Cüneyt Çakır ready to officiate Hungary - Portugal, we can discuss his performance in this topic.
Budapest, 15 June 2021 18:00 CET
HUNGARY - PORTUGAL
Referee: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tarik Ongun (TUR)
Fourth Official: Sandro Schärer (SUI)
Fifth Official: Stéphane de Almeida (SUI)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Filippo Meli (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Pawel Gil (POL)
UEFA Referee Observer: Nicola Rizzoli (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Radenko Mijatović (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tarik Ongun (TUR)
Fourth Official: Sandro Schärer (SUI)
Fifth Official: Stéphane de Almeida (SUI)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Filippo Meli (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Pawel Gil (POL)
UEFA Referee Observer: Nicola Rizzoli (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Radenko Mijatović (SVN)
Can’t remember the last time I’ve watched Cakir referee in detail, maybe Tottenham/Leipzig last season in which he had an excellent performance. Looking forward to seeing one of the best referees in Europe back out on that football pitch!
ReplyDeleteWow Cakir looks very very old with this new bald look
ReplyDeleteGreat onside call by Ongun in 5th minute.
ReplyDeleteThe game started intense with full stadium.
ReplyDeleteEarly minutes: the full attendance is clearly noticeable from the pitch and I guess that referee will not have an easy game. It could turn in the most challenging game for a referee so far, let's see.
ReplyDeleteI guess you will be right. Challenging game since the first whistle, indeed this has something to do with the crowd. Strange to see so many people in a stadium again...
DeleteWow, the crowd behind the Hungary's goal is gorgeous! I expect big pressure on Cakir. I hope he will not feel intimidate.
DeleteI think when your office is usually Turkish stadiums, then you can go everywhere
DeleteGood no foul call in 5‘ in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteFinally black kit. So much nicer to see a ref in black than pink or blue
ReplyDeleteBlue is ok, pink is strange. Black looks professional!
DeleteColours are oke for me, only this fluor is to much, like the neon and pink!
DeleteVery good offside flag by AR2 in 19'. Ronaldo in offside position.
ReplyDeleteI don't know.... Maybe it was onside
DeleteVery good offside call on 19' AR2 - difficult match, with too much contact between the players and intense atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteMany accidental clashes and careless tackles, both teams are very aggresive and determined. But I think so far Cakir is doing ok, assesing the situation correctly.
ReplyDeleteQuite obvious corner missed by AR right in front of him
ReplyDeleteMatch is really very challenging. And there are so many physical contacts. Cakir is good at read the game and shows us what football wants.
ReplyDeleteAR1 missed clear corner kick. YC is correct this is raxkless tackle.
ReplyDeleteFirst yellow of the match is correct. I think we will see more yellow
ReplyDeleteI wanted to write Çakir should definitely award the first YC after 35' in order to calm the match down, now he did it. Maybe a bit late but good decision in 38' in front of the bench.
ReplyDeleteMost challenging match of the tournament by a mile. Very solid display from Cakir in 1st half. Good decision from Rosetti to assign a big wig for this clash in Budapest.
ReplyDeleteGood performance by Çakır in the 1H, very sensitive piece of refereeing, on top of infractions in a satisfactory way.
ReplyDeleteUnlike WC 2014 say, what is very visible to me - the players want, and more importantly, expect, this lenient approach by the referee. Ideology has become practicality!
I get your point but would not call it lenient. It is about understanding the game and preserving the nature of the show with the right vision not to let the players go off the rails.
Delete@Mikael w
DeleteI agree, they really rarely protest against play-on calls or no cards.
After the first half, I said that it will be unfair to reserve Kuipers for final. There are so much good referees, and good performances. I think that soon we have best officiating ever. Nobody speak about officiating(only officiating experts).
ReplyDeleteI get your point but would not call it lenient. It is about understanding the game and preserving the nature of the show with the right vision not to let the players go off the rails.
ReplyDeleteWell... Ruben Dias deserves his 2nd YC
ReplyDeleteMin 54. This was illigal use of hand. Cakir missed this situation.
ReplyDeleteThis no foul is a big call because if it was foul it would have to be second yellow
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about 55' position? Can we argue second yellow card?
ReplyDeleteA reckless use of arms from Dias which could've been SYC worthy. Cakir didn't spot it live, to not whistle foul at all is a significant mistake.
ReplyDeleteMaybe AR2 could've helped him.
Not only that he missed it. It would have been the 2nd YC=RC!
ReplyDeleteCakir must be very careful not to loose control now...
managing ruben diaz will be interesting now. he should have received 2yc and is generally on the edge with his behaviour. and hungarian players realize that…
ReplyDeleteThat was maximum careless use of arm. Never a second yellow card. Cakir missed the incident, but it was never a yellow card. No force, no intention, typical careless use of arm.
ReplyDeleteAgree. 2nd yellow card for that? It would be absurd!
DeleteÇakir must be very careful now. 2ndYC for Dias was at least possible for the use of arm. Match is heated and Çakir allows a lot. It suited in first half but now he should have a stricter line.
ReplyDeleteCakir went bald in the past year alone?
ReplyDeleteMin 54 this was illegal use of hand. But may be for Çakır it's not clear for second yellow for this reason he decided play on
ReplyDeleteI agree with the no call on Dias. That would have been a really soft 2YC. I don’t think it was reckless, Dias wasn’t looking at him and there was hardly any force, open palm. Red card for that would have lost Cakir the game.
ReplyDeleteThat's it!
DeleteAgree with all of your ideas. Dias did not see the opponent and the intensity of the touch was low. That's why it is better not to judge this situation as reckless.
DeleteMin 66 correct goal kick decision
ReplyDeleteFor me, it would be very soft for the 2nd YC for Dias. Maybe the 1st YC but not enough for sending off a player. So I agree with Cakir with play on decision.
ReplyDelete75 min missed footst. and YC Pepe
ReplyDeletethe contact was soft , no YC
DeleteNo ofr?
ReplyDeleteGreat decision with new laws of the game about handball offence. Congratulations Çakır �� �� ��
ReplyDeleteClaps for Çakır (not question mark) :))
DeleteNo penalty for handball in 76' and no VAR intervention but it seems like Irrati spoke with Çakir. Supportable to play on.
ReplyDeleteIMO this should have been a penalty but not clear and obvious mistake for VAR to intervene. Second crucial decision that i think Cakir got wrong today
ReplyDeleteWith the new laws of the game this kind unexpected situation is not handball offence. Ball was come from short distance and hand of defender player is natural position with his body position.
DeleteNever a PK decision. The Hungarian player does not move tha hand towards the ball. On top of that, it is so close. Excellent call from Cakir.
DeleteHow can a referee see that incident live? If you think it’s penalty var has to intervene in terma of missed incident.
DeleteCould you please stop saying "new law"?
DeleteThere is no NEW law regarding defence handball, IFAB slightly rewrote the rule in order to simplify it and to achieve a more consistent and homogeneous applycation. The underlying principle of "unnaturally bigger" is absolutely the same (they added a more detailed description) please verify it.
This clearly isn't a penalty with the 21/22 rule and it isn't a penalty with the 20/21 one
The defender while running kept humerus and elbow against the body slightly moving only the forearm in a natural way.
This movement of hand was more unnatural than the position of arm in Turkey - Italy game! Apart from that hand moved to the ball which not happened in Rome. More of a penalty then Turkey - Italy but distance was short and hand not that much out makes no penalty still acceptable for me.
DeleteI'm sorry but you are wrong. There is no provision for distance or speed the only concept is that the defender should not use his arms to increase his size. So, when the ball is approaching, the arms should be along and near the body, you could bend them while running or jumping but you shouldn't extend them. When you move your arms should naturally follow the body...
DeleteYou can find lots of example in the IFAB presentation.
According to the rules this wasn't a penalty while the one in Rome was.
Again good offside flag by AR2 disallowing 1–0 for Hungary. AR2 with a very good performance so far.
ReplyDeleteGreat decision from AR2... Offside decision is correct...
ReplyDeleteWould have been awful if he didnt see that metre offside. I just see an expected decision here
DeleteCorrect offside call by the assistant to deny a Hungary goal.
ReplyDeleteFor me no penalty in 76th minute was correct decision, offside call by Ongun also correct.
ReplyDeleteVery good application of delaying the flag and disallowing a goal by AR2 Mr. Ongun.
ReplyDeleteCorrect offside by Ongun 👏
ReplyDeleteThe offside call was delayed to VAR reason, it was quite clear offside position, AR did well, but this delay contributed to the reaction by player from HUN who went very close to AR to protest.
ReplyDeleteBtw, the player who was protesting got a YC for that.
DeleteBTW something is changing with hanbdballs.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree, this wasn't a penalty today as it shouldn't be six month ago.
DeleteHowever i concede that some referee wrongly called similar penalty. IFAB itself said that the rule was rewritten in part to prevent that.
Wow, penalty. RC for DOGSO? Very soft. I am not convinced.
ReplyDeleteFor me a soft decision but still supportable in terms of VAR intervention. However, to be honest, if holding was the reason for the penalty, it should be a RC for DOGSO.
Deletethat's never a penalty. In my opinion VAR should have intervened.
ReplyDeleteIt's such a clear penalty, come on!
DeleteThat's such a soft call. I mean Cakir had a great game but you don't give this penalty. If you award penalties for such contacts, you have 5 penalties per game from now on. Basically every other corner leads to a penalty then...
DeleteYou can argue whether it is YC or RC but the foul is absolutely undisputed. There were other Hungarian players around, so YC is acceptable to me.
DeleteSupportable penalty call, that is why VAR did not intervene, but IMO better would be that he did not whistle it.
ReplyDeleteMy first impression, with ball to keeper nobody would have asked for this penalty, it was an "unexpected" whistle by Cakir, live this was my perception. Not wrong, but soft. Then, in case of whistle, DOGSO scenario, maybe RC? I saw only contact between arms trying to hold attacker.
ReplyDeleteBut this was holding offence... YC is possible for dissent??? If it's DOGSO, should be red card for holding offence. In holding there is no attempt to play with ball...
DeleteIMO clear and supportable PK. Orban is holding from behind not only for a moment, but for seconds, constantly. No doubt for me. PM and YC
ReplyDeletePS DOGSO for me possible but not mandatory. 50/50
DeleteCorrect penalty, obviously holding and pulling from Hungary player. Well done Cakir.
ReplyDeleteBut it should be DOGSO RC.
DeleteFor me it´s a correct panalty.
ReplyDeleteso soft ...
ReplyDeleteThis was the first penalty of the tournament.
ReplyDeleteSecond, Taylor whistled one in Denmark-Finland.
DeleteThe second penalty ;) First one was given by Taylor in DEN-FIN.
DeleteThere was one in Denmark vs Finland which Denmark missed.
DeleteSorry, I missed DEN - FIN! Thanks for your answers.
DeleteNope Chefren - Denmark v Finland was first penalty missed by Denmark
DeleteSupportable penalty for me, 50/50 this one. I can't say the penalty is wrong
ReplyDelete100% penalty, you cannot possibly argue against it. For me, should be a RC, it’s not an attempt to play the ball, as I only see the arms bringing the attacker down. However, if there is any doubt I am okay with a yellow.
ReplyDeleteIMO correct penalty but it should have been a red card. Only thing that is sure is that this match by far has most talking points regarding refereeing
ReplyDeleteI don't see any crucial mistake, not even a wrong decision. By far the most challenging game but the card management was superb. Cakir never ever lost control.
DeleteClear RC for DOGSO
DeleteNO DGSO at all. There was at least another Hungarian player around. YC absolutely supportable.
DeleteBut the other Hungarian player didn't have any chance to prevent Silva shooting on goal from 10 meters.
DeleteSCANDALOUS no VAR intervention. Irrati should be out of the tournament. Clearest DOGSO/holding you will ever see. No single argument to back a YC given by Cakir.
ReplyDeleteIf it was DOGSO, the referee should decide RC because offence was holding. There was no attempt to play with ball
ReplyDeletethere are two part of the foul : first holding e finally tackle , cakir decides that the real foul was the second and is correct the irrati didn't intervene
DeleteThat would be a harsh red card for me - penalty is supportable. No clear and obvious error, so should not have VAR intervention.
ReplyDelete"Harsh" is not argument, you have to look at the nature of the foul, genuine or not, if the foul is soft, no matter harsh or not.
Deleteok let me clarify - for me YC fully supportable as not a clear DOGSO.
DeleteI disagree with the YC given in the penalty scene, for me the foul was not a genuine attempt to play ball, otherwise very good performance by Cakir in the most challenging game so far, and it wasn't difficult to guess. Especially in the last minutes, important decisions to be taken and always big pressure on the officials.
ReplyDeleteGood performance by both assistant referees as well.
I actually don't like forgiving those holding offences. The defender is in the worse position and grabs the shoulder quite significantly, whilst his only intention is to stop the attacker from breaking through. One does not necessarily has to whistle it, because the attacker goes down quite easily, nonetheless, I absolutely support Cakir here - RC would have been possible (by the book even correcter?!), but it wouldn't be a wise choice in the context here.
ReplyDeleteThere was also a small foot/leg contact at the penalty. If Cakir gave the foul for that and not for the holding, it would explain the YC. But then it would be a very soft decision.
ReplyDeleteGiving the penalty for holding is OK for me, but then I don't find an argument against a Red Card.
But the minimal foot contact only occurred after the Portuguese player was already falling. It was not the cause of the fall. So if whistled, there can only be a holding offence and in this CLEAR DOGSO scenario a RC should have given…
DeleteThe penalty decision has to be rewatched. I am quite sure, if whistled, it had to be a RC. It was still okay that Çakir did not give a 2nd YC for illegal use of elbow early in second half. However, if we can validate DOGSO, it is a crucial mistake. Very good first half by Çakir, not convinced in terms of second half. AR2 was great.
ReplyDeleteOverall a good performance by Cakir and the team.
ReplyDeleteTo me it was a masterclass about how to manage cards in an incredibly difficult game in a rowdy atmosphere. Elite ref indeed.
DeleteMost of the authors wrote because of DOGSO and no intention to play the ball, penalty and RC should be awarded. Just want to learn, I knew double punishment should be avoided if you award a penalty, unless it is unsportsmanlike foul. Has this changed or this was something I knew wrong.
ReplyDeleteDOGSO and foul being an attempt to play the ball = YC
DeleteDOGSO and foul being pushing/holding/handball = RC
No, you are correct. But holding fouls are always considered as unsportsmanlike foul, because there is no genuine attempt to play the ball. Therefore DOGSO for holding must be a RC.
DeleteThe point is... it's not clear DOGSO.
DeleteHaha, you made my day!
DeleteGood performance by Cakir and I am glad that he did a good job. This man proves that he is still one of the best referees in Europe. Possible SF for him. The other SF would go to Brych, but we will see their performance before that.
ReplyDeleteAlso we have to praise AR1 for play on before 0-3
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I firstly thought it was offside. Excelent decision IMO.
DeleteCakir did not lose control in match which was very very challenging. He decided very critical situations in correct way. Until today, the best referee performance in the tournament.Throughout the match, foul decisions were consistent and the level was acceptable. Expect penalty kick situation. There was DOGSO because a faul decided for holding offence. Cakir should be show RC. May be Cakir whistle for careless challenge offence and VAR does not intervere...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreat no offside call before third goal, great penalty call, correct card management. Very good Cuneyt Cakir.
ReplyDeleteThe very best display so far. I think he made his case for the final at Wembley.
DeleteIMO YC ok for me on penalty incident. There is a holding offence but also he tries to play the ball. Because in the end he touched the ball. No var intervention is understandable.
ReplyDeleteTeam Hungary made their substitutions using 4 separate slots during 2nd half of the game (no substitutions made by them at HT) while only 3 slots are allowed to make substitutions by one team. Does it go into account 4th official who missed that?
ReplyDeleteMin 66 (1) - 78(2) - 89 (2) subs at 3 slots...
DeleteOne sub was at 76:57 the other was 77:40 that’s why it says different minutes.
DeleteSo many Cakir's fans on here.. It's not a fanclub's site, I'm looking here for technical analysis rather than blind support.
ReplyDeleteWhat about other fans? Write same comment about kuipers etc.
DeleteStop posting ridiculous comment, Cakir performs well today, this is the fact. This is simple. Most people are objective.
DeleteMr - Mrs Carl,
DeleteI read all comments on this page, everybody wrote their own ideas. Some people have said good performance some of them bad.
Do yOu know what is the worst thing in this site? The biggest problem is you and kind of your type. “ . You always want that referees mistakes. You insult them. You humiliate them.
Today you are very angry because Mr Cakir did Very Well and you are out of your job.
We all wish that a few minutes later Mr Carlos Grande does his best.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete:) please continue to do it Mr-Mrs Carl. You are in good way!
DeleteExcellent Cakir congragulations
ReplyDeleteOT. I would like to answer some gentelmans here that thinks that we are fan of Cakir or any other referee. No, we not. We give our impressions and try to be objective so much as we can. I don't gonna defend or attack anybody, but it is naturally and democratic to defend every good performance, like it is naturally and democratic to say when somebody of referees does not do his job on a required level, but everything that we said is with, I strongly belive, correct volume. Thank you, enjoy 2020 EURO and officiating at same. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteThat is the mood. Let's enjoy refereeing at Euro 2020!
DeleteWell said! Ref Fot.
DeleteI thinks he missed the foul on 8'. And YC.
ReplyDeleteCongrats Cakir
ReplyDeleteRegarding the PK, there is a small trip on the lower body at the end of the hold. I have to think this was the reason YC was given and also why it wasn't reviewed.
ReplyDeleteYes, but still the question is, whether that is the correct interpretation. Normally, the more severe offence is punished. So if there is a holding and a tripping in a DOGSO situation, shouldn't it be a RC?
DeleteIt is actually the other way around: if there is both holding and tripping, FIFA and UEFA want yellow rather then red card. Players should be sent off for DOGSO (in the penalty area) only when there are no circumstances at all for a yellow card. Cakir followed UEFA's direction.
DeleteWith the Hummels tackling from the late game under discussion, I think, one also has to rewatch the tackle by Orban (against B.Silva) in 27', where he manages to get the ball with a risky action - but also touches the opponent's leg first.
ReplyDeleteHIGHLIGHTS
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-AfUmzr3td6