It would be good if this could be added by forum members and we can evaluate at the end of the tournament. So far

Decision 1 - In favour of BRAZIL - Neymar not sent off (Ref Nishimura)
Decision 2 - In favour of BRAZIL - Fred given a penalty (Ref Nishimura)
Decision 3 - In favour of BRAZIL - Disallowed goal for foul on Cesar (Ref Nishimura)
Decision 4 - In favour of BRAZIL - Play-on after foul by Ramires before through-ball to Oscar for third goal (Ref Nishimura)

I prefer the unofficial thread.

I could be wrong, but I can't help feeling that you might be just a tiny bit biased.
Are you saying that not one, single, poor refereeing decision went in favour of Croatia ?

The penalty decision was dubious, as was the so called foul on Cesar. Other than that I thought the referee did well.

If that exact same incident had happened at the other end of the field, there is no way Croatia would have been awarded a penalty.

But since it didn't you have no way to KNOW that

Agree, 3 very bad decisions cost Croatia at least what might have a draw or win. A very biased Ref.

To be honest, I don't see the penalty decision as such a terrible one. Granted, it's a slip rather than the contact from the defender which causes the Brazilian to go to ground but I hate seeing players with arms on other players. You're trying to play the ball which is on the ground, there's no reason for you to have your arms on the other player's body, I'm happy for a foul to be given when players place their hands on another player.

Sets the tone for the tournament really.

The best cheats edge the game.

Other than getting the games biggest 2 decisions wrong, yeh he was alright.

Brazil will be given every assistance to ensure they progress beyond the group stage. FIFA have made sure of that. The locals are already rioting, the ITV studio windows were smashed with rocks last night, and if Brazil go out the WC at the group stage, half the country will go up in flames.

I think describing it as a slip is generous, more like a dive imo.

I've got this niggling feeling the ref was a bit of a homer.

whats with this " homer " buzz word that everyone is suddenly using?

I'd like to know too - Simpson? Sexual...?

First time in seven years on this forum I read it was yesterday, numerous times. Decisions like that happen every week in the various leagues around Europe, never read cries of fix before.

Srsly? It's not new - it means a referee who's intimidated by the atmosphere of a home crowd, and therefore (consciously or not) tends to go in favour of the home team.

Typical third world ref. Do they play football in Japan? Might as well have been a woman.

Read more at RichardKeys.com

Yeah, it's a bit like saying that my drive to work was faultless this morning apart from when I had that massive crash.

Is Decision 3 (clip of the incident) really an error? Referees always award a free kick nowadays when the goalkeeper is touched.

I don't think it was a foul. Just because the keeper was touched certainly doesn't make it a foul.

I do think goalkeepers get too much protection but I can certainly see why the referee awarded a free kick. It seems to be a generally accepted norm nowadays, so I can only think they're encouraged to protect goalkeepers or face being marked down by their assessors.

Plus of course it helped that it was at the right end.

Oh yeah, forgot he was bent. Silly me.

Maybe not bent, but there were several major decisions in the match all of which went Brazil's way. Coincidence isn't it?