Saturday, 1 June 2019

Damir Skomina in charge of 2018/19 Champions League Final: Tottenham - Liverpool (Discussion)

Damir Skomina is ready for the big event: the Champions League Final. We wish him (and all team-members) good luck. 

01.06.2019, 21:00 CET
Estadio Metropolitano, Madrid (ESP)
Tottenham Hotspur FC (ENG) - Liverpool FC (ENG)
Referee: Damir Skomina (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Jure Praprotnik (SVN)
Assistant Referee 2: Robert Vukan (SVN)
Fourth Official: Antonio Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Video Assistant Referee: Danny Makkelie (NED)
VAR Assistants: Pol van Boekel (NED), Felix Zwayer (GER)
Offside VAR: Mark Borsch (GER)
UEFA Referee Observer: Kyros Vassaras (GRE)
UEFA Delegate: Alan McRae (SCO)

76 comments:

  1. Best of luck to referee team/Srečno ekipa!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Penalty to Liverpool because handball

    ReplyDelete
  3. What was he doing with his arm in that position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looked as if he was applying advantage. But IMO there was no advantage to be played there. Tottenham ended up loosing possession.

      Delete
  4. Wow 26 seconds and correct penalty. Skomina is ready!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent and brave decision by Skomina. Must be the fastest penalty ever in a CL-final.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Am I the only one who doesn't think thats a penalty? just checking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You probably are. Even if it touched his chest first, his arm was in a very unnatural position.

      Delete
    2. Why do you think it‘s not a penalty? He had his arm far outstreched from his body and knew he could stop the cross/shot...

      Delete
    3. It's the same situation as Rukavina's handball in Portugal-Serbia. Ball hits shoulder first, then the arm.

      If Skomina wouldn't have whistled, I cannot imagine VAR turning the decision around.

      Never a penalty, huge mistake from Skomina.

      Delete
    4. penalty. analog BVB vs. Schalke in the bundesleague

      Delete
    5. Jackson, I too initially said no PK because of the ball first hitting upper chest. But upon replay I was sillsold because the arm does make a downward movement that changes the direction of the ball

      Delete
    6. As referees, we do ourselves an incredible disservice when we even bother debating calls like this. Sure, it glances off his chest first. But he has his arm stretched out at a 90 degree angle. If a player went for a header with his arm fully stretched above his head and it hit the arm after the head, would we excuse the handling? Of course not.

      It's a penalty. Everyone else thinks it's a penalty. It's 25 seconds into a UCL Final and fans, commentators, players, etc., are all accepting of the call. Then referees get on an internet forum and try to pick apart the call from a technical standpoint.

      Stop doing this. When the world agrees and supports a referee awarding a penalty 25 seconds into a major final, accept it and move on. If the world thinks that's a penalty, then it's a penalty.

      Delete
  7. Completely disagree with thks decision. Chest before and after handball. Very short distance. Wrong for me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, his arm made his body bigger and it was arm to ball, not ball to arm, so two boxes checked.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Never a clear mistake to whistle this penalty but surely watching replay in my opinion you have a different perception than the live perception. I wouldn't have whisted the penalty with the benefit of replay, but I would have whistled it live.
    I think it is correct by Makkelie to support, no reason to have arm so open.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the player did not take any advantage having his arm open. The ball hit his chest and deflected the bottom part of the hand from a very close range. It is one of the most shocking mistakes in a champions league final. similar to the one in 1985.

      Delete
  10. Good play on for dangerous play due to high boot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Skomina with only warnong,possible booking there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I personally like only warning here because it was the first harder foul and with an early YC he would put himself under pressure. But of course a card would have been possible

      Delete
  12. If penalties are given for any deflection between hand and body, we will end up having 20 penalties per game. terrible decision .var should have reversed it. The ball hit chest and a bit of hand. Remember Spurs last goal against City. SImilar situation. Brilliant Cakir in comparison to a very poor ref this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree. Almost looks as if people here are afraid of criticising refs that are simple not doing their jobs well enough. At least not for this level.

      Delete
  13. Discussion between Skomina and Tottenham manager.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is this blog critiquing the under 20 World Cup referees, too?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not so hard match for Skomina, even tho it is a final.
    Only 6 fouls,1 of them maybe bookable,penalty was corect decision.
    In terms of match,very bad and painful 1st half.
    Hopefully 2nd half will be better and I hope more challenging for Skomina.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Imporant not for the penalty sissoko's arm is up because he is looking away and gesturing for defenders to move. Thus not natural for running but normal for direction. That plus close distance and chest first to me reads no penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Now a mismanagement by Skomina, advantage was not a suitable choice here, no benefits for Tottenham. Player not even booked at the next stoppage. At least referee should have whistled the foul...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could see that he wanted to give the foul because he took his hand and whistle to his mouth. An unlucky decision to give advantage surely but if this one stays the only mistake he can be satisfied ;)

      Delete
  18. Foul on Rose was worthy of a YC.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Poor decision to allow play on there, as a free kick on the edge of the box would have been a better advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's a good lesson to learn from that play on mistake, as the criteria isn't just whether the fouled team retains possession, but do they do so in a way that's advantageous to them. If they retain possession but a defender is right in front of them, then that's advantageous over a free kick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant to write not advantageous.

      Delete
  21. He chose to apply advantage. Okay fine his choice. But then at the very least caution the guilty player because that foul deserved it

    ReplyDelete
  22. So far Skomina for me in the 50:50 situations against Tottenham.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What do you think about Skomina's fittness. Does he look injured only for me? He is not running so much.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How does the draw for the knockout rounds of Champions League work? It seems like the top teams or supposed top teams never meet each other? During Reals run of three titles, they never once played Barca, and this year Barca v. Liverpool or Barca/Liverpool v. Man City probably would have been a better final. Couldn't they make the draw more competitive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At times. Certain top teams don't do so well in the group stage. And small teams pull a surprise and finish to of their group. That changes everything in the knock out rounds

      Delete
    2. The early goal also robbed the final of a lot of energy, Liverpool was able to sit back more than usual and Tottenham played overly safe for the first half. Also in general the draw you described would have been the case had MC won. If the top teams dont meet its because they were upset on the way there.

      Delete
  25. Controversial handball whistled by Skomina in penalty area against Tottenham. I think it was chest, given the very promising attack, in this situation he could have waited for the end of action before whistling, I think... he couldn't be sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why controversial? Which minutes situation?

      Delete
    2. I don't remember the minute, handball called against Son in Liverpool's area.

      Delete
    3. I don't see it as controversial either. Sure it could have possibly struck him in the upper chest or arm pit area. But I would've whistled handling also. As IMO, it caught plenty of the arm to justify handling

      Delete
  26. Also, what to do about a player who it looks like is fouled, but then dives to exaggerate the contact, as so often happens these days?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be in the position to properly judge if it's a foul or dive. If it's a foul whistle it. If it's a dive caution.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, and watching the position of the ball on a free kick is tricky for a ref setting the wall. I think you just have to memorize the position and then check it after setting the wall, as your back may be turned to the ball during that time.

      Delete
    3. These referee's have disappearing spray. So they mark the spot of the foul before moving away to set the wall. For us that don't have or use disappearing spray, would say that you've got to develope a technique in which you try to do two things at once. Set the wall while still keeping an eye on the ball placement

      Delete
  27. Also, if a player is fouled but then dives, do you call the foul because it happened first?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Replies
    1. This seems like a mark against as several times attacking play was broken up by a foul near the box by Liverpool.

      Delete
  29. Good night for Skomina. Of course he could/should have shown 2 YC and perhaps not played advantage once, but other than that, good foul and offside identification by the team, nothing truly controversial, always in control of a fair match.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Not impressed by Skomina today, at the end of the game one could say it was his deliberate choice to finish the match without issuing cards (I disagree with this particular attitude to officiate the finals differently from other games), however I expected more from the Slovenian also in terms of management and foul detection. He can be surely backed about the penalty and nobody will talk about his perfomance, but in my opinion it wasn't a top class refereeing this evening. Of course still an excellent achievement, nothing against him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skomina was very lucky it was an uneventful game if it was heated did not look like he would have been in control, he gave a dubious pk and several missed YC. 92' foul on Kane looks like defender only had the player in mind but game is over then. AR both were caught out of position a couple times and seemed to take a while on offside every time. Seemed also like early pk sapped the game both teams like to play quick attacking football and early goal let LFC sit back and TOT to be concerned about 2-0.

      Delete
    2. I echo each word, Chefren.

      Delete
    3. I have to say @Anonymous the flag was delayed on purpose they were not cut out of position they wanted the play to play out then raise thier flags when the attacking phase is passed

      Delete
  31. Could agree but this is Skomina style also seen in Slovenian league. Hard to say top but mostly nobody talk against his performance.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anyone else notice high number of suspect throws? feet on the field one or even two feet lifted?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Handball decision:
    https://streamable.com/z8tbi

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry but reading so many negative comments tonight is disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100% agree. Full control, excellent fitness, correct PK. One mistake with advantage instead YC (faul on Rose), it's all.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I thought he tried to rely on advantage a little too much, but that was about it. The talking-tos when cards were possible worked very well, in my opinion. I don't think there were any 100% misconduct situations in this match.

      I don't think the match was too difficult, so I wouldn't say it was an exceptional performance. But it was at expected level and I give Skomina credit for understanding the approach of the two teams and the personalities on the field. I thought he handled it all very well.

      Delete
    3. As most of you know, I don't mince words in regards to referee performances. But Skomina was acceptable in what can only be described as a mediocre match. Certainly not his fault that Liverpool and Tottenham played such a boring and crappy match.

      Delete
  35. Very bad Skomina today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What an insightful comment. Care to elaborate?

      Delete
    2. Initial post isn't mine, but it's quite simple to see. He missed 3 clear yellow cards and the penalty decision was very debatable. Also he has a long record of making obvious mistakes at high level and whistles many matches in favor of big teams. Giving offside for ajax' goal at home vs madrid when there was simply no offside at all, is a good example of that. I shave no clue why people here are being so protective over him. Its just a poor ref that shouldnt even be in the CL.

      Delete
  36. It is unfair to leave that kind of comments on the blog. To be anonymus does not give you the right to write things like"just a poor ref" or" a long record of making an obvius mistakes"...cmon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we aloud to give our opinion here? I guess so. It is not unfair if it is the truth that many politically correct 'experts' here don't dare to say. In general, throughout time, Skomina does not give the impression that he is acting as an independent thinking referee but is making simply the wrong decisions in favor of the bigger teams. After a while you start to see a pattern in that and you lose credibility. Even this year with ajax' goal at home vs madrid that clearly wasn't offsife and with the handball at psg vs. Man utd he has made 2 clear mistakes, even with the help of VAR. If someone is not capable of applying logic to the game and make such baffling decisions, he just should not be ruling matches at this level.

      Also today he didn't even take time to make the very controversial decision of giving a penalty, whereas he thought it would be a good idea not to punish the player in 3 clear yellow card situations. That just does not make any sense. It is quite funny to see that so called referee experts here talk about the level of the comments when they themselves cannot even see in a period of many years that this ref is poor in many aspects of the game. A good ref is able to show consistancy and has to have the ability to feel the game. Skomina lacks both but is rather busy pleasing his masters in guiding the bigger teams to there where uefa wants them to be. The general public is just tired of seeing one decision after another being given in favor of the same set of teams. If that isn't something that can be concluded after years of the money league, I have no clue what you 'experts' are doing here except for defending the status quo.

      Delete
  37. To be honest the qualitative level of comments on this post have been incredibly low.

    Thank you to the users who are talking sense, I agree with usaref's summary, it was rather a satisfactory performance (excellent verbal warning in 1H for late, careless tackle vs advantage for foul on Rose, alertness from first whistle vs passivity, etc ).

    As a general trend, in the biggest matches where essentially nothing happens, I think it is quite easy to pick holes in de facto irrelevant parts of the performance. I don't say we shouldn't critique the referee's work - that's our 'job' on the blog! - but also we should not lose sight of the bigger picture.

    Skomina should have slept well last night, he handled the Champions League Final without bigger problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not use the word 'good' or 'bad' to describe his performance. I live in England and I have been reading through the papers today. I can conclude that the penalty decision was soft. There have been arguments for, but more arguments have been given against his decision. In my opinion, the penalty was a clear mistake but there are other opinions which I fully respect. Overall, I think Skomina's appointment was not probably the most suitable. I do not think he controlled the match fully; constantly talking to players does not automatically make you invisible in the pitch. I think the most important food of thought from the final is different: there is a clear link between Llorente's goal against city and the awarded penalty yesterday. On both occasions, the ball hit the same part of the body; hip and then a little bit of a hand. On the first occasion, the ref checked the video and decided to play on. Who was right and who was wrong? If both decisions were correct, where is consistency? I am wondering if Var would eventually bring more confusions on grey areas such as handball. Congratulations to Skomina for his long, successful career. He will soon be one the legends of world refereeing. I do believe though that his performances in the last two years-after euro 2016 where he deserved to do the final in my opinion-were below his expected standards.

      Delete
  38. Skomina was ok. He deliberately missed to give 2 or 3 YC, which became normal for some reason in finals so i wouldnt blame him. PK was given because of rather silly position of defenders hand so it is acceptable decision. The match was disappointing but its really not referees fault, everyone should keep that in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  39. … it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
    • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
    • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
    •  if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally
    bigger
    •  when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With the three dots at the beginning of your citation you leave an important passage away. The LotG state the following: “Except for the above offences it is not usually an offence when....”
      And under the ‘above offences’ “making the body unnaturally bigger with hand/arm” is one of the items, so using this citation to prove Skomina’s decision wrong is invalid.

      Delete