Wednesday, 14 August 2019

Stéphanie Frappart in charge of 2019 UEFA Super Cup: Liverpool - Chelsea (Discussion)

Stéphanie Frappart is ready for her big assignment: 2019 UEFA Super Cup, English derby Liverpool - Chelsea, to be played in Istanbul, Turkey. 

2019 UEFA Super Cup
14/08/2019 21:00 CET, Istanbul (TUR)
Liverpool FC (ENG) - Chelsea FC (ENG)
Referee: Stéphanie Frappart (FRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Manuela Nicolosi (FRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Michelle O'Neill (IRL)
Fourth Official: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Video Assistant Referee: Clément Turpin (FRA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1  François Letexier (FRA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Mark Borsch (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
UEFA Delegate: Radenko Mijatović (SVN)
UEFA Referee Observer: Roberto Rosetti (ITA)

118 comments:

  1. All the best for Mrs Frappart and of course the whole team!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Press conference.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND0_-bmYe90

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we just take a moment and appreciate the transparency ever Rosetti has taken over committee: really fascinating to hear the VAR audio from the different Champions League matches!

      Delete
  3. Really looking forward to the game. Good luck and enjoy, mrs. Frappart!

    ReplyDelete
  4. OT: The Bundesliga opening match Bayern Munich - Hertha Berlin will be refereed by Harm Osmers. He's the first No-FIFA referee appointed to an opening match since 2005 (when it was a young Gräfe).
    ARs: Thomas Gorniak, Robert Kempter
    4th: Markus Schmidt
    VAR: Tobias Reichel (2nd division referee)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know whether referees from second dvision working as VAR in Bundesliga have attended a specific course? How it works in Germany about preparation for officials who execute this role?

      Delete
    2. I don't know the details, but as VAR is introduced in 2nd division, all referees from that league are now qualified to be VAR there. There certainly was training during the last season. And I think, also some test matches (which are also needed to certify the stadiums) were done.
      Furthermore they have experience as AVAR from 2 seasons (30-40 matches).
      5 of them are especially qualified to be VAR in 1.Bundesliga as well and had first appointments on the last matchdays last season.
      However I am surprised by Reichel's appointment as it is only his third real match as main VAR. I expected someone like Stieler, Welz or Dingert for this prominent match.

      Delete
    3. I found something more about the VAR education:
      - simulated situations and short games during the winter course
      - live games organised for VAR
      - 22 offline courses including clip training, cooperation with the operator, communication standards in the VAR team,
      - being offline VAR during Bundesliga matches
      - referee meetings including discussions about the threshold for intervention, analysis of situations (Law interpretation)
      - summer course including clips and analysis of the last season, standard operation procedures, communication and process training

      Delete
    4. Thanks, Philipp - very interesting info.

      Delete
  5. 4' Imo YC missed.
    SPA ,handball by Van Dijk.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 5' Possible PK for handball (LIV). VAR doesn't intervene.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5' deliberate or undeliberate? Or more accurately… punishable or unpunishable handball? IMO unpunishable, correct decision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting situation regarding this possible penalty for handball.
    I think that it is a grey area. If Frappart had whistled penalty, VAR would have confirmed it, the same on the contrary. Very short distance, almost inexistent, but there is a certain move by defender's arms.
    I was surprised by Turpin who was very quick in assessing it, allowing Frappart to resume the game, I like this attitude, decision can be shared.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 13' AR1 very attentive in ordering a correct execution of corner kick, ball was not in regular position.
    A few later, a pitch invader. I hope that the target was not Frappart... it was not shown.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 5’ Handball situation
    https://streamable.com/tzs5w

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hm, is that really a natural position?
      The short distance is not really a factor with the new LotG, I think.
      Anyway, if Frappart has seen the handball, she should have made a clear play on gesture.
      If not, it would be a missed incident, that needed an OFR in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Short distance but never natural position, clear penalty missed

      Delete
    3. Knowing UEFA (Final + Importance of a good medial resonance for the refereeing), they likely only asked for intervention in REALLY, REALLY CLEAR situation.

      Penalty to be whistled here - Turpin should have called Frappart to an OFR.

      Delete
    4. Indeed rewatching the incident I have more doubts, but the distance is the only criterion you can consider to back this decision. Without touch by arm, ball would have passed.
      Still I repeat that I find very particular that Turpin allowed the restart of the game in a so short time.
      Quite surely Frappart missed the touch, because she didn't react.

      Delete
    5. For me 5' is not a penalty and based on replay Frappart has clearly seen the situation, but Turpin surley rewatched the incident. For me no penalty is correct call.

      Delete
    6. Clear penalty here. Unnatural position, making himself bigger, expected ball.

      Delete
    7. Penalty kick, same reasoning as Victor's...

      Delete
  11. 32': good NO PENALTY decision...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very good performance by AR2 O'Neill so far, at first NO FLAG for 0-1 and then now corectly disallowed 0-2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Must agree, very good I'Neill in the first half.

      Delete
    2. The only minor mistake was her first on/offside decision of the match when she raised the flag too quickly, not really according to the wait and see VAR protocol. However, I agree with both good decisions, especially allowing the goal - not the easiest of situations...

      Delete
    3. Indeed two good offside /
      on offside decisions by her. But she didn't delay the flag in one OGSO (probably it was clear in her opinion). Anyway, the offside was correct and Frappart delayed the whistle.

      Delete
    4. MT, IMO I think she raised the flag so quickly on that first one because it was so obviously offside. Why wait and waste time when it is so clear??

      Delete
  13. So far not so hard job for Frappart,mostly because both teams are definition of rair play so far.
    We would see totally different scenario if one of the teams in Final is spanish,then we would see more tension and it would be interesting to see Frappart in that situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree. Finals are almost always like this. 2016, 2014, 2018... even last years super cup.

      Delete
    2. Agree. I just think that Frappart's positioning needs improvement (too close to the ball, sometimes she even does not see it).
      On the other hand AR2 is very good so far.

      Delete
    3. Yeah she’s having an expected performance in a normal difficulty game. Just needs to improve small things.

      Delete
  14. Another excellent onside by AR2! What a game for her!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Video of "early" offside flag by AR2 in first half:
    https://streamable.com/zyqp8
    I just think she was very sure so she raised the flag, Frappart decided to wait. These situations could have been better planned in the meeting before the game between referee and assistant referees, but at the same time one can't exclude that maybe AR2 raised the flag as very "instinctive" action, forgetting for a while possible guidelines / instructions she received.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But why would you wait if its 2m offside and clear one? for me AR was right here.

      Delete
    2. I dont blame the assistant here either. Quite easy offside decision actually. Frappart played it safe by not whistling and after the shot was saved it was sensible to play the advantage.

      Delete
  16. Yet again an excellent onside by AR2. So far a world class performance regardless of sex. 8.7 in a challenging game!

    ReplyDelete
  17. My opinion about 5' possible penalty: Penalty would definitely be the better decision. In situations like this VAR asks the referee whether she saw the incident (if she already hasn't informed). If the answer is 'no' - OFR as this is a serious missed incident. If it's affirmative, it depends on whether it is a clear and obvious error. Was this one? For me it was.
    I doubt that Turpin didn't get the info about whether she saw it, so it's not likely that Stephanie missed it. Very quick check, so maybe UEFA has indeed instructed video match officials to itervene only in very, very clear errors. But maybe Turpin believed it isn't a clear and obvious error?
    If you have a look at the LOTG regarding handball, they say nothing about distance. IMO this is a handball and it falls in the 'unnaturally bigger' category. The possible 'deliberately' also contributes.
    This and many other incidents show that handballs will probably always be the biggest grey area in football, even now, after the law changes...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Frappart’s foul detection needs improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First YC in 80’ minute completely undeserved considering how she’s referred up to this point. However, it highlights her weak foul detection .

      Delete
  19. Now 1st YC.Very soft one,her foul detection is problem more and more.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A very similar situation to this one in which she has called the foul and shown a YC happened just a few minutes ago in the other half. Her criteria is not consistent, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Excellent performance by both assistant referees. Very tight offside situations correctly solved.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think that YC in 80' was for SPA.

    ReplyDelete

  23. When ball is is in the air and players are battling for the ball,she whistles foul too quickly,she sees which player falls down and for them it is a foul.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Very challenging match for both ARs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Perfect onside by AR1! Excellent game for both ARs

    ReplyDelete
  26. Correct penalty, but where is yc?

    ReplyDelete
  27. IMO penalty decision was wrong. It would be better if we had a view from the camera behind the goal

    ReplyDelete
  28. For me, the penalty is very soft if not wrong. I think there is contact, but that contact doesn't make the player fall, he throws himself to the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  29. For me penalty is correct call, there is a contact, enough for a penalty IMO

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think she has a lack of empathy for the players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She hasn’t connected with them at all.

      Delete
    2. Seriously? Does it matter? I can think of plenty successful male referees who make no effort to connect either. Is it effective? I don’t see any problems with dissent or a lack of respect, so as far as I’m concerned it’s working.

      Delete
    3. Well when coupled with poor foul detection, soft (or wrong) penalties and inconsistency a lack of empathy or connection can be awful for a referee. The only really she didn’t fully lose control was because she’s refereeing English teams. Heck, and even they are getting annoyed.

      Delete
    4. @Yk agree. Tonight the match control existed because of the players, not because of the referee.

      Delete
  31. VAR is not so meticulous today like other games. There should be a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 99’ Penalty decision CHE
    https://streamable.com/tmjes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can add this angle

      https://twitter.com/i/status/1161748497881862144

      Delete
    2. I keep my mind: wrong decision. The first video also shows that for O'Neill it was not a clear one either, as she signalled goal kick.

      Delete
    3. Clearly wrong decision. No contact was made. What was Turpin doing?

      Delete
    4. It seems there is a contact on the player right foot at 0:22 on the video, so you can't say it was clearly wrong. It is soft but VAR can't interven in this case.

      Delete
    5. Contact is made at 0:22, tharefore not a clear mistake. The clear mistake is the last penalty that was saved. Goalkeeper clearly didn't have any of his feet on the line. What's the point of this rule anyway?

      Delete
    6. No penalty kick here. Poor team work - the AR was too quick to flag goal kick. It also indicates no PK...

      Delete
  34. Let's see in the penalty shootout VAR intervenes if the GK advances as did in other tournaments.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good performance by referee team. Especially great performance by assistants with many correct difficult desiciosns. Also solid Frappart. Correct penalty, correct cards. Some problems with foul detection but in general good performance

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think Frappart did well. Of course there are some points for improvement, but in general I think she did well, all crutial decissions were correct IMO. Assistant referees were great tonight, some very tight offside decissions were done correctly. Congragulations to Ms Frappart and her team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You agree penalty were clear for Chelsea???? Fantastic.. No comment

      Delete
    2. Based on the replayes we have seen yes. If there is another view from another angle and it shows diffrrently zhen ok. But based on the angle they showed on TV for me it is a penalty.

      Delete
  37. Ummm...so the BT Sports commentators just showed an angle from behind the goal on the penalty, which they claim VAR did not have access to. As I understand the regulations, VAR must have access to all cameras in the stadium. Anyone have an idea what they're talking about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the same in Bundesliga: VAR has only access to cameras of the company, which produces the broadcast. However TV stations (e.g. sky) can have own cameras in the stadium, which are not connected to the VAR room.

      Delete
  38. In my opinion there isn't any contact in the penalty assigned to Chelsea. Even if there is a very small touch, this is not enough to justify the call, attacker made everything by himself.
    However, about VAR, if they had doubts aboutn the real existence of soft contact, it is OK not to intervene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soft call IMO but clearly a difficult situation to assess. Just for info : 10000 voting people on french website lequipe - so not supporters at all - and 75% agreed with decision made.

      Delete
    2. I absolutely agree that "live" this looks like a very clear penalty and for this reason I can't blame too much Frappart.
      We are missing a clear evidence with replays as it is for other situations. I don't like such easy penalties, but indeed very often it is not referees fault.

      Delete
  39. https://twitter.com/Stenis_31/status/1161752883353784321

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah that looks like no contact and a dive, especially by the way he is falling, not a natural fall at all.

      Delete
    2. All videos taken together the only conclusion can be that the penalty decision was clearly and obviously wrong. Without any doubt an OFR should have been advised here in my opinion.

      Delete
  40. Excellent, outstanding performance by both ARs, and... weak performance by Mrs. Frappart, her foul detection, player management and card management were not at this level. This match would be a disaster, fortunately we have english teams, not spanish or italian.

    In spite all, a refereeing hasn't influence for final result, so i think it's a today performance is a success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry but your way to think is ridiculous : english teams and refereeing adapted with these criterias. So tell « if we have italian or spanish teams, etc. » is a non-sense way of thiking. Abusive words and completely hypothetics...

      Delete
    2. Hypothetics but based on her performance facts. It would be interesting to see her in more challenging match. There were only 22 fouls after 120 mins yesterday. (10:12)
      More difficult match would show more, but seeing her weak foul detection and especially player management I am not that optimistic.

      Delete
  41. Decisive save that gave Liverpool the win: GK clearly not having one foot on the line but this time it's ignored. Not consistent...

    ReplyDelete
  42. As two users mentioned earlier Liverpool GK didn’t have one foot on the line in decisive penalty. It was ignored.
    Here is the link to the photo:
    https://imgur.com/J9QNzRM

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why I have a strong feeling that VAR Turpin supported two clear and obvious mistakes made by Frappart? Handball penalty missed and a penalty awarded which was simulation. Replays are clearly showing this. Is it because Turpin was really bad tonight or has he been instructed by UEFA not to correct Frappart?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or he's simply been instructed to follow the laws of the game and VAR protocols and to not correct something that was not a clear and obvious error :)

      Delete
  44. I must say that I’m highly disappointed by the number of negative comments about Frappart’s performance tonight. I thought her performance was good if not very good all along the match.

    3’ : possible YC missed to Van Dijk (handball - SPA) but not mandatory IMO, due to the absence of attackers able to get the possession of the ball.

    5’ : grey area, as always with handballs. The new law is not really better than the old one, and one can consider the position as “natural” and “unnatural” at the same time. Not surprised at all by this call. About the rapidity of the check : Turpin is a very “quick” VAR in Ligue 1, behind the monitor but also during OFRs on the pitch. His checks are usually short, from both sides of the screen.

    Apart from that, easygoing first half. Nothing to say, except perhaps his foul detection which could have been better.

    Second half : nothing to signal until 80’.

    80’ : justified YC for SPA (the player is 25m from the goal, and face to it !)

    86’ : supportable YC for SPA/reckless

    99’ : fully justified penalty kick IMO. There is an obvious contact between the goalkeeper (who has his hand quite high into the air BTW) and the player’s foot. It is blatant on one angle, and even more in full speed. The slow motion attenuates the contact. Frappart was very well positioned, I think we can trust her on what she saw.

    107’ : mandatory YC for reckless.

    Once again, regarding all these situations, I’m really surprised by all the negative comments about Frappart’s performance, especially about the 80’-minute YC, and the PK during extra-time. I watch this match and then came here, ready to find words of congratulations, but....
    She was under an incredible pressure, almost more expected than the match itself, and she did very well. I want to congratulate also the VARs, who did excellent job in a very short time. I’m glad they didn’t intervene tonight, because there were only Greg areas, so no reason to spend much time with it. And finally, I want to praise the two ARs, who were absolutely perfect during 120 minutes, especially Michelle O’Neill, who had a challenging match.

    Congratulations to the whole team ! You justified this surprising appointment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I must say that I’m highly disappointed by the number of negative comments about Frappart’s performance tonight. I thought her performance was good if not very good all along the match."

      +1

      Delete
    2. I agree, the only problem for me is the decisive penalty. It seems that Turpin do not like to apply that rule.
      At the same time everyone were already on the pitch celebrating but it should not matter. Also the AR should also see the GK position live but well she did well all game long so I do not want to blame her.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you Nathan. BTW I find it strange that nobody in the VAR room saw it...

      Delete
    4. Who knows... Maybe they saw it but the self-preservation prevailed? Could you imagine reactions of Liverpool players and coaching stuff if they got the info about the necessity to retake this penalty after the celebration already started? In addition, I'm 100% sure UEFA wouldn't be happy, too. At the end of the day, the top-flight football is mainly business...

      Delete
  45. To be fair, I liked Stéphanie's performance.

    She was very firm when players were trying to undermine her authority. Didn't hesitate to whistle that free kick for clear push and caution Azpilicueta for dissent. It was visible that her match tactic was to make the game flow as much as possible and she succeeded in this regard. That was surely appreciated by both sets of players. You can question one or another call but game was flow, she didn't allow to undermine her authority and therefore kept control over the game (players tried to question her abilities in the first half), issued some good warnings and played good advantages...

    Then, we can discuss about the penalty incidents (penalty for handball to be given in 5', at least acceptable penalty in favour of Chelsea for late GK's challenge, imo) and not retaken decisive penalty but here the potential blame is on Turpin who once again showed he is not keen to intervene. Especially the not retaken decisive penalty is something very destructive for refereeing. Poor.

    I would like to use the last paragraph to praise the OUTSTANDING performance of both assistant referees. Manuela, Michelle - you were excellent!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely agree with your comment, also about the "tactical" aspect of Stéphanie Frappart’s match.
      The real problem is about the final penalty shootout. Should have been retaken, but this is Turpin’s job. He is the one to blame here. However nothing to say about the other "no-interventions" during the match IMO.

      Delete
    2. https://twitter.com/george_payne15/status/1161748497881862144?s=09

      Clear simulation and the handball situation is absolutely punishable (making the body bigger and unnatural position of both arms). Law about using the arms in this way hasn't been changed at all.

      Delete
    3. This is the worst angle you can find...

      Delete
    4. For the referee yes. Because this shows that the penalty is wrong. All other angles are hiding the mistake. Strange you are still defending both decisions. It makes your comments less credibility.

      Delete
    5. The brodcast angle showed there was slight contact from the Gks knee on the attackers foot. It is not a clear mistake in any way to call that penalty. However in my opinion a super clear penalty at minute 5. Absolutely clear punishable handball.

      Delete
    6. @Jean-Pierre there is a contact between the GK and the player at 0:22 on that video. It is soft but VAR can't interven here.
      https://streamable.com/tmjes

      Delete
    7. In my opinion acknowledging the contact is not synonym for VAR-support (“no clear and obvious mistake”). Yes, a small contact with GK’s left knee to attcker’s right foot exists. The reason for the contact however is the attacker anticipating it by keeping his right foot low instead of continuing his normal run (meaning he would lift his right foot, and no contact would have happened). This anticipation of contact makes it a simulation, and in my opinion a clear and obvious one.

      Delete
  46. I also have the feeling that yesterday VAR intervention was different from other games. We should wait for Champions League play off in a few days to understand whether this is a new trend or just a special case for this game.
    1) The possible penalty in 5' should be in all cases worthy of OFR, there isn't a clear reaction by Frappart, and in a so short time I can't believe that Turpin assessed everything.
    2) Penalty to Chelsea is for sure supportable, but personally, as I already wrote, I don't like this kind of situations, when the penalty is origined only by attacker, without clear faults for keeper. From the pitch you tend to whistle, that's true, so no big faults for Frappart, however again VAR confirmed. I'm wondering whether it will be the same (without a deeper analysis) in next games.
    3) Decisive penalty was saved in irregular way. This is another hint that VAR was instructed differently yesterday. it was the very decisive goal and an intervention would have "spoiled" the VAR absence all game long until that time. Sorry, I can't think differently.

    Excellent performance by both assistant referees, here nothing to say. I think that VAR (with so many officials yesterday) was there only to check irregular goals, this didn't happen.

    Frappart: one can't say this was a bad / poor performance, for sure, because we saw many worse performance by other referees. She was not excellent in my opinion, but a bit below expected level, she could have managed better some situations, starting from foul detection, however in the overall context there weren't troubles. I think that UEFA made everything to "help her" and this was indeed good but I need also to understand whether this was only for Super Cup...

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think that the simple fact that we are debating about the situations proves that Frappart’s decisions (5’ and 99’) were at least supportable and Turpin was therefore right not to intervene.

    However he can be blamed about the final penalty, but I find weird that nobody in the VOR saw it. Maybe special instructions from UEFA....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debate here on this blog means nothing in relation to assessing whether VAR should intervene or not. Following that logic a VAR is never expected to intervene as there is debate on almost every single important decision.
      Regarding the non-intervention in the final penalty, Turpin during the WWC already showed to easily ignore or to just miss clear GK offences.

      Delete
  48. Regarding last penalty, i think that i saw on twitter that Var intervention for those kinds of situations is only intended for penalties during the game, not for shootouts

    ReplyDelete
  49. Now even non-referees have noticed the last penalty:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/9726471/chelsea-super-cup-liverpool-adrian/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunfootballfacebook150819&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0AqdAMkYgdaBj11RqSBr_5TMduu2pyU9NZqBOTt6e6ZzUwfwLE8EbACAI#Echobox=1565860803

    ReplyDelete