Tuesday, 15 June 2021

UEFA EURO 2020 Match 11: Hungary - Portugal (discussion)

Cüneyt Çakır ready to officiate Hungary - Portugal, we can discuss his performance in this topic. 



Group F
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)

143 comments:

  1. 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!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow Cakir looks very very old with this new bald look

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great onside call by Ongun in 5th minute.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The game started intense with full stadium.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Early 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 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...

      Delete
    2. Wow, the crowd behind the Hungary's goal is gorgeous! I expect big pressure on Cakir. I hope he will not feel intimidate.

      Delete
    3. I think when your office is usually Turkish stadiums, then you can go everywhere

      Delete
  6. Good no foul call in 5‘ in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Finally black kit. So much nicer to see a ref in black than pink or blue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blue is ok, pink is strange. Black looks professional!

      Delete
    2. Colours are oke for me, only this fluor is to much, like the neon and pink!

      Delete
  8. Very good offside flag by AR2 in 19'. Ronaldo in offside position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know.... Maybe it was onside

      Delete
  9. Very good offside call on 19' AR2 - difficult match, with too much contact between the players and intense atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Many 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.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quite obvious corner missed by AR right in front of him

    ReplyDelete
  12. Match is really very challenging. And there are so many physical contacts. Cakir is good at read the game and shows us what football wants.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AR1 missed clear corner kick. YC is correct this is raxkless tackle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. First yellow of the match is correct. I think we will see more yellow

    ReplyDelete
  15. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Most 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.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Good performance by Çakır in the 1H, very sensitive piece of refereeing, on top of infractions in a satisfactory way.

    Unlike 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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
    2. @Mikael w
      I agree, they really rarely protest against play-on calls or no cards.

      Delete
  18. 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).

    ReplyDelete
  19. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well... Ruben Dias deserves his 2nd YC

    ReplyDelete
  21. Min 54. This was illigal use of hand. Cakir missed this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This no foul is a big call because if it was foul it would have to be second yellow

    ReplyDelete
  23. What do you think about 55' position? Can we argue second yellow card?

    ReplyDelete
  24. A 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.
    Maybe AR2 could've helped him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not only that he missed it. It would have been the 2nd YC=RC!
    Cakir must be very careful not to loose control now...

    ReplyDelete
  26. 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…

    ReplyDelete
  27. That 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. 2nd yellow card for that? It would be absurd!

      Delete
  28. Çakir 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.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cakir went bald in the past year alone?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Min 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

    ReplyDelete
  31. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's it!

      Delete
    2. Agree 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.

      Delete
  32. Min 66 correct goal kick decision

    ReplyDelete
  33. For 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.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 75 min missed footst. and YC Pepe

    ReplyDelete
  35. Great decision with new laws of the game about handball offence. Congratulations Çakır �� �� ��

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claps for Çakır (not question mark) :))

      Delete
  36. No penalty for handball in 76' and no VAR intervention but it seems like Irrati spoke with Çakir. Supportable to play on.

    ReplyDelete
  37. IMO 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With 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.

      Delete
    2. Never 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.

      Delete
    3. How can a referee see that incident live? If you think it’s penalty var has to intervene in terma of missed incident.

      Delete
    4. Could you please stop saying "new law"?
      There 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.

      Delete
    5. 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.

      Delete
    6. I'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...
      You can find lots of example in the IFAB presentation.
      According to the rules this wasn't a penalty while the one in Rome was.

      Delete
  38. Again good offside flag by AR2 disallowing 1–0 for Hungary. AR2 with a very good performance so far.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Great decision from AR2... Offside decision is correct...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would have been awful if he didnt see that metre offside. I just see an expected decision here

      Delete
  40. Correct offside call by the assistant to deny a Hungary goal.

    ReplyDelete
  41. For me no penalty in 76th minute was correct decision, offside call by Ongun also correct.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Very good application of delaying the flag and disallowing a goal by AR2 Mr. Ongun.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Btw, the player who was protesting got a YC for that.

      Delete
  44. BTW something is changing with hanbdballs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I respectfully disagree, this wasn't a penalty today as it shouldn't be six month ago.
      However i concede that some referee wrongly called similar penalty. IFAB itself said that the rule was rewritten in part to prevent that.

      Delete
  45. Wow, penalty. RC for DOGSO? Very soft. I am not convinced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For 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.

      Delete
  46. that's never a penalty. In my opinion VAR should have intervened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's such a clear penalty, come on!

      Delete
    2. That'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...

      Delete
    3. You 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.

      Delete
  47. Supportable penalty call, that is why VAR did not intervene, but IMO better would be that he did not whistle it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. My 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But 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...

      Delete
  49. IMO 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS DOGSO for me possible but not mandatory. 50/50

      Delete
  50. Correct penalty, obviously holding and pulling from Hungary player. Well done Cakir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it should be DOGSO RC.

      Delete
  51. For me it´s a correct panalty.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This was the first penalty of the tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Second, Taylor whistled one in Denmark-Finland.

      Delete
    2. The second penalty ;) First one was given by Taylor in DEN-FIN.

      Delete
    3. There was one in Denmark vs Finland which Denmark missed.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I missed DEN - FIN! Thanks for your answers.

      Delete
    5. Nope Chefren - Denmark v Finland was first penalty missed by Denmark

      Delete
  53. Supportable penalty for me, 50/50 this one. I can't say the penalty is wrong

    ReplyDelete
  54. 100% 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.

    ReplyDelete
  55. IMO 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 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.

      Delete
    2. Clear RC for DOGSO

      Delete
    3. NO DGSO at all. There was at least another Hungarian player around. YC absolutely supportable.

      Delete
    4. But the other Hungarian player didn't have any chance to prevent Silva shooting on goal from 10 meters.

      Delete
  56. SCANDALOUS 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.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If it was DOGSO, the referee should decide RC because offence was holding. There was no attempt to play with ball

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there 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

      Delete
  58. That would be a harsh red card for me - penalty is supportable. No clear and obvious error, so should not have VAR intervention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "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.

      Delete
    2. ok let me clarify - for me YC fully supportable as not a clear DOGSO.

      Delete
  59. I 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.
    Good performance by both assistant referees as well.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  61. There 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.
    Giving the penalty for holding is OK for me, but then I don't find an argument against a Red Card.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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…

      Delete
  62. The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Overall a good performance by Cakir and the team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me it was a masterclass about how to manage cards in an incredibly difficult game in a rowdy atmosphere. Elite ref indeed.

      Delete
  64. Most 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DOGSO and foul being an attempt to play the ball = YC
      DOGSO and foul being pushing/holding/handball = RC

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
    3. The point is... it's not clear DOGSO.

      Delete
    4. Haha, you made my day!

      Delete
  65. Good 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.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Also we have to praise AR1 for play on before 0-3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. I firstly thought it was offside. Excelent decision IMO.

      Delete
  67. Cakir 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...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  68. Great no offside call before third goal, great penalty call, correct card management. Very good Cuneyt Cakir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very best display so far. I think he made his case for the final at Wembley.

      Delete
  69. IMO 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.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Team 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Min 66 (1) - 78(2) - 89 (2) subs at 3 slots...

      Delete
    2. One sub was at 76:57 the other was 77:40 that’s why it says different minutes.

      Delete
  71. So many Cakir's fans on here.. It's not a fanclub's site, I'm looking here for technical analysis rather than blind support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about other fans? Write same comment about kuipers etc.

      Delete
    2. Stop posting ridiculous comment, Cakir performs well today, this is the fact. This is simple. Most people are objective.

      Delete
    3. Mr - Mrs Carl,

      I 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.

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

      Delete
    5. :) please continue to do it Mr-Mrs Carl. You are in good way!

      Delete
  72. Excellent Cakir congragulations

    ReplyDelete
  73. OT. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the mood. Let's enjoy refereeing at Euro 2020!

      Delete
    2. Well said! Ref Fot.

      Delete
  74. I thinks he missed the foul on 8'. And YC.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Regarding 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, 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?

      Delete
    2. It 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.

      Delete
  76. With 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.

    ReplyDelete
  77. HIGHLIGHTS

    https://we.tl/t-AfUmzr3td6

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!