13 JPNBEL Mattus
HIGHLIGHTS
Very tough and tiring game for the referee from Costa Rica! A quick, dynamic match where he had a really very high number of duels to assess (>50 fouls given), with a lot of heavier tackles too.
Overall I liked his performance. Mattus’ style was really interesting – it combined a ‘hard man’ optic, with a very flow-based foul selection and disciplinary control. So, he had no problem taking the lead in this game - quite impressive may I add in this busy game - but the two key questions with refereeing such as that:
Did the referee bend the Laws of the Game too much?
Maybe. Certainly at the start of the second half, he allowed more than one clear reckless foul to go punished not with a card (see below), and especially his disciplinary control – while credible – was somewhat unpredictable for the untrained (non-refereeing) eye. His general ‘line’ of fouls was probably quite rigorous, but a generous use of advantage offset that, and we had a flowing, exciting game.
Did the referee have the courage to take brave and unpopular decisions?
No, not always. Japan no.21, already cautioned, had to be sent off for committing a reckless foul, but Mattus kept card in pocket (51’). No room for doubt here – crucial mistake.
There are two further situations where Mattus decided sub-optimally in my view:
30’ – Japan no.21 should have been sent off in my view (SFP), but he was only cautioned. Perhaps the nature of the contact was not dangerous enough to directly eject him?
-> Referee (only just!) avoids a wrongly assessed KMI here.
90’ – I am 99% sure that Mattus has missed a penalty for the away team here, in a tricky situation. I am (almost) certain that the defender trips the attacker, who falls naturally. Watching the live sequence again, it is so easy to see how the referee misperceives it from his angle (natural fall by the attacker, well-timed jump towards the ball by the goalkeeper and no foul). AR Haidar Koleit can clearly see that giving a corner is wrong, but without a communication kit and just a buzzer flag, there is not much he can really do here.
-> As sure as I am, the goalkeeper obscures any contact between defender and attacker, so the referee should be supported in not giving a penalty – he does totally, if understandably, misread what happens though.
I think Mattus did not lack courage in those (30’, 90’) two scenes, he just perceived them wrong. But one can still support him. He took correct decisions not to issue a Red Card (DOGSO) nor allow a Japan winning goal both in the last ten minutes.
Koleit played solid onsides for the two Belgium goals, and correctly flagged a situation at 4’. Juryj Dupanaŭ was not really challenged.
Very tough and tiring game for the referee from Costa Rica! A quick, dynamic match where he had a really very high number of duels to assess (>50 fouls given), with a lot of heavier tackles too.
Overall I liked his performance. Mattus’ style was really interesting – it combined a ‘hard man’ optic, with a very flow-based foul selection and disciplinary control. So, he had no problem taking the lead in this game - quite impressive may I add in this busy game - but the two key questions with refereeing such as that:
Did the referee bend the Laws of the Game too much?
Maybe. Certainly at the start of the second half, he allowed more than one clear reckless foul to go punished not with a card (see below), and especially his disciplinary control – while credible – was somewhat unpredictable for the untrained (non-refereeing) eye. His general ‘line’ of fouls was probably quite rigorous, but a generous use of advantage offset that, and we had a flowing, exciting game.
Did the referee have the courage to take brave and unpopular decisions?
No, not always. Japan no.21, already cautioned, had to be sent off for committing a reckless foul, but Mattus kept card in pocket (51’). No room for doubt here – crucial mistake.
There are two further situations where Mattus decided sub-optimally in my view:
30’ – Japan no.21 should have been sent off in my view (SFP), but he was only cautioned. Perhaps the nature of the contact was not dangerous enough to directly eject him?
-> Referee (only just!) avoids a wrongly assessed KMI here.
90’ – I am 99% sure that Mattus has missed a penalty for the away team here, in a tricky situation. I am (almost) certain that the defender trips the attacker, who falls naturally. Watching the live sequence again, it is so easy to see how the referee misperceives it from his angle (natural fall by the attacker, well-timed jump towards the ball by the goalkeeper and no foul). AR Haidar Koleit can clearly see that giving a corner is wrong, but without a communication kit and just a buzzer flag, there is not much he can really do here.
-> As sure as I am, the goalkeeper obscures any contact between defender and attacker, so the referee should be supported in not giving a penalty – he does totally, if understandably, misread what happens though.
I think Mattus did not lack courage in those (30’, 90’) two scenes, he just perceived them wrong. But one can still support him. He took correct decisions not to issue a Red Card (DOGSO) nor allow a Japan winning goal both in the last ten minutes.
Koleit played solid onsides for the two Belgium goals, and correctly flagged a situation at 4’. Juryj Dupanaŭ was not really challenged.
| William Mattus - 7,9(3) Haidar Koleit - 8,4 Juryj Dupanaŭ - 8,4 Graham Poll (CRC, LBN, BLR) | Japan 2-2 Belgium Group Stage |
 Toda (31.) - Tackle Inamoto (54.) - Lack of Respect (Holding) | van der Heyden (21.) - Tackle Verheyen (62.) - Tackle van Meir (82.) - SPA (Charging) |
A bit strange to disallow the goal in 86' with an indirect free kick. If a foul is called, it should be direct (because there is contact).
ReplyDeleteFor me also a penalty in 90'. Maybe even the contact by the GK is enough to call it?
About 86' - I had the same thought as you, so I rewatched the situation a couple of times.
DeleteBy the time of the offence that the foul seems to be given for (the one replayed by the broadcaster), Mattus has already given a defensive freekick - for 'foot-up' (dangerous play) by Japan no.5 in controlling the ball. His gesture also hints at that. So that's why he restarts play with an indirect freekick.
Not sure about the decision itself from the live sequence, but ultimately it was correct that the goal did not stand in my view, given the direct freekick offence that occured seconds later.
Praiseworthy on a match control level (especially your first WC game), perhaps the highlights don't do him justice, since so many little things that add to a performance are of course not featured. But I found his performance based on what I say more unsatisfying than not.
ReplyDeleteWith such a high number of fouls, I wonder how he dealt with PI? Judging from the fact that Ono got away with 5(!) fouls after 50 minutes, two of them borderline SPA (28', 38') and one reckless (48'), I don't even want to know. But even without that, unpredictable line, many missed cautions.
I'll go through the scenes chronologically: 4' is a clear SPA shirt tug, should be punished if the advantage does not materialize due to offside. 24' more management needed here, some warnings (to the shoving Japenese player for example) should have been given. 31' is a clear SFP for me, YC is not enough. Dissent prevention did not exist (35', 45'+1), but he seemed to get along just fine despite.
I think 48' and 49' summarize his disciplinary quite well: Reckless sliding tackle in no man's land, fifth foul of the player, no card. Inexcusable decisions, either a lack of memorizing players and their infringements or just horrible disciplinary selection - which seemed random at time. 49' has several flying challenges and fouls, here an intervention was needed. Disciplinary was indeed random. Rather soft cautions in 54' and 62', and a blatant SYC for a reckless sliding tackle (51') missed. Missed foul and YC for SPA in 65', the holding on the shoulder was enough to make the tackle itself irrelevant
As for the two big scenes at the end: 86' looked rather soft compared to some flying stuff he did not whistle before, but apparently supportable. 90' is highly interesting, at first I thought the Belgian player went down before the challenge came, but it seems as if indeed the defender touches his leg and causes the trip. Very hard to assess, but a penalty for me.
Even if the KMIs are not all that clear, I would still count two missed sending offs, a lot of missing cautions against him, especially since some of them just weren't excusable anymore. I fully admit that my focus on such things darkens this performance greatly for me, but he should be recommended for getting it all done rather smoothly despite of it all.