Referee appointments for 2021-22 FIFA WC European Qualifiers, Matchday 8, games to be played on 12 October 2021.
 |
| Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP) to officiate England - Hungary |
Group D
16:00 CET - Nur Sultan (Astana Arena)
KAZAKHSTAN - FINLAND
Referee: Halis Ozkahya (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Ceyhun Sesigüzel (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Ali Saygin Ögel (TUR)
Fourth Official: Tugay Kaan Numanoğlu (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Abdulkadir Bitigen (TUR)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Hüseyin Göçek (TUR)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Dejan Filipović (SRB)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Georges Lüchinger (LIE)
Group A
20:45 CET - Belgrade (Stadion Rajko Mitić)
SERBIA - AZERBAIJAN
Referee: Erik Lambrechts (BEL)
Assistant Referee 1: Rien Vanyzer (BEL)
Assistant Referee 2: Jo De Weirdt (BEL)
Fourth Official: Nathan Verboomen (BEL)
Video Assistant Referee: Lawrence Visser (BEL)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Jonathan Lardot (BEL)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Jørn West Larsen (DEN)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Felix Grigore (ROU)
Group A
20:45 CET - Faro-Loulé (Estádio Algarve)
PORTUGAL - LUXEMBOURG
Referee: Benoît Bastien (FRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Hicham Zakrani (FRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Aurélien Berthoumieu (FRA)
Fourth Official: Thomas Leonard (FRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Benoît Millot (FRA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Mikael Berchebru (FRA)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Nicola Rizzoli (ITA)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Fiona Pförtke (GER)
Group B
20:45 CET - Pristina (Stadiumi Fadil Vokrri)
KOSOVO - GEORGIA
Referee: Pawel Raczkowski (POL)
Assistant Referee 1: Radoslaw Siejka (POL)
Assistant Referee 2: Adam Kupsik (POL)
Fourth Official: Tomasz Musial (POL)
Video Assistant Referee: Tomasz Kwiatkowski (POL)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Krzysztof Jakubik (POL)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Georgi Yordanov (BUL)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Philippe Prudhon (FRA)
Group B
20:45 CET - Solna (Friends Arena)
SWEDEN - GREECE
Referee: Tobias Stieler (GER)
Assistant Referee 1: Christian Gittelmann (GER)
Assistant Referee 2: Eduard Beitinger (GER)
Fourth Official: Florian Badstübner (GER)
Video Assistant Referee: Christian Dingert (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Günter Perl (GER)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Tomasz Mikulski (POL)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Vito Di Gioia (ITA)
Group C
20:45 CET - Vilnius (LFF stadionas)
LITHUANIA - SWITZERLAND
Referee: Tiago Bruno Lopes Martins (POR)
Assistant Referee 1: Luis André Ferreira Pinto Campos (POR)
Assistant Referee 2: Pedro Miguel Almeida Mota (POR)
Fourth Official: Miguel Bertolo Nogueira (POR)
Video Assistant Referee: Luis Miguel Branco Godinho (POR)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Fábio José Costa Veríssimo (POR)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Aleh Chykun (BLR)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Vignir Þormóðsson (ISL)
Group C
20:45 CET - Sofia (Natsionalen Stadion Vasil Levski)
BULGARIA - NORTHERN IRELAND
Referee: Aleksei Kulbakov (BLR)
Assistant Referee 1: Dzimitry Zhuk (BLR)
Assistant Referee 2: Aleh Maslianka (BLR)
Fourth Official: Dzmitry Dzmitryieu (BLR)
Video Assistant Referee: Sergei Karasev (RUS)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Aelkei Lunev (RUS)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Zbigniew Przesmycki (POL)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Pascal Henri Parent (FRA)
Group D
20:45 CET - Lviv (Arena Lviv)
UKRAINE - BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Referee: Felix Zwayer (GER)
Assistant Referee 1: Marco Achmüller (GER)
Assistant Referee 2: Christian Dietz (GER)
Fourth Official: Sven Jablonski (GER)
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Jan Seidel (GER)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Gevorg Hovhannisyan (ARM)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Romano Clavadetscher (SUI)
Group F
20:45 CET - Tórshavn (Tórsvøllur)
FAROE ISLANDS - SCOTLAND
Referee: Matej Jug (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Matej Zunic (SVN)
Assistant Referee 2: Robert Vukan (SVN)
Fourth Official: Nejc Kajtazovic (SVN)
Video Assistant Referee: Rade Obrenovic (SVN)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Jure Praprotnik (SVN)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Martin Hansson (SWE)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Gilles Petitmangin (FRA)
Group F
20:45 CET - Beer Sheva (Turner Stadium)
ISRAEL - MOLDOVA
Referee: Andris Treimanis (LVA)
Assistant Referee 1: Haralds Gudermanis (LVA)
Assistant Referee 2: Aleksejs Spasjonnikovs (LVA)
Fourth Official: Aleksandrs Golubevs (LVA)
Video Assistant Referee: Harm Osmers (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Mark Borsch (GER)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Nuno Parreira De Castro (POR)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Vakhtang Bzikadze (GEO)
Group F
20:45 CET - Copenhagen (Parken)
DENMARK - AUSTRIA
Referee: Ivan Kruzliak (SVK)
Assistant Referee 1: Branislav Hancko (SVK)
Assistant Referee 2: Jan Pozor (SVK)
Fourth Official: Peter Kralovic (SVK)
Video Assistant Referee: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Sergio Ranghetti (ITA)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Luis Medina Cantalejo (ESP)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Miroslaw Ryszka (POL)
Group I
20:45 CET - Serravalle (San Marino Stadium)
SAN MARINO - ANDORRA
Referee: Halil Umut Meler (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Mustafa Emre Eyisoy (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Ibrahim Çaglar Uyarcan (TUR)
Fourth Official: Ümit Öztürk (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Ali Palabiyik (TUR)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Mete Kalkavan (TUR)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Þóroddur Hjaltalín (ISL)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Anna Kapasoglou (GRE)
Group I
20:45 CET - London (Wembley Stadium)
ENGLAND - HUNGARY
Referee: Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: José Enrique Naranjo Pérez (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Teodoro Sobrino Magán (ESP)
Fourth Official: José Luis Munuera Montero (ESP)
Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martínez Munuera (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Xavier Estrada Fernández (ESP)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Stefan Messner (AUT)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Peter Lundström (FIN)
Group I
20:45 CET - Tirana (Arena Kombëtare)
ALBANIA - POLAND
Referee: Clément Turpin (FRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Nicolas Danos (FRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Cyril Gringore (FRA)
Fourth Official: Ruddy Buquet (FRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Jérôme Brisard (FRA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Amaury Delerue (FRA)
FIFA Referee Assessor: Michalis Koukoulakis (GRE)
FIFA Match Commissioner: Fernand Meese (BEL)
Friendly
20:45 CET - Dublin (Dublin Arena)
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND - QATAR
Referee: Keith Kennedy (NIR)
Assistant Referee 1: Gareth Eakin (NIR)
Assistant Referee 2: Andrew Nethery (NIR)
Fourth Official: Ian McNabb (NIR)
Very big matches for Turpin, Stieler and Zwayer. I'm curious how hot an atmosphere the Frenchman will face in Tirana.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that two Germans - at a time when determining behind Siebert who is in and out of favour - get such huge clashes.
Stieler was good in the easy match which I saw him in post-EURO (Alashkert vs. Rangers ELQ PO), but Zwayer didn't convince me that much in Manchester United vs. Villarreal, to be honest.
In addition, strong assignment for Hernández Hernández as 1st Cat. His performance in Fenerbahçe vs. Olympiakós was really good; the Spaniard's appointment to Wembley is on merit.
Ah, I just noticed Rizzoli for Bastien. Could he even be worried about a demotion (switched for Letexier), perhaps?
DeleteFenerbahçe SK (TUR) - Olympiacos FC (GRE) |
DeleteArbitro gruppo D : Alejandro José Hernández Hernández (ESP)
Osservatore arbitrale UEFA: Nicola Rizzoli (ITA)
Two considerations: importance that Rizzoli's judgment has in the UEFA Committee and that HDZ is referee of 6-7 Barca-Real in his resume.
I could argue without offending anyone that a referee who has in his career 6-7 Barca-Real Madrid is almost offensive to see him in FIRST.
DeleteYour point about Bastien is pertinent, a heavy hand is needed in the reorganization of the Elite cat. Too many FIRST referees are more quality than Elite referees today.
DeleteOFR in Azerbaijan - Republic of Ireland
ReplyDeleteReferee: Espen Eskås (NOR)
Video Assistant Referee: Abdulkadir Bitigen (TUR)
Possible penalty for handball, refeere whistled a previous foul by attacker and explained the reason of his choice.
https://streamable.com/0go8uj
Correct procedure and outcome, although it's a bit weird, that the defending team gains a free kick due to their own handball.
DeleteGood communication as well.
I remember a situation like this in the 2018 World Cup in Russia. That intervention and also this one are quite good examples of VAR procedure in rare situations like these. So, the outcome is totally correct for me.
DeleteIn last Poland match( ITA-POL) Turpin was very poor and he lost control in match. I hope on Tuesday he will be better :)
ReplyDeleteUpdate on Sweden - Kosovo, here the very long full sequence of handball penalty. In the last seconds of video, the decisive replay is shown. Handball after header by attacker, ball deflectd, stopped a shot on goal so YC by referee.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it looks like it wasn't shown to Di Bello, very strange, but there were clar technical issues, as you can see.
So Valeri was right, he had the proof of clear handball with that.
https://streamable.com/pdj7e2
No AVAR for Lithuania - Switzerland?
ReplyDeleteUEFA doesn't report the appointment, however thank to Portuguese federation: Fábio Veríssimo.
DeleteOT: The appointments on the AFC WCQ matches this window are quite peculiar in that three referees (Beath, Al Jassim, and Makhadmeh) have each received two appointments as referees in the same international window. Same thing with Sato and Shukralla last window. And AFC is doing just two matches per team each window (as opposed to three like we have seen in CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, UEFA).
ReplyDeleteI find this interesting because in other confederations, like CONCACAF and UEFA, they don't repeat referees in the same international window. Of all confederations, this is surprising given the strenuous travel requirements of the Asian confederation! It seems like AFC has a small pool of highly-trusted referees that they are trying not to deviate too much from.
All that said, I do think the quality of the refereeing in the AFC qualifiers has been really quite good! I continue to believe that Asia has a lot of refereeing talent, just as we've seen in recent years.
Well I can tell you in the case of Beath that AFC might be trying to use him while they still can. Australia requires that those travelling into the country quarantine for 2 weeks due to Covid. Unless this changes by Novemeber I doubt Beath will be doing games in the next window, otherwise he would miss out on the start of the A-League season.
DeleteThat is a good explanation. Indeed Beath didn’t have any games in the first window. Also, a name I left out: Ma Ning (CHN) also had two games in the first window.
DeleteHot start for Turpin. 7 fouls in 10 minutes
ReplyDeleteFirst penalty for Portugal looked offside. Second penalty - Ronaldo shaked his head, he wasn’t convinced, and he always is. Very easy 2 penalties whistled in first 10 minutes for favorite.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t t understand your doubts on the second penalty. IMO that’s the clearest of penalties… Goalkeeper slides out, is too late and clearly lunges into his opponent and brings him down. No penalty is absolutely no option for me.
DeletePortugal - Luxembourg
ReplyDeletePenalty 1: https://streamja.com/RAV7q
Penalty 2: https://streamja.com/rdqev
First penalty, we must trust VAR, looks outside, but should be on the line (otherwise VAR would have intervened).
Second penalty, the contact can't be avoided, Cristiano Ronaldo will never do that of course, but the penalty can't be questioned.
IMO
Delete1) Clearly correct call, but impossible to decide whether the offence occured in the penalty area based on these pictures; it looks like on the line, so rather correct.
2) Again a very clear PK IMO, the GK rushes into the attacker and does not hit the ball at all. I don't know why he repeated the penalty execution tho?
I don't understand a penalty for Hungary. Indirect free kick would be a better decision
ReplyDeleteI agree. Questionable though. Don't think it was high the foot was lowering
DeleteAs there was a very soft contact, no indirect freekick but direct, so penalty.
DeleteThe final replay seemed to show contact so can't be an IDFK.
DeleteVery particular penalty whistled by Hernández Hernández.
ReplyDeletehttps://streamwo.com/XsQDPQ0
Supportable in my opinion, but most of referees wouldn't have whistled.
The kick can be assessed as reckless despite of having clearly hit ball before, for sure.
Good decision imo, Shaw looks at the opponent so knows he's coming yet still goes for the almost head high kick - the very definition of reckless. We also surely want players to think about their actions especially when it could result in a head injury.
DeleteDefinitely not red - not enough force and the contact is with the top of the boot, and he plays the ball - but I think it's a clear foul and a YC for reckless is also supportable (provided there is contact).
DeleteGood decision IMO
DeleteAbsolutely correct call IMO, good, firm decision by Hernandez. Defender hits the opponent with a high foot (there is contact) and endangers him (in a reckless manner, YC).
DeleteHernandez Hernandez is going to have his hands full in the second half
ReplyDeleteBUL - NIR
ReplyDeletehttps://streamja.com/JLqal
VAR intervention to allow a goal wrongly disallowed for offside, possible foul as well before, but I guess not analyzed at all by VAR.
Penalty by Raczkowski, looks correct decision.
ReplyDeletehttps://streamja.com/wkArL
OT Also from Asia: Very interesting no-offside decision made after OFR (original decision was offside) for a line-of-sight decision in KSA-CHN. What do you think? https://imgur.com/a/1lnCWJA
ReplyDeleteThe referee is Ilgiz Tantashez (UZB).
Delete*Tantashev
DeleteI think the offside decision should have been supported, do you see the offside call as clear and obvious mistake, given that player jumps to allow the passing of the ball? Of course I can agree with the goal allowed, but this should have been made only from the field.
DeleteWhy do you agree with the goal being allowed? To me it seemed like a pretty clear line-of-sight offside and I was quite surprised to see this go to on-field review at all! Help me understand the alternative perspective.
DeleteBecause the player is far from keeper and in such situations there isn't a 100% proof, the camera is not perfectly positioned for the assessment we would need. One can say that keeper had indeed his line of vision obstructed, but not 100% sure. So for this reason I think it could stay as "grey area" but expected decision offside.
DeleteBut let's make some reasoning... maybe the flag by AR was raised just because he thought that player had hit ball, so given that it was a different situation (no toch) referee was invited to OFR? Otherwise there shouldn't be reason to call this OFR, and we agree about that.
I think it's possible that the reason for the flag was that the AR and/or referee thought that the ball hit the player. The way they were scrubbing the video back and forth through that moment during the OFR makes me think that they were at least looking for a touch. To me though it's still in the line of vision and it prevents the goalkeeper from being able to save the ball.
DeleteI think @smala017's guess at the end here is probably correct. But that doesn't matter. The attacker in an offside position had to open his legs to let the ball pass through. This is a 100%, textbook definition of a line-of-sight offside offence. It boggles the mind that VAR was used to turn a correct call into an incorrect call.
DeleteCorrect penalty whistled by Stieler for Sweden.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see always so clear penalties :D
Deletehttps://streamja.com/qanQX
No discussions at all...
Break in ALB-POL! Scandal!!
ReplyDeleteWhat is happened in Tirana?
ReplyDeleteFans started to throw plastic bottles at Polish players after Poland scored a 0-1 goal. Turpin ruled for players to get off the pitch.
DeleteBy the way, really good Turpin so far.
DeleteI m not fan Turpin, but in This match he is well ;D
DeleteI agree, I quite liked his performance. It was a bit of a feisty match and players were struggling to behave themselves. He took a disciplinarian approach instead of trying to "negotiate" with the players, and I quite liked that.
DeleteWhat happens in ALB - POL? It seems as the game has been interrupted for some reasons.
ReplyDeleteThere was a problem earlier in the game and Turpin already reported that to delegate. After the 0-1 goal, Świderski clearly provoked the fans in the same zone by celebrating in front of them and in response they threw some plastic cups at him. I expected to see him booked but nothing followed. Game suspended till the atmosphere is calm.
DeleteI watched now the celebration after 0-1, indeed not something strictly forbidden but Polish player knowing situation should have definitely avoided that. A signal by referee would have been good thing to make fans calm.
Delete2nd YC for Hadjidiakos (GRE). Seems correct.
ReplyDeleteYeah, SPA, no doubt. Great performance by Stieler tonight.
DeleteYes, I agree. Stieler had a good/expected level performance on a normal difficulty match. Always under control and mostly good decisions.
DeleteLong wait following Scotland goal v Faroes. Checking possible handball. Nothing clear imo so correct no intervention
ReplyDeleteSRB - AZE
ReplyDeleteFirst penalty: https://streamja.com/PJPyM
Second penalty: https://streamja.com/lWz9e
Two very clear decisions.
Incredibly slow VAR waits in Toshavn for FRO SCO. The one for a potential red card in the last minute seemed that there was no camera available for them to check and they gave up
ReplyDeleteMatch is resumed in Tirana after the 25' interruption because of local hooligans throwing objects at Polish players celebrating a goal.
ReplyDeleteSmall thing but annoying, especially in such a tight game:
ReplyDelete90:00 - four minutes added
91:00 - 91:45 substitution POL
94:00 - final whistle
I can't understand that top referees can't compensate the lost time properly.
However, very good Turpin today!
Still not as bad as timekeeping by Ramos (MEX) in PAN-USA the other day... 7 minutes added, numerous interruptions for fans running onto the pitch during added time, and the whistle comes right at 97:00...
Delete(Full disclosure, as an American I'm biased. But I completely agree with you that it's ridiculous for referees at this level to not be able to keep track of time in such a basic way...)
This problem seems to be everywhere in the world, not just Europe. In the Japan v Australia match there was 4 minutes added in the second half even though there was a 4 minute and 4 second delay from the referee awarding a penalty to Australia scoring the free kick once VAR said the foul was outside the penalty area. There was then also 9 subs and 2 goals in the second half. But only 4 minutes added. Crazy. Does FIFA need to run a course for referees on how to add time? Or does IFAB have to seriously look at creating a role of Timekeeper, like they have in Futsal?
DeleteAgree! One of the most annoying aspects in Football these days
DeleteNot a new issue, see TTT wrote an article in April 2014 on this topic :). I don't know if WCs are a good sample size, but this problem was the same in 94 (where it was not yet signalised!), 98, 02, 06, 10 and so on too... it is nothing new.
DeleteIf we know that even one situation (at the end of a match) can 'kill' us - and our bosses are pretty indifferent about terminating the matches prematurely - then on some level we can't blame the refs for normal, human, self-preservation.
Actually, Forlan wrote a really excellent comment about this too, especially regarding the 'theatre' of a marathon additional time in some scenarios.
@Mikael it’s not a new issue, but exacerbated by the advent of video review. When video review was introduced, the fans were promised that playing time would not be lost and that all time wasted by video checks and reviews would be added back on. The referees have not lived up to this promise.
DeleteI agree that, if the assessment penalty for failing to keep good track of time is so low for referees, they have something of an incentive to end the match early. But this should not be the case - it’s such a basic thing, and assessors should be mindful to dock points from referees who fail to keep time correctly in these scenarios. I wonder if there are external pressures affecting this lack of direction… for example, a pressure (not on referees directly but on UEFA, FIFA, etc) to keep matches within the nice television-friendly 2-hour window, which might be complicated if there are marathons of added time.
Finally I don’t know what Forman’s take was, but as a fan I LOVE added time marathons! I feel like they always bring drama.
*Forlan, sorry, I blame autocorrect! (If anyone has a link to that comment, please provide it - it sounds like an interesting read!)
DeleteAsian Qualifiers between the UAE and Iraq.
ReplyDeleteReferee: Ryuji Sato (Japan)
VAR: Hiroyuki Kimura (Japan)
The on-field decision is no goal and the VAR confirmed.
They don't have GLT and goal line cameras.
Correct decision?
https://twitter.com/ibrahim66e/status/1448013908514586627?s=21
Way too close to tell. I think the ball wasn't in the net, but it's impossible to say for sure. The decision on the field should be supported either way.
DeleteThat's almost certainly NOT a goal, right? We're talking pretty basic geometry here. Given the location and angle of the camera, the higher the ball is in the air, the more likely it will look over the line even though it isn't. There reaches a point--and the height is NOT that high--where you would see visual overlap between the crossbar and the ball if a goal had actually been scored. The fact that you can see green between the ball and the crossbar on a ball that is at shoulder height tells me it's not a goal.
DeleteOf course, without GLT, if this was the best angle there would have been big problems is this was awarded as a goal on-field. Because I'm 99%+ that it's not a goal. But could this be the evidence used to overturn it? Not sure basic geometry known widely enough to make that call palatable.
I have just seen the Hungary penalty whistled by Hernandez and honestly, how is that a penalty? Defender wins the ball cleanly and might catch the striker ever so slightly but nothing like the reaction is warranted. Poor decision imo, Hernandez has been tricked into giving the penalty because of the Hungary player’s reaction.
ReplyDeleteAnother poor penalty decision tonight was Bastien for Portugal second penalty, although the encroachment was an excellent spot.
Who do you guys think will be appointed to Italian teams in MD3 CL?
ReplyDeleteGot to be interesting after all commotion.
Porto - Milan
Inter - Sheriff
Zenit - Juve
Man Utd - Atalanta
Makkelie
DeleteZwayer
Brych
Marciniak
The only flexible appointment is Zenit - Juventus, as the team won the previous two games and there shouldn't be doubts about qualification. In Russia we could even see a Category 1.
DeleteAbout the rest, all big names are expected, maybe times now are OK to see again Makkelie with an Italian team after EURO, we will see, for the rest I would maybe bet on Brych for Porto - Milan, the hottest game, Milan very angry with UEFA, and the match will be 100% decisive. In Manchester United - Atalanta maybe a step below, in this case more options, and Marciniak is indeed possible after his recent performances.
Inter - Sheriff: would have been stuff for a Category 1 before the start of this group stage, but now... Elite is expected, maybe Vincic.
Porto-Milan: Turpin
DeleteInter-Sheriff: Makkelie
Zenit-Juve: Hategan
ManU- Bergamo: Siebert
Brych on Porto-Milan would be a sensible choice
DeletePredictions:
DeletePorto - Milan: Felix Brych
Inter - Sheriff: Artur Soares Dias
Zenit - Juve: Antonio Mateu Lahoz
Man Utd - Atalanta: Marciniak
What I hope for:
Porto - Milan: Danny Makkelie
Inter - Sheriff: Michael Oliver
Zenit - Juve: Sergei Karasev
Man Utd - Atalanta: Tobias Stieler
Karasev - Zenit???
DeleteWould be nice to see Stieler appointed to Atalanta, Michael Oliver to Juventus and Makkelie to a Portuguese team. :)
DeleteWithout joking, it is time for Michael Oliver to officiate an Italian team again and improve his reputation. He is a good ref.
Anthony Taylor, Makkelie (and maybe Turpin) are final candidates for me. Could be interesting to see if they are kept a bit in shadow, like Mateu Lahoz last year, or if they still get big clashes during this season.
IMO, the Italian teams should not have earned a special treatment (i.e. top referees appointed) by their protests.
DeleteI would say
Porto - Milan: Schärer
Inter - Sheriff: Letexier
Zenit - Juve: Brych
Man Utd - Atalanta: Soares Dias
Totaly agree with Phillip S. You must not reward the Italian team because of their noise
DeleteLet me clarify, I fully agree with Philipp, I don't want that you think I'm in favor of such "special treatment" in case it occurs, of course, we can't know about the real decisions by committee. However, looking at appointments one can surely have his own idea.
DeleteIt would be amazing to see Oliver in Zenit - Juventus, for example :). But again, it wont happen...
Saudi Arabia - China
ReplyDeleteI think the offside call should haven't been overturned after VAR review.
2:05〜
https://youtu.be/Knl_CWm5IM4
You find this discussion above in this post!
DeleteTalking about the AFC WCQ zone - I stumbled across a news report discussing the big calls made by Adham Makhadmah [VAR: Ali Sabah from Iraq] in the Oman vs. Vietnam match. Clips are below:
ReplyDelete14 - pen given to OMA
https://youtu.be/n8_wWG8r5aQ?t=5263
25 - pot pen to VIE
https://youtu.be/n8_wWG8r5aQ?t=5969
39 - goal to VIE; foul?
https://youtu.be/n8_wWG8r5aQ?t=6787
49 - foul before OMA goal?
https://youtu.be/n8_wWG8r5aQ?t=8443
63 - pen given to OMA
https://youtu.be/n8_wWG8r5aQ?t=9075
[VAR intervened on 39 and 63]
Hello Mikael, can you please give me your oppinion on the Kounde no-handball call from the NL-final? I would also be interested in Chefren's and ESR's oppinion (and of course anyone else)
Deletehttps://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/10/anthony-taylor-in-charge-of-202021.html?showComment=1634116046941#c4432521794695247875
Link is now dead :/
DeleteI posted a link, it should work :)
DeleteThanks. I think the 63' intervention is solid. But that 39' intervention is awful. There's no clear foul there and it seems like the VAR is trying to convince him with slo-mo and still footages. Then to go check the offside, which wouldn't have even been in the APP? Yikes. Oh and his signalling is awful.
DeleteAt 39' we have a goal scored at 38:45 and a kickoff 43:45. That is FIVE MINUTES. And not a single thing was wrong with that goal. For those that argue VAR is universally good and the only important thing is getting the call right, I think they need to take a look at plays like this where officials are losing the plot and the game is worse off because of it.
Maria Sole Ferrieri Caputi will make her debut in Italian Serie B this weekend in Cittadella - S.P.A.L. on sunday evening at 20:30 local time.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the penalty awarded by Hernández Hernández yesterday:
ReplyDeleteVideo clip of the decision -
https://streamable.com/puw10a
And an analysis of why the call was, IMO, wrong -
https://imgur.com/a/gAzf4ve
Interesting analysis, thank you Mikael.
DeleteI think football expects a PK there (I have analysed reactions on reddit to this challenge and a similiar one from Tarkowski against Newcastle). The majority wants a PK, but laments that it is not consistently given (which is true IMO). One can argue that reddit is not a good representation, but I think it's quite good.
I don’t think Reddit and Twitter should at all be viewed as proxies for “what the game expects” or as samples of football viewership… those platforms skew very young and are very unrepresentative of the whole of the population in many other ways as well.
DeleteIn fact, part of the reason why I’m critical of the “do what the game expects” philosophy is that it’s pretty difficult to A) define who “the game” is and B) get a fair sample of them and C) correctly interpret that sample’s reaction, which might be influenced by response bias and might not even be logically self-consistent. I feel like too often when people ask “what does the game expect?” they are deputizing Twitter and/or football pundits as their interpreter of the Laws of the Game… yikes.
That said, I agree with you, penalty here is correct.
I agree smala, it is difficult to find out what the majority of football fans expect. But I do think reddit is still better than twitter ;)
DeleteI don't think I can agree with the analysis above, Mikael. The IFK clause about playing in a dangerous manner explicitly states the action in question "includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury." That part is non-negotiable.
DeleteBoth Shaw and the Hungarian attacker fully attempted to play the ball. Neither stopped their actions for fear of injury. The IFK option--in either direction--is therefore off the table.
I also think the argument for a DFK to England is patently absurd. The ball is at head level and there are just certain expectations in the game. Showing still photos here and arguing the Hungarian is somehow very late to the challenge does not reflect the reality of how quick all of this happens. There's no foul by the Hungarian here.
I think you only have two plausible options. Penalty or no-call.
I think the penalty is an expected call here. Shaw's decision to make such an unorthodox scissors clearance is akin to taking a risk with a wild slide tackle in the penalty area. He has to be culpable for the forseeable consequences. I don't care that much if he clears it fully slightly before the attacker arrives. I still think the play is inherently reckless. So YC + PK is good for me.
If you believe, as is argued, that the clearance is sound and the attacker arrives late, then I think the best course of action is simply to stop play for the head injury, deem it an accident as a result of mutual fair play, and carry on after a dropped ball.
But an IFK either way is wrong. And a DFK to England would be, sorry, laughable.
While I can generally agree with your reply usaref, with regard to the IFK I read the LOTG in a different way.
DeleteIMO the phrase “includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury” refers to “playing in a dangerous manner”.
That is, the “preventing a nearby…..for fear of injury” part is included in, but not limited to, the description of playing in a dangerous manner.
So deeming an action as “playing in a dangerous manner” does not necessarily require the opponent to actually stop the action for fear of injury. The threat of an injury - either to opponent or the player themself - suffices for awarding an IFK IMO.
Apart from that I would prefer a play on here. The fact that Shaw played the ball, opponent was slightly late and both players were more or less equally responsible for the (minimal) contact makes it an acceptable football action for me.
Slightly similar to the Scotland's goal firstly disallowed and later allowed after OFR by Marciniak in SCOISR. However, here the Shaw's leg is sooo high and I think the normal play is to attack the ball with head not leg at this height. My decision would as Hernández', too.
DeleteI haven’t read any explanation better this week than what @usaref just explained about the Penalty awarded, that was excellent bro and much more realistic than the options Mikael explained earlier.
DeleteI rewatched the incident and I read the analysis by Mikael, great work as always, valuable opinion. I agree that this should be considered rather a mistake, I see that defender is already preparing the kick while attacker puts head there, it is not a clear foul, defender could have never expected that, but he has surely a fault: too raised leg. For this reason the penalty isn't totally wrong and indeed absolutely correct by VAR to support, but if the Spanish had had more time to rewatch and assess the incident, I think he wouldn't have whistled it.
DeleteNever a crucial mistake, though, for the reasons we discussed.
Glad to see my comment generated an excellent discussion!
DeleteMaybe some people slightly misunderstood what I was trying to say with my analysis. I was working from the start point that - as David outlines - that a penalty is the expected decision. Of course, *actually* say giving a FK to England would be practically absurd.
Here's a fairly close example from 2021-1 RAP A10. This has the defender playing the ball with an attacker "leading" with their head and resulting in minor contact on the head. The RAP example has studs vs the flat part of the foot. UEFA judges this as a DFK and a reckless (7 out of 10) on their scale.
Deletehttps://streamable.com/i20s30
@Known, I have heard this argument before and while I respect you or others who hold it, I also believe it isn't accurate.
ReplyDeleteThe grammar is pretty clear, if a little convoluted. The sentence says that "playing in a dangerous manner is ANY ACTION..." and then describes what must be present in that action. The "includes" refers back to the "action."
The alternative way to write this phrase would have been by having it end with "... including actions that prevent a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury." If written that way, it would explicitly say that certain types of actions fall into this category but not all actions must have that component, which is what you're suggesting. Instead, it's written to say that his particular offence must ("and includes") have the component of preventing an opponent play the ball for fear of injury.
After all, if it was intended to mean what you suggest, it would simply be a catch-all for almost any play that the referee wants to call dangerous. The PIADM clause would have no definition. Quite literally, any action that leads to a physical challenge COULD threaten injury, so it would be all up to the whims of each individual referee! The point of PIADM is to make it define an offence for certain types of behavior that do not fall into the penal fouls yet are so inhernetly dangerous that it prevents opponents from playing. Here are two classic examples:
If a goalkeeper opted to lay on top of the ball with it pinned between his stomach and the ground in his own penalty area with everyone on the other have of the field, would it be PIADM? No. He isn't doing anything dangerous. But if he did the same exact action with opponents surrounding him, it would be PIADM because other players could not kick the ball for fear of injuring him or themselves. Same exact action, but it's only PIADM when opponent's are involved. That's why we call players for PIADM when they are on the ground playing it with players nearby, but not when no opponents are around.
High boot is the other one. A high boot by itself is skill. It's not inherently dangerous. It's not even dangerous by itself in a duel, so long as the opponent is prepared and sees it coming. But a high boot that is in an area or done in a manner that causes an opponent to not challenge or avoid a challenge? That's when PIADM is triggered and that's what I'm talking about here.
Remember, the LOTG say "any action." So it's the action that we are punishing. But we are only punishing the action if it prevents an opponent from playing the ball. Otherwise, we'd be punishing the actions like high boots all the time.