Saturday 8 August 2020

In Focus: Felix Zwayer's performance in Juventus - Lyon

A closer look at one of the most interesting games since the resumption of the UEFA Club Competition: Juventus Torino - Olympique Lyonnais, handled by Felix Zwayer [VAR: Christian Dingert].




There is only one place to start, and that is the two penalties awarded in the first half.


Key Match Incidents


10' - Penalty to Lyon (tripping)





Analysis:


The decision that decided the tie was correct in our opinion.

Lyon no.8 wins the position and is carelessly tripped by Juventus no.33 who jolts his opponent's left leg into his right, causing him to fall. While not the most obvious in real time, in our view the foul is clear on a theoretical level. Some further remarks:

- The paradigm of soft fouls and indeed clear and obvious mistakes comes a-cropper in situations like this. I strongly disagree with any evaluation which calls penalties like that soft - they are clear fouls, when the attacker does nothing wrong and is felled by careless play from the defender. I would encourage readers to try and run having been clipped like that, you will find yourself on the ground! Fouls like this are problematic for Video Assistant Refereeing too - clear on a theoretical level, not to the naked (especially untrained) eye.

- On some level the decision must have been partly an educated guess for Felix Zwayer. He has a zero angle when the contact is made (09:37) and he cannot really assess with certainty what has happened. However, Zwayer reads what is likely to have happened quite well, and when he detects the natural fall of the attacker who was tripped, having run left a bit too, he awards a penalty. Good.

- It is impossible to assess whether the duel at 09:30 was fair: Zwayer should be backed.

- Zwayer could have avoided a lot of the trouble he now faces in the media by the way he sold the penalty. The expected decision of the players and the watching world was clearly play on from the clean tackle that followed, so Zwayer's whistle tone that said "it's a penalty" was not really adequate. He needed to communicate with his whistle that "actually, THAT IS A PENALTY!". Though he did point to Juventus no.33, he ought to have made it so clear to the watching world that he was not penalising the clean tackle that followed, that any television director couldn't ignore it. There is a time for referees to jump into the focus on a self-preservation level, and this was one instance of it. Instead, everyone (including some readers here) thought at least until the halftime break that the penalty was awarded for the clean tackle that followed. By then the damage was done.

-> Correct decision, but with better presentation, Zwayer could have woken up with more stock in the world this morning.


42' - Penalty to Juventus (handling)





Analysis:

This one can be a much short body of writing - the decision to give Juventus a penalty here was clearly (and obviously) incorrect.

Zwayer makes a perception mistake - while it might seem that Lyon no.11 moved his arm towards the ball in order to block the shot, that was not the case. With his arm stuck to his body as much as it was possible to reasonably do so, the ball ricochets off his arm and the force with which the shot was hit then moves the Lyon player's arm out, giving the impression that he intentionally blocked the ball.

A bad mistake for a Champions League knockout match, but sh*t can happen. VAR is a tool that can correct clearly errors like that one, but they chose to support the decision. UEFA and Roberto Rosetti will probably be satisfied by that, but we would ask them to take a step back and consider what the purpose of Video Assistant Refereeing is - perhaps it's too easy to lose sight of the overview and become entrenched in regulations and protocol.

 -> Incorrect decision, VAR should have intervened.



Match


Application of the LotG / Tactical Approach


Felix Zwayer whistled thirty fouls in the game. This can suggest that he tried to find a compromise between whistling too much and allowing a certain amount of physical play. However, his tactical approach and then the application of LotG can't be analysed without talking about his personality and player management.

His foul detection was okay overall.

If we make a deeper analysis of all the cards issued by the German, we can surely point out that most all of them look to be correct. Nevertheless, there are some situations to analyse; perhaps, with more empathy and a different type of communication with the players, some cards would have probably been avoided.

The first YC was issued for kicking the ball away (time wasting), referee in this case was forced to start the bookings. Earlier, in occasion of the penalty whistled, if referee decided to punish the previous infringment, we can accept no card, in the context of a careless action inside the box. A YC was issued in 31' for SPA outside the box. In this case, one can agree with referee, it wasn't a genuine attempt to play ball (holding) so the card is OK. The YC issued in 38' for a foul at the edge of penalty area was absolutely correct and a very clear one, for SPA. In this case, Zwayer didn't hesitate. To follow, a few minutes later, Zwayer booked the player in the wall who had committed the handball. In this case, once whistled and assessed as punishable, the card is mandatory. But, as pointed out above, the penalty call was originally wrong, so one must underline that this resulted in a mistake - incorrect YC. A few minutes before half time we agree with the decision of referee who showed another YC for a clearly reckless tackle.

In second half, after a quite calm first part, Lyon's goalkeeper was booked for time wasting and this was a good decision by Zwayer. then two minutes later there is another situation that is important to underline. Following a protest for a possible penalty (this was a correct decision by Zwayer and VAR, no penalty, no handball, there were two possible fouls) a player from Lyon had a clear reaction against referee with a dissenting gesture. Zwayer booked him, which was very likely reported by AR Thorsten Schiffner, because the player was persistent in his behaviour.  In 87' a YC for reckless use of arms while jumping was fully correct. In 89' during a counterattack by home-team, Zwayer gave a very good advantage after a first very reckless foul by Lyon no.39, and then he stopped the game because another foul, this time by Lyon no.20 had been committed. The German correctly booked the latter player for SPA, but missed a very obvious YC for the previous infringement, among the most significant mistakes of the evening.

Regarding the management of benches, fourth official Tasos Sidirópoulos was very busy especially with home-team coach who was very often much too anxious. He was shown a YC by the referee, but the German-Greek officials team failed to send him off for clearly disrespectful behaviour in added time. This is an important point for improvement.

The management of added time, with a special focus on wasted time, was absolutely a positive note of the performance, as well as the decision to extend it in second half.


Personality / Leadership Style


To build on Chefren's comprehensive analysis of Zwayer's technical performance above, I wanted to speak a bit about his manner on the field of play.

We can all remember matches where referees were visibly not confident enough to take charge of their games and their acceptance and control of the match fell from there, but I don't think Zwayer falls into this category, and he didn't appear to be lacking self-esteem (the fact he avoided really interacting with the players certainly suggested that, but he was not visibly shy, timid etc.). Zwayer's problem is more interesting - he can't command fellowship and respect from the players, because he is caught between being a distant authority and a player's friend on the pitch.

Zwayer isolated himself in this game. His attributes in player management lay in being an empathic leader on the pitch who is able to explain his decisions to the players and being accountable to them. He failed in that respect. He tried to force some authoritative distance between him and the players, often being even so far as a bit disrespectful to them. Zwayer couldn't succeed using that approach, and the players stopped seeing his leadership as a positive one for the match; they didn't appreciate being shouted at rather than talked to, by this referee, who's decisions sometimes surprised them too. That, especially with two penalty decisions the players widely saw as wrong, eroded a lot of acceptance and control from the Zwayer's performance, leaving quite an unsatisfactory impression.


Overall


This performance has mostly resonated (negatively) in the world's media for two apparently wrong penalty calls. While the first was an excellent decision, the second was indeed a crucial mistake - VAR Christian Dingert had to intervene. It will be interesting to know how UEFA themselves view the non-intervention. 

Felix Zwayer needs to improve by taking charge of his matches - whether it by deficiencies in his leadership style, decision-making or even psychologically losing the overview, the most challenging games slip out of his grasp; he needs to refine his tactical approach in order to prevent that from happening. As Chefren said, all of the sanctions issued were credible, but I did not see them as part of an overall game-plan for what he would encounter in Turin - a very challenging game. 

UEFA should strongly think about whether Felix Zwayer (currently) has the tools in his armoury to deal with the toughest matches at an international level. 

What about your opinion? 
Have your say by voting this poll. 


Your assessment about Zwayer performance in Juventus - Lyon?

Excellent performance.
Very good performance. Important decisions correctly taken.
Good, expected level.
Satisfactory with small areas for improvement.
Satisfactory with important areas or improvement.
One clear and important mistake, otherwise expected level or above.
One clear and important mistake, otherwise satisfactory.
Below expectations, poor control, significant points for improvement.
Disappointing. Below expectation with one and clear important mistake or a performance with two or more clear and important mistakes.
Unacceptable performance.
Created with Poll Maker

38 comments:

  1. Decent and fair analysis Mikael, bravo. Enjoyed while reading, nicely done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you guys for your effort.

      Delete
    2. I want to thank Dr Emu a very powerful spell caster who help me to bring my husband back to me, few month ago i have a serious problem with my husband, to the extend that he left the house, and he started dating another woman and he stayed with the woman, i tried all i can to bring him back, but all my effort was useless until the day my friend came to my house and i told her every thing that had happened between me and my husband, then she told me of a powerful spell caster who help her when she was in the same problem I then contact Dr Emu and told him every thing and he told me not to worry my self again that my husband will come back to me after he has cast a spell on him, i thought it was a joke, after he had finish casting the spell, he told me that he had just finish casting the spell, to my greatest surprise within 48 hours, my husband really came back begging me to forgive him, if you need his help you can contact him with via email: Emutemple@gmail.com or add him up on his whatsapp +2347012841542 is willing to help any body that need his help. 

      Delete
  2. First penalty is correct to assign and VAR did well not to intervene.

    Second penalty is a mistake and the VAR should have intervened because it is a clear and obvious error.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you want to defend a referee this is the perfect way to do it. But, (also) because of this kind of analysis, we are now in this situation, where a referee like Zwayer has such a poor performance.

    It is not the first time when Zwayer makes crucial mistakes. Unfortunately, after every game, after every mistakes, some people defended him (with soft words like Mikael did it now). It's time to stop, it's time to say the real true.

    Honestly, Zwyer whistle at this level only because he is german and has the support of his federation and of Fandel (in UEFA referee committee). Any other referee from a "normal" country would have been punished until now. Imo Zwayer doesn't have the quality to whistle at this level and I said this thing on this blog many times during last 2 years.

    If you forgot some games of Zwayer I will remember you:
    - german cup final 2018
    - WC 2018 games Peru- Denmark, Switzerland- Serbia when he was VAR
    - PSG- Napoli (2018)
    - Atletico- Juventus (2019)
    - Shakhtar- Atalanta (2019)
    - Juventus- Lyon (2020)

    Few things about the 1st penalty because i watched a lot of replays with slow-motion and zoom (at Sky Italia)
    - prior the penalty is a potential foul on Higuain. If you pretend that soft contact between Bernardeschi/Aouar, than you should consider foul on Higuain
    - it was impossible for Zwayer to detect that contact. We needed a lot of replays (with zoom) in order to detect that contact. Imo he whistled a potential penalty, because he couldn't see. And i have a problem with somoeone who whistle a potenial penalty
    - I dont know how guilty is Bernardeschi for that supersoft contact. He really interfere with the run of Aouar ? Or is Aouar the one who try a contact with Bernardeschi ?
    - how many steps made Aouar after that soft contact ?
    - was someone able to see that autofoul of Aouar after the contact with Bernardeschi? I saw it on Sky Italia, with slow-motion and zoom (from opposite angle).
    - (i preety sure that) VAR doesn't have zoom or slow-motion VAR camera. Are you sure that Dingert saw that contact without zoom ?

    Honestly, a penalty, esspecially in an important game like this, should be clear for everyone. In this case we need zoom and slow-motion to find a contact and motivate a penalty. Imo Aouar didn't fall because of that supersoft contact and, as a consequence, the penalty was a mistake.

    P.S I don't talk about 2nd penalty (invented), about the management , cards, time wasting, things like that. It was a disgrace. How it's possible not to show a yellow card for that terrible foul of Bruno Guimaraes in 89th minute ? It was a counterattack of Juventus with 2 consecutive fouls in few seconds. Zwayer gave advantage after the foul of Bruno Guimaraes (only yellow ?), but booked only Marcal (for the 2nd foul). !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I only whistle fouls I see, I would still referee lower league matches 😅

      There is a clear indicator, that it was a foul without the possibility to clearly see the contact. The forward trips himself. That's only possible with a contact, as noone is able to trip himself in full speed.

      And beside this I have to criticize your polemic manner. For sure some FAs are more powerful than others, but as there are no Germans in the UEFA head of refereeing, I don't think your points are valid.

      Delete
    2. I suppose you didn't whistle a penalty kick in a Champions League game based only on your perception ...

      Delete
    3. No referee should just take decisions based on his perception. At least if there are clear indicators like in the first case

      Delete
  4. Even if I struggle to see something that would make me accept the first penalty, I still can't find it...Both penalties are incorrect for me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A poll about Zwayer performance has been added in the post, you can vote it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Too many mistakes for a so important match. Absolutely a bad match for Zwayer

    ReplyDelete
  7. Penalty for Lyon? There was a correct tackle!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now CL as well as EL round of 16 matches are played we can make a balance.
    Which referees belong to top 3 and which have made the worst impression?
    Who goes to Portugal and who goes to Germany?
    What are your opinions?

    CL:
    Zwayer (JUV-LYO)
    Brych (MCI-RMA)
    Cakir (BAR-NAP)
    Hategan (BMU-CHE)

    EL:
    Kruzliak (SHA-WOL)
    Orsato (COP-IST)
    Sidiropoulos (MUN-LASK)
    Taylor (INT-GET)
    Makkelie (LEV-RAN)
    Marciniak (WOL-OLY)
    Mateu Lahoz (BAS-FRA)
    Kuipers (SEV-ROM)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Predictions:
    Donetsk - Basel: Oliver (Kavanagh)
    Wolves - Sevilla: Brych (Dankert)

    Atalanta - Paris: Skomina (Attwell)
    Leipzig - Atletico: Kuipers (van Boekel)
    Barcelona - Bayern: Makkelie (Kamphuis)
    ManCity - Lyon: Hategan (Irrati)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO ref of Barcelona-Bayern will be most exciting appointment. I am quite sure that it will be someone of the Netherlands, but who? Experienced and high respected Kuipers or rising star Makkelie who has a great international season. Appointment could be a sign who of the two is higher rated by UEFA at the moment.

      Besides, let me express one wish: If there will be the semi Paris-Atletico, ref MUST be Brych. This would be two "ugly" teams (harsh style of Atletico with time-wasting, a lot of fouls and discussions against unsportive style of PSG with diving like Neymar, discussions and provocations). This really fits to Brych who will definitively not allow this style of play and will strictly fight against .

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree.
      However Brych might be not possible, if Bayern is in the other semifinal - although we don't know, how UEFA will handle this.

      Delete
  10. I think that referees who just did the UCL R16 matches will be assigned UEL QF and referees who did UEL R16 this week (Orsato, Kuipers, Makkelie, Marciniak) will be appointed to UCL QF.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Turpin and Del Cerro got the first two UEL QF, but it is definitely possible that Orsato, Marciniak and the two Dutch refs will get the UCL QF.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You say: Lyon n.8 carelessly tripped by Juventus n. 33. There is a contact, not enough to cause a fall. Not every contact in the box is a penalty. Lyon n. 8 falls after a few steps but especially after the tackle from Betancour. The latter is the cause of the fall. Moreover, very obvious foul on Higuain at 9:30 not awarded. 2 big mistakes, definitely decision of first penalty INCORRECT.
    Penalty no. 2 non-existent, arm along the body.
    To UEFA: No more referees like this one please.
    To the readers: would you like your team to be refereed by this referee? Answer yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "not every contact in the box is a penalty" - I addressed this point in the post. Challenges like that do NOT fit into the normal paradigm of "soft" / "clear" penalties, it seems most (non-refereeing) people don't understand that.

      Try running yourself with a contact that knocks your left leg onto your right, you will find it very hard!

      Delete
    2. Mikael, the question is if the contact was enough to cause the fall. Lyon no.8 keeps standing on his feet for a few steps forward. The fall happens only after the tackle.
      Do you mind sending me the link where “left leg is knocked onto right leg”, sorry I have not seen the footage of that. I have only seen a very light touch of Juve n.33 on Lyon n.8, then I saw the latter running on into the box.
      You say nothing about the foul on Higuain at 9:30. Do you think he let himself fall down to the ground? That only is enough to invalidate the following action. This is a clear-cut and neat foul, please see the knock on Higuain from behind, where the fall is determined by a push.
      Finally Mikael, you may be a referee, I am just a passionate football watcher trying to understand the rules of football. You say non-referees don’t understand the 1st penalty: if you want I send you plenty of links where professional referees judge the 2 penalties awarded by Zwayer as “ridiculous” or “surreal”; are they also not understanding the rules of football?

      Delete
    3. Not need to again emphasize what you already addressed in your post Mikael. It’s just your opinion on which strix disagrees.
      Stating ‘that most (non-referee) people don’t seem to understand that’ even leans a bit to arrogance. Should your opinion be valued higher than anyone else’s?
      Apart from that, when the entire world of football doesn’t understand or disagrees on a specific decision, the ‘refereeing people’ can show their LotG book and impose their opinion on other people, or they can ask themselves if ‘refereeing people’ are still the only ones in the world of football to understand that particular decision.

      Delete
    4. @strix

      Watch in 1/4 speed from 0:29 in the streamable clip.

      To respond to Anonymous - one has to decide if they view football refereeing either as: politics-esque, where the voters (ie. wisdom of the crowd) is/are always right; or science/academia, where one argues with axioms/postulates and tries to reach the most objectively correct solution. I don't think there is a right answer! :)

      Delete
    5. @Mikael
      I’m somehow relieved to read that last sentence, because there I happily agree.

      Regarding both ways of viewing football refereeing I wouldn’t have put it this black and white and opposed to each other. I even think that ‘applying’ the one way cannot be successful without ‘applying’ the other. In my book both ways can, and should be, applied together to come to the best possible results.

      Delete
    6. @Strix: who are those professional referees that made those comments? Can you post those "plenty of links"?

      Delete
    7. @Mikael
      from the clip I can see there is contact on Lyon n.8 from Juve n.33, not convinced it’s enough to cause a fall and determine a penalty. So disagreement on this. However you make no mention how can it be that the play continues after the foul at 9:30 on Higuain. This invalidates the subsequent action. Is there any doubt on this?
      @Anonymous: see
      https://www.sportmediaset.mediaset.it/calcio/juventus/juventus-lione-la-moviola-sbagliato-concedere-entrambi-i-rigori_21647094-202002a.shtml

      https://www.calcionews24.com/rigore-juve-lione-lex-arbitro-marelli-commenta-surreale/

      https://m.tuttomercatoweb.com/serie-a/tmw-radio-bergonzi-su-juve-lione-primo-rigore-ridicolo-nel-secondo-depay-cosa-doveva-fare-1417827

      These are all ex-professional referees not linked to Juventus. You don’t understand Italian? Help yourself with an automatic translator: they all say neither of the 2 penalties was to be awarded, so no pro-Juve bias.
      Moreover, very poor VAR team, not only the referees on the pitch. How on earth could they not tell Herr Zwayer the 2nd penalty was not correct?
      One logical explanation: compensation for mistake in 1st penalty. Pity is that goals away count double, so compensation totally irrelevant.
      I’m afraid Zwayer’s campaign for this year is over - and I hope for longer (also for VAR refs). Better he repeats by heart FIFA cookbook of football rules first.

      Delete
  14. Very poor and shocking performance from Felix Zwayer. He obviously gave Juventus a non-existent penalty to make up for the first also soft penalty awarded to Lyon. His refusal to make use of VAR or pitch side monitor says alot about his arrogance. I am sure his campaign is very much over.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cognisant of the controversy about the first penalty, I would be interested to see how everyone assesses this incident.

    https://streamable.com/k61x96

    (Real Zaragoza - Huesca, decisive derby game for promotion; Huesca scored seconds after the incident and ultimately finished second and went up, Zaragoza will contest the playoffs)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This incident cannot be compared to the Juve-Lyon incident. Here the defender makes an active movement with his leg towards the opponent, trying to play the ball. He’s late and trips his opponent, so for me this is a foul.
      In the Juve-Lyon incident JUV33 just walks behind the attacker without making any action. The contact (if proven, didn’t see convincing evidence) is nothing less than coincidental. Whistling that coincidental contact can be whistled, but can also be allowed, nothing black and white as far as I’m concerned.

      Delete
    2. I agree with both your view on the comparison and the incident. Is not giving a foul a clear and obvious mistake, I wonder?

      Well in my 'vision' of refereeing, Juventus no.33 takes the risk by running so close to the attacker that he could (and does (IMO)) trip him - bad luck for the Juventus player, penalty.

      You could also argue that it is just unfortunate for the attacker as he tripped by a defender who as you say makes no movement for the ball: bad luck for the Lyon player, play on (I wouldn't but).

      I could happily accept either, I just hope there are clear theoretical guidelines on how to assess incidents like that from UEFA and other confederations.

      Delete
  16. In your article I see a genuine interest in proposing an explanation for why some of the recent games of Mr. Zwayer went out of control, as you name it, or did not go as they should, as I would name it. I can't even say I disagree, although I believe some points remain pretty much on the surface. What gives me a light shiver is your choice of words, to be frank. It's very personal, it focuses on one human individual in the headline and even proposes UEFA to drop him. Not that they would listen to you, but I wonder what the mission of this website is. Education? Entertainment? Public pillories? Why don't you make a voting on the two penalties or the holding in Cakir's game, but prefer to make an assessment of the performance of an Elite referee in a difficult momentum instead? It makes the impression you focus on assessing people, not refereeing incidents. That's fair and not forbidden, but it should be said.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree - the first penalty was correct (a great spot by Zwayer; a situation in which a serious mishap of VAR recommending a review (because he misses the 1st incident and thinks the penalty is for the clear tackle) could have happened, but was avoided due to good communication / good work by VAR; the 2nd was incorrect, and VAR should have definitely intervened because it was a clear and obvious error.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for the insightful analysis. Could we have a simlar analysis for the other CL games, espcially the Barca vs Napoli game?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It was a very disappointing performance, even if the first penalty could be right, the performance was very poor!!! Very bad body language, very bad sell of decisions! Not a referee for a CL knock out phase!!!

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!