2022-23 UEFA Champions League Group Stage Matchday 3, referees in charge of Tuesday's games.
4 October 2022
18:45 CET - Munich (Fußball Arena München)
Bayern München (GER)- Viktoria Plzeň (CZE) | Group C
Referee: Nicola Dabanovic (MNE)Assistant Referee 1: Milovan Djukić (MNE)
Assistant Referee 2: Vladan Todorović (MNE)
Fourth Official:Lazar Lukić (SRB)
Video Assistant Referee: Juan Martinez Munuera (ESP)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Alejandro Hernandez (ESP)
UEFA Referee Observer: Roberto Rosetti (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Iva Olivari-Ulisa (CRO)
18:45 CET - Marseille (Vélodrome)
Olympique Marseille (FRA) - Sporting CP (POR) | Group D Referee: Davide Massa (ITA)
Assistant Referee 2: Stefano Alassio (ITA)
Fourth Official: Davide Ghersini (ITA)
Video Assistant Referee: Paolo Valeri (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Daniele Doveri (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Costas Kapitanis (CYP)
UEFA Delegate: Nils Fisketjonn (NOR)
21:00 CET - Liverpool (Anfield)
Liverpool (ENG) - Rangers (SCO) | Group AAssistant 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: Willy Delajod (FRA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Peter Sippel (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Fernand Meese (BEL)
21:00 CET - Amsterdam (Johan Cruijff ArenA)
Ajax (NED) - SSC Napoli (ITA) | Group AReferee: François Letexier (FRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Cyril Mugnier (FRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Mehdi Rahmouni (FRA)
Fourth Official: Jérémy Stinat (FRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Tomasz Kwiatkowski (POL)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Benoit Millot (FRA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Tomasz Mikulski (POL)
UEFA Delegate: Peter Palencik (SVK)
UEFA Referee Observer: Tomasz Mikulski (POL)
UEFA Delegate: Peter Palencik (SVK)
21:00 CET - Porto (Estádio do Dragão)
Porto (POR) - Bayer Leverkusen (GER) | Group B
Assistant Referee 1: Gary Beswick (ENG)
Assistant Referee 2: Lee Betts (ENG)
Fourth Official: Andrew Madley (ENG)
Video Assistant Referee: Stuart Attwell (ENG)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Fedayi San (SUI)
UEFA Referee Observer: Kyros Vassaras (GRE)
UEFA Delegate: Angelo Chetcuti (MLT)
21:00 CET - Bruges (Jan Breydelstadion)
Club Brugge (BEL) - Atlético Madrid (ESP) | Group BReferee: Istvan Kovacs (ROU)
Assistant Referee 1: Vasile Florin Marinescu (ROU)
Assistant Referee 2: Ovidiu Artene (ROU)
Fourth Official: Horatiu Fesnic (ROU)
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Marco Ftiz (GER)
UEFA Referee Observer: Drago Kos (SVN)
UEFA Delegate: Thura Win (ENG)
21:00 CET - Milan (Stadio Giuseppe Meazza)
FC Internazionale (ITA) - Barcelona (ESP) | Group CReferee: Slavko Vincic (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Tomaz Klancnik (SVN)
Assistant Referee 2: Andraz Kovacic (SVN)
Fourth Official: Rade Obenovic (SVN)
Video Assistant Referee: Pol van Boekel (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Dennis Higler (NED)
UEFA Referee Observer: Marinus Koopman (NED)
UEFA Delegate: Olzhas Abrayev (KAZ)
21:00 CET - Frankfurt Am Main (Frankfurt Stadion)
Eintracht Frankfurt (GER) - Tottenham (ENG) | Group DReferee: Daniele Orsato (ITA)
Assistant Referee 1: Ciro Carbone (ITA)
Assistant Referee 2: Alessandro Giallatini (ITA)
Fourth Official: Rosario Abisso (ITA)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Marco Di Bello (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Alexandru Deaconu (ROU)
UEFA Delegate: Charles Schaack (LUX)
Big game for Lexetier!
ReplyDeleteQuite unexpected after his first UCL game this season (8.0-8.1 level).
DeleteMy apologies for the wrong spelling of Letexier. Yes indeed Ajax-Napoli is the volcano match. Easily to erupt but if you recognize the signals you can be ahead of it. Curious how Letexier manages this
DeleteUCL debut for Nikola Dabanović. He will be observed by same Roberto Rosetti after Nicola Rizzoli observed him in Slovakia - Belarus.
ReplyDeleteTurpin on Liverpool again after his shocker in the UCL final.
ReplyDeleteI do not really understand Taylor with Vassaras. The rest looks ok, very good game for Letexier(with Kwiatkowski VAR and not AVAR ?!?). Let`s remark once again the same nations appointments in groups A and D, it is already becoming a common practice.
ReplyDeleteIt's Clear that TAYLOR Is replaced somebody else, The last match Leverkusen Had English Crew with Oliver in middle.
DeleteYou can't be sure about that, committee seems to have abandoned this (unwritten) rule. For example, Napoli had two Spanish in a row on MD1 and 2.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOliver benfica psg
ReplyDeletePinheiro city copenhaga
ReplyDeleteCarballo observed him in MD1 so would not expect him there
DeleteThe game in Liverpool doesn't really need Turpin imo. Sure, this will be a British clash with media attention in GB, however the difference in level is normally huge, hence a safe game to prevent him from any controversies. It will be the (potentially) number 1-2 versus number 4 in the group. On the other hand, the game in Amsterdam will be very tight and important for the group standings (nr. 2-3). I'd have switched those referees.
ReplyDeleteTbh, Turpin's appointments after the UCL final are interesting to monitor. He is appointed to either "football focused" or potentially problematic games, but not too 'high-proflish' or decisive top clashes. Let's keep an eye on that.
I stick to the observation that he might be protected for something 'big' in Qatar; either the opening game or as UEFA's frontrunner for "something bigger".
Agree 100%. It is very strange send Turpin to game where home team is 90% favorite. This is same type of game as Bayern-Plzen or Real-Shaktor.
DeleteI would have swapped the French in group A, as I think, Ajax-Napoli will be the tighter and more difficult game. However, as the other game is a British derby, you still have an argument, why Turpin is in Liverpool and not in Amsterdam.
ReplyDeleteTaylor in a match, where a top 10 referee wasn't really expected. Observation by Vassaras could be due to consideration for a final this season. But indeed also possible, that he is a replacement there.
Debut for Dabanovic in a suitable match for that. Contrary to others, he worked several seasons in Europa League before achieving that. IMO he was a logical candidate, also after getting a R16 match in ECL last year. Based on that, maybe Petrescu could be the next debut, but hard to find a clear favourite for that, I think.
Also worth mentioning, that this debut puts a new country on the map of CL referees ( - at least for the independent Montenegro).
Rest are normal appointments in my opinion.
Good arguments, I agree that Dabanovic was on paper a candidate given his previous experience and how he was managed so far, but he was indeed not expected, maybe for age, maybe for other reasons, his chances seemed to be over. The fact that he will have a fourth official from Serbia is because there isn't VAR in Montenegro. Rosetti will check whether he can become regular in CL. I don't know it exactly because Serbia and Montenegro were unique country in past, maybe the first referee from Montenegro in Champions.
DeleteI also agree that one could have expected Turpin in Ajax - Napoli (definitely more challenging game than the one in Liverpool) and Letexier in Liverpool, and I can add as argument the fact that Turpin doesn't seem to have a good reputation in Netherlands, also according to some comments I could read here. Really don't know whether committee thought about that, but for me the argument that in Liverpool it will be a British derby is weak. Liverpool too much favorite team in the game. Let's say that haivng Letexier in a more challenging context is deserved after last performances and maybe this can explain it more!
Apart from Taylor observed by Vassaras, the rest of assignments is indeed normal.
I'm slightly (but also pleasantly) surprised by Dabanović's CL debut.
ReplyDeleteAt 41 years old I thought UEFA wouldn't have him in mind anymore for a possible promotion, despite in my book being a safer pair of hands than at least 20-30% of current Elite referees.
Very happy for Letexier. He was really brave and good in his last game in hard weather condition and hostile atmosphere in Monte Negro-Finland. He showed 5 yellow cards and 1 red in fist 25 minutes, 4 yellow and red for home team. Very happy that Rosetti liked this and gives him huge game. I have to say with his 33 years old I see him best referee in the world up to 35 years. We can say what we want about Garibien and his new disciplinary orders but France has never had better referees. Turpin,Bastien,Delajod,Frappart,Letexier,Buquet,Pignard. I will go so long that France at the moment has best referees as I don't see any other country with such many top referees.
ReplyDeleteFor me most challenging game of this round will be in Seville as atmosphere there is very tough for referees. Sevilla have worst season start in last 15 years and this is do or die game for them but also direct fight for second place. I really hope we will have Marciniak here as other refs can be in huge problem. We can not have Oliver as City is in this group and any other top 10 referee is in action day before.
About VAR choices, for Wednesday game we could expect Schaerer (we have San working as AVAR on Tuesday), a German (Kovacs VAR team can be inverted), maybe Bastien (with Millot, and this would explain why Letexier got a Polish VAR for Ajax-Napoli), a Spanish with Hernandez as VAR and maybe Makkelie but in this case, I would have expected Higler to be main VAR today. Maybe he will be main VAR for a referee from another country.
ReplyDelete@Chefren Higler maybe VAR on wednesday with Belgian Lawrence Visser???
DeleteMakkelie ofc possible for Seville game, three big games on wednesday . So i expect if possible Oliver for Benfica-Psg, Marciniak and Makkelie in Chelsea-Milan and Sevilla-Dortmund. Huge games so they should not gamble here .
ReplyDeleteI see Inter-Barcelona Dutch VAR team, but also Dutch observer. I am not convinced that this is a fair management from the Committee.
ReplyDeleteThe same situation in the Ajax-Napoli match, oberwator Mikulski (POL), Var Kwiatkowski (POL)
DeletePlease tell me your opinion!
ReplyDeleteEredivisie: N.E.C. - Feyenoord
The ball that the keeper tried to kick hit an opponent who was standing outside the penalty area, and the referee blew the whistle and disallowed the goal.
The referee described it as 'unsporting play' after the match.
The keeper says, 'He was in the circle and moved. It's not allowed.'
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1576580272715350018/pu/vid/1280x720/H_GU9AxznwdtJnNJ.mp4
There is no doubt that this player intended to interfere by moving a few steps. But does it matter in this position? I can't find a rule that doesn't allow positioning within the circle. It seems to me that 'unsporting play' is an explanation that there are no clear rules and it depends on the subjectivity of the referee. I'm sure there are some referees who call this a offence because the player took a few steps, but to be honest, I don't really understand the basis.
In Netherlands example of Karius in CL finale (Liverpool - Real Madrid) is mentioned
IMO big mistake of Gözübüyük. Again. Feyenoord striker has zero movement towards the goalkeeper, who just kicks the ball against his opponent. It's a foul of the keeper and this should have been a goal.
DeleteThe big problem of this situation is that it is not clearly regulated by LotG (of course, for many other cases it is the same). On paper, I would say keeper has all his space to kick the ball, and it even seems that he goes deliberately close to attacker (standing still) to hit him and to have unsporting behavior whistled by referee, but in reality, imagine referee plays on. Nobody would accept this goal after such incident, I never liked to say something like "convenient whistle", but sometimes Lot G can't help in reality. I can't blame referee, but according to the fact, a play on would be correct. That's my view.
DeleteI agree Chefren, but that makes it even weirder that Gözübüyük whistles immediately. VAR has no chance anymore.
DeleteThank you, everyone. After all, it is good for me to be able to confirm that there was no basis for the rules.
DeleteGözübüyük has refused to be on camera after games in recent years, and he didn't do it this time either.That's his right, of course, but whether the decision is correct or not, that attitude is not appreciated in the Netherlands, which is why he's unpopular.
He did not show up for the camera but he said something against the media. In his eyes, it was unsporting behaviour. If that is his explanation, I understand why he normally doesn't come for the camera. Because it's better to say nothing than this kind of strange apologies.
DeleteIMO, it wasn't even an unfair play, the attacker just stood there, according to LotG every player should take place on the field, so how did the attacker influence the game just by placing him there and didn't do any move towards GK.
DeleteIt is a mistake from the referee, nothing more.
To luuk
DeleteI don't know of any instances where Gözübüyük has said anything to the media about his own decision. Also this time, he only answered Feyenoord's questions and did not address the media directly. A few weeks ago his friend had an explanation in the media that Gözübüyük did on app.
Am I just not aware of this?
I approve of the right of the referee not to stand in front of the camera, but it is true that this leads to unpopularity. It doesn't lead to a better understanding of the rules.
IMO, this is a correct goal. The attacker stands still, goalkeeper has plenty of room to move and the latter is provoking an IFK, but as Chefren said, nobody would accept this goal. Here, we can say 'safe refereeing'
DeleteUnder the LOTG strictly applied it is 100% a legitimate goal. The attacker doesn't move so he's not interfering, the goal keeper has ample opportunity to move to one side and kick the ball but chooses not to. That is his error. I suspect in part he deliberately kicked the ball towards the attacker in frustration because the attacker was in the path where he wanted to kick the ball and that gave the referee a loophole if you like to apply common sense refereeing and disallow the goal. The observer will have supported him on this because there are rare occasions where using some common sense are far better than applying the LOTG strictly. No-one would have accepted the goal, there would have been uproar about it and the referee would have been headlining in the press for days, weeks, months, even though he would have been correct to do so. The observer would have supported his decision no-one else would have. I think he was right to use common sense and disallow it, for me it falls under one of those decisions where it is better to apply the spirit of the LOTG than the LOTG themselves.
DeleteFirst off all we should ask, what is this attacker doing over there, while his teammates are 20/30/40 meters far away? Only one answer possible, he is there to try to catch the ball from the keeper, iff he tries to bring the ball into the game, and yes iff you look good, he makes movement to the keeper, wich some off you probably don't want to see, but it's there, what iff some of his teammates catch the ball and want to play to him??? He is 20 meters offside... so it doesn't make any sence! Is he there for a good reason.???... No, so this falls under unsportmanship behavior,and indirect freekick for preventing the goalkeeper to bring the ball into the game, smart and good refereeing! This is the answer one off Dutch experienced Eredivisie referees gave to me, and wich i want to share with you... so according to one off his collegues Gozubuyuk made the right choice
DeleteI say this with all respect to Letexier and I really hope he has a good game, but I can't believe UEFA have sent Letexier to this decisive game in Amsterdam. The atmosphere in Amsterdam is always tough on such nights, and I can't remember the last time a non-regular (or starting-to-become-regular) Champions League referee impressed in Amsterdam. If Brych was still active, this would have been a perfect 'Brych game', but not a beginner, no matter how talented he may be. An example would be Ajax - Benfica a few seasons ago, which was clearly decisive for advancement, but UEFA decided to send Buquet. This was a disaster and they had to appoint Rocchi for the second leg. Sadly, UEFA have not learnt.
ReplyDeleteCan you name a few of Ajax CL group stage games that has been really challenging last 5 seasons? And this is only week 3 still 3 games to go after it. I really think you overreact how big this game is. It is not Boca-River or Sevilla-Betis so he can not handle it. He was brilliant in MN-Finland, very calm under pressure and did not missed anything. He is perfect shape, always on good position and have great teamwork with his AR team who are very active and helps him. If this was week 5 or 6 and direct decisive game I would understand you but now I think it is ok to go with Letexier.
DeleteI can think of at least 5 very challenging games. You are right that those were mostly in week 5 or 6, but not all of them:
DeleteAjax - Chelsea, round 3
Ajax - Bayern, round 6
Ajax - Benfica, week 3
Ajax - Valencia, week 6
Ajax - Atalanta, week 6
With the last 3, the opponent and Ajax were fighting for the second spot (on paper), just like this game against Napoli and, as you can see, some of the challenging games happened in week 3 already. Liverpool - Rangers would have been a great game for Letexier as well, why take such a big risk? If this goes wrong, it's the next Frenchman with an awful reputation in the Netherlands as well. I just really struggle to see the justification for sending such a non-experienced referee to this game - Letexier might deserve a good, important game, but history of Champions League in Amsterdam simply suggests that we shouldn't do this.
Marseille v Sporting kickoff delayed for late arriving team?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely no test for Dabanovic this game in Munchen...
ReplyDeleteIn this context, what a poor offside flag by AR2 in 32', he clearly missed a defender keeping ONSIDE attacker. Shouldn't happen at CL level, too blatant to make a mistake.
DeleteHas Oliver had an appointment yet?
ReplyDeleteDOGSO red card to Sporting GK.
ReplyDeleteCorrect red card ofc, only minus that Massa need 7,8 second to blow and then to show red card. One more thing in mass confrontation minute 43, Sporting goalkeeper runs outside his territory and get in mass brawl . Is this not mandatory yellow card for goalkeepers?
ReplyDeleteAt the Red Card, Massa was waiting for a possible advantage, so I don't think the delay is a minus.
Delete43': Not a mandatory YC, but a recommended one, as far as I know. The situation is also interesting regarding a possible RC for the action, that started the brawl.
https://streamable.com/qyl13n
ReplyDeleteThe RC in Marseille. Massa clearly waited for a possible advantage and then he whistled. Imagine they would have scored while whistling. Excellent management, clear DOGSO.
Good onside by AR2 in Amsterdam for 1-0. In 11', possible first YC of the game, the nature of the foul was rather reckless, Letexier decided for a warning.
ReplyDelete1-1 important offside decision, Lozano trying to play ball in the centre of penalty area, but without influencing opponents. Goal correctly allowed.
DeleteMaybe for AIA standards, Italian referees would have disallowed it...
16': Leverkusen goal disallowed after OFR due to a foul in midfield starting the APP - clearly correct.
ReplyDeleteSide note: No idea, why Taylor is not wearing black with both goalkeepers already in yellow...
https://streamin.me/v/ac6015e8
DeleteHere the video, no closer replay but indeed looks like clear foul. Maybe not best positioning for Taylor to see it.
I saw the pictures that were shown to Taylor and indeed, it was a foul. Ball was not played. Good VAR intervention, although it took a very long time.
DeleteWhy did Var call Vincic for offside call???
ReplyDeleteBecause it was an offside to be assessed as active or not without playing the ball, this must be decided by referee if not seen on the pitch. I'm surprised you don't know that.
DeleteTo confirm that, if not for the offside, he would have called a penalty. That allows the restart to be the IFK for the offside, rather than the restart for why play was stopped (corner kick?).
DeleteNote that Vincic told the Inter captain that he was going over to other the monitor but that the result was going to be an offside. He, smartly, prepped the team for it. But it's obviously a weird one for fans/commentators... no real easy solution given current VAR parameters.
@Chefren, that's not what happened. It was a factual offside. But it was a penalty that was not called. So the recommendation was FOR a penalty but one that would then be negated by offside.
DeleteAha,ok,I thought that VAR could have made this call without him.
Delete@usaref the position of Lautaro Martinez
DeleteYes, there was the relevant question, whether Martinez was in an active offside position - as he didn't play the ball, but challenged the opponent for it. Strangely it seemed, this wasn't really looked at during the OFR.
DeleteOnce, they decided on offside during the OFR, I don't see the purpose of looking at the handball. I mean, play should then continue with an idF regardless on the handball evaluation, right?
I'm sorry, I'll need to look again. I thought the offside position decision was one of active involvement and interfering with play. If I'm wrong, apologies.
DeleteHaving re-watched, I concede that the player in the offside position didn't actually play the ball, so it wasn't interfering with play. But he's clearly challenging the opponent, so it's obviously an offside offence.
DeleteI get what others are saying, but I'll stick by what I said originally. For the offside to become the actual decision, Vincic needs to affirm that he would have given the penalty if not for the offside. So the OFR is, in theory, mandatory. You can't just have a VAR tell the referee "offside" (no matter what type of offside) to negate a penalty that the referee never called.
I dont know. Very unpopular on field review. I Think He decided to go to the monitor to make an offside call becouse after That was handball to make the decision clear for the public
ReplyDeleteExcellent YC by Kovacs for Diego Simeone for making the "YC gesture".
ReplyDeleteAll referees should do that at the minimum gesture by all coaches, players, team officials... and then reality would change.
DeleteIndeed, we do not see that very often on an international level, which is very unfortunate. Unsporting behaviour like this should be punished more strictly. Mostly, a YC has surprising effects on some coaches...
DeleteCorrect ofc from Kovac, but as many times before he shows 2 yellow cards to home players after pressure from the coach and players. Most referee is affected by players,coach,fans and some teams like Atletic,Barcelona are using this very good.
DeleteThere are referees who warn the coaches, and others that prefer not to do this and pretend not hearing or seeing anything. Kovacs is surely in the first category, recently he booked Simeone in QF last season and Guardiola in SF last season. I remember that some people were writing here that the refs should take a different approach when a team like Atletico and their manager is involved and I tend to agree on this because otherwise you risk to lost the control of the game. We should be happy when a referee sanction inappropriate behaviour like this.
DeleteI was wondering what are UEFA instructions in this situations. And, instantly, I remembered Rosetti`s words: "Referees asked to protect football's image".
https://www.uefa.com/returntoplay/news/0272-14691bd70f85-1cb9a4240d37-1000--referees-asked-to-protect-football-s-image/
So, the question is ... why not all referees sanction the disrespectful conduct? I really like Ref_1707`s last sentence at 21:40.
Oeff, VERY unfortunate Letexier blocking Ajax defender, attacker progressing to the goal, gaining a corner, after that another corner, and GOAL…
ReplyDeleteNow the game is turning more difficult in Amsterdam, with several cards issued. So far Letexier OK, but in my opinion in such games, trying to spare cards at the beginning leaves always a sense of unfairness, when you are then forced to start just a few minutes later... still not a big problem though.
ReplyDeleteHe definitely has some problems, most visibly positioning (the 1-2 was mentioned already, but he interfered with play before that as well) - I really didn't like the YC to Tadic: firstly, he looks at the injured player, afterwards he talks to Tadic, he 'releases' Tadic and after looking at the player again, the YC is issued. This is really not a good look. Second half could get ugly
DeleteYou were right about Letexier and this game. Agree that he looks scared and as you said positioning very poor. How he handle Tadic yellow card is under all critic . Many referee goes after that and this is so bad, if you don't scream and lays down for a minute they will not show a card. It was mandatory yellow and should be shown direct but then if you have not do that showing it after 40 seconds is much worse. All in all I don't like his performance.
DeleteAnd all you would need as RefCom to avoid this appointment was to watch Borussia Dortmund - København where Letexier was insecure and had big problems with controlling the events and players...
DeleteTough game for Taylor. Now, goal for Porto was disallowed and a penalty for Leverkusen (handball) was given. IMO a correct decision. Penalty was missed and then there was a delay because Attwell had to check whether the goalkeeper was still on the line...
ReplyDeleteTwo OFRs in the first half is quite a number for a referee like Taylor. Both decisions were not easy to take on the pitch, but Taylor also does not seem to be satisfied with his performance. Attwell has been critised quite often (and rightly so) but so far we can praise him for his interventions.
https://streamja.com/3mPjQ
DeleteVery difficult to see this handball live, I would say maybe impossible... two OFR in such a game only in first half absolutely impossible to be expected.
From Taylors point of view very difficult to see that live but his AR should have Seen this for my feeling
DeleteTadic clear second yellow card missed.
ReplyDeleteWas Napoli’s equalizer in 18’ a punishable offside?
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/zs_voetbal/status/1577378613510422529?s=46&t=l7qLcSzTCjPwTIfF5Cpv-g
Probably the video won’t work outside the Netherlands. Anyone able to make a good video?
DeleteTo me, it can be assessed as regular because Lozano didn't influence any opponent by his attempt to play ball, however there are discussions about this argument and I really don't know, this season in Italian serie A they are punishing all this kind of incidents, even when players don't challenge opponents for the ball. I would say there isn't a clear answer.
DeleteIsn’t goalkeeper influenced by this very clear attempt to head the ball? Goals have been disallowed for less I think.
DeleteAlways Dutch links on the blog :)
Deletehttps://streamff.com/v/L9zSwZ
The position of Lozano trying to play ball.
IMO the impact on the opponent needs to be clearer than that, but indeed not a clear situation.
DeleteIf this were a low cross ball, I think Lozano would be penalized for impacting the keeper if he dives into the cross like this, even if the distance between the player and the ball is about the same. Pretty clear, right?
DeleteWhy is it judged to be less clear only when the ball is high?
I think, there is just no visible impact on the GK, like a change of movement due to the attacker's action. Of course, he might have done something different, but that is quite hypothetical and IMO should not be considered.
DeleteWhether the ball is low or high should not make a difference though, only the impact itself.
To be honest, I'm not sure, but does the fact that the keeper has already moved to the far-post count in determining if he's impacted?
DeleteGoal for Barca disallowed after an OFR. Handball by an attacker (hand over shoulder) but not the player who shot the goal. Still, punishable handball, therefore correct decision by Vincic. Also the second OFR for him.
ReplyDeleteThree managers (Simeone, Spaletti, Xavi) have already been booked for dissent tonight :D
ReplyDeleteVery late second yellow card for Tadic... the result of the game kept Letexier safe from citicisms today, but in case of open game, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteGood decision to whistle a penalty by Kovacs. A few minutes later, correctly disallowed goal for offline by AR1.
ReplyDeleteWas it a penalty? Very soft for me
DeleteWow, NO OFR in 90+2' for a handball by an Inter player. Van Boekel did not want to invite Vincic to a third OFR. I do not want to be too quick, but it seems like a very, very debatable no call by van Boekel, especially as Vincic indicated that he did not see it.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't understand why there was no penalty.
DeleteControversial end for Vincic. I must say, from the replays that were shown, it looks like a clear handball, trying to prevent the attacker from getting the ball. I was very sure that an OFR would follow. Incident was checked for some time, but Vincic blew the final whistle in 98'30'' (8' indicated as additional time).
DeleteThey showed 2 different angles after the incident, i couldn't catch them. Can someone upload the incident here?
DeleteThis way of using VAR is a real garbage! Van Boekel should be punished for this! It was so clear penalty for Barca, incredible that he didn't call Vincic for an OFR! But he called it when Barca scored even there GK played the ball and it only touched Barca player (ok, it is by the (stupid) rule). But this one... No word! Seconds after pushing from behind in the PK area during the jump, another penalty (maybe soft, not so obvious, but clear foul for me, absolutely punishable push). Big mistakes in this level. Vincic had to see all the situations and he saw nothing. No one knows anymore what is PK, what is punishable handball, what is VAR stuff...
DeleteJust to add that: Game was stopped for 1'10'' during the VAR check, only half of it added to the additional time.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ballonrondfc/status/1577403962294095872?t=mRzFarg1hlRbpX0fSxfNBQ&s=08
DeleteI assume, that the VAR wasn't 100% sure, whether the hand actually touched the ball. And indeed by the available pictures, there seems to be a small possibility, that it only touched both heads, but not the hand.
DeleteThanks for the video, Zemo. My first impression was right, it is a big, not to say incredible mistake.
DeleteI also think it is a big mistake. Any possible explanation is pointless. What a shame, i was considering Pol van Boekel in Top 3 VARs in Europe.
DeleteIMO CLEAR PENALTY MISSED BY VICINIC AND BY VAR
ReplyDeleteTurpin very good tonight at Anfield. Clear penalty correct. Not entirely sure what the only YC of the game to Trent was for though.
ReplyDeleteHe was very good. Lundstram had a yc in te 1st half too. The one for Trent was a pull back on the rangers winger which an advantage was played for. You could see the rangers players shirt was ripped
Deletehttps://streamff.com/v/fc56d9
ReplyDeleteMy easy explanation is that VAR wasn't 100% sure of the handball, and one can agree. Replays don't help in saying it was a clear touch by arm. Incredible to say with all these cameras, but that's only argument because clearly punishable position in case and OFR would have followed.
If you watch the very first second of the video in half of the real speed, it seems quite clear to me that the ball hit the arm.
DeleteAgree, I have seen many times the video and I'm not sure at all.
DeleteI also can't be sure from this video, but the video posted by Zemo at 23:07 is a little bit clearer: watching it in slow motion, it seems to me that the ball changes trajectory after the potential touch by hand, therefore confirming it existed. And if it did, certainly a punishable handball for me.
DeleteI try to make a video. One can clearly see the touch. But my technical abilities are very limited... :D
DeleteThat's a natural position. He was about to head the ball, of course the arm will be there. I am very glad they made the right decision. Handballs like these must never be punished. Every footballer in the world will have their arm there when heading the ball. No matter if he touched it with his head or not that's natural position.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/LSComps/status/1577405780113821697?s=20&t=ksY4cuimbMC8AH0zz8t-KQ
DeleteThat was absolutely unnatural position, what are you looking at man??? There is one angle that shows that it was 1000 percent penalty.
DeleteSo, it took quite a long time and it is very amateurish, but I tried to make a video showing the incident in real, slow and very slow speed. Hope it works.
Deletehttps://streamable.com/rkfhig
Please do not just consider the arm's movement but also the ball's movement. Impossible that the ball moves like this in case of a header.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/_BarcaInfo/status/1577407175290679296?t=Xsu57_fj6CBaOtjzxvq7_w&s=19
DeleteClear penalty. Absolutely stonewall. https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1577587406886281218
DeleteWhat about Calhanoglu YC?
ReplyDeleteTo me,looked like closer to RC offence...
Only interesting scene in Orsato's game is a possible 2nd YC for Lenglet in 78'.
ReplyDeletehttps://streamable.com/tzrf5t
DeleteIMO not a 2nd YC, not YC at all..
DeleteIf it's a foul, how is it not SPA?
DeleteI could understand an argument that there is no foul. But if you concede it's a foul, where's the argument that it's not stopping a promising attack? We don't ignore SPA simply because the foul is "soft." The embellishment is unseemly but seems like a pretty straightforward yellow card to me.
Huge critics from media and former referees on Vincic and Van Boekel.
ReplyDeleteI really hope that being Italian home team and 90 minute situation did not affected them. Vincic should sit safe for now as he is so called family friend with Ceferin and even Van Boekel has huge support in Kuipers .
There will be consequences after Vincic's performance last night. No more spotlight for him until WC in UCL imo. I think The Committee will use him for some decisive games in MD5 or 6 in UEL.
DeleteDušan Tadić management by Letexier in Ajax - Napoli:
ReplyDelete37' First YC, referee very hesitant, gave it only after cheking injured player:
https://streamable.com/ymlfun
57' Possible second YC, missed a very reckless action, but live you can see how much difficult it was to spot a foul there:
https://streamable.com/5yz0n5
73' Second YC given:
https://streamable.com/cm3mf2
(i was in the stadium so not objective at all)
DeleteMy opinion. Letexier was not convincing. First YC illustrate that perfectly. Almost one minute after the foul book him. Second YC fully justified. Lexetier was very insecure. With every awarded free kick or card he seemed to apologies to the involved player. His positioning was also an issue. He should be very lucky that Napoli was so much better.
I still don't get why Turpin wasn't appointed to that game. The game at Anfield was so easy.
DeleteThe first YC of the game in 30'.
Deletehttps://streamable.com/qikh9y
57' is fascinating to me. Because it's all about nature versus result. If I watch what Tadic does at 57', I don't even see a careless action, nevermind a reckless one. He stops the ball and spins, putting his foot down in a completely natural position. It's only the bad luck of the Napoli opponent arriving in that space (away from the ball) and getting landed on. It's not even a challenge. It's just an accident.
DeleteI agree with Letexier here. I don't have a foul. Sometimes in our sport, reckless looking results occur from totally innocuous actions. One of the hardest--and perhaps gutsiest things--a referee can do is play on in such circumstances. I think he was right here.
Agree with cautions at 37' and 73', though. I think he could have handled 37' a little better but it wasn't terrible. He showed Tadic he was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but, in the end, he just couldn't. But at 37' the bad result was the outcome of a bad action. At 57' any bad result was just a result of bad luck. That's the key difference.
Before Cüneyt Çakır retired, Turks used to be more on this blog. On most important issues like today, comments would have reached two pages.
ReplyDelete@Hans, you summit it very well. I was only one that protected committee choice here but I was so wrong.
ReplyDeleteWorst of everything was that he apologies to players after every yellow card. It was so sad to see. Tadic first card was close to red but he tried so hard to not show yellow here only because it was minute 30 and he has already showed 2 yellow cards. Then in minute 57 clear second YC for Tadic but he do not react and then again minute 73 when he finally give Tadic second yellow he again apologies to players both with word and gesticulations.
I maybe would understand this if it was Sevilla,Atletic,Porto away but Ajax players are always fair play and they where not aggressive or anything. This game showed that he is not ready for this level. He looked like scared baby.
Very informative Blog really appreciate the hard work. Regards. CharleneIzere
ReplyDeleteYes is not peanlty
ReplyDeleteI actually think the Siebert decision is an excellent, correct, and brave decision that most referees would have found an excuse to shy away from.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether or not the hold impedes the attacker's movement. And upon looking at the replays, I think the only honest answer one can say is YES! It's not very much, but the replay clearly shows the hold twists the attacker around and slows him down, forcing him to lunge awkwardly for the ball rather than take a traditional shot.
If the attacker had fallen upon feeling either the first or the second holding offense, as most would have, there would be almost no debate about the validity of the call. The attacker shouldn't be punished for attempting to stay on his feet.
I want to also add that I REALLY hope that UEFA supports this decision. Should they fail to do so, it would scare referees away from whistling penalty kicks for fouls where the attacker attempts to stay on this feet, and this would ultimately encourage diving.
DeleteI only watched the highlights, but actually I think Siebert's performance in Milan was really very good! Let's tell it how it is, the behavior of the home side was really quite undisciplined, and it warranted the high number of sanctions that Siebert dished out. Any team who receives six yellows and a red (20 minutes into the game that also resulted in a penalty kick, no less) will obviously feel upset at the referee, warranted or not. I think Siebert did quite well to punish the misconduct that was there, and he communicated all his decisions clearly.
ReplyDeleteThat one team didn't accept the decisions is a criticism, at most, of that team's understanding of their own disciplinary obligations. Not a criticism of the referee.