Monday, 22 July 2019

2019 UEFA Under-19 Championship - Kristo Tohver (EST) and Sergey Ivanov (RUS) in charge of semifinals

Referee appointments for semifinals at 2019 UEFA Under-19 Championship in Armenia.
24 July 2019, 16:00 CET - Yerevan (Banants Marzadasht)
PORTUGAL - REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Referee: Kristo Tohver (EST)
Assistant Referee 1: Stéphane De Almeida (SUI)
Assistant Referee 2: Grega Kordež (SVN)
Fourth Official: Zaven Hovhannisyan (ARM)
UEFA Referee Observer: Karen Nalbandyan (ARM)
UEFA Delegate: Bakar Jordania (GEO)

24 July 2019, 19:00 CET - Yerevan (Vazgen Sargsyan anvan Hanrapetakan Marzadasht)
FRANCE - SPAIN
Referee: Sergey Ivanov (RUS)
Assistant Referee 1: Valentin Gabriel Avram (ROU)
Assistant Referee 2: Dawid Igor Golis (POL)
Fourth Official: Filip Glova (SVK)
UEFA Referee Observer: Jaap Uilenberg (NED)
UEFA Delegate: Richard Havrilla (SVK)

33 comments:

  1. OT: TROPHEE DES CHAMPIONS
    03 August 2019, 13:30 CET - Shenzhen(Longgang Stadium)
    Paris Saint-Germain - Stade Rennais
    Referee: Benoît Bastien
    Assistant Referee 1: Hicham Zakrani
    Assistant Referee 2: Frédéric Haquette
    Fourth Official: Mikael Lesage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No VAR officials on the fff website maybe there is no VAR for this match.

      Delete
    2. I hardly believe that French federation accepted to play this game without VAR. Maybe Chinese VAR? We will see.

      Delete
    3. On the other hand, its a meaningless match, in a probably empty stadium in China. Why bother with a VAR?

      Delete
    4. I wouldn’t say « meaningless », since the last Coupe de France final between those teams was very hot. And last year, the stadium was full ;)
      I would have preferred a VAR for this match, because it is supposed to promote French Football in Asia, players but also referees, so a big mistake would be difficult to accept...
      However, I don’t think that the stadium is equipped with enough cameras for VAR.

      Delete
  2. France - Norway MD3, referee Filip Glova (SVK) AR2 Luke Portelli (MLT).

    Goal or not?
    https://streamable.com/yhr4o

    Best replay:
    https://streamable.com/j5qiz

    I think that it is impossible to make any judgement because a player from France is obstructing our view in the video. I think we can't blame referee for this incident, I think he had also players obstructing his line of vision. A close positioning wouldn't have helped. AR2 is never shown so I can't judge on his assessment as well.
    The feeling is that it could be goal, but one must back officials here. Nopwadays it sounds very particular to observe games without VAR and GLT, to be honest :)
    Full report for the game will follow soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Try to guess...final to Nikola Dabanović , AR1: Grega Kordež (SVN) , AR2 Dawid Igor Golis (POL)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dabanovic is already at home my friend.Obviously your evaluation criteria are 'off route'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kordež is also probably out due his semi-final appointment.

      On https://www.nzs.si/novica/Kordez_na_polfinalu_zakljucnega_turnirja_U_-_19,_Ceferin_na_Skotsko?id=49289&id_objekta=40
      you have a great picture of all officials in Armenia.

      Delete
  5. Filip Glova (SVK) in France - Norway, MD3.
    Having already talked above about the most important incident (possible goal, difficult to detect), I must say that I was not really impressed by Slovakian. You can support him in all the crucial situations (apart from the possible goal, there were two penalty appeals), but I think he could have managed better the game especially under the disciplinary point of view. The only YC of the game was a very mandatory one, for a frustration foul (one could even discuss about straight RC here), but the tendency by referee was to keep cards all match long. There were some situations in which YC was possible, but all were not 100% mandatory, the classic cases in which you can decided based on the game. However, I must also add that he spent a warning for the only significant challenge of first half (if you exclude the first penalty appeal). The management of added time in first half was a point for improvement, he added 2 minutes but game was stopped for 2 minutes (cooling break) and then further 1 minute and 30 seconds for a double injury. So at least 3 minutes if not 4 should have been the correct decision.
    Assistant referees were very good, all the offside decisions were correct, in addition there were some great onsides.
    A small summary about that:
    13' Good onside AR1
    14' Correct offside AR2
    21' Correct offside AR1
    75' Correct offside AR2
    87' Correct offside AR2
    There were also other ONSIDE decisions, important for the game, but impossible to judge. In addition, good cooperation by both of them, according to the folllowing pattern:
    11' cooperation (handball) AR2
    63' cooperation (foul) AR2
    90'+1 cooperation (foul and YC) AR1.

    Let's start with the cooperation by AR2 in 11', reporting deliberate handball:
    https://streamable.com/aglie

    In 30', there was a penalty appeal by Norway, until that moment, game had been very, very calm.
    https://streamable.com/o89zq
    A very risky challenge in any case by defender. It is not clear how much he hit the ball and how much the opponent, however I think that the decision by referee is supportable, for me not a clear penalty. One must also add that whistling a penalty wouldn't have been wrong. I'm interested in your opinions.

    A warning was spent in 38' for a challenge against keeper. Careless or reckless? Referee is aware with a warning. Can be this enough?
    https://streamable.com/w930t

    In 87' another penalty appeal:
    https://streamable.com/y8z04
    In this case I think referee was right. Attacker went against the opponent to win easily the penalty, despite of a possible contact. I praise the referee in this case. Replay was shown later during the game, but this short live sequence is the best footage for assessing it.

    In 90'+1 frustration came for Norway, this foul was a mandatory YC if not more:
    https://streamable.com/ieqia
    But maybe with a different approach by referee this could have been avoided.
    I think that with the end of group stage, Glova reached his maximum in this tournament, indeed I see that he has been appointed as fourth official for a semifinal, I think that he still needs time to develop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Chefren. I would personally tend to agree with the referee in all decisions at 30, 38, 87, 90+1. I just have doubts about the penalty appeal by France, the Norwegian defender seems to extend the leg and from the replay it is not clear if he collected the opponent or not. Based on these pictures play on is a supportable choice

      Delete
  6. https://youtu.be/MnrLLQ0Lrec?t=1052

    What on earth was Yaroslav Kozyk and his AR1/4th official doing here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Republic of Ireland - Czech Republic, Anastásios Papapétrou, MD 3

    Anastasios Papapetrou was assigned to what was actually a play off for the semi final. Each team, in case of win and Norway not winning the other game, would have reached 2nd place and thus get to the semi. Therefore an important game for the Greek referee. Ireland scored in the first half, Czech Republic thought they could survive by levelling at 79’ with a lovely goal, but their chances lasted only 2 minutes, with Ireland taking the lead again at 81’.

    The teams played fair and in the end 22 fouls were whistled, 10 against Ireland and 12 against Czech Republic. Papapetrou’s foul detection was almost faultless - I could only note a wrong FK at 89’ - otherwise a very precise application of the LotG by the referee regarding the assessment of contacts and tackles. 

    In particular, I will post a few clips regarding a few crucial incidents:

    30’ penalty appeal IRL - the GK clearly takes the ball, no penalty correct  
    https://streamable.com/vdi1n

    35’ goal IRL - correct no foul before the goal
    https://streamable.com/nfdu9 
    to be mentioned that the referee did not signal any advantage, so he considered the contact fair from both players

    70’ penalty appeal IRL - correct play on. Given the contact that occurred in the upper body I think we can accept no YC for simulation to the Irish player
    https://streamable.com/e5rzk (live action)
    https://streamable.com/4abm0 (replay)

    Besides this, the thread I would like to follow for the rest of the analysis is prevention and communication, which was the most critical aspect in this game. I believe Papapetrou demonstrated he has a good potential in this respect, however his approach was debatable at several points and overall lacked consistency. In particular, it looked like the referee thought the game could heat up more than it actually was, especially in the last minutes. The increased pedantic approach he chose after Czech Republic equalised actually made the players angrier and did not make him appreciated, despite keeping a good level of acceptance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4’ free kick and verbal warning to IRL #9: 

      https://streamable.com/pry5i

      This was the first verbal warning. Maybe the replay was covering some gestures by Afolabi, but I do not think that his behaviour required a verbal warning.

      23’ YC IRL #7

      https://streamable.com/r3xq1

      Good timing for card opening, in one of the rare bad tackles of the game. In this case, great authority and card showing 

      66’ verbal warning

      https://streamable.com/j2ahe

      As pointed out by Mikael in his previous report on Papapetrou, we see here how the players were not interested in listening to the referee till the end, not leaving the best impression.

      68’ verbal warning (?)

      https://streamable.com/nk8ro

      I still don’t know exactly what this situation was about, it looks like a verbal warning for time waste.

      71’ verbal warning time waste

      https://streamable.com/sk6a8

      IRL #1, the goalkeeper, clearly takes too much to kick the ball. IMO a YC should have been issued here, the verbal warning actually causes even more time loss without any benefit to the Czech team. 

      89’ YC IRL #4 time wasting

      https://streamable.com/1t5hq

      The decision seems very harsh, as we see at the beginning of the video the players are still positioning themselves and the booking occurs only a few seconds afterwards.

      90’ YC IRL #9 for dissent

      https://streamable.com/0b185

      Somehow I understand the booking if we consider that the player had already been warned twice, however it was not the smartest decision since the player was just fouled twice (holding and pushing) and his protests were not really harsh. He will miss the semi final due to this YC.

      90+4’ YC CZE #7

      https://streamable.com/6cndy

      Unacceptable reaction from Husek, a 2nd YC for clapping his hands would have been the correct decision. If not a booking at least a stern warning should have been issued. Papapetrou just looked at the player, who understood he was crossing the line and tried to apologise later on with his gestures. The approach was clearly too passive here.



      Overall a decent performance by the Greek referee for about 80 minutes, with few points for improvement regarding his communication at some points. His management of the last minutes of the game was debatable, he especially seemed to lose consistency in his assessment of time waste and dissent. Papapetrou is a prospective referee with good fitness and presence, showing great foul detection. He should however refine his communication in order to make it a strength, and pay attention to his disciplinary control in the most crucial stages.

      I would be glad if you could share your thoughts about the most crucial incidents below

      Delete
    2. Is it possible that the YC in 90' was for the player's reaction after being fouled? It looked like he tried to hit his opponent with the leg a bit. Papapétrou's hand was very quickly at his breast pocket even before the player talked to him.

      Thanks for the report! Reminded me a bit of Kružliak when it came to the final minutes.

      Delete
    3. You must be right, Howard, it wasn't for dissent, then. I wonder how intentional it was, but the Irish n.9 raises his leg a bit after falling down and touches the opponent. Even the replays did not show that again

      Delete
    4. Osborne: You want a verbal warning minute 94 for dissent on a player who already has a yellow? Think about that again... Completely inappropriate as a referee to do that. Either you give him the 2nd yellow card or you act like you didn't see it. Overall a verbal warning for someone who already has a yellow card is absolutely not recommended.

      Delete
    5. @Victor: no, I wrote "a 2nd YC for clapping his hands would have been the correct decision.", so that would have been my personal choice. What I meant afterwards was that it was very weak the way Papapetrou managed the reaction, he should at least have talked to him in order to show who has the authority and who has the final word: the referee!

      Delete
    6. That's my point. You don't talk and warn or get angry on a player who must receive a second yellow. Either he will get that second yellow or the ref ''didn't see'' the incident. Having a word on a clear yellow is weak refereeing.

      Delete
  8. OT:

    Azerbaijani FA informed that Əliyar Ağayev is among 11 referees from UEFA First Category which are specially observed and mentored and who will fight for advance to Elite Category in next years. Anyone knows the full list?

    http://www.affa.az/index.php/news/liyar-aayev-stedad-v-mentor-proqramnda/64540

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a new Elite Development group...

      Delete
    2. BTW Ağayev is a bit disappeared after his second appointment on last group stage in 2018. You can find the reasons checking the RAP and the incidents in his game (Zurich - Bayer Leverkusen). He skipped the third appointment and he missed KO stage.

      Delete
  9. I have heard that Letexier (FRA) is among them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  12. When I found Dr. Aire I was in desperate need of bringing my ex lover back. He left me for another woman. It happened so fast and I had no say in the situation at all. He just dumped me after 4 years with no explanation. I contact Dr.Aire through his website and He told me me what i need to do before he can help me and i did what he told me to, after i provided what he wanted, he cast a love spell to help us get back together. Shortly after he did his spell, my boyfriend started texting me again and felt horrible for what he just put me through. He said that I was the most important person in his life and he knows that now. We moved in together and he was more open to me than before and then he started spending more time with me than before. Ever since Dr. Aire helped me, my partner is very stable, faithful and closer to me than before. I highly recommends Dr. Aire to anyone in need of help. Email: drairehome@gmail.com, Call him or add him on whatsapp via: +2347036740271

    ReplyDelete