40 ESPBUL Van der Ende
Spain ran away with their final match against Bulgaria in the end, scoring a tournament-record six goals, but a victory of any margin wouldn't have been enough given the other result in the group. The 1994 semifinalists and competition dark horses were both going home early.
After an excellent first game (ARGJPN), Mario van der Ende was given this delicate-looking second. Despite an opening forty-five minutes of equal excellence in this tie, the Dutch referee lost it a bit after halftime.
Big Decisions
In the first half, Van der Ende faced three very interesting penalty appeals, the first of which resulted in a spot-kick being given:5' - the defender steps across the attacker, impeding his progress with his leg, so even if the fall was a bit unnatural, I would assess this decision as correct.
18' - the defender plays the ball, right? If so, he kicks it just far enough away from the attacker (out of his path) in order to make play on the optimal choice - good call.
+47' - German magazine Kicker assessed this as a clear penalty; I have to disagree! A clear simulation (look at his fall, direction of travel) Lyuboslav Penev, to be honest not even a very good one, for which he should be booked. Van der Ende missed the caution, later given for dissent, but had the right idea - no penalty.
---
In the second half however, Van der Ende made two clear refereeing mistakes:
- a very poor advantage procedure from which it was the offending team, Spain, who took advantage to score a third goal (53')
- clear missed foul on the defender before Bulgaria's goal (56')
Ultimately it didn't really matter (though, nothing mattered in this game in the end), but these remain evident errors. I would support the Dutchman in assessing the two cautions given as he did, and not SFP.
- a very poor advantage procedure from which it was the offending team, Spain, who took advantage to score a third goal (53')
- clear missed foul on the defender before Bulgaria's goal (56')
Ultimately it didn't really matter (though, nothing mattered in this game in the end), but these remain evident errors. I would support the Dutchman in assessing the two cautions given as he did, and not SFP.
Managing the Game
Mario van der Ende's excellent style was executed par excellence in the first half, but he fell away somewhat in the second.
Van der Ende's unobtrusive manner, strong-man presence, and most of all rigorous - but totally predictable - foul detection lent itself to a pretty-much perfect performance in the first half.
His use of cards was excellent, after two potential reckless sliding tackles (12', 15'), he instantly moved to take such fouls out of the game with a yellow card at 17', and it worked. Theoretically, 42' is a reckless striking offence, but the only time he erred really in the first half was not cautioning Penev for his dive (+47').
However, after that Van der Ende lost it a bit:
Van der Ende's unobtrusive manner, strong-man presence, and most of all rigorous - but totally predictable - foul detection lent itself to a pretty-much perfect performance in the first half.
His use of cards was excellent, after two potential reckless sliding tackles (12', 15'), he instantly moved to take such fouls out of the game with a yellow card at 17', and it worked. Theoretically, 42' is a reckless striking offence, but the only time he erred really in the first half was not cautioning Penev for his dive (+47').
However, after that Van der Ende lost it a bit:
- after his foul at 32', booking Guillermo Amor at 49' would have been an astute choice, but no caution (is okay)
- ignored clear dissent at 50', before the two aforementioned big(ger) mistakes at 53', 56'
- his previously excellent foul detection went a bit awry (eg. 58', 71'), and he seemed to lose the previous absolute confidence in his perception
- in disciplinary control, he allowed a bit too much (49', 60', 62', 77', +92') and only booked for borderline-SFPs, though it is worth stating that the game was really done before the end
- ignored clear dissent at 50', before the two aforementioned big(ger) mistakes at 53', 56'
- his previously excellent foul detection went a bit awry (eg. 58', 71'), and he seemed to lose the previous absolute confidence in his perception
- in disciplinary control, he allowed a bit too much (49', 60', 62', 77', +92') and only booked for borderline-SFPs, though it is worth stating that the game was really done before the end
So, still a fair distance from a bad performance (-> passed the test), but ultimately not the excellence that the Dutchman displayed in the first period.
Assistant Referees
Very challenging second half for Argentina's assistant Claudio Rossi - the only clear mistake he made (64') was because he missed the defender closest to him, not because he couldn't properly assess cross-overs. He showed on a number of occasions that he could (55', 56', 82', 88', +94'). I would support him at 71'.
Nicolae Grigorescu was correct to indicate an offside in the first half (41').
Nicolae Grigorescu was correct to indicate an offside in the first half (41').
Balance
Not the best show from Mario van der Ende, though it definitely was in the first half, but nothing that would or should impede a third appointment in what was a pretty weird evening in the end.
For the second World Cup running, Van der Ende's tournament was curtailed by his nation's progress to the quarterfinal, and his removal by FIFA was mandatory before the last eight matches. Regardless, an impressive hit rate - of five World Cup matches, all went well I'd say.
For the second World Cup running, Van der Ende's tournament was curtailed by his nation's progress to the quarterfinal, and his removal by FIFA was mandatory before the last eight matches. Regardless, an impressive hit rate - of five World Cup matches, all went well I'd say.
| Mario van der Ende - 6 Nicolae Grigorescu - 7 Claudio Rossi - 7 Nikolaj Levnikov NED, ROU, ARG | Spain 6-1 Bulgaria Group Stage 24 June |
 Aguilera (17') - Tackle Guerrero (74') - Tackle | Penev (+47') - Dissent Bačev (85') - Tackle |
The early penalty kick seems soft, but not incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, Van der Ende could have reached higher if Netherlands would have not advanced. He was a top ref at the time.