Wednesday, 6 March 2019

Champions League 2018/19 - Referee Appointments - Round of 16 (Second Leg, II)

Referee appointments for second legs of 2018-19 UEFA Champions League Round of 16. Games to be played on Wednesday 6 March. Thank to Kronikasedziowska.
6 March 2019, 21:00 CET - Porto (Estádio do Dragão)
FC Porto (POR) - AS Roma (ITA)
Referee: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tarık Ongun (TUR)
Fourth Official: Halis Özkahya (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Szymon Marciniak (POL)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Paweł Gil (POL)
UEFA Referee Observer: Bertrand Layec (FRA)
UEFA Delegate: Anton Fagan (SCO)

6 March 2019, 21:00 CET - Paris (Parc des Princes)
Paris Saint-Germain (FRA) - Manchester United FC (ENG)
Referee: Damir Skomina (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Jure Praprotnik (SVN)
Assistant Referee 2: Robert Vukan (SVN)
Fourth Official: Matej Jug (SVN)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Marco Guida (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Luciano Luci (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Steen Michael Dahrup (DEN)

179 comments:

  1. So Kuipers, Marciniak, Turpin and Mazic wihout appointment yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think, in case of good performance, it could be the last Skomina game before CL final.

      Delete
    2. Let's hope ! he deserves it
      To appoint him in several matches, put him at risk to encounter a negative day and fails once again the top appointment, like happened last season in CL SF between Rome and Liverpool.
      I think he deserves to go directly to final, without risking anything

      Delete
  2. VAR appointments in CL KO stage so far:
    Irrati 3
    van Boekel 2
    Hernández Hernández 2
    Marciniak 2
    Dankert 2
    Makkelie 1

    ReplyDelete
  3. tomorrow the designations of Europa League right ?, some predictions?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Youth League:
    6 March 2019, 18:00 CET - Majadahonda (Estadio Cerro del Espino)
    Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) - Real Madrid CF (ESP)
    Referee: Marco Di Bello (ITA)
    Assistant Referee 1: Sergio Ranghetti (ITA)
    Assistant Referee 2: Alessandro Lo Cicero (ITA)
    Fourth Official: Manuel Ángel Pérez Hernández (ESP)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Italy, Italy, Italy. Am I the only one getting bored by the Italianisation of refereeing?

      Delete
    2. The average level of Italian Referees is the best in the world. A CAN PRO Referee (third national level) could be an International Referee in many other countries...

      Delete
  5. Just to be curious, am I the only one who doesn't like that we see now again the same names appointed over and over again? I mean, under Collina, we criticized that we always see the same names, with introduction of VAR, and at the moment, this looks the same for me. I don't know how you think about this, but I feel that appointing the same names over and over (like Makkelie, Çakir + we should expect to see Brych and Kuipers in further games) only creates a bigger gap between Elite Group referees and those that are the "real Elite" (e.g. the experienced top dogs). VAR experience in my opinion should not be the main criteria to justify referee appointments, performances should always come at first. Furthermore, given the number of seminars that have taken place, I expect ALL Elite referees to be familiar with the system and to be capable to work with it in matches. Very very likely (unless surprisingly either one out of Mazic, Kuipers, Turpin and Marciniak won't be appointed), Hategan will miss KO stage in CL despite a remarkable first part of the season.

    During the group stage, I found it really refreshing to see all the newcomers from quite small nations in CL (and EL). However, I'm a bit disappointed by the management at the moment...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you and it would have been nice to see 16 different elite referees in round of 16...

      Delete
    2. I agree. Disappointed not to see Oliver and Soares Dias on some of these round of 16 games.

      Delete
    3. Fully agree with you Stake et all; it's really clear the change of strategy in appointment between group stage and KO stage. During group stage we saw many newcomers in CL, while now same names. I would expected 16 different names for 16 matches. At the same time I can understand Rosetti0's feeling. This is the first time that VAR is running and it is in most critical part of the season. He cannot risk anything. He doesn't want to risk anything since it is his first year as Uefa Chief Referee. I guess that as soon VAR will become more comfortable and known we will see again new names. But I agree on the fact that Hategan, marciniak and Turpin must be appointed.

      Delete
  6. I fear we won't see Mazic anymore in UEFA competitions. His assistants are running the lines in Saudi Arabia every week now and Mazic became the full-time referee for China FA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So very likely Zurich - Napoli the last UEFA game for him... I would have expected a better farewell. However, the Serbian made his choice.

      Delete
    2. Would be nice to see what'll happen since someone wrote on blog that UEFA asked Kuipers and Mazic to stay on FIFA list till EURO20 is over..

      Delete
  7. For me it is interesting to see Italian observer, although VARs are from Italy. Or there are no marks or they are not so important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very likely, I also tried to look for some info about that, VAR officials are not assessed by observers. For sure they got guidelines about how to write down the report, but basically they talk only about the referees on the pitch.

      Delete
  8. OT: Ligue 1 Conforama (Matchday 28)

    09.03 (Saturday)
    Nantes - Paris Saint-Germain, 15:00 CET, referee: ? (VAR: ?)
    Strasbourg - Olympique Lyonnais, 17:00 CET, referee: Jérôme Miguelgorry (VAR: Clément Turpin)
    Amiens - Nîmes Olympique, 20:00 CET, referee: Willy Delajod (VAR: Olivier Thual)
    Dijon - Stade de Reims, 20:00 CET, referee: Florent Batta (VAR: Thomas Leonard)
    Monaco - Girondins de Bordeaux, 20:00 CET, referee: François Letexier (VAR: Eric Wattellier)

    10.03 (Sunday)
    Saint-Étienne - Lille, 15:00 CET, referee: Mikael Lesage (VAR: Frank Schneider)
    Toulouse - En Avant de Guingamp, 15:00 CET, referee: Jérôme Brisard (VAR: Olivier Thual)
    Montpellier - Angers, 15:00 CET, referee: Karim Abed (VAR: Stéphanie Frappard)
    Stade Rennais - Caen, 17:00 CET, referee: Benoît Millot (VAR: Alexandre Castro)
    Olympique de Marseille - Nice, 21:00 CET, referee: Benoît Bastien (VAR: Thomas Leonard)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nathan
      By any chance, do you have any video of the 1st VAR intervention during Lille-Dijon (29')?
      Thank you :)
      #namesake

      Delete
    2. I didn't manage to only found the intervention but here is the replay of the game (33:15):
      https://gounlimited.to/embed-90inzp15ux2h.html

      Delete
    3. Refreshing to see that for some refs (VAR) it should've been a red card. Unfortunately, UEFA set the trend that for such dangerous fouls players should be only cautioned...

      Delete
    4. Btw, where can I find the full Ligue 1 games?

      Delete
    5. You can find a lot of replay here :
      http://robindesdroits.me/

      Delete
    6. Nathan, you shouldn't have given me this link, I'll be spending now much more time watching football than I actually should. :D

      On Thual's decision: how is that please not a red card? Clear serious foul play, this is actually worse than the situation in PSG-Rennes a few weeks ago. A few days ago, former referee Tony Chapron said on TV that there are some referees who refuse to admit an error after watching the images, this seems clearly to be another case...

      Delete
    7. I shouldn't have found it myself too :D
      I didn't even know this incident before the first comment, it clearly had not the same media impact as the PSG-Rennes game one but ye i think it should have been a red card.

      Delete
    8. Merci Nathan.

      A friend of mine wanted my opinion on this incident but I did not see it live. I am very surprised by Thual's decision, who is not specially known - unlike Abed - to be very egotic. However, I do not see any strong argument in favour of the yellow card.

      Delete
  9. Gil Manzano with a very bad mistake now in Leganés. He whistled a foul which was not so when the ball was going into the net, so VAR could not intervene.

    He's a very overrated referee in Spain, IMO. Yes, good fitness... and that's about it. Very irregular, too many matches without full acceptance, a nervous-looking body language in many situations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I do not like Gil Manzano at all. So many mistakes this season domestically and especially in Europe.

      Delete
    2. The incident. The whistle cannot be appreciated. However, it can be seen that it is an OGSO and he couldn't whistle… yet he did:

      https://twitter.com/Levante_Al_Dia/status/1102690306447822850

      Delete
    3. Big mistake, especially when you have VAR to intervene. If he didn't whistled and the goal was scored, he could be called for an OFR and in case of foul he could annul the goal. Of course, this is never a foul, and at the end Levante loses.

      Delete
  10. Hmm...where is offside replay on second Manchester United goal?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not a convincing performance from Skomina in first 40 minutes. He missed one mandatory YC (after that foul player was replaced) and several clear fouls.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Penalty in favour of Roma can be supported. Defender puts his leg in front and the attacker hooks itself cleverly. Not clear and obvious wrong to award this PK. Cakir with full control and acceptance. Perhaps he could have issued two more YC's. But overall a good performance so far.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In both matches several conflicts between players and some dissent against the referee. Probably challenging second halves for Cakir and Skomina, but they have the ability and experience to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I must say, shame on Dzeko such behavior is unacceptable.
    I would even like to see a straight RC for such behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://twitter.com/NFuruhaug/status/1103405181889376271

      Delete
    2. YC for the confrontation and YC for the simulation would have been an option...

      Delete
  15. Penalty to Man Utd for handball after OFR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clear penalty very difficult to detect in live, it was very fast ball. Great call by Irrati and Skomina.

      Delete
  16. WOW WOW WOW. This will go down as controversial!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? It was a clear penalty...

      Delete
    2. Sorry, never a penalty for me. Scandalous decision. Natural arm position, full turned away from the ball.

      Delete
    3. Not at all natural position....

      Delete
    4. Imo that is far from natural position. Hand was almost half of a meter away from the body. That is not natural position.

      Delete
    5. Im sorry, then you have never played football before. That is a natural arm position. Do you seriously think he intentionally handled the ball?

      Delete
    6. Yes he tried to deceive the referee by turning his back and thought since his back was turned it won't be given... don't forget referees should be wise to this type of technique used by players but VAR was spot on.. And don't forget irrati one of the best if not the best

      Delete
    7. I'm not commenting whether I think it is correct or not. I'm just saying the reaction to this will be big and is already. It will be controversial. I will say I don't really think its a clear and obvious error so that's just my opinion

      Delete
  17. Can someone provide me pls with a link with the penalty?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Two matches, two very important decissions by Skomina after OFR, both correct IMO and very difficult to detect without VAR. Once again compliments to Skomina, diffulicult and brave deciassions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 7.9 Skomina ? CL final in danger ? Anyway, clear penalty. A top referee should see this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not really funny.

      Delete
    2. It`s difficult to remember what episode you`d mentioned above?!

      Delete
    3. Penalty for Manchester United after the handball of Kimpembe. Skomina missed it.

      Delete
    4. If I am not wrong, we still dont know for sure how referees are marked in CL simce VAR was introduced. My guess is that in this moment when we do have VAR, UEFA will more concentrate on personality, ability of referee to control difficult matches.

      Delete
    5. As far as I know, an important mistake corrected by AAR was still considered as a mistake for referee (and a 7.9). With VAR should be the same.

      Delete
    6. Yes you are right, but how do you know that UEFA did not determine marks like DFB? And this is very interesting actually, we have crucial and very important call made by VAR Irrati, and that call.will be assessed by Italian observer Luci. Very, very interesting IMO.

      Delete
  20. But was it a clear and obvious mistake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it was but it seems others do.

      Delete
    2. No, there are enough opinions against it.
      But it doesn't really matter. Even if it is grey area, the referee can take his decision in the OFR after he missed the contact in the live situation.

      Delete
  21. Although I respect the majority of the comments stating that it was a clear penalty, I'm not sure whether it was so clear. The arm wasn't that far away from the body and definitely wasn't moving towards the ball. The player jumped, turned around and his arm moved with him. I surely would have accepted a no penalty as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your assessment, I think penalty and no penalty can be supported based on criteria:

      Hand in a natural position? You can argue that it was as the defender jumps and turns his back, not far away from body but at the same time it can judged that the arm was outstretched from the body
      Hand movement towards the ball? Definitely not
      Distance ball travelled? Sufficient distance for a decision to be taken
      Player able to avoid hand striking ball? Some will argue yes, but defender is jumping with back turning away from the ball, unaware of where the ball is
      Making body bigger/taking a risk? You could argue yes whilst others would say defender is turning his back and arms are following in natural position following body movement

      Delete
  22. Common sense should prevail hereȘ

    - Irrati, a top VAR, considered it wat penalty (clear and obvious mistake). Otherwise he wouldn't intervene.
    - Skomina showed penalty spot after he watched the re-play

    So, 2 top referess, Skomina and Irrati considered it was penalty (after re-plays) but for some people here is not so penalty.

    The problem is that Skomina missed 3 important penalties in less than a year: Roma- Liverpool, Hoffenheim- Man City and PSG- Man Utd. Keep in mind that when you evaluate him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is not a penalty for me. Also not a clear and obvious mistake regardless. I like VAR but it is starting to get ridiculous honestly. Everything that moves is starting to be called a penalty. Footballers should cut off their arms tbh.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think Skomina didn't see at all the handball live. I also didn't see it while watching it, actually only the United player who made the shot complained.

    IMO correct PK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 100%. Very difficult to detect that handball in live.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  25. Anyway, I agree. This will be VERY discussed.

    Neymar already posted an Instagram story stating that this is a shame and referees and VARs don't know nothing about football.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's going to be a PK. The tug is obvious

    ReplyDelete
  27. What is happening this evening... well... I expect many discussions for both games. Now Cakir with an OFR whistled a penalty for Porto, was that a clear and obvious mistake? Porto scored, another potentially decisive call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that the Porto's players was stretched to that point by the shirt pull isn't obvious enough? If that isn't clear obvious, then I don;t know what is. Or maybe you just want to see what you want to see. Or vice a versa.

      Delete
  28. Unlike Skomina's call. Cakir has absolutely zero controversy to it. The shirt tug is more than obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's a foul, ball was in-play. But it seems it was a tight offside...

      Delete
    2. The only doubt that existed was as you say a possible offside. But based on the VAR replays they showed here. The Porto player was indeed onside.

      Delete
    3. 100% correct decision - very tight but crucially correct decision by Cakir. Perfect use of VAR. Not a fan of the push by Florenzi on Cakir as he issues him the card.

      Delete
    4. I also think it was small offside. Small, but enough - shoulder was offside.
      And now no OFR for Roma. Welllll, this VAR... Marciniak had to call Cakir for an OFR, this had to be Cakir's decision.

      Delete
    5. Baharmast in Norway-Brazil 98.

      Florenzi was trying to "prove" with awkward manners that the pull was soft, using Çakir as the "passive subject".

      Delete
    6. Quilava, excellent point. Baharmast was literally roasted by the worldwide press after his call. That was until the image emerged showing what he saw and why he whistled the PK.

      Delete
    7. For anyone not familiar with the story: https://youtu.be/7-lNODXuA6k

      Delete
    8. Thnk you DB! Never seen that before.

      Delete
  29. Skomina was superb. Damir, see you on Wanda in may.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cakir with a penalty call from OFR now. The ball was probably out of reach but with this one at least it was intentional and obvious. Florenzi clearly pulled the shirt. This one is a correct call and one that Cakir tends to give alot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Penalty for holding correct, but the VAR used the wrong lines!! We need the three-dimensional lines in order to see if the upper body was in an offside position. Here on TV they blame the VAR for this. And later a clear tripping was ignored by the VAR. Should have been a PK for Roma. The contact was clear and can't be ignored!

      Delete
    2. I think both VAr and Cakir's decisions were corrrect. I disagree the critics against Marciniak here. Good VAR calls according to the protocols and a well managed game equal with the match's title. Well done for the Turkish amd Polish Team.

      Delete
  31. Tbh I can't understand the discussions. This is a clear situation for me - NO penalty. No deliberate handball, natural position, arm not far away from the body. Clear and obvious mistake by Skomina. I am afraid that it seems that even referees don't understand the rule anymore ...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not a PK if you ask Mark Halsey. https://twitter.com/RefereeHalsey/status/1103423107564486656?s=19

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's also not up on the UEFA direction over the last year, and the FIFA direction beginning with the World Cup last year...

      Delete
  33. 1) If that penalty was not in 91' and did not decide a winner, it would not be so "contraversial". As always, when we are talking about the gray area, we must support the referee whatever his decission is. Since some think it was and some think that it was not a penalty, it is obviously a grey area. That is why Irrati and Skomina should be supported for that penalty.
    2) i am not refering to commentators on this blog but on media and even players and coaches. If every crucial VAR decission will be critisised, referees will be affraid to make crucial calls when neceesary in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem we have is that if it is indeed a gray area Skomina should not even be invited to review it. VAR is overreaching on decisions and its very inconsistent.

      Delete
    2. Whole world will criticize every crucial VAR decision! This is football, the most popular sport on the planet! Where do you live? Everyone should have his own opinion about that - that is freedom of thinking, and should have the right to express his thoughts.

      Delete
    3. It is grey area now, 45 minutes after the match. But clearly it was not a gray area for Irrati, he was sure it was a penalty. Maybe some other referee would not call Skomina for OFR.

      Delete
    4. Blindly support any and all referee's just because? No thanks! I don't subscribe to the false "back the badge" theory. Wrong is wrong and deserves to be discussed and or criticized. Much like when a referee is correct he deserves recognition.

      Delete
    5. If the referee has completely missed the incident, it doesn't have to be a clear and obvious mistake for an OFR. If the VAR thinks, it is grey area, then it should be at the referee's discretion to make the final call.
      Best example is the penalty in the WC final.

      Delete
  34. MARCINIAK sent Porto to QF. The qialification was at his discretion. He decided OFR for Porto, but no OFR for Roma. That's not normal !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO there's not a contact at all with Schick.

      Delete
    2. You can't say that Marciniak decided. Marciniak just decided what was a "clear mistake" in his opinion, then it was Cakir to call the penalty in the first situation and to agree in the second one. If Cakir wanted to make an OFR for the possible Roma penalty, he could have done that. Remember that main referee has always the first (live assessment) and the last (decision after OFR) word.

      Delete
    3. Agree 100%. He should be kicked out for this. This decision shouldn't be his - it was a MUST to call Cakir for an OFR. If Cakir said no penalty - that would be fine to me. But I think it was a foul.

      Delete
    4. I hope you agree that it wouldn't have been a scandal if Marciniak wouldn't decide OFR for Porto. OFR for Roma would have been a common sense decision in those circumstances.

      Delete
    5. What is "clear mistake"??? No one knows that! It is still in discretion of VAR ref. Was that "clear mistake" from Skomina? It was not, but still I agree ut was penalty. One can ask: If it is clear mistake, why to call for an OFR? VAR ref should decide himself. And that's not the case. This VAR protocol is bad, very bad, and it will be changed soon, by any means.

      Delete
    6. The OFR for he Porto penalty was a must, unless Cakir did see and assess the holding himself (he probably did not).
      I also rather expected an OFR on the other side, especially due to the match situation. But there might be good arguments against it, if Marciniak's analysis of the pictures showed, that a penalty call after OFR was unlikely.

      Delete
  35. A night of UCL games decided by 2 VAR interventions. One that was crystal clear, obvious and correct. The other? No comment ;)

    However I'm not surprised at all. Until a worldwide and uniform interpretation of handling is adopted. Controversy will continue to surround any and all handling calls.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm watchin re-plays in slow-motion at Sky Italia. It was penalty for Roma. There is contact between Marega-Shick. Costacurta, Capello and Cambiasso all say it is penalty. Maybe I am biased, but they are ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought OFR was a must there.. Most definitely cakir hasn't seen the contact like the previous one given.. at least he should 're watch it instead of standing and hearing marchianiak speak for over 2 minutes and decide for himself... With this there is no consistentency

      Delete
    2. There was contact between Marega's left leg (calf) and Schick's left foot. The left foot of Schick changed direction after the contact. It was foul.

      Delete
    3. I thought OFR was a must there.. Most definitely cakir hasn't seen the contact like the previous one given.. at least he should 're watch it instead of standing and hearing marchianiak speak for over 2 minutes and decide for himself... With this there is no consistentency

      Delete
  37. For me, 2 things are crystal clear in Porto-Roma match:
    1. Porto player would never, ever reached that, ball, even it was Juseion Bolt himself. Penalty? Ok, there is a pulling (but there is small offside).
    2. There IS a contact that caused Roma's player to fell down. Was that intentional? No. But it was foul. And no OFR. This VAR doensn't work as it should be. I am million percent sure that Irrati or Dankert would call Cakir for an OFR. Marciniak again, like in WC, gave himself more authority that should have.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No penalty for me. Tripped over his own legs more so and certainly exxagerated his fall. Yes there was a slight touch by the Porto player but every little contact cannot be a penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Handball for Man United is doubtful. For me not a clear error to play on. PK for Porto is correct, but I am not convinced if that was onside.. upper body? And Roma should have get a penalty for (careless) tripping. Lots of discussion tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm waiting for UEFA to show us on Twitter that it was not offside at Porto's penalty. But not with photoshop ...

    ReplyDelete
  41. Video of the most controversial incident in Porto - Roma

    https://streamable.com/peb68

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clipped his leg. Soft but foul everywhere else on the field... But the most controversial is the clear missed red card to Pepe for violent conduct. Clear head butt. Then a dive by Dzeko way after.

      Delete
    2. The question, which Marciniak had to answer was: Is there a chance for Cakir to be sure about the penalty, when seeing the available pictures in the OFR?
      For me, the first contact is minimal and it is not clear, that it is really influencing the opponent. Afterwards he is already (deliberately?) falling, so any further contact becomes less relevant.
      But other opinions are very possible here. I just doubt, that there is a chance to be really sure about it.

      Delete
    3. Not a mistake at all not obvious and not to mention. It is very sad to criticize two of the best active referees on the planet. That's just sad to see in this blog we have comments about clubs rather than refereeing. Marciniak is the future of UEFA and Cakir is already an authority here.

      Delete
  42. So, I repeat. If Rosetti or someone from UEFA read this blog, I expect a tweet from UEFA in order to show us that wasnțt offside at Porto's penalty.

    If UEFA started in this was way they must continue now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some days ago I read an interview with RosetTi in Gazzetta dello Sport. He clealry stated that UEFA has 3D technology for offsides (like in Italy).

      I WANT TO SEE IT, MR. ROSETTI !!!

      Delete
    2. Chefren, it's starting to get ridiculous.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry and I agree with you, Jackson and Johannes.
      Petschovschi: be sure that UEFA will write a report on what happened yesterday and you will find the explanations you are looking for.
      But again, let me say, I really don't like that when there is a very good performance without controversial situation you don't write here but then, when something happens, you always want to convince people that there is something suspicious behind. That's not acceptable. In addition, I saw that you wrote in favor of Hategan and Romanian referees, of course, you are right and you are absolutely entitled, but you should have the same trust in all referees.
      What I mean is that I perceive you as person who wants to see and comment just what is in your mind and nothing more. You are not open to discussion and you think that everything outside your world is bad... the rest is excellent...

      Delete
    4. @chefren

      There was a situation that let all of us with some doubts. During the live TV-coverage, some lines were shown. It seems that Porto's forward was in a small offside. I think all of us want to see a proper image with that 3D technology, like in Italy. In this moment the general opinion is that was offside and a penalty shouldn't have been awarded.

      I don't talk about conspiracy, but I want to be sure that it wasn't a (huge) mistake. Because a centrimetrical offside now, in times of VAR, is a huge mistake.

      UEFA was very fast on twitter during Ajax- Real. In this case it should have been the same, to remove any doubt. Until now we don't know for sure. Based on that lines shown during the game, I say offside. And I can't accept such a mistake in times of VAR. That's all.

      Delete
    5. Let me ask you in a different way? Which will be more criticized of there was no VAR?
      * Missing penalty on Porto PK
      * Missing offside (if there is) on Porto PK
      * Missing penalty (if there is) on behalf of Roma last minute.
      It is going to be a fatal error missing a tug compared to maybe upper part of Porto player's body (max 10 cm) is ahead. Also it is very difficult to detect the minor unintentional contact of Marega on Roma player.
      Imo very well managed game together Turkis and Polish teams...

      Delete
  43. About the Porto penalty, more precise, about the possible offside, would it be relevant for the final decision whether the Porto-player was in an offside position or not?

    This is what the LotG state:
    https://postimg.cc/dh8qZzLB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you really saw the exact moment of the foul ? The ball already passed when Florenzi made the foul.
      The Porto's player clearly attempted to play the ball before the foul.

      Delete
  44. Kimpembe's handball was even more penalty than Otamendi's handball in Schalke- Man City.

    Why ? Otamendi was in a static position. His feet remained in contact with the ground. He didn't made a deliberate movement with his feet in order to interfere with the ball.

    Otherwise, Kimpembe jumped in order to interfere with the trajectory of the ball. When you make a deliberate movement (action) in order to block a shot, you should know that you take some risks.

    About Kimpembe's handball:
    - is a consequence of a deliberate movement of his entire body (including his hands)
    - he was aware that a shot on goal will occur and he deliberatly tried to interfere with the trajectory of the ball in order to block the shot.
    - his hand was clearly outstretched. Not 90 degrees, but clearly outstretched
    - the hand clearly increased the surface of the body
    - it was not short distance

    ReplyDelete
  45. Another possible penalty for Roma:

    https://twitter.com/AliprandiJacopo/status/1103454135360331776

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last one: Marciniak, VAR is this game, was the referee of Roma- Porto 0-3 in 2016 (with 2 red cards for Roma). Maybe would have been smart to chose another VAR for this game.

      https://us.soccerway.com/matches/2016/08/23/europe/uefa-champions-league/as-roma/futebol-clube-do-porto/2329805/?ICID=PL_MS_18

      Delete
    2. petschovschi, I suggest you to read lucac2218 comment below, and maybe you will understand more. Also, I really don't understand why Maciniak shouldn't act as VAR in this game, due to the previous appearance in this match in 2016... you are trying to say that the Polish is biased and of course I can't accept that on the blog, this comment should be deleted, but better if I answer and you finally understand something.

      Delete
    3. Cakir didn't whistle Man Utd for a long time after that red card for Nanni. Maybe would have been better to protect Marciniak. You don't know what will happen during the game and it's better to avoid some ulterior discussions. This was the reason of my comment, I didn't say Marciniak is biased. In fact, my opinion about Marciniak was super good until the point when he started to make some mistekes. But I still think marciniak is a very good referee.

      Delete
  46. I want to stress it again: You must understand the protocol. Otherwise you can't discuss on refereeing and VAR.

    I get the Impression many People still think only clear and obvious mistakes lead to interventions. This is incorrect.

    There is a so called 'missed serious incident' principle which also Philipp refered to often: If the referee has completely missed an incident which COULD be LIKELY resulting in a penalty / no penalty; goal / no goal; red / no red, then the VAR will recommend a review of the situation. The referee can then get an own perception and take a decision based on what he thinks of the incident and what fits best to his approach. This gives the referee the power back he needs.

    In the light of this, all 3 (non)interventions can be explained:

    - Skomina: Probably he missed the handball completely. Based on new UEFA RAP this is punishable handball. Irrati and Skomina will have exchanged perceptions, Skomina probably said he saw nothing (very quick shot), so: OFR.

    - Cakir 1: Holding, probably missed by both Cakir and AR1. In this case, Marciniak asked him what he has seen, Cakir probably said: Nothing. So, again, you can see an impact of the holding on the attacker's chance to reach ball: OFR.

    - Cakir 2: Here probably both AR2 and Cakir had a certain perception (crossed movements, too easy descend, whatever…), probably they communicated it. Marciniak could confirm both: yes, contact, but crossed movements, attacker fell easily, looked for contact. So: no OFR, because: no CLEAR and OBVIOUS error, and probably Referee had a perception himself. So missed serious incident did not apply here. BUT you can argue: 120+1', on the other side it was an OFR, so... better make an OFR for acceptance. I would support this strongly. But what if Cakir also confirms it is not enough for him? Then Roma are even more furious and make conspiracies. So... in either way, you can only lose as a referee due to the good descending abilities of that attacker.

    Again my recommendation: read the protocol instead of twitter or soccerway statistics. This could qualify you to approrpiately assess (non)interventions and empathetically understand what might went on in VAR room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really praise your post, Lucac2218. Thank you.
      Some people should read what you wrote before talking about refereeing, it is not so easy as it looks. But it is difficult to explain to those who want to understand everything without any knowledge in that regard.

      Delete
    2. OFR's concerning "missed incidents" are only important and mandatory if the VAR thinks that showing the replays to the referee will almost certainly make him decide to award a PK. If not, the VAR creates only doubts and put big pressure on the referee who is standing in front of the monitor. So even with "missed incidents" it's not always usual to send the referee. VAR should do this only when he has the opinion that the referee will go for PK and where there is less or no discussion about it.

      Delete
    3. I think this one is not missed. This is clearly not a viaolation. The contact is not enough and I think the Roman player uses the contact almost like a simulation. I am not saying there is one but not good enough for a penalty call.

      Delete
  47. Anyway, in an attempt to have a objective analysis, here's what I think:
    => PSG-MNU, 90': what was Kimpembe's intention? Easy: he was trying to block the ball from going through. Therefore he jumps, but what he's doing there is enlarging his body surface. The ball hits the arm, enlarging the defender's body surface and preventing it from going properly through. IMO, that's a fully justified VAR intervention (especially if Skomina hasn't seen it himself, Irrati was fully right to initiate an OFR) and a correct penalty awarded.
    => POR-ROM, 115': nothing much to discuss here, blatant holding, not the cleverest act by the player (that is an euphemism). Fully correct decision to award penalty and YC for SPA after VAR review.
    => POR-ROM, 120': to be completely honest, awarding a penalty for that would be really soft. Yes, there seems to be a small contact at the feet, but I cannot be sure if that provokes the fall. What's more interesting is that the Roma player only falls at the moment he realizes there is a slight touch on his shoulder. Not enough for me to have an OFR, even less for a penalty. Not a clear mistake by Çakir, I think play-on is correct.

    I don't know how you feel about it, but I find it quite interesting that once controversial decisions are taken, a serious debate cannot take place since a certain amount of users use this blog to not only diffuse, but to impose their radical, simplistic and populistic views on other users. It's always the same, we don't see these people when referees have a flawless and excellent game (e.g. Felix Brych in RMA-AJA). There already are not enough places to have constructive discussion and debate about refereeing, that's what was always so fascinating with this blog (and it's predecessor) and this must not be lost...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel sorry for what happens on the blog with somebody trying to impose an opinion. This is even more unacceptable because coming from people without refereeing knowledge.
      I try my best to answer and to explain always that this is not a good thing. I can also delete comments, but these people will write again, so my strong wish is that finally they will understand...

      Delete
    2. Chefren what is your comment related to Skomina and Cakir performance? What do you think how yesterday matches will influence their future delegations?

      Delete
    3. Great analyses both by Stake and Lucac! Good to read something that makes sense and is based on what VAR protocol actually says. I also agree that all 3 discussed situations had a correct outcome in these games.

      Delete
    4. @izo I will write soon about that, thanks for having asked

      Delete
    5. Chefren, I have big respect for you being able to manage this whole stuff excellently. Personally, I think I would not have the nerves to do so, "chapeau" for your work!

      Delete
    6. Chefren, do you personally know everybody's "refereeing knowledge". If you don't, then it's pretty arrogant and unacceptable for you to place less value and importance of peoples comments.

      Delete
  48. Based on re=plays seen on Sky Italia after the game. I am sure that was a penalty in 120. With slow-motion and zoom, that soft contact is preety clear. At a certain speed even a soft contact would provoke a fall. Someone who played football knows that.

    On the other hand, based on re-plays provided by TV coverage during the games, I don't know if Marciniak was able to see that soft contact (but, if you are a great referees, you should "feel" that foul, you should understand what happen there). I can accept the fact that, based on re-plays, he didn't see a clear and obvious mistake. So, no OFR. But, in those circumstances (last minute of the game, a penalty after OFR with 5 minutes earlier), an OFR would have been the smartest choice, would have been a matter a common sense. Probably the decision would have been the same because, I already told you, it's very difficult to see that contact on re-plays provided by TV-coverage. Slow-motion and zoom would have been needed.

    PS Chefren, you live in Italy. Do you know if there is a possibility to watch those re-plays provided after the game by Sky Italia ? Without seeing those re-plays it's difficult for many people to accept that was a clear penalty (I perfectly understand that).

    ReplyDelete
  49. petschovschi, last but not least, you report always quote from football coaches, TV presentators and so on. You think they know everything about refereeing? That's wrong, instead, if you really want to know more about refereeing, just read and take notes from refereeing's experts or former referees, in this way you will learn for sure many things and maybe you will end to talk about conspiracy theories. You see football with the eyes of fans, we see football on this blog with the eyes of referees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Refereeing is a part of football. All those who are involved in this sport, all those who saw thousand and thousand of games in their lives, knows something about refereeing.
      Honestly, do you think that only referees are able to comment the referee's decision ? LOTG is a book with not sa many pages. Unfortunately, you don't learn what is a foul from LOTG. You learn by watching football and seeing when the referees whistle a foul. Only watching football you can see what type of contacts are considered fouls by the referees. There are millions of contacts that are fouls. It's impossible to describe all those contacts in LOTG.
      Let's imagine that someone who didn't watch a single football match in his entire life will learn LOTG letter by letter. Do you really think that person is able to referee a football game ? No.
      About my knowledges about football and refereeing I can tell you one thing: I am proud about them.
      I am not proud about the limited knowledges about football (history, players, coaches, games, teams, things related to football) of all the referees that I met. Beste example: Serbia- Romaniam last autumn. In the romanian sector, near me, there was a group of romanian referees (2nd and 3rd division). I asked all of them who is the referee. Can you imagine that 6-7 referees were not able to tell me the name Bezborodov ? They even didn't hear about Bezborodov. That's the level. I told them few things about him (age, country, UEFA category, some games which he whistled).

      Delete
    2. Anyway, I promise you, Chefren, that I will change my tone in the future and i won't bother you.

      Delete
  50. My personal opinions about the crucial situations in both games.
    Regarding PSG - Manchester United, if we analyze in abstract the handball, we could come to conclusion that it was not a "clear and obvious mistake", but... we must add that very likely Skomina had totally missed the incident. This is the reason for which Irrati suggested to review the incident. Then, Skomina decided to punish it after having checked the video, and one can agree, because according to some UEFA RAPs this position of the arm is punishable. The defender takes the risk, and he encreases his body's volume. Still, one could say not a 100% deliberate touch and I agree, but this is the course about handball nowadays.
    To summarize: I agree with the review, basically because Skomina had missed it, then it was his decision to consider the touch as punishable. In this context, one must add that Skomina, once assessed as punishable after having checked it, had indeed missed a crucial incident leading to a penalty. This is an argument against the Slovenian, at least on paper. But still difficult to say what could really happen, I still wish that he can stay as candidate for CL final. It would have been better if this incident hadn't occurred.

    Porto - Roma: I think that the holding was blatant and we know how much attention UEFA pays to this kind of foul. So, this is the main reason. In addition, once again, I think Cakir had totally missed the incident and it was a right thing to invite him to rewatch the incident. I just hope that UEFA will write something about the possible offside to clarify everything.
    The last incident, possible penalty for Roma, for me a penalty you can whistle but never VAR stuff, because not 100% clear in any case. A touch can't be enough in order to say "foul", one must also study opponent's reaction and attitude. This was not a clear situation in which all referees would have whistled penalty. In addition, differently from the holding, Cakir had maybe some perception of what had happened, so the OFR was not made for these reasons.
    As I said for Skomina, however, not good for the Turkish that he needed VAR for a very crucial situation that decided the game. He had to see the holding....
    We will see the next appointments for Skomina and Cakir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have some clips in UEFA RAPs that show this is not a penalty.

      Delete
    2. I will look for some clips checking the RAPs, Jovan.

      Delete
    3. Regarding the offside position, the player in question is fouled before he reaches the ball, so it should be a penalty regardless of a potential offside position, I believe. A similar recent situation is the penalty awarded to Harry Kane in the TOT-ARS derby last weekend

      Delete
    4. Since the foul happened after the ball was played, the attacker should be deemed attempting to play the ball and also challenging an opponent for the ball, I think this is an offside offense IF the attacker was in an offside position but it looks like the attacker was onside.

      Delete
    5. https://twitter.com/TheIFAB/status/1097496307663585280

      In the given case, he does not play the ball and imo is neither challenging the Roma defender for the ball, as the latter is not even attempting to get to the ball. Hence, my conclusion is that this would have been a penalty even if he had been of side. But as it seems like he has not, it's even clearer

      Delete
    6. "The VAR, after checking the offside line - which confirmed the attacker to be onside - asked the referee if he had seen the holding offence committed by the AS Roma defender."

      I read it as if there had been an offside offence, there would not have been a review. But one can argue.

      Delete
  51. I have the feeling that CL Final could go to Rocchi. We will see

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Normally, it should be Rocchi or Skomina. Small chances maybe for Mateu and Turpin.
      I would appoint Skomina in a big clash in the QF as final test (and to give him further VAR practice). Rocchi could be rested (or again used in EL) in the next round - then UEFA has a safe option for the final appointment (if Juve doesn't qualify) and can decide depending on Skomina's next performance.

      Delete
    2. Skomina UCL final, Rocchi UEL final.

      Delete
    3. For me the most important designation will be the one for Juventus- Atletico. There are 4 names without a game in CL until now: Kuipers, Mazic, Marciniak, Turpin.

      Honesly, I want Kuipers. I trust him and I think it's best option for this game. Great experience, he knows perfectly how to deal with such high tense games.
      Marciniak is out of question after Tottenham- Juventus last year. I don't know the status of Mazic (who would be my 2nd choice). Turpin made a great progress during last 2 years but I don't think that he reached the level when you whistle without any fear, without any problem this kind of (high tense) games. I don't say Turpin can't whistle but I feel safer with Kuipers. With Kuipers I have that feeling that nothing wrong can happen.

      Delete
    4. Turpin had previous trouble with Atletico, so if we exclude Marciniak, we also have to exclude him. If Mazic is unavailable, only Kuipers remains indeed - who also would be the best choice for Bayern-Liverpool. But probably Marciniak or Turpin are more possible there, in spite of having refereed them on the last GS matchdays.

      Delete
  52. Does anyone have a clip of the alleged Pepe VC referenced above? I haven't seen it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  53. According to some rumors from SKY Sport Italy, committee seems to be satisfied with Marciniak decisions. Holding was a clear mistake because Cakir had missed it, the penalty appeal in 120' a minor one and Cakir had already a certain perception of what had happened.
    There was also another penalty appeal by Roma (Casillas on Dzeko), in this case even less VAR stuff than the previous one.
    I don't know if UEFA will publish something on its site, but believe me the journalist reporting this info is a very reliable person and also a refereeing expert.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://sport.sky.it/calcio/champions-league/2019/03/07/porto-roma-rigore-dzeko-casillas-var.html

      Delete
    2. The position of UEFA is somehow expected. They can't blame their referees. Probably UEFA is right because even with OFR decision would have been the same (you need slow-motion and zoom to see that soft contact).

      Otherwise, I want to know your opinion about Luca Marelli. He seems to be an important voice in Italy (at least amongst journalists). Probably you disagree with his opinion regarding Porto- Roma: https://twitter.com/LucaMarelli72/status/1103429701094256641

      Delete
    3. Indeed, I disagree... one can understand why OFR was not made in that case.

      Delete
    4. Can you tell few words about him ? I already told you, I saw he's popular amongst italian journalist. He has a blog when he make various analysis. For example, on his blog I read (some time ago) that Collina removed him from the pool of serie A referees. He said that he will never forget Collina for that unjustified action (generally speaking, he was reluctant about managerial abilities of Collina even this was was in charge of UEFA referee committee). Anyway, what's your opinion about Marelli'a analysis ? Thank you !

      Delete
    5. Meanwhile, you have the official statements by UEFA, check the new post on the blog. It has been confirmed that player from Porto was ONSIDE and Cakir had missed the holding.
      About Luca Marelli, his work is indeed very appreciated in Italy, because he is a rare case of former referee who talks about refereeing as passion, and he doesn't like too much spotlights. Differently from other former referees, for example Cesari and Bergonzi, who are interested only in money and they have no problems in talking negatively even on purpose, like they were never referees themselves. Having said that, of course one can disagree for a single aspect, but basically I always agree with all the analysis made by Luca Marelli.
      He thinks that the foul on Schick was clear, and he is entitled to have this opinion. Cakir saw it differently. I think that tis penalty is not a 100% clear one and other referees would have decided differently. This is the reason for which I don't find absurd decision to avoid OFR.
      About his relations with Collina, here I can't add more, of course, you should ask him personally for that.

      Delete
  54. A very excellent blog post. I am thankful for your blog post. I have found a lot of approaches after visiting your post. BanThang TV

    ReplyDelete
  55. INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,, I GOT SOMETHING NEW
    Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months!

    See how it works
    Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card??
    Make up you mind before applying, straight deal...

    Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us
    via email address::{Automatictellers@gmail.com}

    We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be use to hack ATM
    machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at
    stores and POS. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
    buyers worldwide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 on ATM
    and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
    you order for:: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack
    services, we are here for you anytime any day.

    Here is our price lists for the ATM CARDS:

    Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $200 USD
    Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
    Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
    Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
    Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD

    make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!

    The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
    email address:: {Automatictellers@gmail.com}

    Visit our Website for more Info: https://automatictellers.webs.com
    ®

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you are seeking a Bank Guarantee (BG), SBLC for Lease or Purchase, we are the best financial institution to help you to secure verifiable and easily monetized BG, SBLC and other financial instruments. At SPOT FINANCE, we are a group of experienced bankers, seasoned brokers with years of experience in the financial instrument industry. We deal directly with reliable Providers of BG, SBLC, MT109, MT799, MT760, Loans, Sale and Lease of Financial Instruments issued by Top rated global banks.

    Our procedure is TIME SAVING and transparent. With us, you can secure any denomination of BG / SBLC from 10M to 10B (EURO / USD) in time for use in Heavy / Light project financing anywhere in the world.

    Basically, we are here to help you move your business to the next level.

    Anticipating your interests,
    Email: info.spotfinanceltd@gmail.com
    Skype: spotfinanceltd

    Sincere regards,
    Gary Derek Beckett
    SPOT FINANCE LTD

    ReplyDelete

  57. Very nice and informative article!thanks for sharing these type of article and specially lots of Thanks to admin who's writing style is fabulous. I have also share some useful information on other platforms.
    Copa America 2019 Live Streaming
    Copa America 2019 Opening Ceremony
    Copa America 2019 Fixtures PDF
    copa america 2019 match schedule pdf
    Copa America 2019 Fixtures

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thanks for encouraging information you have shared with us through this post. It is really productive, explanatory and useful. The efforts are highly appreciative you made here to sharing this wonderful post. Hope that you will come with more useful articles in future. Thanks for fruitful sharing
    CWC 2019 Live Cricket Streaming
    ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 Live Streaming
    Cricket World Cup 2019 Indian Team List
    copa america 2019 match schedule pdf
    Cricket World Cup 2019 Live Streaming Channels in India
    ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 Live Streaming Free Online

    ReplyDelete