Tuesday, 22 June 2021

UEFA EURO Analysis: Clément Turpin's performance in RUSDEN

Yesterday evening's dramatic game between Russia and Denmark handled by Clément Turpin gave us the most widely discussed performance of UEFA EURO 2020 so far. This post takes a close look at how the Frenchman got on in a remarkable tie.  



A separate post will take a look at the other three games on Day Eleven of the tournament; this post specifically focuses on the Russia - Denmark match. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that Clément Turpin failed the test in this match, and that UEFA have no option but to reject this performance. My post analyses why. 

We will start with the two crucial incidents of the evening, the potential second yellow card to Russia no.13 (65') and the penalty given to Russia (68'). You can view a video montage of the two scenes below. 



Big Decisions





---

65': I am genuinely quite surprised that the absolute consensus is that Turpin missed a crystal clear second yellow card in this scene. 

I think there are three key questions that need asking to analyse this situation, before reaching a final conclusion. 


Are UEFA referees advised to treat second yellow cards differently to 'first' cautions?

Yes! I quote verbatim from clip A1 of the RAP 2019:1 (ie. the most important point that UEFA wanted to make from this six months of matches) - "referees are reminded that when they administer the second yellow card, the offence must clearly and without doubt warrant such sanction". 

Clément Turpin must have had this in the back of his mind - UEFA does not want second yellow cards which are avoidable. 


Would Kudryashov have been shown the yellow card if not already booked?

It is impossible to answer that question conclusively, but I am actually not convinced that this foul, of itself, is a totally mandatory yellow card (regardless of first or second). 

We can immediately rule out assessing this foul as an example of UEFA's interpretation of showing a lack of respect for the game - the holding is not excessive, nor prolonged. 

I am neither convinced the foul is actually clear SPA (see here). The attacker is running very wide (right by the touchline), there are defenders who can immediately cover the free space ahead of him, and the crossing options are very limited indeed. 

So personally, the theoretical arguments do not convince me that this is a clear yellow card!


Did 'football expect' Kudryashov to be shown the second yellow card? 

Yes, most certainly - and that is what sinks Clément Turpin. It is understandable that normal football people don't have an intricate understanding of SPA, careless vs. reckless; for them, the instinctive second yellow card criteria essentially comes down to a key question:

"Was this a stupid action by the already-cautioned player for which he clearly risked himself getting ejected?"

And Kudryashov most certainly does act stupidly with that holding foul. Furthermore, his apology and manner after the foul does more than anything to clearly signpost to everybody that he himself actually expected to be sent off here, only to be spared by the referee.


Would anyone have really complained, been surprised if Kudryashov had been sent off?

No. I think that is the authoritative point in the final analysis. 


---


68': I would also argue the penalty scene is rather less cut-and-dry than most people here argued - at least in the strictly theoretical sense. 

At least in the way that one assesses duels on the halfway line so to speak, I think that Vestergaard does commit a foul. The attacker wins the position by good play, takes a good touch, and only by impeding him can the defender then clear the ball away for a corner. 

The attacker cannot run through 'a brick wall', he doesn't really have any other choice than to go down, not on account of the minor holding which was identified as the reason for the penalty call by everybody I've seen discuss the situation. 

I am quite firm that this is not a decision with zero merit; personally, I would even praise Turpin for it! However, I'd be quite alone in that. For Turpin, for his tournament, play on would be the much better call; the wide consensus, is that the (nothing) holding was the reason for Turpin's whistle. 

Again the authoritative question might be this - would Russia have really complained, even remembered the situation, if the outcome from this incident was a corner? I don't think so. 


(Turpin was so blatantly mobbed after the penalty call, but he did not, or rather could not, issue any yellow card(s). It seems that the UEFA.com pre-tournament article which declares that "mobbing will be punished" was actually a typo; it is extremely obvious that they have internally instructed their referees to do exactly the opposite. 

Sorry, but is not acceptable to make the referees' best option when dealing with being mobbed  doing this from WC 1986. The officiating at the EURO has been very good, but we strongly disagree with this trend by UEFA - clear mobbing should always be punished with a yellow card!)


---


Conclusion: The problem with these two decisions is not even that they were awful mistakes, actually I would say that isolated both are rather defendable indeed, but that Turpin lost the big picture view of them.


Turpin very visibly knew he couldn't really win in the potential SYC incident at 65' (UEFA vs. popular expectation) - he totally let the scene 'pass him by' in terms of whistle tone, presence, mimics and gestures. He looked very powerless in that moment, all-too aware of his predicament. 

Ironically, the only person who took charge of this scene was Kudryashov - with his apologetic manner, he signalled to the world that Turpin ignored a 'clear' second yellow card, even if on a theoretical level (at least in my estimation), this was not such a black-white situation as is being made out. 

I am quite sure that some other referees would have, ejected Kudryashov, in contravention of UEFA's vision or otherwise, because it suited them personally - and actually at no harm to themselves and their tournament. 


More problematic for me is the penalty in this regard - in my eyes, Turpin even quite credibly awarded a spot kick in this scene and I am happy to explain in detail to people why (as I have above). But the problem is that he actually panicked, and answered a question that was not really being asked. 

For me, the key piece of information which helps also point towards panic is no sanction - Vestergaard should have been sanctioned for this DOGSO foul (actually, according to the LotG it should be a red card because the impeding was not an attempt for the ball; more practically yellow is better despite that given current directives). 

Perhaps the only person after the final whistle who would have come to the conclusion that the more theoretically correct solution was to give a penalty is writing this article, probably. That should say enough. 


To sum it up, as Mark Clattenburg, referee of the last EURO final, said - the aim of the game at a major tournament is to arouse as little attention as possible in your games. In both these decisions, Clément Turpin was sunk for not keeping that maxim at the centre of his view. 



Managing the Game


Unfortunately, UEFA have no option but to reject this performance by Clément Turpin - he was not the worst referee at this EURO (quite the contrary, in fact), but he was the first to lose the overview whilst refereeing a game at this tournament. 

---

Managing DtR offences was the key theme of the first forty-five minutes:


13' - Russia attacker kicks the ball away some two, three seconds after the whistle; as per this competition, Turpin just ignores it

(This should send an important message to UEFA - teams are realising what is so obvious to us, and starting to p*ss out of the game, the referees, knowing they will get away with it - this trend should be reversed in the knockout stage)


23' - less clear kicking-the-ball-away offence than 13', but as it happened for the second time, good verbal warning issued by Turpin


26' - slow taking of a Russia freekick leads to a very clear warning, again good


33' - the key scene of the first half, the first player who leaves the throw-in really had to be cautioned at this moment, it actually was perfect coherent with the referee's stepped approach until now to issue a yellow card here. 

Slavko Vinčić's comparable card in the ESPSWE game suggests that the French referee did just lose this moment, as opposed to sticking ideologically the directives. 


38' - minor kicking-the-ball-away, correctly ignored (for any game, not just this EURO)


-> Turpin lost it at 33'. It was very clear that delaying the game was a clear tactic of the Russia team, and he was given the perfect moment to act against it at that moment. He even set himself up for it perfectly! Denmark's goal put paid to that tactic a few minutes after 38'. 


---


Even with DtR management included, I found Turpin's performance pretty good for the first hour. His card choices were pretty good, I didn't have a problem with his foul detection, nor his manner, both of which were effective. 

However the game began to slip away from him in the second half, for instance the missed deliberate charging foul at 48' and the simply weird chat with the Denmark coach at 50' where it seemed Turpin was listening to a lecture by him. But it was still okay until around 63'. 

After that, I had the feeling that the French referee was not really in charge of the game anymore: his foul detection suffered (63', 64', 70'); his disciplinary control no longer kept the players in check (even 57', then 67', 75', 87', +91') and he became far away from some incidents (eg. 77'), having until then displayed excellent sprinting abilities. 

When you include his (lack of) management at 65', with the unwise penalty call at 68' (not crucial mistakes alone, in my (exclusive?) view), this would be the first performance on my evaluation scale (link) to receive a 5 at this EURO - denoting that the referee "failed the test".


Balance


Clément Turpin visibly chose to change his approach in UEFA games in recent times, sticking much more aggressively in the background than before; at some point in the second half, he needed to revert to the 'old Turpin' from 2017-19, but the French referee couldn't bring him back when he had to. 

He came out on the wrong side of a pretty lose-lose potential second yellow card scene (and showed the world how lose-lose it was, too), and had lost the thread by the time of the penalty decision. UEFA actually have no choice but to reject this performance by one of their most valuable referees; Turpin's EURO should end here. 


Refereeing highlights:

Russia - Denmark

19 comments:

  1. Good point reagrding 65': It was described as blatant holding yesterday, but it's actually a rather short action, so I agree, that one should focus on SPA for the yellow card.
    For 68' the main argument IMO is, that the attacker seems to go down deliberately. Yes, he can't go through the defender, but he could have tried to follow the ball around him. But his fall doesn't fit to the contact with the defender.

    In both situations I agree with your conclusions, how this should and probably will be assessed.

    Yesterday, I was still undecided, what this should mean for Turpin's tournament, also given his quite good performance in the first game (and most of last season incl. the EL final). But after some time passed, I agree now, that this individual match went too bad, so it should be his last one independent of all other considerations. Maybe he can get an appointment as 4th official, but nothing more.
    This probably also means that Letexier won't get another match as VAR - no matter, how one evaluates his confirmation in 68' - because he exclusively worked with Turpin. He will probably continue as AVAR though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could you share the link of this analysis please?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much Mikael...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree in some places and disagree in others, Mikael. I'd make one point and pose one question.

    To the potential 2YC, I must say that I think the SPA nature is quite obvious. The Danes are out on the wing and there is a ton of open space down that right flank. He's going past his defender with speed. And he has the necessary support to make the eventual cross quite dangerous. I don't think you can look at that image and say "well, it's 1 v 3 so it's not SPA." Just like how we assess a number of factors for SFP v reckless (and not just point of contact!) we assess a number of factors with SPA and not just numeric advantage/disadvantage. Everything about that foul screams SPA, other than the immediate numerical situation.

    To the DOGSO element of the penalty... as you likely know, I too raised this elsewhere. It's pretty much a clear red card IF you ratify the penalty. So I'm wondering what you think of how Gil handled this. And I'd like to suggest a scenario that--quite legally--would have allowed Turpin a second look at the incident and given him much more credibility with the players on the field. If Gil had "confirmed" the penalty but recommended a review for a clear missed DOGSO, Turpin would have undertaken an OFR. And, as I hope readers now know, EVERY component of the incident is then subject to review even though the OFR is only for the misconduct. So, Turpin could go to the monitor and come back with any one of the following decisions:

    1) Confirm his own penalty decision + red card (probably QUITE ill-advised, even if supportable)

    2) Confirm his own penalty but ignore misconduct or produce yellow (maybe ill-advised, but at least the players would have understood he took a second look and stood by his decision)

    3) Realize how "soft" the penalty was, particularly from the other side of the player (the view he couldn't have had during play) and reverse his own decision, restarting with a dropped ball.

    My gut says, if presented with an OFR, Turpin would have chosen door #3.

    I want to be clear for anyone who asserts otherwise--I am NOT suggesting any circumvention of the VAR protocols. What I'm suggesting is Gil likely realized the penalty was soft and, consequently, opted to ignore the DOGSO aspects so not as to put Turpin in more trouble. But if he had recommended the red card review (which, technically, he should have!) it opens up options to Turpin that are closed without VAR initiation. It takes a lot of trust to pull this off, so maybe Turpin and Gil simply don't know each other well enough to do it. But I know a few VARs in MLS who would be able to walk through this and steer the referee to the most just outcome. And, as someone suggested elsewhere, probably save Turpin's tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UGH! I had my assignments confused. Letexier was VAR. Apologies in advance for all the Gil references above. But Letexier being the VAR makes my question even more relevant. They know each other. I'm sure Letexier could have helped Turpin here.

      Delete
    2. But maybe both Turpin and Letexier considered it a penalty and, in their opinion, there was nothing to save. Regarding DOGSO, we have already seen the trend that a red card is only wanted if there is something very blatant.

      Delete
    3. And since when the trend is more important than the Log? I am struggling to believe that everybody here just accepts what Rossetti and Co gave as instructions. I for one don't like at all the refereeing of the tournament because in many cases the LoG is completely ignored. And the laws are written for reason - they are tested during the years in any circumstances. And the only reasons that there were no major incidents at Euro till now are that most of the games are played in front of a small number of fans and the low intensity of the play after a difficult season. I hope that I am not right but I think that the real problems will occur during the direct eliminations if this kind of refereeing (that ignores the LoG) continues.

      Delete
    4. If you are part of a group, your survival depends on following the instructions; otherwise you are out. This is how it works in football and in life.

      Delete
    5. The funny part now is that the one who will be out is Turpin who was following your principles and Rosseti's but not his own understanding of the game.

      Delete
    6. I don’t see how you get to red card for DOGSO here. I assess the offense as a trip, with attempt to play the ball. DOGSO YC is appropriate here.

      Delete
  5. I still can't come to any other conclusion that of the games I've seen, this is one of the clearest yellow cards a professional referee has not given.
    Firstly, it's SPA. The Dane is through on the outside and can cross unchallenged.
    And secondly IMO it is blatant holding. The attacker plays around the defender, is already past and the defender decides to pull the Dane down from behind. And the holding doesn't last very long only because it doesn't make sense to hold the attacker any longer after he is already down.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Turpin should going back home, it will be à deasaster for the French referee/refereeing...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At WC2018 Brych was sent home after only one group stage match. 3 years later the two german referees at euro are performing quite well and Brych is a candidate for final. So even if it happens, it is by no means the end of Turpins future prospects.

      Delete
  7. OT

    Milovan Ristic and Dalibor Djurdjevic, Mazis ARs retired yestarday. They will continue to work and teach other referees about VAR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you going to post this in every new topic?

      Delete
    2. Posted it only once, what's your problem?

      Delete
  8. Your analysis confuses me, honestly; I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It sounds like you are saying that he got both big decisions correct, but should have made a “white lie” out of those situations to avoid controversy. I thoroughly reject this philosophy. The potential SPA for example: I agree with your technical analysis of the tactical impact of the foul: the conclusion that this was no SPA is at least as valid as the conclusion that this was SPA. So, if Turpin’s technical opinion, as the expert on the field, was that it was no SPA, he should be praised for making this brave decision when everyone else expects him to do otherwise. The game is not governed by players or pundits who tacitly *think* this *feels* like a YC. It is governed by referees who know and understand the technical considerations of the LOTG. He correctly spared a player from being sent off in a situation where weaker, less brave referees would have made the “easy” decision that didn’t put the in the media’s crosshairs.

    You’re also blaming him for “losing” this situation despite admitting that it is a lose-lose scenario for Turpin. That doesn’t make sense to me. He committed the crime of rolling an unlucky pair of dive and having this very difficult situation arise in his game through no fault of his own?

    With the penalty kick, I think it’s definitely a foul for tripping, I see no reason for UEFA not to support this decision. It doesn’t even seem like a particularly iffy foul for me, but pretty clear. I agree with you that DOGSO YC would’ve been appropriate as well (though I think you are off-track with your technical assessment of red card: the offense is clearly an attempt to play the ball, and even if you think the offense was impeding, this is not one of the offenses that is listed as an example of something that is never an attempt to play the ball).

    I had my eyes mostly on Brych’s game so I didn’t see most of the small stuff here, I’ll assume your analysis is good on those things. For sure, the lack of leadership UEFA has shown with respect to delaying the restart and mobbing is very frustrating and creates problems for referees all the way down the pyramid.

    In short, I agree with your assessments that both the big decisions were at least justifiable, but I don’t understand your conclusion that those decisions constitute a poor performance from Turpin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I more-or-less agree with everything you said to be honest!

      Turpin just totally failed in the last thirty minutes (for reasons stated, even notwithstanding 65' and 68'); I was quite shocked to be honest.

      There were endless (childish) mentions of one past-Turpin performance, but the end to this game distinctly reminded me another - Austria vs. Hungary at the last EURO.

      And that's quite stunning given the remarkable strides Turpin has taken since then.

      Delete
    2. I looked back and honestly Turpin had a weird end in 2018 as well (with the 2 penalties to Costa Rica). Maybe tournaments are not for him

      Delete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!