Antonio Mateu Lahoz in charge of Belgium - Russia, let's discuss his perfomance here.
St. Petersburg, 12 June 2021 21:00 CET
BELGIUM - RUSSIA
Referee: Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Díaz Pérez Del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Fernando Andrés Rapallini (ARG)
Fifth Official: Juan Pablo Belatti (ARG)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: João Pinheiro (POR)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Iñigo Prieto López de Cerain (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
UEFA Referee Observer: Pascal Garibian (FRA)
UEFA Delegate: Artur Azaryan (ARM)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Díaz Pérez Del Palomar (ESP)
Fourth Official: Fernando Andrés Rapallini (ARG)
Fifth Official: Juan Pablo Belatti (ARG)
Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: João Pinheiro (POR)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Iñigo Prieto López de Cerain (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
UEFA Referee Observer: Pascal Garibian (FRA)
UEFA Delegate: Artur Azaryan (ARM)
Dutch TV commentator just mentioned again that Mateu is retiring after this tournament. These claims/rumours are now so persistent that I am starting to wonder if they are actually true. Are we sure he is contuining?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the source they have is the false rumor, it was denied by Mateu himself who released a very clear interview.
DeleteWith the maximum respect, football commentators are not so much expert and insiders about refereeing.
Excellent NO OFFSIDE decision by Pau Cebrián Devis: deliberate play.
ReplyDeleteThis must ba absolutely praised.
Very well done. Excellent team work
DeleteCorrect no offside decision prior 1–0. AR1 and Mateu were concentrated, ball came from the opponent.
ReplyDeleteNot enough to say that, ball came from opponent with a deliberate play, in case of deflection, offside should have been whistled.
DeleteIndeed Chefren to be more precise "came" in an intentional literal sense. It was an intentional defending action.
DeleteCan you explain why you consider this play 'deliberate'? My first thoughts were 'deflection', because I didn't really see a (kicking) movement towards the ball. Yes, the defender was positioning himself to play the ball, but he didn't really do anything once in position. So I felt it was more of an unlucky contact with the ball, which would deem this a deflection.
DeleteSee my comment further down:
Deletehttps://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/06/uefa-euro-2020-match-4-belgium-russia.html?showComment=1623527457850#c4744895005193109629
1 tuingereedschap is tot site, The Russisch defender had never control of the ball And there tot nog advantagyou of the offside position. Buy whatever is worse, this isn't a place on the field where even should play on because iets so close to the goal where Lukaku was offside and the offside rule is so bad because a player game advantage of his position. In this case the Defender should try to play the ball while the offside rule was changed to keep pace in the game and now you see players having advantage what never can be the reason of the rule change. The was designed more for wrong decisions by assistent referees and the rule is play on and look at the result and after that play the van let the VAR do his work, but this play on the goal the defender het control of the ball and he was in a offside position and got benefit of the mistake. Remember that if you play on you would have speed in the game and if the defender even would try to play the ball it would have been offside and how many seconds would play have been dead? To long as we often see time wasting. Advantage should be advantage, but this isn't a spot for playing on.
DeleteExcellent decision, but I'm sure it will be very controversial.
ReplyDeletewhat about passive offside?
ReplyDeleteBelgian player had no impact on play until after the ball was deliberately played by the defender.
DeleteAnd anyhow, "passive offside" isn't a concept in the Laws.
I agree with you Alex F
DeleteWhat is the difference between the offside before the goal and the 'offside' in the PL, where IFAB clarified that it should have been an offside? It was M. City vs. A. Villa, Rodri scored after taking the ball from Mings. Both times the attacker is in the back of the defender.
ReplyDeleteBernardo Silva scored, but Rodri stole the ball from Mings.
DeleteClip here: https://youtu.be/okV8wNWHv6M
In the PL the attacker challenged the defender for the ball - today he didn't.
DeleteThank you Philipp
DeleteWill the Belgium substitution count as medical sub (the 6th sub) due to the head injury of Castagne?
ReplyDeleteI saw Lahoz talking with the bench and 4OF
Same now with the Russia substitution.
As I know this rule was just tested in some games but I haven't heard that it was adopted.
DeletePossible red card for Mertens in 31 min? After I saw the replay I have some doubts? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI also have doubts, but one can't really be sure, that it was intentional.
DeleteThat´s not a deliberated play by the defender. Clear offside missed.
ReplyDeleteIf you explain why, your opinion would be more accurate and interesting to read.
DeleteHow about this?
DeleteThe ball came from a fair distance (~20m) at a not high pace. This gave the player time and options, it was not an unexpected ball.
The player had control of his body when he stepped to the ball to play it. This was a conscious action (as opposed to an instinctive reaction).
The player made contact with the ball. The result of the action does not matter.
The sum of these considerations scream "deliberate play"
Clearly a deliberate play, easy situation.
DeleteExcellent summation Alex F. Couldn't have put it better myself.
DeleteI sense this might be an unpopular opinion bu I disagree with the deliberate play here.
DeleteThe ball passes by the player’s teammate, who at first looks like he will head it - only after the player sees that his teammate doesn’t head the ball does he raise his leg to play it.
His body is clearly off balance and it looks more like a reflex to raise his leg to play the ball rather than a conscious action.
In this case, he doesn’t have nearly as much time to react. He has to see if the ball is played by his teammate before he can react. To me, it’s pretty clear that he didn’t expect the ball to come through to him based upon his awkward body shape and lack of balance, and the fact that he’s backpedaling to mark the attacker rather than moving towards the ball.
So, in summary, these are the relevant considerations as I see them:
- The ball is moving towards the player, the player is not moving towards the ball
- The ball is not expected
- The raise of the leg was a reflex / instinct, not a deliberate attempt to play
- The defender does not have much time to control himself to play the ball
- The defender is off-balance
As I see it, based upon these considerations, it’s definitely not a deliberate play I think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteApologies I didn’t mean to post the same comment 4 times!! I will delete three of them.
DeleteIt is funny observing Lahoz not giving a YC every time there is a dissent from players. He is having a hard time! :D
ReplyDeleteThe penalty shout at 42’ is indicative of a clear line to minimize VAR intervention. I can’t think of another competition where VAR would not have intervened. I wonder how much communication there is with the referee to restrict the scope of the review. Does Lahoz tell the VAR ‘I saw the contact, and deemed it incidental/normal’, and the VAR therefore does not challenge that judgment? Would the VAR have intervened if Lahoz told him he did not see contact? Or does the VAR decide completely in isolation?
ReplyDeleteI wonder, because I think most VAR referees would likely have deemed it a penalty - so if UEFA tightened the ‘clear and obvious’ error, how does that work exactly?
Interesting to hear your opinion. I was actually surprised that the VAR check took so long because for me, it was quite clearly no penalty. Like on Friday, it is not the defender who initiated the contact but the attacker. You could see that the attacker's leg hit the defender's calf which is, in situations like this, a sign that the defender did not initiate the contact. Defender's leg was "passive". Mateu was right in his perception. VAR intervention would have been wrong in my view as it was a correct decision.
DeleteNo penalty IMO
DeleteRight. I might have misjudged it. Overall, though, I wonder how much deference VARs give to how a referee reaches their judgment. In the MLS communications I’ve heard, there seems to be no communication before the VAR recommends a review (beyond ‘check’, ‘hold’, confirming the decision on the field, etc.), so the VAR basically judges in a silo.
DeleteVAR footage from the last World Cup showed, in a couple of cases, the VAR asking the referee what they saw before stating "check complete" or recommending an OFR.
DeleteI get the impression that MLS prefers to not go down that route based on their VAR clips.
IMO, communication can be useful in some situations. E.g. at Taylor's penalty today, VAR should have checked (and maybe did check), whether the decision was based on the contact by the knee or the referee had the wrong perception of something more.
DeleteSometimes it can also be enough if the referee directly explains his situation in the comms - without the VAR asking.
Rapallini had to do just one thing, but he failed. Mateu saved situation with his charisma.
ReplyDeleteI have watched online 2nd half but Lahoz had fantastic time and game feeling. His management and personality top level
ReplyDeleteI really liked Lahoz tonight! I would say the best performance so far at euro. Easy second half, just 1-2 questionable events in first half. Good job!
ReplyDeleteAnd another good performance by Mateu without a single YC. One must say, great start for Rosetti and the referees. Four matches without OFR, no referee in media's focus. Seems like a good strategy to appoint the top referees of the top referees for the first games.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Ref_1707. Big compliments for Rosetti for his good and smart appointments. So far solid refereeing at the EURO. Media in Europe seems to be very positive until now. Let’s hope we can continue this level.
DeleteGood job tonight by Mateu, expected level.
ReplyDeleteSome previous comments have been deleted. I must remember this is a blog about refereeing, so please find other places to discuss about different arguments. Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteA very boring game due to Russia's incapability.
ReplyDeleteGreat alertness and interpretation of the offside law by Antonio and Pau in 10'! Well done! The tackle in 34' should be carefully rewatched before making a final judgement but the replays offerred were poor to be honest (not the first time during this EURO...). The biggest talking point should be the tripping penalty incident at 40'. I think it's the attacker who initiated the contact and the optimal decision has been made. Interesting, would there be a VAR intervention if penalty was whistled?
Antonio took the back seat during the second half that was extremely boring with Belgian carrying the two goals advantage and Russia had nothing to offer. He should've booked two players (Dzyuba at 65' and Dendoncker in 83'). The rest was standard Mateu with many talks, gestures and mimics. Personally I love his unique style (e.g. 85', 90' :))
HIGHLIGHTS
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-gZobQKCeEv
watch all spanish daramas here in HD quality ·estrenosdoramas
ReplyDelete