UEFA will be happy with how Danny Makkelie and his team in Rome and Nyon opened UEFA EURO 2020. The Dutch referee sent the desired signal with regards assessing handling, and his wider performance was sound. Full breakdown in this post.
Let's start with the key incidents of the evening.
Big Decisions
The above video montage contains the following incidents:
17' - Potential penalty to Italy (handling)
17' - Potential penalty to Italy (handling)
21' - Potential penalty to Italy (handling)
29' - Potential penalty to Italy (tripping)
44' - Potential penalty to Turkey (tripping)
45' - Potential penalty to Italy (handling)
47' - Offside call by AR1 Hessel Steegstra
---
As aforementioned, the penalty scene at 45' was the most relevant officiating moment in this match - not for game one so much as the whole tournament, and the revised way of assessing handling which is now possible after the revision of the LotG for the 2021/22 season.
While I agree with those assessing this decision as supportable, for me it is supportable (!), that's the wrong way to discuss this call I think. This is exactly the call which UEFA surely wanted and I am a subscriber to this trend too.
While I agree with those assessing this decision as supportable, for me it is supportable (!), that's the wrong way to discuss this call I think. This is exactly the call which UEFA surely wanted and I am a subscriber to this trend too.
The Turkey defender makes an otherwise normal attempt to block the cross with his body perpendicular to the Italy attacker's centred ball - his arms used reasonably for coordination given what he is trying to do, and the ball hits his right limb which is not tense.
For sure, the Turkey player does 'take a risk' in some way with that movement - but you take some risk of giving away a handling penalty by entering the field of play having not removed your arms beforehand.
Perhaps I'm just a biased Englishman who still lives in the 'ball-to-hand' era, but personally I welcome this development. However, as our user Forlan said, it will be fascinating to see if referees 'further down' the UEFA roster will be able to keep this trend up throughout the games. We will see!
---
A lot of attention was focused on the offside decision at 47' - and indeed Hessel Steegstra made a clear mistake.
It is not my job to defend him specifically, or any official at this EURO for that matter, but I really think this whole scene got really overblown in the comments. Talk of Makkelie and team being removed for it is very far from reality.
The use of "technical mistake" was interesting - of course that was the result, but I don't think it really explains the process. It is pretty obvious that Steegstra lost his concentration and misremembered that there was not a second pass, and the 'classic' offside from a short corner where the taker is the recipient of a one-two and is caught offside.
If Steegstra flagged instantly, and indeed totally forgot the LotG, then that might be more of a problem. But it was just a simple concentration loss - if that is the biggest criticism of this performance, then UEFA will be very happy with this performance!
---
Makkelie was correct to give the go on in the other four mentioned scenes:
17' - arm close to the body, clear play on
21' - more interesting I think, but the arm is closely tucked into the body, so also correct to play on
29' - the contact is trifling, easy fall by the attacker, correct no penalty
44' - clearly no foul, even possible card for simulation
For sure, the Turkey player does 'take a risk' in some way with that movement - but you take some risk of giving away a handling penalty by entering the field of play having not removed your arms beforehand.
Perhaps I'm just a biased Englishman who still lives in the 'ball-to-hand' era, but personally I welcome this development. However, as our user Forlan said, it will be fascinating to see if referees 'further down' the UEFA roster will be able to keep this trend up throughout the games. We will see!
---
A lot of attention was focused on the offside decision at 47' - and indeed Hessel Steegstra made a clear mistake.
It is not my job to defend him specifically, or any official at this EURO for that matter, but I really think this whole scene got really overblown in the comments. Talk of Makkelie and team being removed for it is very far from reality.
The use of "technical mistake" was interesting - of course that was the result, but I don't think it really explains the process. It is pretty obvious that Steegstra lost his concentration and misremembered that there was not a second pass, and the 'classic' offside from a short corner where the taker is the recipient of a one-two and is caught offside.
If Steegstra flagged instantly, and indeed totally forgot the LotG, then that might be more of a problem. But it was just a simple concentration loss - if that is the biggest criticism of this performance, then UEFA will be very happy with this performance!
---
Makkelie was correct to give the go on in the other four mentioned scenes:
17' - arm close to the body, clear play on
21' - more interesting I think, but the arm is closely tucked into the body, so also correct to play on
29' - the contact is trifling, easy fall by the attacker, correct no penalty
44' - clearly no foul, even possible card for simulation
Managing the Game
The opening game Turkey - Italy promised a lot in terms of work for the match referee Danny Makkelie, but the result was quite different - with about twenty minutes remaining, the foul count was at twelve. In the bigger picture, this was a sound performance without question, but there are some points worth going over.
The weakest part of this good performance was in foul detection, an issue that after a long season with many referees (and players) more fatigued than for a normal tournament, will be something certainly both observing in the games of EURO 2020.
Makkelie often whistled slightly late (eg. 12', 15', 30') and I couldn't really detect a clear, unadulterated line in which contacts the Dutch referee would and would not punish. In addition, he missed two rather clear infractions in the second half (49', 55'). Criticism on a high level sure, but this is the EURO opening game! And save for a few minutes (12'-15') the match was never really challenging (at all) in that regard.
I agree with the consensus that the potential mobbing scene at 21' was solved acceptably without a yellow card, and there was a verbal warning slightly later too. The 'advantage' call at 42' after he was struck by the ball was perfect - besides that he got hit with the ball in the first place! :D
However, I don't really think Makkelie took the initiative in the two penalty appeals just before halftime, the very-short stop for VAR check at 45' was the worst possible on a game management level (either nothing, "already checked"; or just slightly longer would be better), and this hurried impression was just slightly chaotic. A good foul call at +46' was necessary, and still the first half ended a bit angstily.
The weakest part of this good performance was in foul detection, an issue that after a long season with many referees (and players) more fatigued than for a normal tournament, will be something certainly both observing in the games of EURO 2020.
Makkelie often whistled slightly late (eg. 12', 15', 30') and I couldn't really detect a clear, unadulterated line in which contacts the Dutch referee would and would not punish. In addition, he missed two rather clear infractions in the second half (49', 55'). Criticism on a high level sure, but this is the EURO opening game! And save for a few minutes (12'-15') the match was never really challenging (at all) in that regard.
I agree with the consensus that the potential mobbing scene at 21' was solved acceptably without a yellow card, and there was a verbal warning slightly later too. The 'advantage' call at 42' after he was struck by the ball was perfect - besides that he got hit with the ball in the first place! :D
However, I don't really think Makkelie took the initiative in the two penalty appeals just before halftime, the very-short stop for VAR check at 45' was the worst possible on a game management level (either nothing, "already checked"; or just slightly longer would be better), and this hurried impression was just slightly chaotic. A good foul call at +46' was necessary, and still the first half ended a bit angstily.
Sure, it would not be wrong to say the yellow card at 88' was a bit cheap, the referee had much clearer earlier offences to draw a line with (84', 85', 85', 87'), but actually Makkelie approached the end of the game with the necessary delicateness, and completed a performance on an expected level.
Assistant Referees
I don't think Hessel Steegstra had his strongest evening on the whole, at least in the second half. The flag at 62' was too close to call for sure but was probably a well-seen offside, however 78' was a clear mistake. However his performance in the first half was without issue.
Jan De Vries was probably actually wrong to raise his flag at 50', but I really cannot get terribly animated about this given it basically corresponded to common sense. The rest of his performance was fine.
Balance
Danny Makkelie did a good job for UEFA in this match - the no-penalty call at 45' was much more important for the tournament than this specific game, and now the Dutchman has set the trend for how future such incidents will be assessed in the tournament.
For the Dutch trio more specifically, this performance in an honestly rather easy-going game will surely not count really count against them, but it was not a shining one either (à la Mateu's CL final). Though you could argue that was impossible in this opener - a more challenging second game will give us a clearer impression.
For the Dutch trio more specifically, this performance in an honestly rather easy-going game will surely not count really count against them, but it was not a shining one either (à la Mateu's CL final). Though you could argue that was impossible in this opener - a more challenging second game will give us a clearer impression.
I've seen him do better. Wasn't his best game in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mikael, for this analysis, which I mostly agree with. However, the VAR check in 45' was perfectly fine for me.
ReplyDeleteApologies if I'm repeating myself but I agree! Definitely a situation worth being sure about for the VMOs.
DeleteHowever on a managing the players, the game level, it's length (just happened to) give a too chaotic impression which IMO partly led to the tension at end of the 1H.
Really nice analyses and I agree with everything, especially the 45' which for me looks also natural hand position given player's movement in that situation and with the short distance taken into account too. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHighlights:
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-yilzxiPgHG
thank to Anonymous
Thanks very much indeed!
DeleteIs it clear that the "offside" on 47' was an oversight from the AR?
ReplyDeleteBall played backwards, can't be offside from a corner kick
Or was the player penalised for leaving the pitch and re-entering the FoP
If decision was IFK for re-entering the FoP then YC is mandatory.
DeleteAs there was no YC, we can conclude that IFK for offside was given.
Once again it will be considered a decent performance, why? Because he’s one of the ‘favoured few’
ReplyDeleteThe ball hit the ref… he waves play on. WRONG. The LOTG clearly state of ball hits referee, game is restarted with drop ball.
AR1 gives an offside from a corner. This again is WRONG, and referee should have been focussed to overrule him. If this had been any referee outside the ‘favoured few’ his tournament would be over. Too many mistakes in a first match, any further games for this ref and his should be dead rubbers.
Actually, your comment is non-sense to be honest. This blog does not (hopefully also not in this year's tournament) favor any referee, especially not in the revisions/analysis.
DeleteYour critcism is certainly wrong I think, after being hit with the ball, he acted appropriately, all penalty-area realted calls were perfectly assessed and the corner mistake shouldn't be overextended and, in fact, won't influence further appointments significantly.
@JMC: when the ball hits the referee, the game is stopped and dropped ball is awarded only if either of following happens:
Delete- team possession changes
- a promising attack starts
It was neither of these cases, so it was correct to play on
* for this ref and his team
ReplyDeleteBecause the rule about handball changed for the tournament, so the RAP is not yet aligned with this!
ReplyDeleteIMO good performace by Makkelie, Rosetti and UEFA will be happy.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are things to work on, for me I thought for an opening match, he set the tone and there wasn't any clear and obvious errors that had a bearing on the match. So overall, a decent opening performance with adjustments needed. The AR's need to improve a bit further however, for me, he should get a second appointment at this stage!
ReplyDeleteAll messages claiming official assessments by UEFA will be deleted.
ReplyDeleteI invite readers to avoid that, thanks.
While reading the most absurd theories about the potential penalty and the new(?) handball rule, i took the time to carefully review the law and the video presentation made by IFAB about 2021/22 rules.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it was a penalty and in the aforementioned videos, between those describing the concept of "unnaturally bigger", there is even an example eerily similar.
Obviously it is only my personal and irrilevant opinion and, in the end, the penalty or no penalty debate is also not very relevant as it didn't even determine the outcome of the match...
I think how Makkelie managed the episode is more relevant. And no, i don't think this is the call UEFA wanted.
Makkelie was directly behind Celik, at about 15 meters, so he couldn't see clearly enough the arm position or how Celik moved it.
Usually in this situation a (non british) referee should personally check the video footage, more so because it was the first application of the slighty revised rule. Makkelie, instead, didn't even signal an official var review and after a few seconds casually dismiss the event.
Not a wise choice.
To the more important topic: as i stated i don't think this is the call UEFA wanted because i don't see how similar episodes could be fairly and costantly called in the same way.
Please remember that the rule does not differentiate between voluntariness, speed of the ball or distance from the ball, so the same judgement should be equally applied to Celik, who was near the ball, and to a defender far away.
Well, I think that everybody would call a penalty if Celik was ten meter further away...
In the end, while the ball-to-hand approach still make sense it doesn't belong in the actual rule. We could like that, we could dislike that but that's the law.
As Romans said "Dura Lex sed Lex"
As i said it's just my personal and humble opinion and i welcome further discussions about this topic. Well maybe not only relative
to this single call, that, as i said, is definetively irrelevant, but to the susteinabilty of this interpretation.
I beg your pardon but, obviously, English is not my first language..
Thank you!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteis it possible to get, again, the link to get ref higligth ? the link expired.
Thanks