13 June ought to be remembered as the day that EURO 2020 'came alive' - at least from our (refereeing) perspective. Easily the best game so far for football fans, and the most interesting for us happened in this trio of matches. UEFA can still be pleased with the wider perception of their officials, however it also contained the first weaker performance thus far. Dissected in this post.
We will start with the most challenging game so far on this occasion.
Andreas Ekberg's team in Austria - North Macedonia
Big Decisions
Incidents:
28' - Fair challenge before the 1-1* goal?
52' - Potential red card to North Macedonia no.8 (SFP)
81' - Potential second yellow card to North Macedonia no.8 (striking)
---
There actually isn't really any conclusive angle, but the decision to allow the goal at 28' seems quite correct - Ekberg has the incident in his visual control (impossible to get the ideal position further leftwards), and perhaps the key signal is the instantaneous reaction of the Austria goalkeeper; he doesn't expect a whistle.
It seems as though the keeper is still making a saving action when there is fair collision between him and Aleksandar Trajkovski, causing the ball to spin away. Untidy, but no foul. In my experience, such 'random' unexpected incidents are very challenging, and the Swedish ref did well not to panic and instantly blow up.
I don't think at any era in refereeing history (maybe WC 2006 (?), but I don't think so anyway) would the tackle at 52' be considered worthy of a red card. Not least because Alioski is pushed, but that he is in control of his body, and there is no dangerous contact at all. Correct yellow card.
I didn't see any comments about this situation in the discussion page, but the theoretical evidence is rather clear - that's a reckless striking offence by already-booked Alioski who, by the book, should have been ejected.
28' - Fair challenge before the 1-1* goal?
52' - Potential red card to North Macedonia no.8 (SFP)
81' - Potential second yellow card to North Macedonia no.8 (striking)
---
There actually isn't really any conclusive angle, but the decision to allow the goal at 28' seems quite correct - Ekberg has the incident in his visual control (impossible to get the ideal position further leftwards), and perhaps the key signal is the instantaneous reaction of the Austria goalkeeper; he doesn't expect a whistle.
It seems as though the keeper is still making a saving action when there is fair collision between him and Aleksandar Trajkovski, causing the ball to spin away. Untidy, but no foul. In my experience, such 'random' unexpected incidents are very challenging, and the Swedish ref did well not to panic and instantly blow up.
I don't think at any era in refereeing history (maybe WC 2006 (?), but I don't think so anyway) would the tackle at 52' be considered worthy of a red card. Not least because Alioski is pushed, but that he is in control of his body, and there is no dangerous contact at all. Correct yellow card.
I didn't see any comments about this situation in the discussion page, but the theoretical evidence is rather clear - that's a reckless striking offence by already-booked Alioski who, by the book, should have been ejected.
Of course, in the bigger picture, it was wise to turn a blind eye to it - though to be honest my feeling is that Ekberg just missed it on a perception level - nobody wanted this red card, the first of the EURO, and so on, but at least for 'us', a scene of note at least.
Summary
Andreas Ekberg's performance was not convincing. It wouldn't be wrong to say that he "didn't lose" in this game, especially in the bigger picture, but most certainly in my eyes he was not a winner of the evening too.
The Swede chose the wrong approach for this game, or at any rate decided that he couldn't execute a more appropriate one. North Macedonia offer a different challenge to other nations at this EURO, it is naïve to officiate their games as referee trying to do the same things as for other clashes.
The Swede chose the wrong approach for this game, or at any rate decided that he couldn't execute a more appropriate one. North Macedonia offer a different challenge to other nations at this EURO, it is naïve to officiate their games as referee trying to do the same things as for other clashes.
Ekberg could never guide the players towards fair play and shared purpose in this tie. In key first half incidents he failed:
- at 10', he spotted the aggressive behaviour push, no clear warning (signal to the players, audience that this kind of unsporting action would be tolerated).
- his management of the 16' dissent was to look tough, but ultimately end up the loser; despite the aggressive gesture, the referee didn't confront this play (and he ran at the referee, by the way), and just walked away.
- the public warning at 17' gave the impression of a referee over his head, and one anonymous user summed up perfectly the nature of this warning, pro forma; he didn't even have the Austria player near him for this warning, given not because Ekberg wanted to try and mould the players' actions, but because he knew UEFA mandated it.
- key player Alioski and Saša Kalajdžić have a small contretemps, full in the view of assistant Mehmet Culum, who either chose not to inform his boss, or between them they decided to let it go (24')
- key player Alioski and Saša Kalajdžić have a small contretemps, full in the view of assistant Mehmet Culum, who either chose not to inform his boss, or between them they decided to let it go (24')
- after a deliberate foul by his teammate at 38', Enis Bardi boots the ball away in a manner which clearly challenges the referee's leadership of the match, but again no reaction from the Swedish ref
This tolerating of dissent (eg. 67', 73') continued in the second half. Indeed, Ekberg ensured that he would not 'lose' this encounter, but most certainly he was very far away from winning it. He synthesised this distant, aggressive manner with a lenient disciplinary control.
This tolerating of dissent (eg. 67', 73') continued in the second half. Indeed, Ekberg ensured that he would not 'lose' this encounter, but most certainly he was very far away from winning it. He synthesised this distant, aggressive manner with a lenient disciplinary control.
Sure you can defend no yellow card at 19' (opponent put his leg across), 51' (nobody really cared), 66' (late and still careless), but there was really no harm in 'making a point' in this game. He was visibly not in control of scenes when cautions were issued at 52', 85'.
When you add to this a lower-level foul detection, which only inflamed everybody a little bit more, then unfortunately we have to reflect on the first subpar performance in the infancy of this EURO. With the level displayed by other refs so far (albeit in less challenging games), Andreas Ekberg might be in trouble regarding a second appointment.
Felix Brych's team in Netherlands - Ukraine
Big Decisions
Incidents:
6' - Potential penalty to Netherlands (handling)
6' - Potential penalty to Netherlands (handling)
25' - Off-the-ball striking incident
28' - Potential penalty to Ukraine (tripping)
58' - Goal call (*2-0) supported after VAR check
---
28' - Potential penalty to Ukraine (tripping)
58' - Goal call (*2-0) supported after VAR check
---
My thoughts:
6' - arm close to the body, not extended (à la the penalty given by Melissa Borjas in NEDJPN at the last WWC, still assessed as correct), correct play on
25' - hard to make out exactly what happens but never a violent conduct
28' - correct play on by Brych.
ITV, as the clip shows, had access to some further angles used in this halftime analysis, makes for interesting viewing. Van Aanholt did not play the ball as I first thought - I wonder if Brych thought the same - but the decision to give the go on was correct regardless.
58' - if the officials spotted the offside offence, and Lupp communicated to Brych that the attacker in question was onside: excellent. If they didn't and it was just confirmed by VAR: something of a bad miss, but the result would have been correct regardless. This is where Vítor Melo Pereira has a significant advantage on me - a debrief!
---
I liked this performance by Brych a lot. He let the game go on and saw through easy falls (eg. 11', 20', 24', 58'), only making one mistake in foul detection, which was 58'. The key scene of the match in terms of sanctions was 61' - the German ref sensed this too, and jumped in with a verbal warning, perfect.
The only negative point really is the missed delayed flag by Stefan Lupp, no replay, at 56'. A convincing show by the German officials, perhaps the most positive performance thus far (together with Anthony Taylor in DENFIN).
6' - arm close to the body, not extended (à la the penalty given by Melissa Borjas in NEDJPN at the last WWC, still assessed as correct), correct play on
25' - hard to make out exactly what happens but never a violent conduct
28' - correct play on by Brych.
ITV, as the clip shows, had access to some further angles used in this halftime analysis, makes for interesting viewing. Van Aanholt did not play the ball as I first thought - I wonder if Brych thought the same - but the decision to give the go on was correct regardless.
58' - if the officials spotted the offside offence, and Lupp communicated to Brych that the attacker in question was onside: excellent. If they didn't and it was just confirmed by VAR: something of a bad miss, but the result would have been correct regardless. This is where Vítor Melo Pereira has a significant advantage on me - a debrief!
---
I liked this performance by Brych a lot. He let the game go on and saw through easy falls (eg. 11', 20', 24', 58'), only making one mistake in foul detection, which was 58'. The key scene of the match in terms of sanctions was 61' - the German ref sensed this too, and jumped in with a verbal warning, perfect.
The only negative point really is the missed delayed flag by Stefan Lupp, no replay, at 56'. A convincing show by the German officials, perhaps the most positive performance thus far (together with Anthony Taylor in DENFIN).
Daniele Orsato's team in England - Croatia
Rather little to say about this expected level performance - some small pointers I would highlight:
- common-sensical dropped ball at 5', though positioning was a partly noticeable problem in this match (especially early on)
- common-sensical dropped ball at 5', though positioning was a partly noticeable problem in this match (especially early on)
- missed freekick to Croatia followed by soft freekick to England at 16' led to a very minor mobbing by Croatia players
- everyone accepted the 66' SPA card but my feeling is that the attacker fell of his own accord
- very good freekick call at 85', calmed the Croatia players down
- Orsato should have jumped in at the potential aggressive behaviour scene at 86'
Alessandro Giallatini had one of the more challenging matches for an assistant so far, all good decisions (8', 17', 39') besides a wrong flag at (47'). Still 8,3 in the UEFA system [7 in mine] performance.
No problems for Daniele Orsato's trio, a similar top appointment should constitute his next assignment.
No problems for Daniele Orsato's trio, a similar top appointment should constitute his next assignment.
Balance
Another good day for UEFA refereeing - Daniele Orsato and Felix Brych performed well, and Andreas Ekberg's below expected-level performance is not the kind that arouses wide media attention. Roberto Rosetti and his team must hope this strong impression continues!
Always interesting to see how different view performances and enjoyable summaries of each day.
ReplyDeleteI’d say this was harsh on Ekberg (in my opinion) who seemed, to me, to handle the liveliest game so far well, without overreacting. I’m not convinced much ‘dissent’ people mentioned really was - didn’t appear like that to me?
I think … the ‘missed delayed flag’ by German AR was, in fact, a delayed flag from an earlier incident - a Dutch player can back from offside to pick up the ball and, when that attack stopped, he flagged (this happened to be at the start of a new attack which people presume he is flagging for too early).
Orsato was expected level but there definitely seemed something not right … just seemed off colour / not himself. Just an impression.
Good debate though! Let’s hope those people sounding very agitated / angry yesterday about people’s opinions keep chilled today …
I agree with you regarding Ekberg and was also surprised about the relatively negative summary in the analysis above.
DeleteI think, for the overall assessment one has to consider the difficulty of the match, which has clearly been higher than in all other matches - and I didn't have the impression that was Ekberg's fault. Therefore I think, some of the rightly mentioned situations, which were not ideally solved, are forgivable.
In the big picture, I felt the match was still reasonably well controlled and not negatively influenced by the referee.
Therfore I wouldn't rate that performance worse than the others in the first days of the EURO.
I would even say, he has increased his chances for a second appointment.
As always, thank you very much for the analyse!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you with one exception. I don't think that in the bigger picture it was wise to turn a blind eye to 81' but also to other unsporting incidents in AUTMKD.
Macedonia's #8 and Austria's #9 were real trouble makers during this game. Their unsporting behaviour made the game the rough and tumble, it was not pleasant to watch all those antics. The Swede not only couldn't reach them but also didn't even try to calm them down. Ignoring a wild dissent in 67' crowned it all.
The incident at 81' is actually a textbook example of violent conduct. Deliberate, off-the-ball strike in the head.
So, in my opinion, the bigger picture suffered from Ekberg's deficiencies in recognizing trouble makers and communication skills.
I also had the impression that Sefan Lupp didn't raise the flag too early, but signaled an offside situation directly before this. Can be recognized by the fact that Brych gives the free kick much further back in the field.
ReplyDeleteLittle confused by your wording of 58' for Brych/Lupp.
ReplyDeleteIf Lupp believes there is no offside position for the relative attacker, why would he communicate a potential offside offence? It's all theoretical at that point so it's all supposed to go to the VAR anyway then.
Lupp might say something like "I had him in an onside position, but you need to check everything because it was tight." If that's what you're suggesting, I agree.
But he wouldn't say "I have onside position but it's definitely an offside offence if I'm wrong." There's no point in saying that. If Fritz and Betts had determined the attacker was in an OSP, they would then do their own assessment on involvement to determine if an OFR was required, so it doesn't really matter what Lupp thinks until then.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Yes, my point was rather more simple than that. I saw huge praise for Brych / Lupp getting this right in real time, when perhaps, they could have both just missed the incident!
DeleteSo my text was a reflection on that, and saying that in a non-VAR game in that case, the right decision would also have been made - goal, but for the wrong reasons if you will. :)
Where are the Copa America pages?
ReplyDeleteHere:
Deletehttp://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/06/copa-america-2021-discussion-page.html