Wednesday, 21 February 2018

Champions League 2017/18 - Referee Appointments - Round of 16 (First Leg, III)

These officials will be in control of CL Round of 16 games on Tuesday 20/02/18. Turkish Cüneyt Çakır will be in charge of Chelsea - Barcelona. He already officiated this game six years ago, in occasion of 2011/12 UEFA Champions League semifinal. 
20.02.2018, 20:45 CET
Fußball Arena München, Munich (GER)
FC Bayern München - Beşiktaş JK
Referee: Ovidiu Alin Hațegan (ROU)
Assistant Referee 1: Octavian Șovre (ROU)
Assistant Referee 2: Sebastian Gheorghe (ROU)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: István Kovács (ROU)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Sebastian Colţescu (ROU)
Fourth Official: Radu Ghinguleac (ROU)
UEFA Referee Observer: Matteo Simone Trefoloni (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: João Morais (POR)

20.02.2018, 20:45 CET
Stamford Bridge, London (ENG)
Chelsea FC - FC Barcelona
Referee: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tarik Ongun (TUR)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Hüseyin Göçek (TUR)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Barış Şimşek (TUR)
Fourth Official: Mustafa Emre Eyisoy (TUR)
UEFA Referee Observer: Sándor Piller (HUN)
UEFA Delegate: Kris Bellon (BEL)

74 comments:

  1. Definitely nothing new under the sun, with Çakır appointment.
    Chelsea - Barcelona is again for him, after 2011/12 excellent performance in CL semifinal, before the EURO tournament.
    Standard appointment also for Hațegan, I would say.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who have seen the RC for Lozano (PSV)? In the game PSV- Heereveen (referee: Dennis Higler) I will look for a video.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good decision. It looks softer on slow motion obviously. But at real speed you can see it's excessive force. He strikes his opponent. Completely unnecessary act.

      Delete
    2. Lozano was unlucky to not have had Willie Collum (Scotland) as the referee for this match. Because he would have be able to stay on the pitch with only a caution just like Shaktar's Taison did.

      Delete
  3. Can you help, please!
    In what game law was the referee based on this move? (Ref. Paixão, ex-Fifa)

    https://ligaportugal.vsports.pt/vod/42112/m/361963/liga/9ee7227d72d15eb5b33ed667f0b5b3d2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very wrong. Yellow card for SPA is the only correct thing there.

      Delete
    2. You consider penalty?
      I get the idea that the grab ends out of the box.

      Delete
    3. 50/50 he still has contact near the line and the angle is too bad to tell.

      Delete
    4. As observer, any decision that the referee would have taken, I would support him. Quite difficult to confirm if it was inside-outside. Talking about the colour of the card, I consider is closer to SPA rather than DOGSO, so YC should be correct (holding). Nevertheless, quite difficult situation to evaluate for the referee. With a AAR would be easier in that challange (he would have the complementary angle of vision).

      Delete
    5. There is VAR in Portugal!

      Delete
    6. VAR should intervines when there is a CLEAR / OBVIUS mistake made by the referee. There are not conclusive image to say that the referee commited a wrong call

      Delete
  4. How do you see this decision? (Ref: Xistra, Fifa)
    Is there a lack?
    YC or RC?

    https://www.vsports.pt/vod/42091/m/361970/dn/9d13baa790a5624448a23af65d746d6c

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Red to me. It's an obvious goal scoring oppurtunity because he can easily shoot the ball and score if he didn't get tackled.

      Delete
    2. it seems clear that if the referee considers that there was foul, in that case would be DOGSO, so it must be RC. IMO there isn´t foul, neither simulation, so play on should be the best decision,

      Delete
  5. OT:
    Biggest Croatian match was played between Dinamo and Hajduk and again there were many controversies about decisions taken by the refereee.
    Man in charge was Tihomir Pejin and even some german sites wrote that his officiating was scandalous.
    There are 3 important situations:

    1-Goalkeeper made contact with ball outside the penalty area:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQZN9EZds6k

    2-Hajduk's goal was ruled out -offside

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PutR-mRtIRk

    3-Biggest talking point,penalty awarded to Dinamo and 2nd yc to Hajduk's Borja Lopez.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H4rVs86JiI

    What do you guys think about Pejin's decisions?

    Because this is not the first time that the media are saying that his officiating was scandalous so I was surprised when he was appointed for 2nd time in a row(!!!)to officiate this big match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His 1st match between these two:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhib0LgGLzw

      Delete
    2. 1:On replay it is clear it was outside the box and should be a red card and free kick.

      2:Very difficult to see when the replay shows no lines. Either it's perfect or slightli a few centimeters offside. I can't say the AR is wrong. He might actually be correct.

      3:Difficult. He raises the arm before contact. The ball hits the blur player and then his arm. Smarter to either give the defender a free kick or just play on in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. 1-. hanball outside the area, DOGSO situation... RC
      2-. it seems offside. Difficult to confirm
      3-. not punishable hanball. Arm trying to keep the balance of the body after a push in the top of the back of the opponent. As Victor said, it would be smarter to give denfensive foul.

      Delete
  6. Wasn’t it Çakir that handeld Barcelona - Chelsea a couple of years ago and gave Terry a red card for almost nothing. Just curious, i think that Çakir is an excellent choice fir the game tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear VC, and a really convincing performance by the Turkish, 8,6/7 area IMO.

      Delete
  7. Let's hope that over these two games, we don't get "Tom Henning Ovrebo" part 2 in either. Best of luck to the Referee Crews.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cuneyt Cakir in splendid yellow tonight 🤓

    ReplyDelete
  9. Absolutely correct RC for Besiktas for DOGSO. Well done by Hategan!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hategan with a correct RC for DOGSO outside the box (genuine but late attempt to play the ball).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Does anybody have the video of Vida's RC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5i93DtKFYw

      Delete
    2. Boy oh boy!! That's a clear RC... Hategan makes the correct call.,.

      Delete
  12. 30' : First YC by Cakir in London... Nailed on YC for SPA... Cakir at it very quickly...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I diapprove the 1-1 goal by Barcelona. Suarez makes a huge protest against the AR/AAR and Cakir lets play continue and a few seconds later they score. Should have been called.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Had he disallowed it there would be maasive controversies and discussions that's for sure... And before a World Cup a referee might want to avoid becoming a talking point really...

      Delete
    2. The play on is ok in such a match, but then the yellow card is non sense

      Delete
    3. Doesn’t matter Soham. What is a referee for? There is no advantge there. There wouldn’t hace been any contriversie at all if he called it when chelsea had the ball during the protest. The controversie is that Cakir allowed a goal that shouldn’t be allowed.

      Delete
    4. Well you do have a point friend... Cakir should've stopped the game there!!

      Delete
  14. Mistake IMO by Cakir. He gave a YC to rudiger and it should be a RC for SFP.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just before Messi’s goal, there seems to be a contact by Rudiger on Suarez but it was outside the area. Many protests by Suarez, Çakır booked him after the goal scored but the game should have been stopped before, otherwise no yellow card should have been issued.

    Around 80’ minute a very hard foul by Rudiger. I think that a RC may have been possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IT should be red, he hits The Barcelona player with his studs

      Delete
    2. Yes clear protest by Suarez. Obvious mistake to let play continue. Should be a yellow and indirect not a goal.

      Delete
  16. The game has become hard. Minute 89: awful foul by Busquets, he goes straight on the knee of a Blue, without any chance to get the ball. More RC than YC for me. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is a 8.2/8.3 by Cakir... What do everyone reckon??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allowing play to continue after Suárez' dissent is a mistake but not a crucial one from an assessor's point of view. It's a deduction of 0.2.

      Too meticulous in some cases, missed an excellent chance to play an advantage (Conte was furious at him for that quick whistle). Inconsistency regarding aerial duels (Moses at the beginning - soft free kick, obvious Piqué's elbow missed).

      As always, great body language and communication skills.

      Nonetheless, not 100% impressed with today's performance in a really easy game.

      Delete
    2. So that will make the final score a 8.2?? Or 8.1??

      Delete
    3. Çakir does seem to struggle sometimes in big-name clashes which are characterised by fair play, it seems he is not adhereing to a particular tactical approach and struggles slightly to read how to whistle the match.

      Delete
    4. Is that because he comes from a so-called small association and the teams involved in his domestic league aren't really that big names?? 🤔

      Delete
    5. I partially agree. I speak generalistically, but matches in Super Lig are usually hard fought battles, both teams putting a lot on the line (it is one of my favourite leagues); at any rate matches revolving around fair play are fairly rare I would imagine. It's not that Cakir can't manage high profile players, especially since 12/13, absolutely he's one of the best at that.
      But in general Cakir is quite a meticulous referee, indeed he's changed circa MNU-RLM to alter that a little bit, and I don't think these clashes are suited to his style thaaaaat much. I just get the feeling he is struggling to find a line between staying in the background, and not being too lenient in such matches. Last night the final minutes were quite challenging, I think he could have avoided that.
      Combatted clashes such as: FUL-HAM, MNC-DYK, BAR-CHE, SPN-POR, UKR-FRA, BRA-MEX, ALG-RUS, JUV-BAR, UKR-SVN, ATL-RLM, SWE-ITA: he can handle in a top, top way.

      Delete
  18. Ok now I'll say either Michael Oliver or Anthony Taylor can be comfortably appointed to the Besiktas v Bayern Munich return leg UCL R16 match!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see the point of sending Oliver to Istanbul again after BES-OLY last season. Taylor maybe would be a good name.

      Delete
    2. Taylor can also get it... Either way it's a meaningless game 😆

      Delete
  19. Ovidiu Hategan with a very good performance tonight in Munich, full control and acceptance over 90 minutes. Both assistants (especially AR1) were very good as well, the first three goals were all ONSIDE. Very well done by the entire Romanian crew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately I cannot really agree. In first half one missed foul against Lewandowski (borderline to YC), in second half for me a missing penalty (free-kick whistle after a holding by Pepe, if he punishes it, what he did, then it was inside the penalty area) and finally the situation which JR already descripted. He whistled a foul before ending the match, then he did his final whistle and suddenly after the final whistle he gave a YC for the foul before (probably after intervention of his AAR). AR2 with a missed offside, furthermore quite a clear one.

      So, all in all they weren't really bad, they had indeed the full control and acceptance, furthermore a correct RC, but there were some mistakes as well why I would evaluate it only as an average performance in an easy game.

      Delete
    2. @Gitzlo

      Probably you hate Hategan very much if you can rate his perfomance as average ... A correct red card for DOGSO (in the start of the game)and 3 superb and decisive on-side decisions (1st, 2nd and 5th goal)

      Delete
    3. Here's the holding that continued into the penalty area (49th minute) that was called as a DFK just outside the area.

      https://streamable.com/klnlo

      Delete
    4. @ petschovschi: I've never met Hategan so far, I only try to evaluate his performance based on his decisions and there were 3-4 wrong ones (including a missing penalty if you watch the video above). That's all.

      Regarding the YC after the final whistle, I've to admit the foul was not BEFORE the final whistle as I've thought before, so acceptable handling.

      Delete
    5. The holding starts outside the box but it ends at least exactly on the line, if not a few inside, so penalty should have been whistled there.

      Delete
  20. Hategan gave a YC against Besiktas for a foul commited before ending the match after the end. Should be a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I watched now the situation involving Luis Suárez before Barça's goal. According to LotG, that is a technical mistake. You can't delay the booking of a player when play is in progress for other reasons if not advantage. Of course, in this case advantage was not possible because Barça was playing the ball and then they even scored. If Çakır wanted to issue that card, he had to stop the game and then whistle an indirect free kick in favor of Chelsea, immediately after the situation, No matter where the ball was.
    Acting in this way, and booking the player afterwards (maybe following an input by AAR2 who was "involved"), was a poor show and even a technical mistake. Because in fact referee allowed to continue the play when he had to stop it. Chelsea can definitely question on this choice.
    Having said that, I fully agree with referee and AAR2 about the assessment of the situation: contact was not enough to whistle a foul in favor of Suárez.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theoretically, an advantage could've been played because Chelsea was in possession of the ball. However, there wasn't any gesture indicating the advantage is played and it would be really strange to see the advantage played so close to the penalty area of 'suffered' team.

      Delete
    2. Let's suppose it is assessed as a technical mistake by the observer. What are the consequences?

      I highly doubt it will be considered in that way, but could happen. Here in Spain a technical mistake has a high probability of suspension. Two weeks ago, David Medié Jiménez confused the identity of a player who made a foul inside the penalty area and was, according to the media, suspended for a month. So, what are the consequences in UEFA?

      Delete
    3. In UEFA? None.
      Instead he'll be rewarded with another match. He's one of UEFA's "favorites", regardless of the mounting evidence that his best days are behind him.

      Delete
    4. @Chefren that’s exactly what I meant. Fully agree with your words.

      Delete
  22. Watching the game live, I didn't think anything was wrong with the situation until I read the comments here.

    Is there a video of the YC actually being shown? Because from the video of the goal it doesn't look like the referee was going to give a YC at all: https://streamable.com/bqm13

    Assuming it was for dissent - perhaps something else happened on the way back to the restart?

    ReplyDelete
  23. According to bet 365 the goal was at minute 75 and the yellow at minute 76. But it was not shown live. Only a few minutes later on replay of Cakir showing the card.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If the YC was issued for other reasons, or maybe other complaints by Suárez after the goal, Çakır decision would be OK.
    Otherwise, the only thing that the Turkish can say to explain it is that: "I gave advantage to Chelsea".

    ReplyDelete
  25. This could be the reason of Suárez' booking. In such case, we should apologise Mr. Çakır for hasty accusation.

    https://streamable.com/nho6q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't understand what he did...

      Delete
    2. He pointed at the AAR after scoring the goal.

      Delete
    3. So, very stupid behavior, and fully correct decision by Çakır. We can be sure this was the reason of the card... in that case, we must apologize for having supposed wrong things.

      Delete
    4. Let me say, that his previous reaction on the play-on call deserved a caution more than that. However, in case he was booked for the latter, we have not a clear technical mistake, just a mismanagement of the first dissent. -0,1 or nothing.

      Delete
    5. But we can't be sure about anything... Only Cakir and the observer what exactly happened!!

      Delete
  26. https://streamable.com/pz9kh
    Very interesting incident from Hategan's game.
    Müller tries to disturb the wall before the execution of a free kick by making some weird gestures. Of course, unsporting behavior without any doubt. Hategan noticed that and he invited the player from Bayen to go away. But... was that correct? In my opinion Hategan was "only" allowed to warn the player and even to book him for his stupid action, but he was not allowed to invite him to go away. Indeed, Müller was entitled to stay there, the irregular thing was only his behavior. In any case, a very interesting and difficult situation to manage, one must praise the referee for his intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably you didn't hear (all that) Graziano Cesari said last night at Mediaset. A player (in this case Muller) is not allowed to stay in that position. He said that even players of the team which has the free kick must respect the 9,15 m distance. No one from the studio (G. Galli, A. Di Livio, S. Sabatini etc) was aware of that.

      Delete
    2. He was indeed wrong.
      The 9,15 distance is valid only for opponents.
      A teammate can stay where he wants.
      Would you find logical to find something irregular because a player is close to a teammate who is executing a free kick?
      From LotG:
      Until the ball is in play *all opponents* must remain:
      • at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball, unless they are on their own goal line
      between the goalposts
      • outside the penalty area for free kicks inside the opponents’ penalty area

      Delete