Wednesday, 23 June 2021

UEFA EURO 2020 Match 35: Portugal - France (discussion)

The only referee in group stage with three games: Antonio Mateu Lahoz in charge of Portugal - France. 


Group F
Budapest, 23 June 2021 21:00 CET
PORTUGAL - FRANCE
Referee: Antonio Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Díaz Pérez del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Ovidiu Alin Hațegan (ROU)
Fifth Official: Sebastian Eugen Gheorghe (ROU)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: José María Sánchez Martínez (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Íñigo Prieto López de Ceraín (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
UEFA Referee Observer: Nicola Rizzoli (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Radenko Mijatović (SVN)

181 comments:

  1. Make sure not to forget to send your predictions for the first two matches in the Round of 16 until tomorrow morning.

    http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/06/uefa-euro-2020-referee-predictions_26.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clear dominance of the blue kit in the group stage: It was used in 23 out of 36 matches by the referees.
    6 yellow
    5 pink
    2 black

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Philipp, with your permission I will share this on social media.

      Delete
    2. Yes, sure.
      No guarantee for accuracy though.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I don't get this. I personally like the pink most, but why so few black? It's really a bit of a shame.

      Delete
  3. In my opinion Kuipers was saved for this match, but double draw by Spain turned him to Spain-Slovakia. Fra-Por requires a top referee but Makkelie (SRB-POR), Brych (GER in group), and Taylor (previous match) were turned off from this clash and here we have Lahoz in third match.

    Good luck for Spaniard!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, what a call. Very, extremely brave.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correct PK and YC. Not easy to see. Someone could have given a free kick to the defense. Mateu... the final...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Id have liked a RC here even... But YC is the expected call here since keeper got a "bit" of the ball

      Delete
  6. What a reaction by Mateu Lahoz after having whistled this penalty, when he realized the injury of Portuguese player. Indeed I was very worried looking at him. Good now that he is OK.
    I think that Mateu wanted to say to Lloris something like: "See what you did...". He has a passion inside, he is very different from other referees, once again he showed that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree. If Spain exit before SF, this call put Lahoz in final. Brilliant!!!

      Delete
    2. Why are referees send home if their home country reach the semi-final? Why do they not wait if they'll reach the final?

      Delete
    3. Not just home country. On FWC 2018, Belgium pass to semifinal cost Kuipers. Croatian pass to final cost Mazic sure WC final.

      Delete
    4. Kuipers was FO in the final (and in the other SF) back then so your logic is flawed here. They would have given it to Kuipers if they wanted it

      Delete
  7. What a decision... correct penalty kick and YC

    ReplyDelete
  8. Brilliant Mateu Lahoz, great call.

    ReplyDelete
  9. English commentary is saying it's a controversial decision due to Lloris getting a piece of the ball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think replay shows that he got head first and then ball. Vice versa and it would have been controversial.

      Delete
    2. That should be the only reason for a YC instead of a RC

      Delete
    3. I tend to agree. Both with the decision and the consensus here. Just pointing out this won't necessarily be seen as correct by everyone in the general public and media.

      Delete
  10. Clear clear penalty, absolutely no debate. Brave call. However, body language was very frenetic and Lahoz running around in literal circles I think served as a confusion rather than anything. Still, correct decision and that is what matters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How can you not love Mateu Lahoz? He's like a Kante of referees.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very strange not to give YC for pulling down Mbappe by the shirt...

    ReplyDelete
  13. He was also very patient with the French players afterwards. I think the "circles" were to get out of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In my opinion, the pen is 50-50. Pen is supportable. And so also is 'no pen'.

    Pen because Lloris clearly makes contact with the player's head.

    'No pen' is also supportable because Lloris also makes contact with the ball before touching Danilo. The collision can be argued to be accidental more than anything else.

    Lahoz has chosen to award a pen and a YC. And that's fine too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Making contact with ball does not mean that you can kill your opponent after that.

      Delete
    2. You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying pen is a wrong decision. I'm just stating that 'no pen' is also supportable.

      The collision was very accidental. 99% of GKs will attempt to punch that ball, and in this case, it's only unfortunate that Danilo's head was in the way.

      Pen is fine, but so too is 'no pen'. But it's definitely NOT a RC in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. It's worth recalling the definition of reckless, which this clearly is.

      Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

      Delete
  15. Now in my opinion a very soft penalty, I wouldn't have whistled it, but VAR should support if inside the box. I disagree with Mateu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have liked a VAR intervention.

      Delete
  16. This is not a penalty for me. Will VAR intervene?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have such contacts, waiting for VAR is impossible in all cases. I think that VAR will intervene to change a penalty decision only in case of clear evidence without any contact (simulation). This is the line by Rosetti.

      Delete
  17. Excellent and brilliant referee. I think we will miss him if he. Retires.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Auch! Lahoz with a very controversial decision now.... very soft if not totally wrong. Bit like Turpins one. The eng sco "stamp" was more of a PK to me

    ReplyDelete
  19. It was very soft penalty for me. If Portugal is eliminated, it would be a big problem for Lahoz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bet. Mateu Lahoz would be in hot water!

      Delete
  20. Would that be given outside the box? Nope, that's soft as shite

    ReplyDelete
  21. Never a penalty! For me it was wrong enough for a VAR intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Absolutely wrong desicion...VAR ????

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rosetti must send Lahoz packing by all means.

    Never but never a penalty!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Packing? Bit OTT is it not. What about his 4 VAR colleagues who supported it.

      Delete
    2. They're as poor as him.

      Delete
  24. Supportable penatly but not a clear one. I agree with Chefren: i would not have whistled it but it's ok .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is there exist term perfect officiating. This is it. Well done Mateu. First half, mark 10.0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are kidding, right?

      Delete
    2. You think it's a penalty?

      Delete
    3. Gentelmans, do you think that one professional referee on pitch, and in Var Room are so crazy to destroy each career becouse of one penalty. I don't think so. Brilliant, Brave, Perfect.

      Delete
    4. Ref Fot, what a joke :)

      Delete
    5. He's a great ref...but 10 is too much generous tonite.
      You have to oe balanced...if you judged pen awarded by french ref too soft, this one is the same kind.
      His gesture on first pen is a bit erratic.
      He reads very well game but i think the 2nd pen must not be blown at this level of competition.
      6.0 is also ridiculous mark as 10 and anyway mark is given at the end of the game.

      Delete
  26. Very hard to support the 2nd penalty whistled by Mateu Lahoz. Amazed that VAR supported the decision as there contact was normal football contact.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Excellent first penalty decision but wow, crucial mistake by Lahoz that could decide group F's outcome! Never a penalty for me. This could become a very sad evening for Lahoz and the further tournament...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I am a bit speechless. Mbappé is running into the defender and gets a penalty? This decision has a dimension that makes it possible that Mateu Lahoz has to leave the tournament.

      Delete
    2. Btw, for me VAR must intervene here. There is no argument in favor of a penalty. For me it is a crucial mistake. It seems a bit like Mateu Lahoz does not want to have an OFR in his matches (too vain?).

      Delete
  28. Soft penalty but seeing the replay by no means a terrible call because solid contact and really happened too fast for Mbappe to dive. Even though many times a penalty isn't given in say the Premiere League for that type of contact, it doesn't mean it isn't a foul.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Never a penalty. VAR should intervene.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh Mateu, Mateu...what a DISGRACE! Hernandez Hernandez likewise.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is the first major error of this EURO. I cannot understand how VAR could validate such a decision

    ReplyDelete
  32. Excellent Lahoz before the penalty for the France, but this decission was wrong in my opinion... I think Lahoz lost chances for the final with this penalty...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Good performance by Mateu in the first half...... Right up until that last penalty call. In my opinion anyway. Others may think different.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Lloris was clearly careless and reckless endangering the safety of another player, if or when he touched the ball is moot.
    France was very lucky. Imho RC for Lloris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The contact with Danilo was not that hard. It looked impressive, but Danilo clearly looked and checked what Lahoz was doing before he decided that he'd better start rolling...

      Delete
    2. So if "careless" and "reckless" why RC? Careless is the definition of no disciplinary sanction, and reckless is the definition of YC.

      IMO the disciplinary sanction for Lloris is the most interesting decision to discuss after this first half, because Portugal's penalty is quite clear and France's penalty is very very soft (I think Lahoz had a wrong perception of Semedo's elbow being used - VAR was not possible because there was still a contact under the referee's control).
      I think YC to Lloris for reckless challenge is the most suitable decision. One could also say that it was SPA but since the gk had a genuine attempt to play the ball that would have been a no card decision in the end. Only option for RC would be if we assessed it as serious foul play.

      Delete
    3. @ Osborne You are right i wasn't accurate in my definition.
      Imho Lloris endangered the safety of another player with
      a serious blow to the head.

      Delete
  35. Lahoz tournament is over
    Del Cerro, Kovacs, Grinfeld, Hategan, Turpin. Easy decisions for the committee

    ReplyDelete
  36. First penalty decision for Portugal is very correct from my side.

    Second one for France is very very soft. Imo , kind of this situations must be intervention.

    Beside second penalty decision, Mr Lahoz took under control of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lahoz was a main candidate for final and penalty like this. Unacceptable.

    Kuipers with error (corrected after OFR), Lahoz with this penalty, Makkelie with handball in ITA-TUR, Turpin after RUS-DEN, Orsato with SPA-POL, Brych without important match.

    The best impression after GS left Taylor and ... Rapallini.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UEFA supported to Makkelie for TUR-ITA.

      Delete
    2. At least in Kuipers situation the end result is no Crucial Mistake.... After GS My guess is that every big gun is still in it except Orsato and Turpin who imo had problems in the bigger picture. Brych so far as "frontrunner"

      Delete
    3. No final for Taylor. Maximum semifinal. But before Taylor,alongside with Lahoz, Rappallini is best on tournament.

      Delete
    4. The only problem is that Rosetti wont give a final to a CONMEBOL ref (not one of his refs) I can already haar the media backlash coming.... A pity cause the Argentinian has been the best with Brych so far

      Delete
    5. Taylor for final with Clattenburg in 2016? In my opinion unlikely. Cakir would be a great option (reward for career), but under Rosetti it will not happen.

      So Brych is a main favourite? If Germany will exit for 45 min..

      Delete
    6. I agree. Brych and Kuipers were appointed to low-profile games and they didn't convince me with regard to foul detection. Too many basic mistakes, nothing that deserves big games.

      Makkelie and Turpin massively underperformed and should be happy in case of potential KO stage appointment.

      Mateu Lahoz is still the best of big guns if we talk about general impression.

      Taylor, Oliver, Siebert and Rapallini were surely the best performers!

      Delete
    7. Ahahaha, Anonymous 22:06 started the comic hour!
      Comparing Makkelie and Turpin and then saying Makkelie massively underperformed is just ridiculous!
      Mateu with the best general impression? Based on what? The same foul detection you criticize Brych and Kuipers for?
      And your best performers with the exception of Taylor, all had easy to very easy games without being challenged.
      Cheers!

      Delete
  38. This penalty is not soft but clearly wrong to me. A very small, footbal-typical contact is made - probably even initiated by the attacker who lets himself go. This contact can NEVER cause a fall especially not in this way Mbappe went down. I‘m very sad because Lahoz had such a good game and tournament but for me his final chance could be gone after that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're conpletely right. If you whistle a penalty in this situation, how many penalties will there be in the match?

      Delete
    2. After such a decision I wonder what's the role of VAR....

      Delete
  39. I'm seeing Antony Taylor or Çakir officiating the final...let's see how it all plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I didn't see a reason for the second penalty: shoulder against ahoulder so no foul... VAR obviously couldn't intervene because judging a concact is a subjective decision of the referee.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mateu Lahoz will be in HOT WATER should Portugal be knocked out of the tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  42. There's absolutely no reason for the second penalty. Quite shocking!! I don't know what VAR is for.

    ReplyDelete
  43. We can have the same discussion as Turpin's penalty.

    Defender steps across the attacker (one cannot run through brick walls) in the most black-white theoretical sense, so a penalty is even the more correct call.

    However I'm quite stunned that Mateu gave it - I doubt anyone would have picked this situation out if he just gave play on gestures.

    I agree with comments above, penalty + YC was quite correct at the other end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's two brave decisions by Mateu Lahoz IMO.

      Delete
    2. My only question - are we certain that the contact was inside? And could Mateu have pulled an Archundia in GERITA WC 2006?

      Delete
    3. @Mikael: haha "an Archundia" :) I remember that very well.
      However in this case VAR would have probably corrected the decision inside the box without OFR, right? Reminds me of the Al Jassim situation at 2019 Club world cup.

      Delete
  44. I have to say, until the penalty for France, IMO it was one of the best performances of the tournament. Then that call came. To me, it is not fully wrong, but very soft. I think that what he saw was the defender's arm going out a bit pushing the attacker, but IMO the contact is very soft and not in line with the rest of the tournament. Will this cost him the KO stage? Absolutely not if the second half is as good as the first 45 mins until the penalty. The final? Probably, it will depend on the teams and the performances of other referees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely agree with this analysis, George.

      Delete
  45. I agree on this. One totally wrong penalty and the second very cheap, but supportable. Why VAR didn’t intervene is strange.. Management and foul detection also not good. Unfortunately Lahoz not convincing at all tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In this first half, Mateu Lahoz made an outstanding call on the first penalty after which the final was almost to him. The second penalty given is a huge mistake. It is less than soft. Mbappe hits the defender and the contact is neverthless very soft, quite a normal football contact. If Portugal is eliminated because of this penalty, then Mateu IMO will have to end his EURO, because everyone will talk about the referee. That would be different from Turpin's game (his mistake could have been forgotten because Denmark won) and Orsato's performance (thanks to VAR intervention). I feel so sorry for Mateu, I hope he will keep his mind focused on the match and that this mistake will not influence his 2H. As for EURO refereeing in general, this would be the real big mistake that everyone will remember if Portugal is eliminated.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gentelmans, would we know whose trios leave the tournament after group phase.

    ReplyDelete
  48. What a bad night for fans:))fans final candidates eliminating tonignt

    ReplyDelete
  49. Now for those that were bashing Dias' performance in the Eng-Cze game yesterday, and calling for him to be sent home, I wonder whether you will also be calling for Lahoz to be sent home as well, after awarding one of the worst type of penalty ever possible in football.

    Double standards.

    Just to remind everyone: FOOTBALL IS A CONTACT SPORT!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will se what Uefa think.

      Delete
    2. Even if UEFA protecT Mateu that doesn't mean it isn't a BLUNDER.

      Delete
  50. There is no doubt here imo. It's crystal clear not a penalty. Really poor not to see a

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mateu is kidding us all with this PK...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Never a penalty, poor decision from Mateu. I think the only reason he gave it is because it is Mbappe and he previously said he loves Mbappe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well we know the reason he gave it from his hand signals and that was he felt the portugal defender used his arm when coming across Mbabbe

      Delete
  53. There are some hills worth dying on - Hațegan's red card to Ampadu is one of them. And there are some which it really isn't - Turpin's and Mateu's penalties for impeding are those IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Tight call, but good intervention by Var.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How the match has turned around after that penalty call for France.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a real problem for Lahoz. If Portugal is out, his tournament could be over too. There will be much criticism for this penalty.

      Delete
  56. Well....Portugal out as things stand...not looking good for Mateu

    ReplyDelete
  57. The penalty call has been vital for France, Mateu will be out for that!

    ReplyDelete
  58. It was very tight, there is nothing to do for AR2. I thought it was offside when i saw the replay.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If Portugal is eliminated, that's a wrap for Mateu Lahoz!

    ReplyDelete
  60. in the end, Orsato's performance wasn't that bad ....

    ReplyDelete
  61. If this game finishes as it is, i think the final will go to either felix brych or anthony taylor depending on how well either england or germany do

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taylor? LOL

      Delete
    2. Taylor is a much more valid option than Brych.

      Delete
  62. Correct penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Another penalty! This time for handball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct decision by Mateu. Clear handball. This could change the direction of the game. I must say very entertaining to watch.

      Delete
  64. Clear penalty whistled now

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wow, Lahoz with his typical eventful match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So challenging! Great test for potential SF or Final appointment.

      Delete
  66. For me a clear YC for handball missed though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOOOO!! When there is a cross there is no yc.

      Delete
    2. Ball kicked in the box without a clear recipient, NO YC according to UEFA guidelines.

      Delete
  67. This game is crazy. Good PK

    ReplyDelete
  68. This will be soon the first post of this euro that will reach 200 comments

    ReplyDelete
  69. A clear penalty, strangely similar to the handball in TUR-ITA...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree, today arms were raised even above head, very clear to whistle penalty, a bit different in the opener TUR-ITA...

      Delete
    2. Oh my dear Roberto, the TURITA penalty bothers you a lot obviously.
      Here we have two arms beyond shoulder level, and not as a consequence of, or justifiable by, the particular movement of the defender.
      In TURITA the arm went out as a consequence of the movement of the defender.
      Whatever you think of both penalties, considering them similar makes no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
  70. I am trying to understand the logic behind not using any user name when you leave so many comments. Anonymous, thank you for your contribution, just it is not hard to log in with some account.

    ReplyDelete
  71. What do you think about Lahoz's style in 'stepping back movement' after every penalty decision?
    in my opinion when a referee steps back after a big decision, it's a bad impact on players and they think the ref is not sure about that call! He has called 3 penalty and every of them he did the same movement.....

    ReplyDelete
  72. 3rd penalty in the game was correct from Mr Lahoz

    Because of the second penalty for France , this 3rd one is the chance for referee. As a referee team we are lucky tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  73. For the first time in this Euros, a referee has made a meaningful game all about himself.

    Just exactly what UEFA did NOT want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this your first time watching Lahoz? That is what he is all about, he is egotistical and loves being the star of the show. Shame he's a decent referee...

      Delete
    2. I can perfectly imagine Laway logging off and responding as anonymous :D

      Delete
    3. @Forlan

      I'm sorry, but that's NOT my style.

      Delete
  74. You, I don't know what some of you speak. For me, 2nd penalty was clear, and I think I will back up. Offside goal is no problem, it is tight call. Everybody of you remember when Clatts allowed offside goal in Cl final. And Collina should tell sorry you are out. But no. He recive Euro final. Hope that the same will be with Mateu- or Rappallini.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's called nepotism. Collina loved Clattenburg that's why he allowed Simon Beck's mistake and gave him the EURO final. Similarly, after Orsato's mistakes he still gets the best games, and Cakir who has done nothing wrong gets disregarded totally. Oliver being better in England but Taylor is preferred by the committee. Lahoz's performance will be punished (or unpunished) depending on how his relationship is with Rosetti.

      Delete
  75. i dont know who will officiate the final,,but final must be in bucharest:)) football is great with full of fans.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Third penalty was definitely gift to the referee team. Good call by Lahoz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So we can see Lahoz in Front of 66000 fans :))

      Delete
  77. A shame Lahoz presents a YC without looking at the player. No respect.

    ReplyDelete
  78. More of a penalty then the one he gave.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I think VAR should intervene on that one.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Contact inside? VAR didn't intervene.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Apart of what one thinks about all the penalty's (the second was an absolute joke to me and should have been an OFR IMO. ) Mateu in the rest of the game showed he is a great great ref. However in terms of media controversy I think Mateu in the final will be more difficult than seeing Kuipers Brych or Cakir. Maybe it will be a bit less now Portugal is most likely through, but still for me the chances of seeing Mateu in the final are smaller than seeing Kuipers or Cakir

    ReplyDelete
  82. Difficult to understand the manner of the VAR référé.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Clear penalty missed by Lahoz. His performance has really been disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Imo, this was penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  85. In my opinion there was a contact from behind on French player and it looked to be at least on the line, so INSIDE. I also think that Mateu had assessed the previous challenge but not this one, however, VAR didn't intervene. VAR check was indeed very long. This can be absolutely discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If outside, OK, but it should be important to get this info from UEFA in a official way.

      Delete
    2. +1 should have been a visual confirmation

      Delete
  86. It was a PK (and YC) for France... Strange VAR tonight

    ReplyDelete
  87. Possible that the contact was just outside - in which case VAR cannot intervene.

    ReplyDelete
  88. All over. Game was mostly boring after both teams realised they only needed a draw.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Only reason I can see for that not being a penalty is because it was outside the box. Unbelievable that standing on a player's calf isn't a foul after the 2nd penalty we saw.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Mateu beyond terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Overall there was a poor prestation of the Spanish team this evening. And also for the VAR team.
    Huge mistake with the second penalty that completed change the game.

    ReplyDelete
  92. That late incident is surely a penalty?! On this occasion a clear error and definite VAR territory to help referee?

    ReplyDelete
  93. The first touch was outside of the box but it continues till the line. Isn’t that clear evidence? I think it should have been OFR even to sell the decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without any help by technology, I perceived this final contact at least on the line, but we can make only speculations, we would need official statement by UEFA and VAR output.

      Delete
    2. I think “selling the decision” definitelt fits here. The only problem is that even France team was not expecting a penalty kick because they guaranteed the 1st place of the group in that minute. Both teams didn’t want to make a goal at all.

      Delete
  94. Too many controversies in today's match. Lahoz can be lucky that Portugal was not eliminated. I can imagine another game because of the outcome but would it be deserved? Rather not after today. Last incident was rather outside the box, however, it should have been a (dark) YC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes he is lucky because hungary eliminated not portugal...

      Delete
  95. Mateu's chances of the final are very slim now. Brych and Kuipers in pole position.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Disappointing performance tonight. I'm sorry to say this, but from the three candidates Brych seems to be in form the most and he would deserve it. Brych highly favourite in this moment.

    ReplyDelete