Carlos del Cerro grande will officiate Croatia - Czech Republic in Glasgow, let's comment his performance here.
Referee: Carlos del Cerro Grande (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Juan Carlos Yuste Jiménez (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Alonso Fernández (ESP)
Fourth Official: Sandro Schärer (SUI)
Fifth Official: Stéphane de Almeida (SUI)
Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Íñigo Prieto López de Cerain (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Marco Di Bello (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Frank De Bleeckere (BEL)
UEFA Delegate: Peadar Ryan (IRL)
Assistant Referee 1: Juan Carlos Yuste Jiménez (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Alonso Fernández (ESP)
Fourth Official: Sandro Schärer (SUI)
Fifth Official: Stéphane de Almeida (SUI)
Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Íñigo Prieto López de Cerain (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Marco Di Bello (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Frank De Bleeckere (BEL)
UEFA Delegate: Peadar Ryan (IRL)
Hopefully a better performance from his last visit at Glasgow.
ReplyDeleteGood luck carlos
I am expecting a high level of performance from Grande today.
ReplyDeleteHe was excellent in Ger vs Fra, despite having a shaky start in that game.
Fingers crossed, as we await his handling of this game.
I wish him luck.
IMO he is far from excellent in Germany - France, I would summarize it as "below average"
DeleteMissed foul on 6' and possible YC.
ReplyDeleteFor me missed penalty for use of elbow. OFR is necessary.
ReplyDeletePK + YC (elbow as tool)
DeleteCorrect decision. Croatian players are very furious but definitely a mandatory OFR. I think it can be a difficult match for del Cerro Grande from now.
DeleteNo way
ReplyDeleteCorrect
ReplyDeleteNot sure if that’s a clear and obvious error
ReplyDeleteStill bleeding should not be allowed to carry on needs to get treatment
DeleteCroatian players angry as the challenge was shown on the big screen at hampden
ReplyDeleteThings will be more difficult for him now.
ReplyDeleteFor me the right decision after OFR.
ReplyDeleteCorrect OFR, penalty and YC.
ReplyDeleteI am saying that as Croatian ;)
DeleteWhich is very fair. Seems a bit difficult for some other guys...
DeleteThere is no way that's a penalty! If that's a penalty the game is gone!
ReplyDeleteWhat reasons do you guys have in mind that this wouldnt be a penalty? Obviously the correct decision
DeleteHow is he supposed to jump?, His eyes were on the ball. They both had their elbows up to help them jump higher.
DeleteSo you can do everything in order to jump? This is far away from refereeing, sorry!
DeleteYou're obviously just looking at this as a referee fan and not a proper football fan because every normal football fan can see that's not a PK, clear eyes on the ball. Doesn't even see the player. No intent. But you have your opinion that it's a PK you're entitled to that but my opinion is if that's a PK then the game is gone.
DeleteA proper football fan...ok we should end this...
DeleteNever a penalty. Might aswell give up on football if that is
ReplyDeleteAgree
DeleteHe was obviously still bleeding. Why was he allowed to take the penalty?
ReplyDeleteTechnically not a good procedure by del Cerro Grande. Player who was fouled is still bleeding, however, he was allowed to shoot the penalty. Not easy to detect the foul itself on the pitch. If del Cerro Grande had a look at both players jumping, he should have seen it, though.
ReplyDeleteCarlos del Grande made elbow gesture when talking to VAR, so he had seen that. Penalty was a forced call after VAR intervention, referee not fully convinced IMHO.
ReplyDeleteJonas Eriksson, on Swedish TV, supports penalty + YC
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure VAR was getting nervous during deciding whether it is OFR or not.
ReplyDeleteCorrect penalty and YC for Lovren, but, sorry, how on Earth is it possible to take a penalty kick with blood on the face?
ReplyDeleteCorrect penalty. I think Del Cerro Grande communicated to VAR that he had missed the incident completely, which would make it a clear and obvious error, as the elbow was clearly used as a weapon and not to balance himself in any way.
ReplyDelete"Used as a weapon get a grip", How is he supposed to jump? His eyes were on the ball. They both had their elbows up to jump.
DeleteAbsolutely correct penalty kick and yellow card after OFR, in my opinion. One of the camera angles showed how far out his arm was sideways from his body, but more damning was the other camera angle (from the other end of the field) which clearly showed that the elbow was actually behind his own head when he made contact. Put these two together and it’s clear to me that the elbow was extended in a definitely reckless position.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I do believe that Schick should have been cleaned of blood before taking the penalty. And as we all know the laws of the game do allow for schick to be treated on the field and remain in the field (both because the offense is a yellow card and because he’s taking the penalty kick).
Only mistake is no RC IMO
ReplyDeleteI think this should be RC if not happen inside the box. In this case, YC + penalty is a good decision for me
DeleteSorry I don't understand why an elbow should be different card inside the box? It is not a genuine foul.
DeleteFor me no RC whatsoever, this was simply the expected (and correct) decisio IMO. Reckless illegal use of arm while challenging for the ball, nothing more nothing less.
DeleteActually, I also have the impression, that this is a RC offence, but it would be too harsh
DeleteI feel this foul is very similar to the red card in 2010 WC France-South Africa. After giving the penalty, YC sounds good to me.
DeleteClearly missed YC in 45+1' for Croatian player, close to VC. He wanted to hurt his opponent and did not even look for the ball.
ReplyDeleteNo need to look at the ball, because laws of nature determine a ball in the air coming down 100 out of 100 times :) Croatian player trying to block Czech opponent to gain possession of the ball for me more obvious than VC scenario.
DeleteI do not like Carlos del Cerro Grande style tonight, similar to his first performance. Very distant from players and ignoring them without any explanation.
ReplyDeleteThey are getting frustrated can lead to a tough second half
Del Cerro Grande did well until the OFR. After that, he was in trouble. Obviously, Croatian players were not happy with his decisions. 45+1' must be at least a YC, AR2 did not give the right input. Again, not convinced by del Cerro Grande.
ReplyDeleteStill not impressed by del Cerro, but I think overall this first half was something better than France - Germany, apart from the penalty incident. I think that VAR intervention is correct, YC as well, it wasn't a clear violent conduct, but more an unlucky event, where we can assess the action by player as reckless. No way to play on after that, in my opinion. Then, not the best management with the player still bleeding but kicking the penalty.
ReplyDeleteCorrect decision to award penalty following reckless use of the arm by Lovren. This would be a free kick and yellow card anywhere else on the Field of Play and so should be a penalty + yellow card in this incident.
ReplyDeleteTerrible penalty decision.
ReplyDeleteLovren co not get his arm down because the atacker jump against him.
This is a macht deciding decision.
IMO correct penalty by Del Cerro Grande + correct YC.
ReplyDeleteGood onside before 1-1
ReplyDeleteCorrect YC in 50', probably after AR2's input. However, exactly the same manner of jumping into the opponent (with even higher intensity) remained unpunished. Lack of consistency.
ReplyDeleteDel Cerro dropped his YC :D
ReplyDeleteMacron pockets suck.
And again
DeleteAnd he lost it again. Does not look good.
DeleteFirst AND foremost, the penalty incident is CLEARLY not conclusive in real time.
ReplyDeleteEven the replay itself was NOT conclusive, because there are still lots of divided opinion even on this platform, regarding whether it was a pen or not.
As such, it will be VERY VERY harsh to fault Grande for using an OFR.
Also, I can understand why the pen was awarded. In slow motion, Lovren's hands may have appeared to the referee to be higher than it normally should, and therefore used more as a weapon than a tool.
I can also understand the argument of those who think that the pen should not have been awarded, because both players raised their arms, but unfortunately, it was Lovren's elbows which connected with Schick's face. So for that reason, some people may feel that incident was more accidental than a foul.
I think however what swayed the ref's final decision after the OFR, was Schick's bleeding face. If he was not cut, I do NOT think VAR will have intervened in the first place.
Overall, contrary to some people's opinion, I'm actually still impressed with Grande's general performance so far in this game.
Good YC in 90+2' for a stamp on the opponent's foot. What did he do now? Del Cerro Grande ended the match 20 seconds too early!
ReplyDeleteWow, I wanted to write that his second half was much better. But it is definitely not acceptable to whistle 20 seconds too early. Croatia was even not very far from the goal.
DeleteWhat about the last 20 seconds?
ReplyDeleteFinal whistle 20 seconds before?
ReplyDeleteWhy end the match????
ReplyDelete20 more seconds were left and Croatia had promising attack.
That was a very short 3 minutes of added time (played 2:40 instead)... Could have waited the 20 seconds that were left on the clock to avoid extra criticism
ReplyDeleteDel Cerro simply got bored. Last game for him.
DeleteThere were still 20 seconds to play…
ReplyDelete20 seconds left ???
ReplyDeleteThere were still 20 seconds to play…
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed by del Cerro Grande's performances at this EURO. It seems that it isn't his tournament. So I think his performances don't justify an appointment in a KO match compared to other referee's performances.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteCould be the last match of del Cerro Grande.
ReplyDeleteNice work from Del Cerro IMO. Some small details to improve, but nothing serious. 8.3. I think he has options to referee in the next round
ReplyDeleteIf we evaluate del Cerro Grande's performances, it would not be deserved to give him a third match. Hard to say that but I think it is understandable. I was not convinced by him in FRA-GER and there were some incidents today that underlined this impression:
ReplyDelete- Seems technical, but Czech player was not allowed to shoot the penalty because he was bleeding. It does not help del Cerro Grande that everyone sees pictures with a bleeding player shooting a goal... I am quite sure that UEFA won't be happy because if they care for something, it is bad pictures.
- It is (sorry for this expression) unacceptable to end the match 20 seconds too early and even preventing a team from having a promising attack. There are clear rules, you cannot ignore them because you want to avoid a potential crucial decision in the very last minute. I remember that DFB was criticising referees in Second Division for ending the match too early.
We should check it on full match record. The match watches shown on the graphics are often somehow wrong. I even remember UEFA blaming a referee for wrongly finishing a game before the added time has passed but I checked it later on full match record and the referee (Lardot IIRC) finished the game perfectly well. So we should be really careful with such allegations. :)
DeleteI understand they can be off a little, but 20 seconds?
DeleteAfter first 15 minutes of the game, I thought Carlos will lose control over the game quickly. Missed fouls in 5', 11' and 14', missed YC for reckless use of arm in 9' were not a good entering the game to say it kindly. However, Carlos managed to get a grip and handled the rest of the game with a firm, serious style.
ReplyDeleteFoul for the penalty could have been detected at real time. I can understand those who complain about this being a foul but everywhere outside the box it's a foul and YC, so the OFR was fully expected and simply correct.
After the penalty, some tense minutes due to frustration of Croatian players. Carlos handled many scenes in an authoritarian way, marking his presence, not allowing the atmosphere to heat up even more.
Second half was far less challenging. All cards given were mandatory.
The next game will depend on how UEFA see the penalty incident - should Carlos have detected the penalty on his own? The rest was not top class (especially the first 15 minutes) but still good, expected level I think (8.3).
Let me ask to all of you, if this particular fault was committed outside the box, do you all think that would be called such?
ReplyDeleteI would like to add a comment about additional time...is it so difficult to give correct additional time?? Play was stopped for PK at 32:55, and kick off was later than 38:00!!! It means 5!! minutes lost for OFR following by PK. And additional time was only 3 minutes?? Ok, 2:40
ReplyDeletePenalty was in first half!
DeleteBut the additional time in first half was indeed too short (only 3 minutes, rightly extended to 4) after the long break around the penalty.
DeleteYou can look confident and proud and then whistle ahead of time so that nothing happens and the whole effect disappears.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing which came into my mind. dCG had some real problems reading the match. He tried to keep it fluent, even in situations there was no reason, like fouls in the own half or at the middle of the field.
ReplyDeleteI checked the time issue on the full match record. Carlos indeed finished the game 20 seconds too early.
ReplyDeleteso to conclude - and according to uefa marking scale:
ReplyDelete- missed pk+yc, given after ofr (7.9)
- bleeding player taking the penalty (7.8)
- IMO missed yc in stoppage time of 1st half, like mentioned above (7.6)
from the ~40 matches played so far, only three had major talks about refereeing (tur-ita, with the handball incident, fra-ger with application of l12, disciplinary-control and match-management in general, and now the same again in hro-cze). also the style of refereeing seems to be very different from the line and approach of almost every other referee. carlos has problems to get accepted by the players as his style is way too pedantic and authoritarian. if i compare him in this tournament with other (non-)elite refs, i think his performances do not deserve to appoint him any further. he got his 2nd last chance, as i mentioned elsewhere, and i see siebert in great form...
Agreed.
DeleteNo no no, nothing like that! At first the observer makes an assessment without the crucial mistake, and then makes a correction for the crucial mistake.
DeleteIn this case, assuming that for both the bleeding player and the missed YC 0.1 will be deducted (which I highly doubt with regard to the bleeding player), we come to 8.4 - 0.2 = 8.2 (or 8.5 - 0.2 when the game is assessed quite challenging).
If the observer deems the penalty as a crucial mistake for which the referee is accountable, an overall mark of 8.2 will become 7.8.
And you conveniently ignore the no penalty call tonight in eng-sco as major point of discussion?
Delete@anonymous 23:44 --> ofr is automatic 7.9 (not really any chance neither for observer nor referee). for clear and obvious errors like this, it is what uefa calls a clear and important mistake. those are considered for penalties, red cards, and some more technical stuff. as we have seen a correct ofr in this case, as the referee had to correct his decision after var-intervention. even if the var-intervention would have been wrong, the referee takes the final decision. if he had not given the penalty after ofr today, the mark would have gone to 7.4 (two crucial mistakes).
Deletealthough i stand corrected as you mentioned the mark would be 7,8. it is indeed right what you wrote:
missing caution = 8.2 (missing disciplinary sanction)
bleeding player = 8.1 (one area of improvement, bleeding player)
then when the mark is between 8.2-8.0 a crucial mistake, like a missed pk in that case, will bring the mark down to 7.8
For one or the other reason you started with 8.3, which is not correct. In UEFA starting mark is 8.4 for normal difficulty matches and 8.5 for quite challenging matches.
DeleteAnd it’s not true that an OFR automatically brings the mark to 7.9 or 7.8. If the observer deems the mistake as not to be blamed to the referee (or assistant referee for that matter) it’s not mandatory to go to 7.9/7.8. One can think of e.g. a handball which can impossibly be recognized despite a good, expected position of the referee.
Deleteno i dont. a missing disciplinary sanction is 8.2 and not 8.3
Deletebut yeah, even if it is only 8,3 ... then it would be 7.8 in the end. however, i dont really care about the mark tbh...i care about those two perfomances :-( and i think we all on this blog agree, that those were below expected level from an elite-referee...
DeleteSorry, but you’re informing this blog incorrectly. If you don’t care about the mark, then don’t do the maths. At least provide the correct information.
Delete- a missed disciplinary sanction is NOT 8.2. It’s just -0.1 from starting mark
- 8.3 and a crucial mistake is converted to 7.9 (not 7.8)
I would say that Grande is at this tournament like Zwayer previous season in CL. Simply below highest standard. Numerous debatable situations and mistakes, different criteria than most of other refs, ending the game too early etc.
ReplyDeleteThe question is why the commitee havent seen this earlier, already at previous EL finals. I dont usually like harsh comments on this blog about "deserving home ticket" etc, but in this case I really dont see any reason for him to stay for KO as a main referee.
As Zwayer Fan, yes he wasnt good on the last season. We all understand that but please next move on and forget this. He had private and small problems which affected him so please let's turn the page.
Delete-ZwayerBrazil
HIGHLIGHTS
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-oHkyBiiM6p