43 NGAITA Brizio Carter
The most incredible game of this World Cup - Italy were out and making plans to avoid projectile tomatoes at the airport when two minutes from the end, Roberto Baggio showed incredible nerve to slide the ball into the bottom corner and equalise. Italy and Nigeria played the last fifteen minutes of normal time as if the result was decided, when Italy remarkably saved themselves. Now up and off the canvas, Italy were deserved extra time winners and Nigeria were left wondering just how they had let this one slip at the end.
Without doubt, the most challenging game of the tournament to referee - it promised to be so too, with a combative Nigeria team very likely to test a spluttering Italy who weren't to go down without a fight, Paolo Casarin chose his top man for the job: Arturo Brizio Carter. Mexican referee handled the opener quite excellently, his second match went well too - he showed a red card in both.
This time, in extremis, it went so wrong for Brizio Carter - Zola was sent off when he shouldn't have been, Maldini certainly should have walked and didn't, and the Mexican was hardly perfect besides. While this game surely would have sunk any of the twenty-four World Cup 1994 referees, I was surprised with how the man chosen approached it; notwithstanding those two incidents, personally I found Brizio Carter's performance a bit disappointing.
The analysis of a game whose level of difficulty was remarkable for its time then, starting with the two infamous mistakes.
Crucial Match Incidents
Red for Zola? And not Maldini?
In my view it is actually worth analysing the two incidents together.
Gianfranco Zola is sent off at 75' for what actually is, at most, a careless tripping foul (crucial mistake) - though there are many more nuances to it, as I'll try to explain below.
Zola's protests, interesting celebrations from Nigeria players and Augustine Eguavoen struggling to look less injured as he was being stretchered off - Brizio Carter surely realised he had f*cked up. When Paolo Maldini committed a clear DOGSO six minutes later, with the game at that point bizarrely being played as if it was over, it wasn't the red card that came out. I guess the Mexican referee hoped rather believed that the adjacent defender could have intervened - no chance (crucial mistake).
On the premise his tournament was over, the Maldini call at 81' was presumably an attempt to save his career - these two mistakes alone were certainly enough for FIFA to book him on a flight to Mexico City.
So how did he determine that Zola should go?
The kind of amusing thing is that Brizio Carter's sending off in the Brazil - Cameroon game was a perfect premonition to what would happen here. His sending off was not wrong, but one couldn't really argue that "much worse tackles had gone without a red card". Maybe that could have served as some kind of warning to a referee who certainly had no deficiency in courage.
In both matches the game was on edge seconds before the challenge concerned - Zola had considered himself impeded inside the penalty area; Brizio Carter was very close and on hand to determine that he wasn't (this becomes relevant later).
Zola was visibly frustrated and came in hard on Eguavoen, with his leg raised in order to block the Nigeria player from getting the ball. From the unhelpful insight angle the referee happened to have, Eguavoen's inspired (if you can call it that) feigning of the exact injury he would have gotten if Zola tried to hurt him, and a Mexican referee (just like BRACMR) with his hand on the trigger - this time, he shot himself in the foot.
Courage and confirmation bias sunk Arturo Brizio Carter; his tournament would be over at the final whistle. On reflection - Baggio's goal perhaps did not just save the careers of the Italy players...
Approach
In Extremis?
The demands of this game far exceeded that of any other in the tournament (one has to love the World Cup for tournament-after-tournament providing such matches!). Besides any decision-taking element, the game was simply breathless for the first seventy-five minutes and required an impossible level of fitness from it's referee. Add to that, the combative approach of Nigeria and the cute and cynical play of Italy, I would (perhaps slightly sanctimoniously) say that it was actually impossible for the referee to succeed in this match - you just had to not lose.
I'm glad I took the time to write this report because at first I assessed Brizio Carter's approach to this match as arrogant - on reflection, I don't think this could be further from the truth. Already in the first two minutes you can see the limitations of the Mexican referee's (in my view widely excellent) style. Running around like a headless chicken, do you really think he has the energy to be a preventative manager on the pitch as well as physically and mentally keeping up with this game? Surely not.
You can see it in his caution at 6' especially - Brizio Carter doesn't want to waste his energy by defending his caution to Daniele Massaro, he just turns away and shakes his finger at him. Referee was picking his battles and cutting corners but I don't think you can blame him at all, actually it showed remarkable awareness and feeling for what was going to happen.
Cutting Corners?
The results of that bore out in the mid-part of the first half (though I would support play on at 34'):
17' - an awful tackle by Demetrio Albertini on Daniel Amokachi from which Brizio Carter plays advantage; there is no sanction after the ball is kicked out. In my opinion that is a clear Serious Foul Play tackle, but I can understand that twenty-six years assessing that as just clumsy and very reckless would be okay.
21' - a handling by Uche Okechukwu that would be an interesting case study in a SPA vs. DOGSO classroom (for me: SPA) is punished with a freekick only.
28' - a scandalous tackle by Demetrio Albertini on Emmanuel Amunike in center-field, a crystal clear red card which simply must be given in my view (crucial mistake). It is fair to say that I found Brizio Carter's awarding of an indirect freekick, in the hope that there was no contact, not very impressive.
Both Amokachi and Amunike had to be substituted injured after those tackles; however hard a game is or however mentally challenged a referee is, it is hard to accept no sanctions in these situations...
Changed 2H?
Having survived the first half with a rather generous card or nothing approach (no prevention / personality was really visible), the second period seemed to bare out Brizio Carter's approach as wise and he still had the overview heading into a more fractious part of the game with more for him to decide upon.
While Brizio Carter could do little to calm the players down and try to react against the undercurrent of the match, he still gave cards in a consistent and predictable manner. How he defended the (in my eyes correct) no DOGSO call at 59' was a bit worrying mind. Michael Emenalo's foul later that minute would be nowadays a clear (second) caution, but en praxis not overreacting to it as Brizio Carter did was the smartest choice.
While the simulation call at 60' and the calming freekick he gave at 62' were excellent, card procedure (even if it did remind me of my (read: the) maître) at 63' and how he solved the foul at 66' were embolic of the risks that Brizio Carter felt he had to take by declining the role of a real leader on the pitch. What do you think about the potential penalty at 74'?
Tactical Value?
In a funny kind of way, Zola's red card actually worked - it totally calmed everybody down and the rest of the half, Maldini's missed expulsion aside, was very quiet!
Indeed, there were no sanctions in the match after Maldini's errant caution for SPA. That can't have come as a surprise to Brizio Carter, who from the first whistle was understandably trying to survive - in a way it is not surprising that he construed Zola's tackle as what he so desperately needed on a game management level.
Holding it together?
First - I found the way Brizio Carter embraced Italy players between the end of the normal time and the start of extra time very interesting, and certainly not befitting of the policeman style with which the Mexican referee operated. One can look too closely for things that aren't there, but does that say anything about his approach?
The decisive penalty to Italy was correct - Eguavoen's had his comeuppance after his excellent fooling of the referee to get Zola removed, when his clumsy charging foul was correctly penalised by Brizio Carter. When it mattered most, the Mexican referee showed he was still there with the game.
The decisive penalty to Italy was correct - Eguavoen's had his comeuppance after his excellent fooling of the referee to get Zola removed, when his clumsy charging foul was correctly penalised by Brizio Carter. When it mattered most, the Mexican referee showed he was still there with the game.
No foul at 108', no card later at 108', and no card at 119' - Brizio Carter must have been totally exhausted by the end and the final whistle must genuinely have been kind of relief for him.
Balance
The headlines read that Arturo Brizio Carter, the man considered FIFA's no.1 by refereeing director Paolo Casarin, had been sent home for incorrectly sending off Zola (with better papers noting the Maldini mistake too) but that doesn't touch at all on what an incredible game the Mexican referee had to face.
In a final cold analysis, one has to admit that Brizio Carter failed in this game notwithstanding the two famous mistakes (and even a third, at 28') - though it is very understandable why and he wouldn't be alone in that either.
The most interesting question to ponder is - "what would have happened if Zola wasn't sent off?". My view is this: the game's character until that point meant that Brizio Carter would have been further tested - to a breaking point - where a big mistake was almost inevitable.
To conclude: this was a cursed game to referee, and whoever took it was ending their tournament in the process.
Not cursed for all the officials though, Venancio Zárate correctly saw the opening goal (as one would expect him too) and played some nice onsides besides. Ernesto Taibi made one very important mistake in a tight situation, as well another important mistake which shouldn't happen at a World Cup level. Zárate would go on.
If you look closely at Brizio Carter's hand gestures, he is booking Oliseh for PI (team) at 54', not dissent. I'd also say the tackle by Finidi George a few minutes earlier was quite reckless.
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems that Brizio Carter admonishes Oliseh for applauding the freekick decision.
DeleteHe makes four hacking motions with his hands as an explanation after he presents the card. Oliseh then comes back and shows the universal gesture for "but it was my first foul!" That's why I think it's a team PI card. Frankly, it seems obvious to me. But probably know way of ever knowing for sure.
DeleteMy account on the site hosting the video has been suspended... if you want these HL then email me on mikaelthereferee[at]gmail and I can try and sort sth out.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with the report. What a weird and highly challenging game, I still think Arturo Brizio Carter is a great referee even if he made several crucial mistakes (RC for Zola, no RC for Maldini, potential RC in 28', no penalty in 34'). His disciplinary choices were not faultless [especially in the first half and in added time], but he did not let everything go as well. The penalty for Italy was correct and I'd support his decisions in several other scenes.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add that the fifteen minutes after the break were very good in that regard. Many Nigerian fouls which he whistled and punished, but he did not fall for the dive and in fact brilliantly handed out a (non-mandatory back then) booking. A brilliant signal, followed by another booking for a late Italian foul.