Antonio Mateu Lahoz in charge of England - Scotland, we discuss here his performance.
Referee: Antonio Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Díaz Pérez Del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Fifth Official: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: José María Sánchez Martínez (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Filippo Meli (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Lutz-Michael Fröhlich (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Myrsini Psarropoulou (GRE)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Díaz Pérez Del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Fifth Official: Bahattin Duran (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: José María Sánchez Martínez (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Filippo Meli (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Lutz-Michael Fröhlich (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Myrsini Psarropoulou (GRE)
Immediately after kick-off a quite nasty knee-to-thigh challenge by Lyndon Dykes not whistled by the Spanish crew. Mateu just missed the scene or was this a message to both teams that he’ll not be fussy tonight?
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a little gap in the rules: a referee doesn't want to give a foul in near the corner flag for a defensive team when a goal kick would be much more advantageous, even though a foul was committed. Also, why can't a foul be given when the ball is out of bounds. The rules preclude it, thus allowing for many fouls to go unpunished.
ReplyDeleteUnnecessary advantage, should have been whistled immediately
ReplyDeleteClear YC missed right now. A smile is not enough!
ReplyDeleteYC for dissent for McGinn with IFK, someone can confirm?
ReplyDeleteFunny Lahoz as we know him talking without limits, answering critics with a YC and putting himself theatrically in the middle of the show. However, the 22 British players look at each other like they've met an extraterrestrical in a yellow shirt...
ReplyDeleteMuch to much... But in a way we love him as he is. I will miss him.
He’s a great referee but he seems out of place in this British derby, he’s calling too many fouls. I feel like Brych or Kuipers would have suited this game better (but that doesn’t mean Lahoz is doing a bad job).
DeleteI would like to add one more name: Cakir
DeleteWas disappointed a referee from Germany Holland wasn’t appointed to this game. It needed a referee who is use to hard and fast tackles.
DeleteThe ref is close to losing this game. Good yc for dissent.
ReplyDelete29' I think now wrong offside by AR1, but difficult decision.
ReplyDeleteI cannot applaud the kind of management which sanctions dissent immediately and without any hesitation and which turns a blind eye to physical challenges like the 1. minute. knee challenge and the hand in face some minutes ago.
ReplyDeleteThis comment section is turning into a farce, honestly. Mateu has been totally fine, he’s not in ‘danger of losing the game’ as some are saying. He’s had no real problems. If you let too much go in these types of derbies, that’s when you have problems later on in the match.
ReplyDelete+1
Deleteif someone has a different opinion than you its not a farce. please keep that in mind in your next comment!
DeleteGood game so far IMO from Lahoz!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion an expected level performance by Mateu Lahoz in first half, the foul a few seconds after kick off can be discussed...
ReplyDeleteI think Mateu has been great so far. He gave a lot of fouls early on and showed a YC for Dissent to establish he was in charge. After that the players knew what they could and could not get away with which facilitated a pretty open game from minute 25 on.
ReplyDeleteOrsato would have been the right referee for this type of match.
ReplyDeleteI think this comments section is proof that there really hasn’t been a lot to talk about in this match… we are micro-examining minor details and really knit picking for anything to criticize (or complement) him for.
ReplyDeleteThis has been an easy match for Lahoz, he hasn’t been tested too much here. Nothing much to say, positive or negative, about his performance.
And right as I say that we have a penalty should for England. I support the no-call here, there was a touch but he went down very very easily. The contact was not careless. If anything, you could argue it was simulation by Sterling, but I think there was perhaps too much contact for that too.
DeleteThen there was a loooot of knit-picking in Del Cerro’s game if you ask me
DeleteWell I made a comment about the style of this tournament (generally speaking) in the morning recent match day wrap up thread here. Frankly none of the games have been very challenging at all. The referees have performed well, but the degree of difficulty is much lower than we see in many CONMEBOL, CONCACAF games etc.
DeleteVery interesting penalty appeal. Probably not enough for VAR to get involved. Is it a clear and obvious error?
ReplyDelete78’ support by VAR correct IMO
ReplyDeleteFor me missed penalty for ENG in 78'. Careless step on the foot, crucial mistake.
ReplyDeleteVery curious about UEFA's evaluation. German commentators say in almost every match that there is a clear instruction to punish stamps on the foot. Not as intense as in NED-AUT but for me still careless. I was expecting a VAR intervention to be honest.
DeleteIn Germany, you would expect a penalty for that. I wanted to joke because Lahoz' style of refereeing definitely is not what would work in Germany and Lutz-Michael Fröhlich is the referee observer but after this decision, it could be bad for Lahoz that there is a German observer...
DeleteAlso, we will have talk about this decision for the first time of this year's EURO. Will be interesting to see how UEFA will react in terms of appointments.
Believe me, nationality of the observer is totally unimportant, it’s Rosetti cs deciding whether or not a penalty should have been given here.
DeleteYeah, foot stamp. Crucial mistake.
DeleteCorrect play on at 79', attacker put his leg where the defender was going to tread on purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree!
Deletewow, all in all that looks really odd, right? if you whistle this, i think var will not intervene. i have rewatched this like one hundred times now...i am still not sure...definetly not clear and obvious IMO. so i think play-on-decision can be supported, as well as a pk would have been.
DeleteRight decision IMO by AML (80´)
ReplyDeleteClearly missed PK for England now IMO. No VAR intervention, but a foodstamp in a box isn't anything else than PK!
ReplyDeletePooh...
I think Mateu should have spotted it in real time but can't quite understand how Hernández-Hernández doesn't intervene. Surely amomg the ref blunders of the tournament.
DeleteAs an England fan it was not a penalty, calm down guys you are so dramatic
DeleteFoot stomping inside the box is indeed PK. In London and everywhere in the world. The fact that you are an English fan is irrelevant.
DeleteClear penalty. VAR tried to be British but it's EURO and he should act as UEFA official. Stamp = foul = penalty. The referees know Sterling as a player keen to simulate but it was not a case here. Bad from VAR, really. I'm shocked there was no OFR, really...
ReplyDeleteVAR intervention mandatory... Clear PK for stomping.
ReplyDeleteCompared to Alaba's foul yesterday, that was significantly less. I agree with the decision!
ReplyDeleteNot enough to decide an open match on this level. Im ok with no penalty and no clear mistake.
ReplyDeleteIs there any new rule in football stating clrar foot stomping is no longer punishable just because the match is open???
DeleteClear*
DeleteFoul at 84' was tactical and was clear YC. Doesn't matter that ball went far away to keeper.
ReplyDeleteAnd O’Donnell did get booked a moment later. I echo myself, unsatisfactory disciplinary approach for my taste
DeleteIMO no penalty.
ReplyDeleteIf this happened outside the box, foul 100%. So why not inside the box? Come on, it is indeed a crucial mistake no matter the spin you can try to put on it. Unfortunate but clear. And it can affect the outcome, which is of course bad news for Mateu.
ReplyDeleteHas feel of classic match like Germany-England in 90' World Cup even if no scoring. Fans are making for great atmosphere and good attacking football.
ReplyDeleteVery good performance by Mateu in the end. Shame the game didn't have more chances or goals.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of made me laugh. "Very good performance" with a crucial mistake affecting the result of the game? Let's be serious.
DeleteI have a strong feeling some referees will do a very good performance (e.g. Mateu Lahoz) and others are destined to have an unsatisfying performance (Del Cerro), even before the first whistle has been blown. Just a feeling that came to mind reading comments on the last two matches.
DeleteThere are some refs who always put in "a very good performance" according to this blog, even though they commit crucial mistakes, like letting foot stamping inside the box go unpunished :)
DeleteCalm down you anonymous anonymous. I'm entitled to my opinion and I thought Lagos had a great game. You don't like my opinion you can go somewhere else. Stop criticising people for legitimate opinions.
DeleteFortunately Jackson you it’s not up to you to decide whether or not I have to go somewhere else. You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion, as I’m entitled to react on your opinion. This is a discussion platform after all. So if you can’t stand to have reactions under the comments you post, maybe it’s you who should consider if you’re in the right place.
DeleteHahahah. Classic.
DeleteThere is a lot of misuse of the word "stamp" in this forum. Stamps imply the use of aggression or force, standing on a foot is not a stamp, yet it is often labelled so.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the penalty appeal, sterling initiates the contact by moving his leg across, it is not a penalty
Yes I agree - as a native speaker, "stamp" implies a kind of violent nature, "treading foul" works better I'd say?
DeleteHonestly the best thing about the game was Ally McCoist on co-commentary :P
Are you implying the foul is committed by Sterling? Cut the comedy!
DeleteTreading, stepping or stamping, it may make the difference between issuing a yellow card or not, in all cases there’s evidence of a foul (UEFA’s clear guidelines) so I don’t see why VAR should stay away.
DeleteIMO very good work from Mateu. The yellow card that he showed in the first half was smart, from then on everything has been calmer.
ReplyDeleteHe has completely controlled the match. I agree with the decision of play on in the penalty appeal. Well done
I have learnt to appreciate the different opinions across Europe on refereeing but I am not sure some of you watched the same game as me.
ReplyDeleteHe pitched his level of involvement perfectly and a poor game benefitted from that.
Never a penalty and no way were VAR getting involved.
Very cagey game but no way he was in any danger of losing control! He tried to let the game breathe early but there were a lot of niggly fouls early in match. YCs correct and no one talking about officials. I would have chosen Cakir or Brych (Spanish style not a first choice) but he refereed the type of match in front of him very well.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely a PK on Sterling! Watched it five times. Call it "treading", "stepping" or "stamping". Roberts cannot do that and get off scot-free (literally).
ReplyDeleteI was surprised there was no VAR for the ‘stamp’. In tournament so far, refs have been consistent about punishing these fouls. Only saw the one replay live and thought foul, but to be fair to VAR, threshold for intervening seems as high as I’ve seen on any tournament and refereeing is better for it.
ReplyDeleteJesus, these anonymous people really wanted a penalty huh.
ReplyDeleteYour point being?
DeleteSorry friends, I DO HAVE many sympathies for Mateu Lahoz. But today he put himself too much in the middle, was acting like someone who cannot understand the British way of playing football. That's why I hoped for someone like Brych or Kuipers being in charge.
ReplyDeleteAnd the possible PK? In doubt I always ask myself, "Would that be a free kick for foul somewhere else in the field? My answer here is a clear yes. So IMO no room for interpretation. The law of the game is absolutely clear here... But Mateu Lahoz as I watched everything had contact. I am sure he told," I saw that clearly, my decision is without doubt. NO PK! So the Spanish VAR gave in? I don't know. But it was a crucial mistake for me. I accept that some might see it different, but for me it is clear.
Hmm I am thinking where he was in the middle. In the second half it was nearly impossible to notice that we have a referee on the field.
DeleteHis approach in the beginning against dissent was a brilliant solution.
Players recpected Mateu Lahoz and he did this game on an expected level.
And I agree with people above.. If people believe this Sterling fall was penalty, then they have never refereed a game. Perfectly evaluated, Sterling looked for the contact and for the minor touch he fell. I would even liked to see a yellow card for simulation.
Foot stamping is always a foul in football, inside or outside the box. Let's put this bluntly. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact, as written in the laws of the game. It could be YC or not. That is another debate. But stamping is always a foul in football and indeed there is absolutely no room for interpretation here. Yes, crucial mistake by Mateu and Hernández-Hernández influencing the outcome of the game.
DeleteThe asessment of Mateu's job will tell us whether Rosetti cares about performance or not. As simple as that.
Good performance by Lahoz in a very easy match. Obviously England does not want to win and maybe they are choosing the "best" opponent in R16 and quarter final
ReplyDeleteAfter having seen the penalty appeal again now, I must say, I praise Mateu and Hernandez for their courageous decision, which, I think, is correct. The attacker recognizes that he cannot come to a promising opportunity anymore. He therefore puts his right foot on the left side of the ball on purpose, because he knows that the defender will step their as a result of his movement, in order to initiate a contact and to shout for a penalty. The defender has no chance to avoid that contact - he cannot evoperate into thin air, he has to tread somewhere after beingn in a normal running movement.
ReplyDeleteI agree totally BUT an accidental foul is still a foul. That’s how a lot of ‘fouls’ are won these days - deliberately engineering contact to artificially ‘create’ a foul and they are usually given eg. Putting leg across so you are ‘tripped’ or body across at last second so you are ‘pushed’ from behind. That said, referees have been letting so much more of this go, waving play on, and the tournament has been so much better for it. I would rather they did this as much as possible, and inevitably get a couple wrong, so players think twice. This would have been very soft but and interesting debate …
DeleteMeant to add that I think Stirling’s reputation may have gone against him too. Refs are big on ‘preparation’, researching players/tactics etc, and Stirling is forever engineering fouls and throwing himself over. I’m guessing Lahoz will have been watching out for him.
DeleteCan anyone share the video of the incident?
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/3ayi1z
DeleteThank you!
DeleteIMO great decision by Lahoz and his team.
Thanks indeed for the video. I stick to my earlier opinion, for me it is a penalty and therefore a crucial mistake. In my view there is not a blatant move towards the defender in order to be fouled.
DeleteHIGHLIGHTS
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-eGAGgYuEDQ