The first two on-field reviews of this tournament occurred on the same day and our guest trio from CONMEBOL took charge of their first match, as we reached halfway through the group stage. How did the officials get on? This post takes a closer look.
We will move eastwards through this analysis, so starting in Amsterdam.
-> no fault for the officials in Bucharest, simply very good work in Nyon.
---
Balance: I really liked this performance by Rapallini! His manner was excellent (43', 63', 65'), and he issued cards in line with directives at the tournament (4', 31', 42', 65'). He dealt with mobbing well at 24' ; but the foul which caused it was incorrect.
Very good work by Juan Pablo Belatti (13', 28', 34'); Diego Bonfá made a tight mistake at 52'. Overall fully convincing impression by the Argentine trio, we should see them again for certain!
We will move eastwards through this analysis, so starting in Amsterdam.
Orel Grinfeld's trio in Netherlands vs. Austria
Big Decisions
Penalty given at 8' is quite an interesting situation!
Was there a simulation by Netherlands no.6 prior to the foul challenge?
The pictures do seem to point in that direction, indeed. To be fair to De Vrij, the challenge seemed to rather put him off, more than a premeditated idea, and he calculated that falling of his own accord was the best option for him here. A caution for simulation would be (at least!) supportable.
However, I don't think this was a dive of a "clear and obvious" nature, with regards what comes a second later.
How did the referee miss the reckless treading foul by Austria no.8?
The most striking thing about this sequence is that I don't think Grinfeld was really 'in control' of it. His reaction regarding the previous tackle was "passive", he didn't offer clear gestures (get up), or a clear decision, he just let the game go on slightly 'unhinged'.
Then, he was put off before Alaba's stamp challenge occurred, not really focused, and in doubt, decided only for a goalkick. Assistant referee Roy Hassan actually had a clear line of sight on the foul, but his attention would have been taken up by Austria no.4 running upfield, and an offside decision in case of a centred ball.
Was the VAR intervention correct?
Yes. Any idea with regards to Video Assistant Refereeing that this stamp situation might not be "clear and obvious" is really overcomplicating matters - rather quick procedure, everyone can accept the decision; very good use of the system. Alaba was correctly cautioned too, the foul was clearly reckless.
The VMOs also used good common-sense and "football understanding" to not ask Grinfeld to revoke a potential penalty call, in light of the potential simulation, which would have been against the spirit of UEFA's VAR idea, and put the officials in the the spotlight unnecessarily.
Too long, didn't read; was the final decision correct?
Yes :)
The pictures do seem to point in that direction, indeed. To be fair to De Vrij, the challenge seemed to rather put him off, more than a premeditated idea, and he calculated that falling of his own accord was the best option for him here. A caution for simulation would be (at least!) supportable.
However, I don't think this was a dive of a "clear and obvious" nature, with regards what comes a second later.
How did the referee miss the reckless treading foul by Austria no.8?
The most striking thing about this sequence is that I don't think Grinfeld was really 'in control' of it. His reaction regarding the previous tackle was "passive", he didn't offer clear gestures (get up), or a clear decision, he just let the game go on slightly 'unhinged'.
Then, he was put off before Alaba's stamp challenge occurred, not really focused, and in doubt, decided only for a goalkick. Assistant referee Roy Hassan actually had a clear line of sight on the foul, but his attention would have been taken up by Austria no.4 running upfield, and an offside decision in case of a centred ball.
Was the VAR intervention correct?
Yes. Any idea with regards to Video Assistant Refereeing that this stamp situation might not be "clear and obvious" is really overcomplicating matters - rather quick procedure, everyone can accept the decision; very good use of the system. Alaba was correctly cautioned too, the foul was clearly reckless.
The VMOs also used good common-sense and "football understanding" to not ask Grinfeld to revoke a potential penalty call, in light of the potential simulation, which would have been against the spirit of UEFA's VAR idea, and put the officials in the the spotlight unnecessarily.
Too long, didn't read; was the final decision correct?
Yes :)
Managing the Game
While in the bigger, tournament-focused picture, Orel Grinfeld's performance did not do much to dislodge the wide impression that the officiating at UEFA EURO 2020 has been very good, technically, the Israeli's performance was one of the weaker ones so far, and probably amongst the weakest given the high level of the other refs.
As one user pointed out, technical accuracy was really not a strength of this performance over the piece, but this was most problematic for the game in the last fifteen minutes of the first half:
31' - referee doesn't blow for an impeding foul on a Netherlands players, and when forty seconds later De Vrij commits a very blatant one (rather more YC than not), referee has more issue dealing with the calm complaints, when he should be showing that such deliberate egregious fouls will not be tolerated.
34' - late whistle when letting the game go on would have been better.
36' - deliberate foul from behind (harder but still careless), referee runs over presumably to issue a warning, when his presence calms everyone down, he decides that is enough, before a very small talk with the fouling-Austria no. 3 is enough.
37' - clear missed foul on Austria, followed by SPA-ish trip by Austria no.4, no action taken.
39' - yellow card or at least very strong warning needed for Austria no.11 who deliberately fouls his opponent in a 'nothing' area of the pitch; referee just orders him to apologise, which isn't terribly successful.
41' - rather too soft freekick against Netherlands, players get irritated.
43' - clear missed foul between referee and assistant Idan Yarkoni.
Grinfeld couldn't guide the players towards fair play in this period, and given the very limited scope they visibly have to use sanctions in this tournament in order to do so, foul detection was a huge problem in this performance - even if it was only visible with regards "managing the game" in the aforementioned segment.
31' - referee doesn't blow for an impeding foul on a Netherlands players, and when forty seconds later De Vrij commits a very blatant one (rather more YC than not), referee has more issue dealing with the calm complaints, when he should be showing that such deliberate egregious fouls will not be tolerated.
34' - late whistle when letting the game go on would have been better.
36' - deliberate foul from behind (harder but still careless), referee runs over presumably to issue a warning, when his presence calms everyone down, he decides that is enough, before a very small talk with the fouling-Austria no. 3 is enough.
37' - clear missed foul on Austria, followed by SPA-ish trip by Austria no.4, no action taken.
39' - yellow card or at least very strong warning needed for Austria no.11 who deliberately fouls his opponent in a 'nothing' area of the pitch; referee just orders him to apologise, which isn't terribly successful.
41' - rather too soft freekick against Netherlands, players get irritated.
43' - clear missed foul between referee and assistant Idan Yarkoni.
Grinfeld couldn't guide the players towards fair play in this period, and given the very limited scope they visibly have to use sanctions in this tournament in order to do so, foul detection was a huge problem in this performance - even if it was only visible with regards "managing the game" in the aforementioned segment.
This game also displayed something rather relevant across the whole tournament - an extremely blatant dissenting / DtR kicking-the-ball-away was just totally ignored by Grinfeld at 56'. It is very obvious that the refs have been told to turn a blind eye to such offences.
I strongly disagree with this directive. I am fully behind a common-sensical approach, a yellow card is not always necessary, but forcing referees to pretend that it 'never happened' is disarming them pretty significantly in terms of preventative refereeing. UEFA should strongly rethink that in the future!
The manner of the Israeli referee is quite fascinating - he profits a lot from his natural authority, and the players never really disrespect him; his gestures and running style are very elegant and pleasant to watch. However, his actual communication skills, 'reaching' the players, are pretty limited indeed.
I strongly disagree with this directive. I am fully behind a common-sensical approach, a yellow card is not always necessary, but forcing referees to pretend that it 'never happened' is disarming them pretty significantly in terms of preventative refereeing. UEFA should strongly rethink that in the future!
The manner of the Israeli referee is quite fascinating - he profits a lot from his natural authority, and the players never really disrespect him; his gestures and running style are very elegant and pleasant to watch. However, his actual communication skills, 'reaching' the players, are pretty limited indeed.
It is quite an interesting paradox; necessity is the mother of invention, and I think referees with such a natural leadership style are not really 'forced' to develop their soft skills, because in 90% of their games, that authority alone is enough to succeed. It will be interesting to see how Grinfeld develops in that regard.
Balance: The quick VAR intervention ensured that this performance isn't one which arouses any more attention than the others for the tournament, but for 'us', this was not the best show by Orel Grinfeld, especially in foul recognition. At this stage in the competition, his scope for a second appointment look pretty limited.
The Dutchman's use of sanctions was very good - he used cards at the right times in order to send clear signals for when players crossed the line, and totally consistently too. He was justified in not issuing any first half cautions (1', 23', 28', 29') for fouls.
Kuipers chose to turn a blind eye to various dissenting behaviour over the course of the game (43', 66', 81') - with the first half situation noted the most blatant. Again - it is understandable to not instantly issue a caution for such behaviour, but to totally ignore it is too weak for the image of the referee, the game. One of the most respected referees in football history doesn't need to stand for such behaviour!
The Dutch referee deserves great praise for his extremely sensitive handling of the 11' minute of applause - such brilliant emotional intelligence is only a benefit for 'our' image as referees and should be celebrated as such.
Balance: Good performance by Björn Kuipers, who managed to succeed with his ultra-background style due to his excellent feeling for when to draw cards, even if he was slightly fortunate in one period. Top future matches are to be expected!
Balance: The quick VAR intervention ensured that this performance isn't one which arouses any more attention than the others for the tournament, but for 'us', this was not the best show by Orel Grinfeld, especially in foul recognition. At this stage in the competition, his scope for a second appointment look pretty limited.
Björn Kuipers' team in Denmark vs. Belgium
Convincing performance by the famed Dutch referee in this game - he ultimately managed to keep a lid on everything, and could stay in the background all-the-while.
Kuipers' tactic to exclusively stay in the background payed off here, though for my money he was a little fortunate in some moments. The well-spotted dive at 69', came at the right time for the Dutch referee - he could issue a warning from the previous goalkeeper conflict scene where he let play go on, and the Belgium goal a minute later arrested any chance of this game getting out of hand.
The Dutchman's use of sanctions was very good - he used cards at the right times in order to send clear signals for when players crossed the line, and totally consistently too. He was justified in not issuing any first half cautions (1', 23', 28', 29') for fouls.
Kuipers chose to turn a blind eye to various dissenting behaviour over the course of the game (43', 66', 81') - with the first half situation noted the most blatant. Again - it is understandable to not instantly issue a caution for such behaviour, but to totally ignore it is too weak for the image of the referee, the game. One of the most respected referees in football history doesn't need to stand for such behaviour!
The Dutch referee deserves great praise for his extremely sensitive handling of the 11' minute of applause - such brilliant emotional intelligence is only a benefit for 'our' image as referees and should be celebrated as such.
Balance: Good performance by Björn Kuipers, who managed to succeed with his ultra-background style due to his excellent feeling for when to draw cards, even if he was slightly fortunate in one period. Top future matches are to be expected!
Fernando Rapallini's team in Ukraine vs. North Macedonia
Big Decisions
Four penalty area incidents (40', 43', 55', 81'):
40' - seems to be some kind of impeding action, no replay, surely not enough for EURO level.
43' - excellently-spotted dive, well done! Referee was in a perfect position too.
55' - surely a minority view, but I'd argue that a defensive direct freekick is the most technically correct decision here.
Defender makes a 'reasonable' attempt to kick the ball, the attacker makes a later attempt, misses the ball, and actually impedes the defender from kicking the ball. So I would argue that a defensive freekick is the most 'correct' solution; never a case for VAR intervention at all.
That being said, especially on the second replay, the decision that everybody expects is a penalty for a careless kick; as Mark Clattenburg said, the aim-of-the-game in a major tournament is to handle games with the least controversy possible, and the final decision taken by Rapallini follows that criterion.
The procedure of the penalty's giving is not that convincing for me - you can see that the Argentine referee has not made a dynamic sprint after the goalkeeper's save, and he is well-away from the situation. I guess that Juan Pablo Belatti had a decisive intervention in that short time.
-> technically supportable decision; practically, referee took the optimal, expected, decision.
81' - the first on-field review of the tournament was correctly recommended. My only reservation was whether the North Macedonia defender was actually protecting his face in the wall, as RAPs dictate that in such cases a penalty should not be given. Replays dispelled that impression.
Good officiating all-round:
40' - seems to be some kind of impeding action, no replay, surely not enough for EURO level.
43' - excellently-spotted dive, well done! Referee was in a perfect position too.
55' - surely a minority view, but I'd argue that a defensive direct freekick is the most technically correct decision here.
Defender makes a 'reasonable' attempt to kick the ball, the attacker makes a later attempt, misses the ball, and actually impedes the defender from kicking the ball. So I would argue that a defensive freekick is the most 'correct' solution; never a case for VAR intervention at all.
That being said, especially on the second replay, the decision that everybody expects is a penalty for a careless kick; as Mark Clattenburg said, the aim-of-the-game in a major tournament is to handle games with the least controversy possible, and the final decision taken by Rapallini follows that criterion.
The procedure of the penalty's giving is not that convincing for me - you can see that the Argentine referee has not made a dynamic sprint after the goalkeeper's save, and he is well-away from the situation. I guess that Juan Pablo Belatti had a decisive intervention in that short time.
-> technically supportable decision; practically, referee took the optimal, expected, decision.
81' - the first on-field review of the tournament was correctly recommended. My only reservation was whether the North Macedonia defender was actually protecting his face in the wall, as RAPs dictate that in such cases a penalty should not be given. Replays dispelled that impression.
Good officiating all-round:
- Alejandro Hernández Hernández's team in Nyon did excellently to spot the situation despite the total lack of protest (though of course they are trained to (quickly) check each block in the ball en bloc)
- I wouldn't blame any of the on-field officials for missing it; tricky position, if the position was horizontally vis-à-vis, the fourth official would have monitored it, but simply not possible here
- I wouldn't blame any of the on-field officials for missing it; tricky position, if the position was horizontally vis-à-vis, the fourth official would have monitored it, but simply not possible here
- Rapallini took a reasonable amount of time in the review area, before coming to the correct outcome (plus yellow card, blocking a shot at goal).
-> no fault for the officials in Bucharest, simply very good work in Nyon.
---
Balance: I really liked this performance by Rapallini! His manner was excellent (43', 63', 65'), and he issued cards in line with directives at the tournament (4', 31', 42', 65'). He dealt with mobbing well at 24' ; but the foul which caused it was incorrect.
Very good work by Juan Pablo Belatti (13', 28', 34'); Diego Bonfá made a tight mistake at 52'. Overall fully convincing impression by the Argentine trio, we should see them again for certain!
Day Seven: Balance
The first two on-field reviews of the tournament were quite correct; the guest trio from CONMEBOL and the odds-on favourite to handle the final started convincingly too - another good day for this UEFA EURO's refereeing!
The only negative point, Orel Grinfeld's weaker performance, did not arouse wide attention of the media.
Refereeing highlights:
Ukraine - North Macedonia
Denmark - Belgium
Netherlands - Austria
The only negative point, Orel Grinfeld's weaker performance, did not arouse wide attention of the media.
Refereeing highlights:
Ukraine - North Macedonia
Denmark - Belgium
Netherlands - Austria
Thanks by the way for all the comments beneath the other posts - I hope people find these segments at least partly interesting and insightful.
ReplyDelete(I was quite busy in recent days otherwise would have responded to some comments beneath the del Cerro / Çakır post)
Please share the clips of matches via we transfer links
DeleteI completely agree today. :)
ReplyDeleteObviously the standard of refereeing has been very good at the Euros so far, but I feel the need to point out the same thing I pointed out in 2016. When compared with games in the CONMEBOL (or CONCACAF, at times), most of these UEFA games seem relatively easy for the referee. The players in UEFA are, on average, a lot more respectful to their opponents and to the referees, less emotional, and make better decisions than those in CONMEBOL or CONCACAF. In short, these games are less chaotic and challenging. Remember back to 2016 all the penalties, red cards, mass confrontations, etc we had in the Copa America. The Euros, which were taking place at the same time, were very very tame by comparison. And I think we are saying something very similar this year: good performances of course from all the Euros referees, but I really don’t think any of the games have been very challenging at all. Definitely nothing close to the level of difficulty we saw in the CONCACAF Nations League Final for John Pitti, or even in Diego Haro’s Bolivia - Paraguay Copa America game recently.
ReplyDeleteAgain this isn’t a slight against the UEFA referees - you can only ref the games you’re given, and they’ve been great - but they haven’t been the most challenging games in the world.
Please share the clips of matches via WeTransfer
ReplyDeleteApologies, added now!
DeleteThank you very much... It is great job...
Delete