The limits of the Irmatov style
Let's praise the good bits...
Irmatov remains one of the positive discoveries of this World Cup: A very fast, composed and very intelligent referee who lets the game flow and intervenes when it is necessary. He rules by the book, but doesn't forget his brain when he casts a decision. Good was his positional play, his readiness to give advantage and three of the cards which were spot on. He dealt calm and firm with the brawl in the first half, but was overwhelmed in the end a bit.
Problems with offside and the 2:1...
In this match, he and his assistants had problems with the off-/onside-calls. At least three decisions were wrong even though it was tight - the sheer number puzzled me as it seemed more a question of concentration than the physical condition and they had got it right in earlier matches. The 2:1 is a step offside, and you cannot argue that the player's moving foot is not influencing the goalkeeper although there is no direct contact. Having played in goal myself, it is ridiculous to me to suggest that a player in the line of the ball can remain passive if he blocks the view or if he moves around. It's just such a difference if a player's there or not - so a deceisive call that turned the match for the Dutch. Yes difficult to make, but more wrong than right to me. I deduced marks not for the one decision, but for the total numbers of calls which were wrong on the offside front.
Card policy
Yes, you shouldn't book van Bommel on the first foul because he has a bad record and reputation. But dear Ravshan, to wait for the fifth foul (with at least two tactical fouls involved) is asking for trouble in my mind. He kind of got away with it, but I was unconvinced that in a stormy match he wouldn't have lost the plot. The 3:2 brought life back into the match, but it was too late. In the closing stages Irmatov seemed weak and too uninterested to remain on top of things. So still a good performance, but not his best in the whole tournament.
Mind the gap...
One more thing: For the first time in this World Cup - there is a real gap between the marks of the reporters and the "normal" members. Tonight after 27 entries, the reporters were on a 6,0 and the more enthusiastic members were on a 8,0. So all on all, a 7,0 might be justified which isn't a bad mark. But to put the performance into perspective: Irmatov was so good for four matches, that a "normal" performance almost feels bad. Mind the gap, but I think on this match a 9 is a bit too overenthusiastic, but maybe I'm just envious that I'm not at the World Cup (;-).