36 BRANOR Baharmast
Norway sensationally got the win they needed against already-through tournament favourites Brazil to advance into the second round, having gone behind one-nil with ten minutes to go.
The match is most famous for the eighty-seventh minute penalty awarded by the American referee, Esfandiar Baharmast, which was proved correct on an angle which emerged from Swedish public broadcaster, SVT.
Crucially correct in that scene, Baharmast did a solid job in the rest of the match.
Crucially correct in that scene, Baharmast did a solid job in the rest of the match.
Big Decisions
There is only one place to start! With the score at one-each with time running out, Norway centred the ball towards striker Tore André Flo. We couldn't provide you with the (SVT) angle on the highlights, so here it is below.
Júnior Baiano excessively holds Flo to such extent that he physically manoeuvres the Norway striker back, even if he does fall partly of his own accord, a penalty is the right outcome in this scene. Baharmast was on the spot to make the correct call, even by Brazil goalkeeper Cláudio Taffarel's estimation.
---
Here is a video broadly explaining the circumstances from FIFA's magazine programme in 2012. For those who didn't live through the tournament, there is one element that really needs emphasising - the African complex.
Cameroon were incorrectly denied a 2-1 goal, a score which would have taken them through, and Morocco denied by this call both on the same day. The world's press quickly latched onto this aspect, with some papers even going so far as to suggest a racialist element to the decisions.
As Baharmast states in the video, assessor Michel Vautrot supported his decision from the stands. However, FIFA were under so much pressure after those two decisions aforementioned, that they had called a press conference for the next afternoon.
Surely their intention was to apologise for those two mistakes to the world('s media), but in the nick of time, the SVT angle emerged. Instead, the press conference was used to display that Baharmast's decision was correct. A remarkable turn in events!
Even while Baharmast's decision was proved fully justified, the feeling amongst people at the time, and particularly the competing teams from Africa, that they had been unfairly disadvantaged, did not go away.
Cameroon were incorrectly denied a 2-1 goal, a score which would have taken them through, and Morocco denied by this call both on the same day. The world's press quickly latched onto this aspect, with some papers even going so far as to suggest a racialist element to the decisions.
As Baharmast states in the video, assessor Michel Vautrot supported his decision from the stands. However, FIFA were under so much pressure after those two decisions aforementioned, that they had called a press conference for the next afternoon.
Surely their intention was to apologise for those two mistakes to the world('s media), but in the nick of time, the SVT angle emerged. Instead, the press conference was used to display that Baharmast's decision was correct. A remarkable turn in events!
Even while Baharmast's decision was proved fully justified, the feeling amongst people at the time, and particularly the competing teams from Africa, that they had been unfairly disadvantaged, did not go away.
Actually, that would prove to be very crucial at a later stage in the competition.
---
The other big call that the referee had to take on the day was deciding upon a potential red card Erik Mykland tackle. To be honest, I would really like Mykland to have been sent off - flying in already, Mykland deliberately kicks his opponent with some force to take him out of the game.
Bebeto ridiculously mobs the referee, and should be shown the yellow card. That was ultimately Mykland's punishment, a defendable choice in the end. However, I found the card procedure really unconvincing (at best).
Bebeto ridiculously mobs the referee, and should be shown the yellow card. That was ultimately Mykland's punishment, a defendable choice in the end. However, I found the card procedure really unconvincing (at best).
Managing the Game
The penalty call was the dramatic denouement to what was, all things considered, a solid performance by Esfandiar Baharmast.
The decision I disagreed with most was Stig Inge Bjørnebye's escape of a yellow card at 17' - his persistent holding of Leonardo, stopping him at absolutely any cost, was a clear case of showing a lack of respect for the game in my view.
The decision I disagreed with most was Stig Inge Bjørnebye's escape of a yellow card at 17' - his persistent holding of Leonardo, stopping him at absolutely any cost, was a clear case of showing a lack of respect for the game in my view.
In general, the American ref never really acted against deliberate (Norway) fouls in the first half - 10', 17', 18', 19', 39', 40', 44' - and between himself and Malian assistant Dramane Danté, should have awarded a freekick at 9' and an ensuing yellow card against Roberto Carlos.
Baharmast opened the cards at a tactically valuable moment, Øyvind Leonhardsen at 54', even if in 1998 it might have been seen as a bit soft. After three hotter moments (inc. 59') in that period, the game calmed down afterwards.
You can decide for yourself if Baharmast really called an advantage before Brazil's goal, but if so, very well-played indeed! Even after the penalty call, the referee ensured that the game came to a successful conclusion.
The referee showed a sub-optimal technical accuracy in a couple of scenes (57', 90'), and that he lacked more sophisticated soft skills in some others (86', penalty). His very considered positioning, always paying attention to being a fair distance from the ball and getting very wide, was fascinating!
In general, this was far from a bad performance, but if Baharmast had taken the initiative even a bit more, it would have been a much better one.
You can decide for yourself if Baharmast really called an advantage before Brazil's goal, but if so, very well-played indeed! Even after the penalty call, the referee ensured that the game came to a successful conclusion.
The referee showed a sub-optimal technical accuracy in a couple of scenes (57', 90'), and that he lacked more sophisticated soft skills in some others (86', penalty). His very considered positioning, always paying attention to being a fair distance from the ball and getting very wide, was fascinating!
In general, this was far from a bad performance, but if Baharmast had taken the initiative even a bit more, it would have been a much better one.
Assistant Referees
In general, not a too bad evening from ARs, but Gennaro Mazzei flagged (and his referee whistled) an offside from a defender's deliberate pass (67'), and Dramane Danté was again (ITACHI) premature with a wrong flag at 70' - disappointing.
Balance
Esfandiar Baharmast was proved right by television evidence in the famous call of this game, which decided the match and the whole of the Group A standings. Otherwise, the rest of the performance wasn't bad, but I'd say it was fair that the American referee finished his tournament middles with this tie.
| Esfandiar Baharmast - 6 Gennaro Mazzei - 6 Dramane Danté - 6 Arturo Brizio Carter USA, ITA, MLI | Brazil 1-2 Norway Group Stage 23 June |
 Leonhardsen (54') - Tackle Mykland (59') - Tackle |
If I recall correctly, it was Baharmast's wife who found pictures and the Swedish video of that shirt pulling.
ReplyDeleteIf Baharmast was able to see and judge correctly what 16 cameras missed, wouldn't he deserved another match?
I'm quite steadfast in this view - no. I don't think giving a clear penalty which happened to occur at WC whose replay system was limited is a sufficient thesis for a knockout game.
DeleteBaharmast was a good referee but he definitely didn't sport the competencies to go further in this competition, in terms of soft skills and tactical approach.
He was up against real refereeing excellence from his own confederation, and made a clear refereeing mistake IMO in both of his performances (missed penalty; missed RC).
I'd say the American referee was treated very fairly, to be honest.