Quarterfinals, Second part: predictions game about EURO 2020 referees
You have to guess the exact referee for each game by filling in a form. Just insert your name, or, if you want, a nickname and then for each game just select the referee. If you have already played for the previous rounds, please use the same name. We can't ensure too many efforts if you send predictions with a different name than the previously used one. If you are new and you want to have yout first try, you are welcome!
Send your predictions here:
TIME OVER***
Due to a too short time before previous games and the release of new appointments we have decided to split Quarterfinals in two parts, this is the second one. Results for all Quarterfinals games will be published together.
The deadline for the second set of Quarterfinals will be Thursday 1 July 2021, 09:59 AM CET. Unless extraordinary announcement by federations the same day a few time before the official releasement by UEFA, in that case of course we couldn't accept your names. So the suggestion is not to wait the very last minutes to avoid troubles. The predictions sent after that (official time will be checked) will not be accepted in any case.
Points will be assigned according to the following pattern:
10 points for having guessed the exact referee of a match
5 points if a guessed referee for a game will be appointed as fourth official
2 points if a guessed referee is appointed in the other game with the winners meeting on the next round*1 point if a referee is appointed for the same round
2) BAKU 3 JULY PAIRED WITH ROME 3 JULY
My full QF predictions are
ReplyDeleteSUI-ESP: Oliver (ENG) - Siebert (GER) - Kavanagh (ENG), Dingert (GER), Betts, Attwell (both ENG)
BEL-ITA: Vincic (SVN) - Kuipers (NED) - Dankert, Fritz, Gittelmann (all GER), Gil (POL)
CZE-DEN: Cakir (TUR) - Makkelie (NED) - Irrati, di Bello, Valeri, Meli (all ITA)
UKR-ENG: Hategan (ROU) - Brych (GER) - Gil (POL), van Boekel (NED), Prieto (ESP), Dankert (GER)
Kuipers only 4th official ? He will not just refereeing GS, SF (and F ?). It will be strange...
DeleteBrych 4th of Hategan ? Hmm ok.
BEL-ITA : Vincic doing great performances physically, but he didn't get quite experience to lead this kind of match. Kuipers should be better...
Cakir on QF (also ordinary game)? Why is that? can i ask Philipp i wonder ur opinion thanks.
DeleteHe dont reply ok thanks anyway for your original ideas.
DeleteOk, so you cannot take issue with Philipp S, even though he just comes up with predictions that don't add up. Going from bad to worse here...no doubt you're gonna lose lot of people...and now delete the comment :)))
DeleteThanks for your interest, I will try to outline my reasons.
DeleteFirstly, those appointments are a mix of what I would like to see and what I believe to happen.
Secondly, I think, one can't really say beforehand, which of the matches will be more challenging than others as the R16 games have shown.
@Kuipers: I think, he will be kept as safe option for the Wembley matches. With Netherlands out, it will surely be possible to appoint him there. Also he already handled teams from the first three games and his countryman Makkelie did England today (teams getting referees from the same country in consecutive games has been avoided so far). I try to avoid those repetitions as far as possible. And then it makes sense IMO to use him as 4th to support a rather unexperienced colleague.
@Brych: I think, UKR-ENG could be the game for him, if he gets a further one. That's what I try to indicate with my prediction. And I think, it makes sense to use his experience and not just send him home, if he is not planned to referee further.
@Vincic: His appointments during the last year and also in the tournament show, that UEFA trust him a lot at the moment. Furthermore his recent performances also convinced me. Therefore it is IMO logical that he gets another good appointment. And as mentioned in the beginning, it is not clear at all, that BEL-ITA will be more challenging than the other QFs.
From the other side, there are not many alternatives for this game: Oliver is unlikely with Italy, Hategan had them on MD3, del Cerro Grande not possible due to Spain. So I obviously also considered Kuipers, but I would not like that appointment: Belgium then would have only two different referees in 4 games and if Kuipers is indeed planned for the final, he could have BEL in 3 of his 4 games. And one risks to "lose" him for the final three matches.
@Cakir: He surely should get another match. But there are several candidates for SF and F, so I considered it safer to use him already in QF and give him the chance to further strengthen his application for the final. I don't expect CZE-DEN to be the easiest QF, but it is the QF, that least likely features a team in the final. Furthermore it gives him one day more rest than the two first QFs.
Furthermore, I didn't find a satisfying solution only using the 5 referees without R16 match, so I needed to include a R16 referee anyway in my appointments.
And @00:12: Besides the strange idea, that people could already go to sleep at this time, it obviously takes some time to make a substantial comment.
DeleteBrych?? Are we still talking about him? So, bring back Turpin and Mateu who performed way better than Brych.
Delete"@Cakir: He surely should get another match. But there are several candidates for SF and F, so I considered it safer to use him already in QF and give him the chance to further strengthen his application for the final"
DeleteYou mention experience about Brych who feel flat on his face when given his firts challnging match of the tournament. And Cakir is not experienced enough to go directly to the final. Plus, with all his experience and superb current forma, does he still need to "strengthen his application for the final"? CRO-ESP had it all: R16 match, top quality teams aggressive play, tons of potential handball PK decisions, heated extra time.
Cakir should be in London already waiting for the final if performance is actally taken into account.
*fell flat
Delete*first challenging match
It's so clear Philipp S is trying to convey the idea that Brych can be "rehabilitated". That is impossible. It would be a tremendous disrespect towards other referees and football as well.
DeletePhilipp S one thing is your admiration for Brych. Another thing is Brych's performance in the very first difficult match he had in this tournament. He failed the exam. If Mate and Turpin are out, so must be Brych.
Delete0012 reply..ok i read ur long comment it takes time surely,my bad ,,thanks for answer Philipp,,but Kuipers kept for safe option i dont give hım potential hot match.
DeleteLeave Philipp alone, please.
DeleteHe is just writing his predictions out for the interest of other prediction gamers, and even goes to some extent to kindly explain them - and then he gets attacked for that!
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
After a period of relative silence by the Cakir campaign club, now after having seen a couple of decent performances by the Turkish the club has been brought to live again. It’s so obvious…
DeleteAnny 0042. Funny Man..when they r silence u were happy,,now u can be sad again for a long time...
DeleteActually, I’m happy with the performances of Cakir, but totally unhappy with the rivival of the fan club. They’re massively spamming the blog and usually forgetting about reality :)
Delete@ Philipp S
DeleteThank you for extensive explanation, it was really interesting to read your thoughts about Kuipers appointment
Just cakir fans spamming u r right,,but if u notice (if u want to see süre) Kuipers fans do it every match day also,,
DeleteMikael W, Chefren, perhaps should the anonymous comments be banned?
Deletecakir is an awful ref lets players get away with murder
DeleteOne purpose of posting the predictions certainly is to trigger discussions about them and in the best case even get new insights (like "Gil can't do ENG, because his mother is married to Boris Johnson" ;) ).
DeleteBut some of you really should relax and don't feel personally attacked by predictions...
Back to content:
@Brych: I wrote "if" - I could totally understand if he doesn't get a further match. But it's not impossible, that UEFA doesn't only look at his last match, but also on his performances over the last years.
@Turpin/Mateu: I definitely would have liked to have Mateu still as an option for a further match.
@Cakir: I would be completely fine with a direct final for him. Would be deserved by tournament performance and due to his overall achievements. I already wrote my reasons for a QF appointment.
And finally, as a "peace offer", this would be a logical follow-up to my predictions IMO:
BEL-ESP: Kuipers
ENG-DEN: Karasev or Vincic
BEL-ENG: Cakir
SUI-ESP: Michael Oliver (VAR: Kavanagh)
ReplyDeleteBEL-ITA: Bjorn Kuipers (VAR: Van Boekel)
CZE-DEN: Slavko Vincic (VAR: Dankert)
UKR-ENG: Ovidiu Hategan (VAR: Irrati)
Semi finals and final: Cakir, Makkelie & Kuipers.
Why not !
DeleteSame predictions.
DeleteSounds reasonable and fair.
DeleteAs add-on to the thread Emil started 23:03:
ReplyDeleteApart from that Emil’s question is quite legit (saying this I realize I’m in danger of being mocked as well). In Dutch television as well as in German television the RC is being questioned by the analysts. The Swede is playing the ball, opponent quite distant and actually the Ukrainian runs into the Swede. With all understanding and acceptance for opinions pro RC, Emil IMO makes a valid point to start a discussion.
The German commentators questioned it, but the referee expert (Lutz Wagner, working for DFB) confirmed, that it is the decision, which UEFA expects here.
DeletePersonally, I am not a fan of Red Cards for SFP, when the ball is played first (e.g. the tackle by my nearly namesake in Makkelie's game). But here I don't see much room for interpretation, once you have seen the intensity and point of contact. It's nearly irrelevant, how your foot ends up there, if this is the result.
If I’m not mistaken it wouldn’t be the first time Mr Wagner gave an opinion which afterwards turned out to be not UEFA’s?
DeleteIn your assessment of the situation you don’t mention the fact that the Ukrainian, at least partly, runs into his opponent himself. Isn’t that something you consider relevant in this case?
Yes, Wagner (like many others) was apparently wrong regarding the TUR-ITA handball. It seems, the associations still need to find a consensus on this topic.
DeleteMaybe it should be relevant, that the Ukrainian runs towards the scene, but I assume, that with this result it is not releveant in the opinion of e.g. UEFA.
Thanks (and sorry for the long post - split in 2 because of character limit). I'm still conflicted about it, but let me start by saying that with that point of contact (and that injury), it is very hard to argue the RC is wrong (and I'm not saying it is wrong).
DeleteMore broadly, I am wondering about what can be expected from players concerning levels of tolerable risk and control. Accidents happen, even when the risk is low. And sometimes tackles can "endanger the safety of an opponent" without actually hurting someone. Philipp S points below to that "endangering the safety of an opponent" phrasing in the LOTG. I don't like that phrasing, because it is at odds with the other part of the criteria (excessive force). One is action-driven, the other is consequences-driven. And most importantly, it is wrong to point to the “or” construction of the LOTG - we always interpret “endangering the safety” in context, according to expectations about appropriate levels of force and risk.
So how much risk is tolerable in playing the ball? I've been thinking about a few scenarios over the last few years. In many cases, I have debated and agreed and disagreed with other excellent referees about them:
- Christoph Kramer's head injury in the 2014 final. An innocuous shoulder challenge, but that very objectively "endangered his safety", as he suffered a horrendous injury. We all agree that is not a RC - barely a foul, if even. In context, the endangering of Kramer’s safety is accidental.
- Neuer's knee to the head of Higuain in the 2014 final. I agreed at the time with the 3rd Team blog’s assessment (and FIFA’s) that it was a RC, I still think so. The reason, in my view, is that while Neuer is entitled to playing the ball in a safe manner, that right does not allow him to do so unsafely, and in my view his actions carry the unavoidable consequence on kneeing Higuain in the head. It qualifies for "showing complete disregard for the safety of the opponent", or whatever the definition of "excessive force was at the time. It was clearly an excessive risk taken, the consequences were foreseeable, and Neuer should have known that. We could, in my view, have demanded that Neuer refrain from challenging for the ball if he couldn’t do it legally. But, as other referees pointed out, challenging for balls is the GK’s job, and he does clearly go to punch the ball.
- Luke Shaw's injury in 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dTLpfZ0QOU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Izhv1t0PI). Rizzoli (the referee) ruled no foul; Howard Webb agreed. Graham Poll and Mark Halsey both argued for penalty+RC. So where does this one fall? Is it an excessive risk-taking, that "endangered the safety of the opponent" or is it a horrible misfortune? What should the appropriate level of risk be, and did Moreno exceed it? Could the injury be foreseen as possible, or even likely?
- The Lloris foul on Pereira earlier this tournament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8cmCiWhToI). Nearly all would agree this is not a RC - yet Lloris punched an opponent in the head, which arguably "endangers the safety of an opponent". So it's not sufficient to just stop at the words "endangering the safety", as their meaning is always contextual. In this case, I have referee friends who argue for 'no foul', others (incl. me) arguing for a penalty. So what is the acceptable risk level here? Lloris is clearly going for the ball, touches the ball, and punches an opponent in the head. Does that exceed the normal level of force? Should Lloris be expected not to challenge for the ball because the Portuguese challenges for it too? In expecting Lloris to challenge for the ball without hitting the Portuguese, are we setting unreasonable expectations of what players should achieve?
(cont'd below)
(cont'd)
Delete- Danielson's foul. The Ukrainian approaches from the side. In my view, Danielson attempts to kick a high ball. The Ukrainian runs in from the side, and does not try to challenge for the ball. The studs hit the knee of the Ukrainian with high force. Does this "endanger the safety" of the Ukrainian? Yes, undoubtedly - he got badly injured. Is it "excessive force"? I don't know. Could/Should he reasonably have expected those consequences? Or could he legitimately try to kick the ball? Is it similar to the Neuer foul - if he couldn't challenge legally he should not have done so - or to the Kramer/Shaw ones - an arguably reasonable play in context leads to horrible consequences? Or to the Lloris - it's really difficult to challenge legally, but it's to demand a lot for the player not to challenge? As mentioned above, "endanger the safety" does not stand on its own - we always interpret it in context of what is expected of a "reasonable" player in the situation. And, there is a danger, in my view, if we focus on 'was the safety of the player endangered', of refereeing by consequences more than actions.
- The Ukrainian stepping on the Swedish defender later in the game (https://twitter.com/garylineker/status/1409986132545310721?s=21). Someone commented on the blog (I think) that the Ukrainian “could not have foreseen that the Swede would slide under him. Is that so? He still kicks an opponent in the chest, and I have seen RCs (on VAR review, so deemed ‘clear and obvious’ RCs) given in similar situations. So why do we accept this as an accident, because unforeseen, while we feel Danielson should have foreseen the consequences of his challenge? Or are we only judging by the consequences, because of the injury? I don’t think this is a RC (YC probably). But why not? Why is this a reasonable risk, even though it causes a player to get kicked in the chest?
Yet, at the same time, we can't have a game of football where injuries like the Danielson one are accepted. But accidents happen, and innocuous tackles lead to horrible injuries too. It's really difficult to define what is excessive, and the Danielson one for me is rather a border case. I can't say he was totally unreasonable and excessive in challenging for that ball. I can't say the challenge was acceptable, because he *did* plant his studs in the knee of the Ukrainian. So what is acceptable risk, what is reasonable, what is foreseeable, what is accidental here? Can we really demand players pull out of such challenges? Can we see a way for Moreno, Lloris, Danielson to challenge for the ball without carrying this risk? Can we condemn them for taking an excessive risk here?
So yeah, I'm torn.
For sure, I think we will see Vincic, Del Cerro Grande & Taylor in the quarterfinals. Taylor because there is no room for him in (semi)finals due to the presence of England.
ReplyDeleteSUI-ESP: Taylor
BEL-ITA: Kuipers
CZE-DEN: Vincic
UKR-ENG: del Cerro Grande
In any case, Cakir & Makkelie are sure names for a (semi) final.
Taylor can handle the SF in which ENG might not be potentially involved.
DeleteYep I originally predicted Oliver for a quarter final however, although he potentially can do the game, I do not think that UEFA will appoint Taylor now to a semi final (judging by appointments in previous tournaments if England progress). So, I now think he will get a QF. Same with Makkelie, he may not now get a SF if Kuipers gets appointed to the final (if he does well in his QF).
DeleteCakir will definitely be involved in the last 3 games for sure.
The question for UEFA, who will get one of the semi's? If they didn't like Brych's performance, there may be a surprise with Karasev (IMHO a deserved appointment). Or stay safe with Orsato?
So, my revised predictions:
DeleteSUI-ESP: Taylor
BEL-ITA: Vinic
CZE-DEN: Kuipers
UKR-ENG: del Cerro Grande
Interesting point with Taylor, because I agree, this would probably mean no further game for Oliver. In my opinion, the performances of the two Englishmen were on a similar level so far, therefore it would seem fairer to me to give Oliver the QF and accept, that there might be no further chance for Taylor.
DeleteBut it's a hard decision and UEFA could indeed tend towards Taylor there.
I agree Phillip - Actually these appointments are actually quite difficult to predict, Both the English & Dutch officials have been pretty good and probably both deserve further appointments.
DeleteThen there have been for me some really good other performances by Karasev, Cakir, Rapallini & Vinic that spring to mind. I think generally Del Grande & Orsato has been generally fine so there are just too few games to go around!!
You can argue that Hategan deserves another match, even Brych (though unlikely).
There can be arguments for many possibilities - which can only be a good thing!
Very difficult to find the right solution in this RC situation. The ball was clearly and fairly played, I didn't - and I'm quite sure nobody did - find an excessive force in this action. But when such a contact occurs, it's difficult to not show a RC.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find it difficult to accept this RC concerning LotG. No excessive force, no brutality, just a typical football action - playing the ball clearly. It's Ukrainian player who initiated the contact by running there, having no chance to play the ball.
In addition, I find it really inconsistent that there was an OFR, with the intervention bar being very high. I saw many follow-through incidents with no injury in which the play-on was widely accepted by the powers that be. No reckless character, no excessive force used, typical football action were the arguments. And these arguments suit here as well. So it's OK for committee(s) to ignore some follow-through tackles/kicks if there is no injury and to deem same challenges worth of sending off only because of injury? Actually, it's anti-intellectualism.
That being said, I don't blame Orsato nor Irrati, nor other people who think that no sanction would've been perfect. Such challenges are quite frequent and the final conclusion of FIFA/IFAB/other confederations is needed and people educated about the final solution.
However, I wouldn't be optimistic here. They can't find a solution for assessing handball for so many years, so I doubt they are able to solve this issue.
Cheers
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent OR uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play"
DeleteThe "or" is important here: Once it endangers the safety of an opponent, the other conditions are not required anymore.
Maybe one could discuss though, whether it is a "tackle or challenge"...
Regarding VAR: I think, there is a high probability, that Orsato didn't see the impact on the leg, so that it could be seen as "missed incident". This would lower the bar for a VAR intervention.
Good argument, Philipp! Following this, every follow-through tackle/challenge that results in significant studs contact with an opponent should result in at least YC. And I would accept that, no problem. The problem is I don't see consistency, even at the top level.
DeleteOnce again, thank you for your contribution to this blog. I always visit this blog to read your, Mikael's, Ref_1707's, Flip's, Osborne's, Emil's and some Anonymouse's views. A pity that during big tournaments some trolls or fanboys appear :D
Thank you both, great discussion. I replied in long higher up in the comments.
DeleteI should note also that Gary Lineker has argued this is a very normal play and certainly not a RC. Of course, not a referee, but it's worth bearing in mind what players and observers expect and see as 'normal'. Of course, nothing suggests Lineker represents a majority, or even a strong minority - it's one data point, that's all.
SUI-ESP Karasev
ReplyDeleteBEL-ITA Oliver
CZE-DEN Vincic
UKR-ENG Hategan
SUI/ESP - BEL/ITA Taylor
CZE/DEN - UKR/ENG Kuipers
FINAL Cakir
Finally someone recognizes Karasev´s good job in this tournament.
DeletePredictions (not my preferences): REF - FO - VAR, AVAR1, AVAR2, AVAR 3
ReplyDeleteSUI-ESP: TAYLOR (ENG) - Karasev (RUS) - ATTWELL (ENG), Kavanagh (ENG), Betts (ENG), Gil (POL)
BEL-ITA: KUIPERS (NED) - Oliver (ENG) - VAN BOEKEL (NED) - Blom (NED) - Gittelmann (GER) - Dankert (GER)
CZE-DEN: VINCIC (SVN) - Makkelie (NED) - DANKERT (GER), Dingert (GER), Gittelmann (GER), Fritz (GER)
UKR-ENG: DEL CERRO GRANDE (ESP) - Rapallini (ARG) - M. MUNUERA (ESP), Her. Hernández (ESP), De Cerain (ESP), Valeri (ITA)
As a Kuipers fan,,he dont deserve final right now,,maybe after the QF,,but now he can be AR1 on the Final team.
ReplyDeleteFYI
ReplyDeleteIf anyone asks why our learned friend Furqan Miah is banned :)
https://ibb.co/Hqg11q6
https://ibb.co/DG6M2VB
Unacceptable !!!! Full support Mikael !
DeleteWhen we will know which referees will be sent at home ?
ReplyDeleteQFs:
ReplyDeleteSWI-SPA Oliver
BEL-ITA Kuipers
CZE-DEN Vincic
UKR-ENG Hategan
SFs:
SWI/SPA - BEL/ITA Taylor
CZE/DEN - UKR/ENG Makkelie
FINAL:
Cakir
SWI-SPA Anthony Taylor
ReplyDeleteBEL-ITA Ovidiu Hategan
CZE-DEN Slavko Vincic
UKR-ENG Bjorn Kuipers
SWI/SPA - BEL/ITA Danny Makkelie
CZE/DEN - UKR/ENG Daniele Orsato
Final - Cuneyt Cakir
My predictions for the remaining seven matches
ReplyDeleteSUI - ESP: Taylor (4OF: Oliver)
BEL - ITA: Vincic (4OF: Karasev)
CZE - DEN: Kuipers (4OF: del Cerro)
UKR - ENG: Hategan (4OF: Siebert)
SUI/ESP - BEL/ITA: Cakir (4OF: Orsato)
CZE/DEN - UKR/ENG: Rapallini (4OF: Brych)
Final: Kuipers (4OF: Makkelie)
Why I take this predictions:
I think it's obvious that Kuipers and Vincic will get a metch in QF. UEFA trust Vincic a lot so that i can imagine an appointment for BEL-ITA. Kuipers should be the ref for CZE-DEN because of the probility to see one of both teams in final ist very low. So that Kuipers can referee the final without having one of the final teams in KO-stage. Besides CZE-DEN is a match without a higher profile team, so that it semms to be a closer match.
The problem of Oliver is, that England won already versus Germany, so that there ist a high chance to see no further english referee for SF and final, if England wins against Ukraine. Because of this fact combined with the fact i cannot imagine, Taylor don't get a match anymore, Oliver only can be involved as 4OF. Hategan is a safe prediction too i think, because of many other refs could be possible for this game disqualified themselves with their performance.
For the SF i take Cakir for the potential higher profil SF and Rapallini for the potential lower profile SF. I think both deserved another appointment because of their very well performances until the whole competition.
The big final is reserved for Kuipers, who is a man for the biggest clashes in those competitions. Another candidate would be Brych, but he disqualified himself because of his performance in BEL-POR.
Del Cerro must have been kept by UEFA for a reason. A QF or SF for him is sure.
ReplyDeleteTo politically placate the FEF and not send both of their referees home at once?
DeleteI'm torn. I think Cerro Grande could get England-Ukraine, but I don't think he should. We shall see soon enough.
But whether he works or not, the reason for him staying was political.
That is your opinion and I respect it. In my view, he refereed his two matches the way he was expected by UEFA. Regardless, political or not political, he is there and will have one of the remaining 7 matches.
DeleteFrom watching this tournament I must say I'm a bit surprised that so many people think kuipers should be appointed to the final. Don't get me wrong I think he is an exceptional referee. But I feel he has not been the stand out candidate. I personally feel that Cakir, Karasev and Taylor have been the three stand out referees during this tournament and the push for kuipers to be the ref for the final to me seems to be more that people feel he deserves it after a fantastic career rather than based on his performance during the tournament
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. There's a fundamental question here, isn't there?
DeleteShould the final go to the best performing referee at the tournament?
Or should it go to the best performing refereeing among the officials you would already trust to handle such a match based on their history?
I would humbly suggest it must be the latter. It seems a bit crazy to give the biggest game in your entire organization for four years (five years this time!) to a referee because he had two good games. That's what you would be doing if, say, Karasev got the final.
I think you have to look at this tournament and say there were 8 referees who could plausibly get the final (Kuipers, Makkelie, Brych, Orsato, Mateu, Taylor, Cakir, Turpin). Two of those played themselves out of the equation in the group stage. I would argue Brych did likewise in his match. I'd also say that appointments indicate that Makkelie is being rewarded early, rather than later.
You're left with Kuipers-Cakir-Taylor-Orsato. Sure, if results went the right way and Kuipers failed on a QF, one of the latter two referees could step in. But I think it's pretty clear that Kuipers is the favorite for the final (after Brych's hiccups) with Cakir as a "break glass in case of emergency" backup who is more likely to go to a semi.
But, I've been wrong before!
Personally, I see two solid options:
ReplyDeleteOPTION 1
Belgium-Italy - HATEGAN
Spain-Switzerland - OLIVER
England-Ukraine - KUIPERS
Denmark-Czech Republic - VINCIC
OPTION 2
Belgium-Italy - KUIPERS
Spain-Switzerland - OLIVER
England-Ukraine - CERRO GRANDE
Denmark-Czech Republic - VINCIC
I prefer Option 1. But I think that makes the semifinal referees tougher, particularly if both Italy and England advance. You'd have Cakir and one wild card. Maybe Karasev?
Option 2 would mean Hategan goes straight into the semis. It's cleaner, but it also means Kuipers could see Belgium three times if the make the final and he gets it, which should be avoided. So I'm not sure which route UEFA will choose.
All of this leads to Kuipers getting the final, of course. But if he fails at the QF level, UEFA would have to scramble. As I write above, I think then Cakir would slot in on the final most easily but if England or Italy lost in the QF stage, you could then have alternatives remaining. Quite frankly, if England lost to Ukraine I think you could have a very good shot of seeing Taylor on the Final if Kuipers doesn't pass the test.
How about one of the R16 referees will also get a QF, as it happened with Skomina at Euro 2016?
DeleteI am shocked by some users on this blog. The most controversial performance of the tournament (Mateu's POR-FRA) had less comments than Orsato's SWE-UKR where nothing happened. Are you referees in real life? Stop hate and talk about football.
ReplyDeleteBELGIUM - ITALY SLAVKO VINCIC (SLO)
ReplyDeleteSWITZERLAND - SPAIN MICHAEL OLIVER (ENG)
CZECH REPUBLIC - DANMARK BJORN KUIPERS (NED)
UKRAINE - ENGLAND OVIDIU HATEGAN (ROU)
Belgium-Italy - Sergei Karasev
ReplyDeleteSpain-Switzerland - Ovidiu Hațegan
England-Ukraine - Bjorn Kuipers
Denmark-Czech Republic - Slavko Vinčić
My predictions - part II:
ReplyDeleteCZE-DEN: Björn KUIPERS (NED)
UKR-ENG: Carlos DEL CERRO GRANDE (ESP)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHIGHLIGHTS (Orsato)
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-jXNhbzwpfj