should make it clearer who he has cautioned, one could think that he had cautioned the wrong player
40' Only a 'detective' would find it, but South Africa no.12 does unnecessarily strike his opponent, in what seems to be a VC; at least a YC should be given, referee gets the benefit of the (considerable) doubt, but I think he is 'saved' by the lack of replays
41' Crystal clear YC not given
+2' Correct YC for a reckless kick, needed for the control, not as bad as some other un-carded fouls
fouls
HT
54' Correct freekick leading to the 2-0 goal
57' More reckless than not kick but I can understand no card
61' Poor advantage (more of a case for a delayed whistle); tackle seemed reckless
65' Fine YC for reckless tackle
66' Correct freekick, not really SPA or LoR
77' Good advantage from an (IMO) reckless foul, I can understand no card
83' Potential standing leg tackle on the edge of the PA
90' Correct penalty for a goalkeeper tripping; nice symmetry from the start of the game, though both should have been given
+4' Correct YC for a reckless elbow; rare for 2002?
+5' Offender should really be sent off for that (ridiculous) frustrated kick, YC really ought to be given, weirdly as it was in front of the benches, nobody really seemed to care
What a game for him! So many incidents to assess for Micheľ. Unfortunately, I don't think he handled it well - missed penalty in the opening seconds, and lots of missed cautions for rough play - it is not like he had the 'soft skills' in his arsenal, which would be able to stop that. To be fair this game was a very (very) challenging one, especially for twenty years ago in terms of incidents, and lots of referees would have been in trouble here. Micheľ was always in control.
Both ARs unchallenged.
About the situation in the first seconds - AR Igor Šramka (may he rest in peace) had a good view of the situation, however he did not have the most useful angle into the goalkeeper's touch on the attacker. Micheľ also never looks across (in shot), and I had the feeling he took the decision on his own. Ultimately, I don't think Šramka should be assigned a crucial mistake here.
What a game for him! My view of the incidents as follows:
1' Penalty? Yes! Slovakian missed a penalty in the first thirty seconds in his WC début, clear touch (if hard to see) touch by the GK on the attacker
CRUCIAL MISTAKE
2' Not the best warning, but at least he said sth for the not LoR, not SPA pull
3' Correct YC after advantage - very flying tackle, SFP possible there, I prefer YC this time
9' Correct YC (tackle)
14' More reckless than not stamp, but no card is understandable
19' Missed late kick (referee signals "get up!") and YC
22' Actually missed penalty (holding (opponent's arm)) but probably not enough for a WC game
25' Considering the low chance of actually playing the ball and the intensity of the kick, YC should be given (weird situation where you can, theoretically understand: careless (trying to kick the ball); reckless (not much chance to play the ball) and even VC (just trying to boot his opponent))
26' If the foul was trying to play the ball, no card is fine, otherwise a caution should be given
35' Correct YC, rather SPA than LoR for me
37' Okay to play advantage, but YC is a MUST here; poor
38' Correct YC for a reckless kick; referee should make it clearer who he has cautioned, one could think that he had cautioned the wrong player
40' Only a 'detective' would find it, but South Africa no.12 does unnecessarily strike his opponent, in what seems to be a VC; at least a YC should be given, referee gets the benefit of the (considerable) doubt, but I think he is 'saved' by the lack of replays
41' Crystal clear YC not given
+2' Correct YC for a reckless kick, needed for the control, not as bad as some other un-carded fouls
fouls
HT
54' Correct freekick leading to the 2-0 goal
57' More reckless than not kick but I can understand no card
61' Poor advantage (more of a case for a delayed whistle); tackle seemed reckless
65' Fine YC for reckless tackle
66' Correct freekick, not really SPA or LoR
77' Good advantage from an (IMO) reckless foul, I can understand no card
83' Potential standing leg tackle on the edge of the PA
90' Correct penalty for a goalkeeper tripping; nice symmetry from the start of the game, though both should have been given
+4' Correct YC for a reckless elbow; rare for 2002?
+5' Offender should really be sent off for that (ridiculous) frustrated kick, YC really ought to be given, weirdly as it was in front of the benches, nobody really seemed to care
What a game for him! So many incidents to assess for Micheľ. Unfortunately, I don't think he handled it well - missed penalty in the opening seconds, and lots of missed cautions for rough play - it is not like he had the 'soft skills' in his arsenal, which would be able to stop that. To be fair this game was a very (very) challenging one, especially for twenty years ago in terms of incidents, and lots of referees would have been in trouble here. Micheľ was always in control.
Both ARs unchallenged.
About the situation in the first seconds - AR Igor Šramka (may he rest in peace) had a good view of the situation, however he did not have the most useful angle into the goalkeeper's touch on the attacker. Micheľ also never looks across (in shot), and I had the feeling he took the decision on his own. Ultimately, I don't think Šramka should be assigned a crucial mistake here.
| Ľuboš Micheľ - 7,8(1) Igor Šramka - 8,4 Curtis Charles - 8,4 Hugh Dallas (SVK, SVK, ATG) | Paraguay 2-2 South Africa Group Stage |
 Cáceres (35.) - SPA (Holding) Caniza (65.) - Tackle Tavarelli (90.) - SPA (Tripping) Franco (90.+3') - Striking | A. Mokoena (3.) - Tackle Issa (9.) - Tackle McCarthy (38.) - Tackle Zuma (45.+2') - Tackle |
To me the penalty (90') looks like a dive - the contact is minimal at most and the attacker seems to jump quite deliberately.
ReplyDeleteThe GK come in with speed. The striker anticipates the contact by taking away the weight on the foot - otherwise that would have really hurt. Clear PK in my oppinion.
DeleteI would categorize it in three major points:
ReplyDeleteMatch control: no problem here, decisions accepted, even contentious ones
KMI: Unfortunately, I disagree in all three cases: Missed pk in 1', 22' is more of a pk (but understandable not to give), pk in 90' is wrong for me and should have been a SYC for simulation
Disciplinary: good, but he should have done more in the warning sector or generally to calm the game down - perhaps we simply did not see it in the footage. I would count three clear cards missed (or two + one for PI).
Incredibly hard match to referee, he survived it - but not without mistakes.
The incidents:
Micheľ, PAR – RSA
1’ More penalty than not, goalkeeper misses the ball and then clatters into the attacker – even if the contact in itself is slight, his challenge disrupts the attacker’s chance to score
2’ Warning important
3’ Only the contact point makes no RC acceptable
9’ Correct, tactical aspect?
14’ Borderline, prefer YC
19’ Very late, definitely must be whistled, gesture unacceptable
22’ Classic case where the player is badly served by staying on his feet, clear pk if he goes down
25’ No card acceptable
26’ No card acceptable
35’ Agreed, SPA
37’ MISSED MANDATORY YC, senseless sliding tackle
38’ Correct, reckless play
40’ There was something, but without evidence, I back the ref
41’ MISSED MANDATORY YC, reckless sliding tackle
45’+2 Correct YC for reckless play, especially management-wise
54’ Correct call, LoR?
57’ Second such kick by Sibaya after 25’, MISSED YC FOR PI
61’ Seemed reckless
65’ Good caution for reckless play, but he had not punished such from behind hacks from RSA earlier, bad balancing in this specific infringement sub-sub-category
66’ Agreed, though such scenes should be remembered when it comes to PI and if the number increases, one could consider assessing it as LoR at a later point
77’ I can support no card here, more of a context than content foul
83’ Looked like a foul, but maybe also the ball. Tough, I support him here
90’ If there is any contact, it is with the gk’s right knee; for me it is a dive judging from the RSA player’s behaviour – the fall looks artificial and his reaction signalizes he was only going for it
90’+4 Actually, not really reckless use of arms as he indicates, but not really wrong either
90’+5 My guess is he “kicked the air” here and therefore everyone thought it wasn’t worth giving it more attention