Short reports on how the match officials got on in controlling the quartet of matches in the last eight round of UEFA EURO 2020.
I was quite surprised that the consensus was that this was, red card aside, a pretty boring match for the refereeing, not very challenging; in my view, the flat atmosphere in St. Petersburg belied what was the most challenging of Oliver's three matches.
Unlike his first two games, I don't think the English referee had the tight grip on how the players were playing. Missed reckless tackle at 28' was an extraneous incident, but Azpilicueta ought to have been booked for his reckless stamp at 45' - Oliver did try to draw some kind of line mind, issuing a clear public warning.
When Azpilicueta then tripped Zuber in a partly promising attack at 49', the English ref should have followed through and issued a yellow card. These two incidents were the key moments in terms of taking the initiative in the match, and Oliver ultimately passed both of them up.
He had set the tolerance level too high, and at this EURO was in trouble from that moment - borderline sliding tackle at 58', ultra-blatant and pretty SPA push at 59', and a SPA-ish deliberate impeding foul at 62'. The game was inflaming itself, and the English referee couldn't really act against that.
Widmer's stamp at 67' was a clear caution, correctly given by the referee, but it's giving did not really calm everybody down. So, my charge regarding the red card is not that it was incorrect, but that actually it was a partly logical consequence of the game's officiating prior to that point.
When Azpilicueta then tripped Zuber in a partly promising attack at 49', the English ref should have followed through and issued a yellow card. These two incidents were the key moments in terms of taking the initiative in the match, and Oliver ultimately passed both of them up.
He had set the tolerance level too high, and at this EURO was in trouble from that moment - borderline sliding tackle at 58', ultra-blatant and pretty SPA push at 59', and a SPA-ish deliberate impeding foul at 62'. The game was inflaming itself, and the English referee couldn't really act against that.
Widmer's stamp at 67' was a clear caution, correctly given by the referee, but it's giving did not really calm everybody down. So, my charge regarding the red card is not that it was incorrect, but that actually it was a partly logical consequence of the game's officiating prior to that point.
---
The SFP ejection at 77' caused much debate in our comment section (clip). I would argue that the decision was correct for the following reasons, the latter two of which become visible in this slow-motion video below:
The SFP ejection at 77' caused much debate in our comment section (clip). I would argue that the decision was correct for the following reasons, the latter two of which become visible in this slow-motion video below:
1) Freuler is not in control of his body when he jumps in to challenge for this ball, having taken a heavy touch - always a 'red flag' for the referee that a dangerous tackle might well follow.
2) Freuler's open studs make a medium-to-high intensity intensity contact with Moreno's shin.
3) Look at how Moreno's leg bends very unnaturally near the ankle because of the force in this tackle. This is exactly the sort of forced hyperextension which tore Kevin De Bruyne's ligaments in the last round against Portugal; to suggest that the Spain player somehow exaggerated how painful this foul was is nonsensical.
-> In my book, this is 100% a correct decision. Perhaps the problem with it, from the UEFA perspective, is that when Oliver reviewed the situation after the match, the tackle was a bit different from what he perceived live on the pitch.
If nobody else will say it, then I can - full marks to Mr Oliver for following through on your perception, what you thought was fair, even if perhaps a path of least resistance was perhaps possible in the eyes of others in this situation.
---
The rest of the game was okay, Oliver used his cards solidly, and operated an overall good foul recognition. Any criticism should be on a relatively advanced level; a performance on an 8,2 level in a EURO quarterfinal is not a bad job by any means.
Summary: Higher-end satisfactory performance by Michael Oliver in this match. He could have guided the match more effectively towards fair play, but I would fully support his SFP red card in the second half. Great tournament for the relatively novice English referee on the top international stage.
I thought Vinčić did rather well in this game on the whole. The challenge in such a dynamic game, besides keeping up (which the brilliantly fit Slovenian did excellently!), is processing the incidents correctly, and not allowing too much in foul recognition.
The only scene where that really happened was 58', and more a comment on communication between Argentine Fernando Rapallini and the referee than anything else. I would highlight a non-advantage call at 67' as really good in the foul detection regard, Vinčić was still ready to step in when needed.
His use of cards was very good - the instant yellow card at 20' for a deep SPA was an excellent choice to 'protect' this following game, the card after a small delay at 21' ascertained this impression, allowing the game to temporally return to calm.
Comments about Vinčić's manner surprised me - this is simply Slavko Vinčić! His presence - perhaps I would describe it as languid (?) - has been a feature ever since the first time I saw the Slovenian referee. And besides the penalty appeal, his player interactions were generally satisfying.
Summary: Higher-end satisfactory performance by Michael Oliver in this match. He could have guided the match more effectively towards fair play, but I would fully support his SFP red card in the second half. Great tournament for the relatively novice English referee on the top international stage.
Slavko Vinčić's team in Belgium - Italy
The most discussed decision of this game was the penalty given to Belgium at the end of the first half (clip). I don't agree with assessing this call as "soft" - in my opinion, this was simply a correct decision.
At the exact moment of being pushed, Doku only has one leg on the ground, is changing balance as he runs towards the byline, the goal, and can't really do any more to try and keep his balance. Di Lorenzo simply panics and gambles that he can disguise the push enough in order to get away with it.
While Vinčić was quite correct to award a penalty, his presence and management generally in the scene could have been more convincing. His body tension, whistle tone in signalling the decision itself was not optimal, he didn't act against player-player conflicts while being mobbed, and he was the 'loser' of Donnarumma's verbal tirade against him.
Andraž Kovačič was overruled by VAR, cancelling out an Italy opening goal in the first fifteen minutes (clip). It is impossible to say whether the offside position was just missed by Kovačič, or Vinčič failed the communicate the touch appropriately, but really it should have been assessed correctly on the pitch.
While Vinčić was quite correct to award a penalty, his presence and management generally in the scene could have been more convincing. His body tension, whistle tone in signalling the decision itself was not optimal, he didn't act against player-player conflicts while being mobbed, and he was the 'loser' of Donnarumma's verbal tirade against him.
Andraž Kovačič was overruled by VAR, cancelling out an Italy opening goal in the first fifteen minutes (clip). It is impossible to say whether the offside position was just missed by Kovačič, or Vinčič failed the communicate the touch appropriately, but really it should have been assessed correctly on the pitch.
I thought Vinčić did rather well in this game on the whole. The challenge in such a dynamic game, besides keeping up (which the brilliantly fit Slovenian did excellently!), is processing the incidents correctly, and not allowing too much in foul recognition.
The only scene where that really happened was 58', and more a comment on communication between Argentine Fernando Rapallini and the referee than anything else. I would highlight a non-advantage call at 67' as really good in the foul detection regard, Vinčić was still ready to step in when needed.
His use of cards was very good - the instant yellow card at 20' for a deep SPA was an excellent choice to 'protect' this following game, the card after a small delay at 21' ascertained this impression, allowing the game to temporally return to calm.
Comments about Vinčić's manner surprised me - this is simply Slavko Vinčić! His presence - perhaps I would describe it as languid (?) - has been a feature ever since the first time I saw the Slovenian referee. And besides the penalty appeal, his player interactions were generally satisfying.
While the game did finish at 97:00, Vinčić should have played until at least 99'/100' in my estimation, given that the five minutes signalled initially was a relatively conservative estimate at first, and then Italy spoiled more of those five minutes than were live play
Summary: Even if it was slightly visible that this was Slavko Vinčić's first 'huge' game at an international level, his performance was a convincing one. The penalty given was correct, and he was up to task in an extremely dynamic game. Well done, a great tournament for the Slovenian referee.
Summary: Even if it was slightly visible that this was Slavko Vinčić's first 'huge' game at an international level, his performance was a convincing one. The penalty given was correct, and he was up to task in an extremely dynamic game. Well done, a great tournament for the Slovenian referee.
Björn Kuipers' team in Czech Republic - Denmark
The Dutch referee performed on an expected level in this normal difficulty game. Close inspection showed that the corner from which the first goal resulted was the correct restart (how in so many ways we live in the VAR era), contrary to many people's initial impression (clip).
In general, Kuipers stayed on top of the incidents in a solid way, handling potential yellow cards with the necessary delicateness in order to pass through (24' challenge, 29' challenge, 51' striking, 54' dissent). The game was not overly challenging until the final stages where things hotted up a bit.
In general, Kuipers stayed on top of the incidents in a solid way, handling potential yellow cards with the necessary delicateness in order to pass through (24' challenge, 29' challenge, 51' striking, 54' dissent). The game was not overly challenging until the final stages where things hotted up a bit.
Missed freekick at 84' led to a wild dissent correctly sanctioned, good advantage from deliberate kick followed by correct freekick at 85', correct clear yellow card at 86' given for a reckless kick, and finally a penalty appeal at 89' in my view correctly turned away (clip).
Only Kuipers himself knows how fit he feels during the games, but it would be remise not to mention that in running he did not look as secure in his movement style as in yesteryear.
Summary: Good performance by Björn Kuipers. Including the now proved correct corner decision at 5', but even notwithstanding if that evidence hadn't come to light, the venerable Dutchman certainly left the door open for a fourth appointment at this EURO.
Only Kuipers himself knows how fit he feels during the games, but it would be remise not to mention that in running he did not look as secure in his movement style as in yesteryear.
Summary: Good performance by Björn Kuipers. Including the now proved correct corner decision at 5', but even notwithstanding if that evidence hadn't come to light, the venerable Dutchman certainly left the door open for a fourth appointment at this EURO.
Felix Brych's team in Ukraine - England
This was a very quiet night for the top German referee in Rome. The only scene of any great wider note was the potential penalty at 4' (clip). Given that Mount did not lose his balance after the small trip and fell only of his own accord, the correct outcome was play on here.
Brych stepped in well on a few occasions when the referee's presence was required (7', +48', 72'), and besides missing a yellow card at 38' for a reckless tackle - no card was coherent with the German's approach on the night - there is very little to remark about this performance.
Summary: No problems at all for Felix Brych in this quarterfinal, convincing showing from the German.
Experienced Björn Kuipers and Felix Brych faced less challenging matches on Sunday. Both performed on an expected level, and did nothing to disqualify themselves for being taken further.
Brych stepped in well on a few occasions when the referee's presence was required (7', +48', 72'), and besides missing a yellow card at 38' for a reckless tackle - no card was coherent with the German's approach on the night - there is very little to remark about this performance.
Summary: No problems at all for Felix Brych in this quarterfinal, convincing showing from the German.
Balance
UEFA should be satisfied with how the quarterfinals were refereed.
The two matches which turned out to be more challenging were on Saturday, and in the hands of more inexperienced referees. Michael Oliver and Slavko Vinčić faced one crucial, tough situation each - and, in my view, correctly solved, amongst decent and good performances respectively.
The two matches which turned out to be more challenging were on Saturday, and in the hands of more inexperienced referees. Michael Oliver and Slavko Vinčić faced one crucial, tough situation each - and, in my view, correctly solved, amongst decent and good performances respectively.
Experienced Björn Kuipers and Felix Brych faced less challenging matches on Sunday. Both performed on an expected level, and did nothing to disqualify themselves for being taken further.
Mikael W, your analyses are a joy to read once again. And I really like the fact that you are looking from more than one angle at the performances. For me it is extremely pleasing to see that you have also an excellent understanding of the game of football and not only looking at certain referee's decisions which often are out of the match context.
ReplyDeleteFor example the game SWIESP. Although I like a lot Michael Oliver your conclusion about the red card that 'actually it was a partly logical consequence of the game's officiating prior to that point' is very accurate and it is exactly how a good official must understand the game IMO.
Without wanting to insult anybody but I often see here people concentrating only at the technical side of a situation without trying to analyze if it was provoked by a referee's decision or the lack of it. Even more I often read statements like 'some missed yellow cards are not important', 'timely verbal warnings are not important', 'these are minor mistakes' etc. I really can't understand why somebody has become a referee if one doesn't care about cards or warnings and therefore the safety of the players, because usually these missed cards are leading exactly to this - as you rightly pointed about Oliver.
Thanks again for your work.
Thank you, was a great read, fair and balanced.
ReplyDelete... as all things should be ;)
DeleteI fully agree with your remark about Micheal Oliver’s performance.
ReplyDeleteHis decision to send freuler off was absolutely correct. However, this is partly caused by his lenient management of game.
He had been criticized for giving too many PKs and YCs. So I suspect he tried to change his criteria of foul and cards. And it succeeded expect for SWIESP.
Of course, He is young talented referee, and also has a lot of room to improve , like game reading.
Anyway, I strongly hope we see his more ripe style.
Regarding the Red Card by Oliver:
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to tackles with stretched leg, nowadays the focus is mainly on point of contact in combination with intensity.
And I think the reason is that the Laws of the Game are very insistent on this point:
"Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play." (Law 12, Serious Foul Play)
So I expect UEFA to look at point of contact (studs on shin with straight leg) and intensity (I'd say high) and to agree with Oliver. In my experience, this is the way top-level referees analyse these types of fouls.
On a more personal note, I would like to add that I consider this approach typical of the slow-motion and VAR era. In my amateur games I keep it plain and simple. If someone tackles with two straight legs he is usually off ;)