In Focus: Danny Makkelie's performance in Sevilla - Inter

A closer look at the UEFA Europa League Final 2020 Sevilla FC - Internazionale Milano refereed by Danny Makkelie (VAR: Jochem Kamphuis).

Chefren will take a closer look at Makkelie's overall performance and approach, but the analysis starts with me (Mikael) dissecting the most widely controversial decision of the match - the early penalty given and the ensuing disciplinary sanction.

3' - Penalty to Inter, Yellow Card given to Sevilla no.20

There is a lot to unpack from this scene, which is best served by a series of questions and answers.


The penalty was correct?

Yes. Diego Carlos first holds Lukaku outside the penalty area, before tripping him inside the penalty area. A clear penalty - Makkelie gets a good insight angle from the dynamic counter attack, and orders the correct restart.



Was Diego Carlos' foul an attempt to play the ball?

Surely not. Outside the penalty area he holds Lukaku, and inside the penalty area, he did not make any attempt to play the ball, he tries to stop the Inter attacker by stamping on him.

So that leaves us with two raw judgements to determine if a Yellow Card or a Red Card is the correct sanction - reckless vs. Serious Foul Play and SPA vs. DOGSO.



Reckless or Serious Foul Play?

In my opinion quite a strong case be made that this deliberate foul was a case of Serious Foul Play. For instance, you can see that Carlos pierces Lukaku's sock with his studs (1:00 in the clip).

Looking at the replays, you can see the only intense contact is with Lukaku's ankle, in that case UEFA's solution nowadays is clear - reckless only.



SPA or DOGSO?

The most contentious of all judgements Makkelie had to make here.

The holding offence is made when Lukaku is heading directly towards the goal, at pace, in control of the ball, and ahead of all the defenders who could possibly intervene. Carlos holds him and successfully keeps Lukaku in his grasp otherwise the attacker would have ran past the Sevilla player towards goal.

Carlos eventually succeeds in his attempt to deny Lukaku a chance at goal by stamping on his ankle in the penalty area.

For me on a theoretical level that constitutes the denial of a clear goal-scoring opportunity and a Red Card should therefore follow.

However, as Lukaku has to change his running pattern having been held and slightly run wide, that opens to window to argue (I would not personally) that this is not a DOGSO situation, or at any rate make it look less like a DOGSO foul.

In a final, in the third minute - UEFA want something more like DOGSO+ for a referee to issue a Red Card. You can agree or disagree about the merits of that, but that is the reality at a UEFA level nowadays. 

Approach (by Chefren)

Without doubt, Danny Makkelie had to face one of the hardest UEFA Final matches in recent times. Even from the very start, the referee from the Netherlands had to face a highly challenging game; the players played free from the constraint of nerves - evident not only in the amount of goals, but also in the haphazard way of playing that really tested the refereeing team.

The Dutchman's tactic was to operate a lenient disciplinary control, deciding to be not strict with cards, having a certain tolerance; the results of this choice were mostly visible in second half, when the game calmed a bit down and didn't escalate too much (which was eminently possible). So I think that in terms of approach we can say that it is true that referee could have shown more cards, but at the same time, in the overall perception, he still had success in keeping everything under control. 

A very important moment of the game was surely the YC given to Inter's coach Conte - well deserved. In this way referee tried to calm down the benches, this worked, I think, because after that, their conduct was more respectful.

Makkelie coped with what was happening around him, he was able to stay focused on the game and didn't lose the overview - we can guess that he was aware that a different approach could have led to a very high number of sanctions. Personally, I don't like the argument that a final must be treated in a different way than other games, but in this choice by Makkelie I don't see a very different approach, from all the other games he handled - maybe just a small step below in terms of a certain allowance, but absolutely nothing that blatant.   

The most important thing is that he was not influenced by what players were trying to do, and this was clearly visible in the decisions he took. Having already talked about the main incident of the game, I can add that I fully agree with the second major decision - playing on following a possible penalty for handball, there wasn't the evidence, arm was close to body. VAR was right in supporting, what I liked were surely the gestures made by the Dutchman, arousing trust from the players. VAR couldn't deny this view, and I agree. This approach by Makkelie, regarding this situation, was similar to the Atlético Madrid - Juventus game in the group stages this season, and the handball that was not punishable. Brilliantly determined body language. A few minutes later there was another possible penalty for Inter, and also in this case, the referee was correct to play on. In case, even simulation would have been possible. 

You can already understand that, given the extremely difficult circumstances, ending first half without any single VAR intervention and with some good decisions in the key scenes, was a very positive base for the performance. 

In terms of foul detection (let's remember that the penalty given was correct), it was certainly a positive evening for Makkelie. However, talking about disciplinary control, the most significant mistake (in the meaning that there isn't any possible different read of that) is the missed YC in 48', beginning of second half, for a very clear holding. The rest of the cards were sound. 

In the last minutes of second half, after Sevilla scored the (winning) 3-2 goal, they tried to waste time. I think that the management by referee was absolutely okay in this case: he was aware, even before the start of additional time, he showed his clock to make clear that he would have recovered time. Adding six minutes was a strong signal. 

Conclusion (by Chefren)

What we can say is that Makkelie offered an at least expected level performance, in a very challenging context which nobody really expected. For sure there are some different points for improvement and the referee could have used a different (more rigorous) approach, with which there is no way of knowing what would have happened. The final analysis must be always made at final whistle. Second half gave some answers: Makkelie had successful evening. This was his first final and we can't compare him to other referees for style, but after having watched his performance we can say that this choice was fully justified. This assignment came at the right time for Danny Makkelie and he can be proud of his performance, which might well be a thesis to further achievements at the highest level.

Finally, as an admin team we would like to respond to what happened in the comments sanction during the Final. We would kindly ask our readers to remember that we are volunteers and we always try to offer the best quality service, and it is disappointing and quite demotivating to see comments that criticise our work. We try our best, especially Chefren who has led the blog since it's inception and deserves our gratitude for that! It is true that different readers have different ideologies for how they see refereeing - we would ask that you disagree agreeably, and just ignore comments that are purposefully antagonistic. 

Of course, as ever our thanks to the many respectful readers - contributors and silent readers alike. 

Have your say about Makkelie performance by voting the poll.

Your assessment about Makkelie performance in Europa League final Sevilla - Inter?

Excellent performance.

Very good performance. Important decisions correctly taken.

Good, expected level.

Satisfactory with small areas for improvement.

Satisfactory with important areas for improvement.

One clear and important mistake, otherwise expected level or above.

One clear and important mistake, otherwise satisfactory.

elow expectations, poor control, significant points for improvement.

Disappointing. Below expectation with one and clear important mistake or a performance with two or more clear and important mistakes.

Unacceptable performance.

Create Polls with PollMaker