Friday, 11 June 2021

UEFA EURO 2020 Match 1: Turkey - Italy (discussion)

EURO 2020 kick off is very close: let's discuss here the performance of Danny Makkelie in the opening game between Turkey and Italy. 


Group A
Rome, 11 June 2021 21:00 CET
TURKEY - ITALY
Referee: Danny Makkelie (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: Hessel Steegstra (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: Jan de Vries (NED)
Fourth Official: Stéphanie Frappart (FRA)
Fifth Official: Mikael Berchebru (FRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Kevin Blom (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Pol van Boekel (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Christian Gittelmann (GER)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Bastian Dankert (GER)
UEFA Referee Observer: Lutz-​Michael Fröhlich (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Angelo Chetcuti (MLT)

186 comments:

  1. Good luck to Danny Makkelie and his team tonight ! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good luck,to the next biggest name in European Refereeing! I think he will whistle for sure a World cup final or a Euro final but not this year!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. 6' missed RC for SFP to Turkey player?


    Just anticipating :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine VAR intervention after 6 minutes in the tournament!
      Shocking!

      Delete
  4. OT: Our main focus will be on the EURO, but a decided page for Copa América discussions is open:

    http://law5-theref.blogspot.com/2021/06/copa-america-2021-discussion-page.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Blue kit for Makkelie - rather unexpected in an Italy game...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Easy first ten minutes for Makkelie. If I did not miss anything, not a single foul to be whistled so far.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The atmosphere of a real and very important game with fans at stadium. Fantastic scenes. After a very long time, we can be definitely happy with football today. That's a new start.
    Good luck to Makkelie for the game, everythig OK so far after 15 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. IMO correct play on by Makkelie after Italian penalty appeal (handball).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Makkelie correctly waved away two penalty appeals by Italy. No touch with the arm in 17' and no punishable handball in 21', arm was close to the body.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You have probably noticed the aggressive reaction by Italian players after the alleged handball in 21', this is because in Italy there has been a chaos about handballs and the last season all were whistled.
    Correct decision by Makkelie, not a punishable handball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question is, whether this "aggressive reaction" needed a Yellow Card.
      I would not have expected it, but if there is a stricter approach against such behaviour in the tournament, it might have been a good chance to show it.

      Delete
    2. Extremely borderline, I think that in case of game stopped for other reasons, and the player insisting, Makkelie would have booked him, but I agree that this should have been avoided, very stupid action. I hope that players can behave in a different manner.
      A few ago, another shout for penalty by Italy, I agree with Makkelie, play on.

      Delete
  11. Again correct Play-on IMO.
    Not enough for a penalty

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting now - Makkelie hit by ball, played advantage becuase Italy had remained in possession of the ball. It is the first time I see that, most of the times, referee don't realize that they can allow the play to continue, they stop always the game. Makkelie was mentally ready.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I liked that too.
      I am not sure, whether the advantage gesture is technically correct, but it makes a lot of sense.

      Delete
  13. 44' Possible missed YC (simulation) for Burak Yilmaz?

    So far good performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me, this is not a clear simulation and no need to give YC

      Delete
  14. 44' penalty appeal by Turkey, live it looked more simulation than foul, soft contact, correct decision by Makkelie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO this is hard to say as a simulation or a foul, just a normal physical contact, correct play on.

      Delete
  15. Interesting advantage gesture by Makkelie after being hit by the ball which came back to the same team -
    Not a procedure I remember being done by another referee-
    This being said, maybe this situation could be seen as a promising attack, in this case Makkelie could have stopped the game as well, but I think play on is wise there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. IMO missed PK for handball, maybe new LOTG assessment ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If this is what the new LOTG want, we can quit football. Clear penalty

      Delete
    2. I didn't read the new rule, but IMO according to 2020-2021 LOTG this should be a PK.

      Delete
    3. Also according to common sense ;)

      Delete
  17. How on Earth is this not PK for Italy in 45'?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 45' and now the have definitely the most significant incident of first half, possible penalty but absolutely OK decision by VAR to support.
    The arm can be still considered in an expected position following the run by defender. I repeat myself, for Italian fans this is almost impossible to accept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For objective football fans it is also impossible to accept

      Delete
    2. that's a penalty every day of the week and twice on Sundays...

      Delete
    3. If we accept this, there will be 2 penalties in the whole tournament. Stretched toward the ball is not natural

      Delete
    4. I agree with you Chefren.

      Delete
    5. Not only for Italians. This season in every domestic league this would have been a penalty. I did not like the amount of penalties given, but the first match with the altered LOTG in such a spotlight... understandable confusion

      Delete
  19. And now for sure potential pk for handball. Very interesting, it seems that Rosetti wants minimal interventions in this championship.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Again situation with hand, IMO 50/50 decision

    ReplyDelete
  21. I wanted to write "nothing to talk about" concerning the first half, but the last penalty appeal in 45' is at least debatable... Arm in natural movement? I am not sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides, Makkelie correctly waved away three other penalty appeals. Indeed, the incidents were quite clear. He wanted to be and could be in the background. If I had to mention something, it would be his positioning. Not only because he was hit by the ball but because there were two or three more interferences with players.

      However, depending on the result, the incident in 45' could cause debates.

      Delete
  22. It should have been a penalty for Italy in min.44, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Missed PK IMO, the hand was in quite unnatural position

    ReplyDelete
  24. For me this was a clear penalty.
    The arm was stretched clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ball to me appears to brush off the players knee first. No penalty

    ReplyDelete
  26. IMO, this is a good example for the new LotG. Increasing the body surface is accepted, if it's part of the natural movement, i.e. no explicit movement to stop the ball.
    Therefore I think, playing on is exactly right here - but surely something to discuss and to observe, whether it will be assessed the same during the tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, completely agree with you!

      Delete
    2. I agree with you and Chefren, but I think it is super important for other referees to keep it consistent when the similar situation happens again. No penalty is correct in this case.

      Delete
    3. Correct - IMO the new 21-22 LOTG mandate no PK here.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you. Mainly because the defender tries to block the cross with one of his legs, in those situations the arm naturally sticks out more.

      Delete
  27. With new guidelines rather play on than penalty but with „old“ rules I think it would have been a penalty. Hopefully this standard is kept consistent throughout the tournament.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Makkelie in good position to judge the possible handball, the defender with a rather natural movement, so at least no reason for intervention by VAR.
    IMO a supportable decision.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I quite like the no PK call. However I think in case of a PK given VAR wouldnt have intervened. For me the hand is still in natural movement. 50-50 decision.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Apart from the discussions (that is a penalty), I’d like to understand why UEFA insists in introducing new laws at the end of the season.m

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am more on to Penalty on this position but to say that hand is in unnatural position, i disagree with that. Hand is in natural position but blocking the ball...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I deemed it a correct no-penalty - or at least acceptable decision. Arm in a natural position given the player’s action (running), ball from a short distance.

    That being said, I’m getting concerned about Italy’s dissent and swarming the referee. I hope to see a card if it continues.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, I fear we are going to see such "natural movements" when blocking passes and shots many times. It's a very risky trend and the ones who can anticipate things won't be so happy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. https://twitter.com/K_Rogolski/status/1403439906546933769

    ReplyDelete
  35. Guys guys guys... natural movement if this was happened on the line? No red card and DOGSO?

    ReplyDelete
  36. For me is 50/50 handball and supportable decision

    ReplyDelete
  37. Look carefully at the replay! It's not natural movement. The hand becomes tensed and the move have been extended in order to block the pass. Penalty to be whistled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked at it again and it looks to me like his right arm has the same movement on his last 2 strides (the only ones visible on the clip).

      Delete
  38. If I have to interpret the laws, I would say that it makes perfect sense if the ball comes unexpected, from behind or changing direction. But in the situation where the ball is perfectly predictable, it is very risky to implement, because it calls for consistency that I am afraid referees outside top 5-8 will be able to maintain

    ReplyDelete
  39. New LoTG sais that there must be clear movement of the hand towards the ball. Let's be honest, there is no clear movement of that hand towards the ball and despite that hand was far from the body, that was not a penalty according to new LoTG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

      Delete
    2. So, the deliberate is not the only possible situation.

      Delete
    3. Referees must judge the ‘validity’ of the hand/arm’s position in relation to what the player is doing in that particular situation.

      At the end referee is one who decides if handball should be penalise in those situation. Makkelie in live action decided for no penalty so did Blom after video replay. I guess they got instruction not to whistle handballs like this.

      Delete
  40. What the hell did they whistle?!? Offside on corner?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never seen it before. But I've never seen a player standing behind the line getting a ball by a teammate in front of him

      Delete
    2. Sebastiaan Sterel12 June 2021 at 02:53

      Yeah, brain fart - that AR called 2 more offsides (after initial attack threat was over) which were too close to call (so flag should be down correct?) and 1 of which was defo wrong.
      Hope it doesn't affect their future appointments! - But with a lot of competition I suspect it will

      Delete
    3. Very poor decision at this level (the "offside" corner) followed by the 2 marginal but incorrect offsides awarded by the same AR later. This would normally result in no further matches in the tournament and by being sent home early - but I see they have another game in matchday 2! Politics!

      Delete
  41. Did they really give offside from a corner?

    ReplyDelete
  42. You can't be offside from a corner I'm sure...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Lutz Wagner, DFB referee instructor and one of the referee experts in Germany for this year's EURO, said it was a natural movement in his view and therefore "no penalty" was correct.
    I understand the arguments, however, this incident shows why I have never been convinced by the new handball rule. With the old rule, we would have said "clear penalty". Now, there is too much room for interpretation. One can discuss whether it was a natural movement or not. This is not good for consistency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One can discuss about the new rule, but I'm pretty sure that the decision will be praised by comitee. I agree with Lutz Wagner's assessment.

      Delete
  44. I can not believe what I just saw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This offsite call after the corner kick was completely wrong.

      Delete
    2. That is what I think

      Delete
  45. Not an unnatural position and the hand is not moving towards the ball so, considering time and distance from the play it shouldn’t be a penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Please tell me that I saw it wrong!!! Offside from corner?

    ReplyDelete
  47. If it was from normal play he'd be considered on the goaline which I believe was offside.
    However goalkicks, corners, throws can't be offsides. It seems an extraordinary error

    ReplyDelete
  48. Offside : https://twitter.com/xFish_/status/1403443780183863302

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

    ReplyDelete
  50. Indeed incredible. And probably barely anyone is going to notice it. German TV even made fun of the Italians for making such a stupid mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I am really surprised. Even if the attacker is in an "offside position" in the proper sense, the LotG are clear that there cannot be a punishable offside if the ball comes directly from a corner kick. This is a big technical mistake, not only for AR1 but also for Makkelie who was not concentrated. He had to overrule AR1.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Could it have been a caution for leaving/entering the field of play without proper authorization instead?
    Clearly the offside is incorrect, but letting corners with players standing outside the field makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That isn’t leaving the field of play, it’s not like he’s going to the technical area or something, it’s a corner 😂

      Delete
    2. That's possible but unlikely imo. ARs signal looked like an offside and outside fop offences are rarely called

      Delete
    3. No, otherwise the player should have received a YC. Also, AR1 signaled "offside".

      Delete
    4. The AR, on the most recent corner, told the second Italian player at the corner flag to stand on the line or the FOP...

      So it appears that the decision was "you have to be on the FOP to be eligible to play that ball".

      Or something.

      Delete
    5. Physically the player was beyond the line of the ball so the offside existed in substance, but not in theory.

      Delete
    6. If its a throw in, for sure its not ok if the player is outside of the field and then receives the ball

      Delete
    7. Yes but if that's the case, the player entered the field of play without permission and should have also received a caution.

      Delete
    8. @Larry
      I agree, it was a mistake, but maybe much more subtle than it seemed at first. It is very rare situation, I could even understand the mistake, if the communication was really about being outside the FOP

      Delete
    9. I have a feeling it had to do more with the fact that there was a player off the FOP than about a potential offside decision as well.

      I hope this doesn't affect Makkelie and his crew too much - I much like his style and this would be a shame.

      Delete
  53. That corner offside was actually very huge mistake for EURO level assistant referee.

    ReplyDelete
  54. How do you think, would this mistake by first AR with offside be a ticket home from Euro for this Dutch team or it's forgivable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me there was handball in 45th min, but offside from corner is bigger mistake x3

      Delete
    2. I guess the media wont give much attention to this mistake, so I can still see Makkelie getting a KO match.

      Delete
    3. Makkelie fired Diks for an excusable mistake, now he should remove Steegstra following this shocker! Can be the end of tournament.

      Delete
    4. Depends. On the one hand side it's not going to be an issue for fans or the media, because barely anyone knows this rule and it had no effect on the match so far.

      One the other side, not knowing one of the most common LOTG that every amateur ref on the pitch every sunday has to follow, is a shame on that level of refereeing.

      Delete
    5. Maybe has Steegstra difficulty concentrating.

      Delete
    6. If you guys think calling offside on a corner kick--where there is no provable consequence and no critical match error--is a ticket home... I don't know what to tell you.

      It's a bad LOTG technical mistake. But if one AR can make it at this level, I guarantee you a bunch of others could have, too! The dirty little secret for a lot of elite international referees and assistants is that they develop some LOTG deficiencies over time. The best of the best concentrate on practical officating and can lose some of their technical knowledge or it can be confused at times.

      I want to be clear. It's still an "unacceptable" mistake at this level.

      But it will be used as a reminder for this trio and ALL officials there to not forget the basics. It's a teachable moment at the start of the tournament on an incident that no obvious consequences for the match.

      Send one of your best trios home on that? C'mon. People need to get serious.

      Delete
    7. Well said, usaref.

      Also I'm really not so sure that was a technical, so much as perception mistake.

      Delete
    8. I think we should alter the terminology in cases like this. It is not a "technical" error, it is rather a "constitutional" issue. It is just like a case where areferee allows the player who took a penalty-kick to drive the ball into the net after it rebounded from the cross-bar without any intervention from the opposite side's goalie. When a such goal is allowed, there is room for a demand to cancel the final result and have the game replayed. Thus, if the ref and ar1 detected an offside position and not some other infringement, there is no excuse whatsoever, especially when their performance in this particular encounter should have been the show-piece of excellence in European football refereeing.

      Delete
    9. @Unknown... it's just like that case, except that it's completely and totally different.

      If a goal gets scored off a technical (or "constitutional" error), then yes, it's a disaster. It's a critical match incident. It's grounds for a protest and a replay. It's a utter and total travesty. And a trio would be sent home.

      Guess what? Nothing happened here. The defending team got an IFK instead of the attacking team having possession on the wing. You're making technical connections. From a practical standpoint, this is no different than a foul being called in the wrong direction. Do crews get sent home for getting one foul call wrong?

      It's so easy to chastise here on a keyboard from behind a computer screen. In the real world, crews that earned the honor of getting the opening match of the second biggest tournament in the world don't get sent home because they gave a wrong IFK.

      I fear that people who are so stringent will never understand this. I am NOT saying the mistake is acceptable. It isn't. It will be noted. It will be a teaching tool. And you can rest assured more than a few officials at this tournament are probably re-reading the entire LOTG tonight, just to be sure they haven't forgotten anything. If this can happen to Steegstra, then it can happen to anyone.

      But for people calling this "unforgivable," they need to get a grip. This is the definition of a "forgivable" mistake. No harm was done. The aggrieved team did not lose out on anything that we can be sure of and that team won 3-0. It's a blip on the radar. It's nothing. No one will be talking about it in 24 hours.

      Delete
    10. Sorry, but you didn't grasp the enormity of the situation. All on this site praised Uefa for handing the showcase game to this trio and predicted they would be a model for others. Well, they just skewed it. It is not the case of teenagers whistling through their first match in the park...

      Delete
    11. Sorry, but the only one seeing the enormity of this situation is you apparently. Or were newspapers in your hallucinogenic world headlining on this situation? It’s a mistake, nothing more nothing less (about which hardly anybody in the normal football community cares actually).

      Delete
    12. It's an unacceptable error at this level and, depending on the nationality of the match officials and the politics in UEFA at the time, would result in some match officials being sent home. You can't get the LOTG wrong at this level! However, the media didn't seem to even notice/realise the error, and the teams didn't seem to make much of it either. Perhaps the UEFA Observer was also sleeping?

      Delete
  55. What’s that little device attached to back of the refs short, next to his vanishing spray?

    ReplyDelete
  56. https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1403448295922536452

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing. But isn't he behind the ball?

      Delete
    2. According to Dale Johnson : Offside decision from Italy is correct by AR1 Steegstra.

      Delete
    3. Important to consider the position of the GK as well here, I think it is a correct decision. It also explains why the flag signal of Steegstra came relatively late; it wasn't for the first pass of the corner, but the second.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymmus : Look you at the position of the Turkish Goalkeeper.

      Delete
    5. I’m sorry, where’s the pass? There is no pass back to No. 10
      And, as anonymous says, if you’re behind the ball you’re not offside. This is not it.

      Delete
    6. The goalkeeper's position is irrelevant in this situation as the offside is considered by the line of the ball in this case

      Delete
    7. The player is behind the ball, this can't be offside.

      Delete
    8. That's what I'm talking about. Fully agree with you, Nathan

      Delete
    9. The player is in line with the ball at the moment of the touch of the ball, so not in offside position.

      Even if he was, he never receives the ball or interferes with either play or an opponent, so no offside offence.

      Unless there is something we're not seeing, this is an incorrect decision.

      Delete
    10. What are you saying there? The player who kicked corner didn't get ball again! Watch the video. It is clear mistake!

      Delete
    11. Dale Johnson takes back : https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1403451213937623050

      Delete
    12. Rightly so. It is a very very bad decision.

      Delete
    13. Sorry but who's the hell is this Dale Johnson? An incompetent.

      Delete
    14. @Anonym : I think he is a reporter for ESPN.

      My opinion is no offside after corner kick. Clear big mistake by AR1 Steegstra.

      Delete
  57. Spot on offside decision. The second pass made the offside situation active, not the cornerkick...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see only one pass in this situation

      Delete
    2. I dont get it... what second pass?

      Delete
  58. Offside from corner kick was like a joke... How could it be possible at this level???

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wrong offside flag in 78' by AR1. Clearly no offside. But I am relieved that we found an explanation for the "offside after corner" decision. As the no penalty decision in first half by Makkelie was supportable, we can speak of a pleasant performance by the Dutch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it seems like we don't have an explanation anymore... To be analyzed. We should wait and then talk about potential consequences.

      Delete
    2. There is no explanation, it’s the wrong decision

      Delete
  60. Definitely not a good second half by Steegstra who made some evident mistakes including a phantom offside call some minutes ago.
    However, given the score, the most discussed incident in first half will be easily forgotten, Italy won this game by deserving it in second half.
    It was a very challenging match for Makkelie rather in terms of crucial incidents than disciplinary control, indeed we are only disussing about possible penalties. I agreed with all his decisions in first half, 45' can be supportable but penalty for most of the people. The real point for improvement for Makkelie is to be more attentive regarding the offside calls, when it is clear that it comes from corner kick, it is not punishable. However, I would also dare to say that he couldn't be 100% sure about the real player punished, more communication with Steegstra was probably needed.
    It would be interesting to know how committee will assess this performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont acutally think that penalty situation from 45th minute will be easily forgoten. Because if Committee will say that it was not a penalt, then this should/wont be a penalty on remaining 50 matches. And this could be very iritating for players, coaches, public, because we would all expect situations like that to be whistled.

      Delete
  61. Would like to ask if Rappalini performances would be best in championship can he be final referee?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only if Gil Manzano gets Copa America final...
      Seems very unlikely to me, because it could be interpreted as "UEFA doesn't have a referee, who is good enough"

      Delete
  62. Very hard to analyze this game. Makkelie himself hasn't had that bad of a game (I can support the play on call on handball situation), but he still is the leader of the team and therefore has some sort of responsibilty for his ARs decisions as well. How do you guys feel? How much blame could Makkelie take for his ARs decisions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The referee can read the offside situation too - he could/should have been quick enough to think it through. So he’s not principally at fault, but he is also at fault. Other than that, very good performance by Makkelie (and the VAR to stay out of the referee’s business), good standard, good confidence, and good decisions.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I agree. Will be interesting to see how the committee handle this

      Delete
  63. I hope, Steegstra's bad day does not significantly influence the further tournament of Makkelie - it would be a sad loss... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Slovak referee11 June 2021 at 22:56

    Turkey - Italy

    Makkelie - Steegstra, Vries (Blom)

    17' Good PK no-call, no contact with the hand
    21' Another good PK no-call on the handball shout
    23' An easy off-side call for Vries
    26' A good off-side call by Steegstra
    29' Not much in the penalty area, especially in the Euro match
    31' Another good off-side call by Steegstra
    44' A very naive fall in the penalty area
    45' A difficult situation - I would have personally called it, the hand was far from the body, but due to the very quick check, I suppose that is not the PK UEFA wants to see. The proximity was very close and it could be considered a natural position in that situation. The kind of call that would not have been reversed by VAR either way (not clear and obvious enough with neither call on the field)

    A very unchallenging first half for a strong contender for the Final, a very boring one for the rest of us. The only big situation came right at the end but I don't think it was enough to be considered a crucial mistake, especially now with VAR. Sometimes, he was too far from the play, but the 45 minutes did not test him enough for it to be a problem. Makkelie with his traditional back-ground style refereeing UEFA prefers nowadays. Also note that he ended the half 10 seconds before the due 1 minute was up.

    47' A very troubling call by a FIFA AR - a player cannot be off-side from a corner kick, not even talking about the ball going backwards
    49' A missed foul call together with a YC, Makkelie's position was not very good
    50' Vries correctly waved down by Makkelie - the Dutch team making substantial mistakes now
    52' Another foul missed by Makkelie (and Frappart this time) right in front fo the benches, borderline YC
    63' A good off-side call by Steegstra
    75' A good off-side no-call by Vries
    78' A bad off-side call by Steegstra, not a good game for him
    88' A good YC for a reckless elbow
    90' A god YC for a reckless trip

    A below average performance by the Dutch team, despite it being a very easy match to referee. Makkelie with a behind-the-scenes unintrusive style of refereeing which was the right approach for the match, but aside from the (still questionable) PK no-call, there were no real highlights for him. His positioning was sometimes unsatisfactory, he seemed a little lazy and that was very visible in 49', where he missed a clear YC for SPA (not even a whistle for a foul). 3 minutes later he missed another hard tackle in front of the benches (borderline YC, no help from Frappart). Makkelie seemed very determined to keep cards in his pocket (even when there were textbook reckless challenges) and that came to some very hard tackles in the later stages of the game and mandatory YC in the last two minutes, but it could have been all avoided by a well placed caution earlier or even a strong warning. I get that he wanted to stay in the background, but Makkelie came out of this looking like he has absolutely no personality at all and a fiercer game would have gotten out of his hands very quickly. He had basically no work, the match was pretty straightforward, but I think some eyebrows have been raised over this performance at UEFA.

    The ARs did not shine either and while Steegstra had some good off-side calls, he is also responsible for an unforgivable mistake at this level - offside from a corner kick that seems laughable. A judgement call is one thing (also missed one offside call by a lot when we are at that), but not knowing the Laws is just disgraceful.

    Vries had a better night with a couple of good off-side calls, but also made quite a childish mistake by raising his flag too early.

    Blom had no work at the screen despite the forementioned PK no-call.


    R: 8.1
    AR1: 8.0
    AR2: 8.2
    VAR: 8.3

    ReplyDelete
  65. Overall, I think it is a satisfying performance by Makkelie. All play-on decisions in the first half are supportable and the only obvious mistake (offside after corner) is not that relevant/significant (but still very wrong by AR1), so I don't expect that committee will make a big deal out of it. I agree with Chefren that Makkelie could take on a more attentive approach with regards to offside calls, but having trust in the AR you've worked with so often is understandable as well.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please be polite, otherwise your comments will be deleted.
      No insults and bad words.

      Delete
    2. If you can't comment in a respectful manner, you might as well not comment at all. No need for such language.

      Delete
  67. I fully agree with you. Hard to evaluate today's performance. Concerning the key incidents, everything was fine. No penalty decision in 45' was supportable, full match control, good card management. But the offside decision by AR1 leaves a big shadow. Noone will talk about it, so I think there won't be any "hard" punishment. However, we actually speak of a big technical mistake. If you want to punish, there are a lot of arguments to justify that Makkelie is out for more important games. It is a mistake by AR1, who did not convince today (surprisingly mentioned also by German commentator) but we cannot exclude Makkelie there. Either concerning communication with AR1 or lack of concentration and technical mistake by himself.

    Despite that, UEFA will be satisfied because referees are not in the focus.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So, if I make the highlist:
    Two 3 corectly not penalty calls (2 Ita, 1 Tur)
    1 penalty missed ( Ita, min. 44 )
    1 absolute confusing whistle ( Corner-Offside, really?) Big error but not decisive.
    Good disciplinary sanctions.
    Some minor faults not whistled.
    Not bad - not good performance in my opinion. I don't think the game was too challenging or tensionate either. But he kept it under control.
    PS: This is how I understood the game. It is possible that some of you to judge the moments different but that was my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good resume. My thoughts too.

      Delete
  69. My marks
    R: 7,8 (8,2)
    AR1: 8.0
    AR2: 8.2
    4th: 8.3
    VAR: 7.9 (8.3)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mine (also according to this system - https://mikaelreferee.blogspot.com/p/evaluation-scale.html):

      8,3 - 8,1 - 8,4 | (7 - 6 - 7)
      [VAR: III]

      Delete
  70. Cakir was really below par at the last EC (2016) too and still got Spain Italy in the 1/8finals. So I wont exclude Makkelie at all after this performance with a real big technical mistake by AR1 which however wont be in media focus IMO

    ReplyDelete
  71. NO intervention by Blom is also another very important point for discussion. If this policy will be kept by all VARs (I'm really curious about Italian VARs) we will have definitely a very few interventions for this kind of foul. Even more less interventions for the rest of fouls, because most of the times even less objective than handballs. In that minute in 45' Blom had in his arms something like the presentation'sticket of the tournament for all the VARs who will have to decide in t he next games.
    On the contrary, in case we will see intervantions for less evident handballs on next games, we could discuss about a possible different assessment by committee.
    I'm pretty sure that, at least VAR assessment, will be marked as correct by Rosetti. Then, you can discuss about the call to make, in case, from the pitch.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Well to be honest I hope the other fifty matches are more exciting than this one, played at a low intensity (maybe Turkey were just really poor on this evening, I don't know).

    I think the committee will appreciate how Makkelie decided in all five of the penalty area scenes in the 1H, without pre-empting the analysis entirely!

    45' was a very important signal for the tournament, funny that it should afflict the nation more than any other used to handling rigour in the box (in their domestic competition)!

    On the whole, Makkelie was good IMO (7), cognisant of some doubts in the goings-on of the match (especially in the 1H).

    I wouldn't crucify Steegstra for 47', sh*t happens. I'd be more worried about his inability to correctly perceive crossover scenes in the 2H, to be honest.

    In general, Rosetti and team will be satisfied with this start to the EURO; the matches will get harder than this, I'm sure!

    ReplyDelete
  73. That s the risk when you put your best refs for the first games of the tourneament. Now you have to send Makkelie back home even if this was at the end a very easy win for Italy and not that difficult match for Makkelie. Let s hope in better performances tomorrow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you have to send Makkelie home why? for a wrong offside?

      Delete
    2. That's a daring thesis, pirri :-)
      I absolutely don't see a reason to assess Makkelie's performance as bad one, especially not as a performance that would justify a return ticket to the Netherlands.
      Quite the contrary: I'm sure, commitee liked Makkelie tonight, who, in my opinion, showed a decent performance at least and assessing all big decisionsnin the penalty area correctly.

      Delete
  74. Steegstra's technical mistake is definitely an important one but I don't think that it can affect Makkelie. After all UEFA has shown in the past that can remove an AR from a refereeing team and replace him with another one (like they did with Kirkup at EURO 2012).

    Overall it is still a good/expected level performance by Makkelie. IMO the scene at 45' is more a penalty than not but definitely not a clear mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Having read the comment thread, I don't really see why the new LotG should justify no penalty at 45'. The new version, which IMO is in practice very marginally different from the previous one, says:

    "It is an offence if a player:
    - deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the
    hand/arm towards the ball
    - touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."

    The last sentence is IMO the most useful to assess this kind of situation. Due to the position the defender takes a risk of being hit by the ball and being penalised.

    Furthermore, among the explanations below the rule IFAB states

    "Referees must judge the ‘validity’ of the hand/arm’s position in relation to what the player is doing in that particular situation."

    The defender's arm was extending the body surface in a situation where a cross towards the middle was to be expected, therefore in a situation where making the body bigger was particularly convenient to the defender for blocking the ball.

    I was personally expecting a penalty and would assess it as the only correct option on this specific circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I accept your view, but actually I think you’re interpreting the Laws in such a way that it suits the decision you prefer to see (or even demand to see).

      "Referees must judge the ‘validity’ of the hand/arm’s position in relation to what the player is doing in that particular situation."

      With the same validity one can say that the player raises his leg to block the cross, which makes the arm go out to keep stability —> natural position in relation to what the player is doing.

      “By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."

      Actually this goes for every position of the arm and out of the body. When checking the live sequence the defender does not actively do very much to bring his arm is that position, so does he really take a relevant risk or is this a mere accident?

      I humbly admit this is not a clear no-penalty situation, but for me a grey area at least.

      Delete
    2. It is quite interesting as i completly agree with everything you wrote beside your result.

      You wrote the new law: As the Turkish just used his arm in a natural way and didn't use it to increase his body surface that should not be a penalty by law. Of course the player had chances to avoid the contact. But the new law tells us that there are more possibilities. The arm was clearly not there to avoid a cross as the arm was not under tension. It was just there as a natural part of his movement.
      Of course one can say that it's still punishable, but still not a decision which only one clear "correct option".

      Delete
    3. Italian defenders managed along the entire match to put their arms behind the back. No discussions.
      If you take a risk with such a stretched arm, then that can’t be deemed as natural

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the comments, but I have a question for you both Anonymous 23:50 and JR: what makes this episode NOT a free kick with the 2021/22 LotG and yet a free kick with the 2020/21 rules?

      "It is an offence if a player:
      [...]
      - touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
      • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
      • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player
      deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
      The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close."

      This was the law as previously written (IFAB 2020/21). Why should we consider that the interpretation of such circumstance should be different from last year?

      Delete
    5. After having seen it again, IMO this is definetly not a (clear) penalzy. Actually, the defender is in a natural movement to block a possible cross stretching out the leg towards the ball (he is a football player, what else shall he do?) and his arm swings out as a result of that movement. He does NOT unaturally increases his body surface in order to avoid a cross. After viewing it again, I would assess it contrarily to Osborne: I assess no penalty as the only correct option here and I think that it's a prime example of the new habdball rule. It is going to be interesting how the other referees and especially VARs will handle those scenes now - I expect very few interventions for possible handballs.

      Delete
    6. I agree with you Flip. Also, if you look at the moment before, during and after the kick (cross) the arm is already in the position caused by a normal body movement. There is no additional moment at all. For this reason it’s not deliberate and not unnatural making the body bigger. Now with the addition in the Law it’s fully justified and correct. Good call by the ref and var. Problem is that in Italy all the refs are giving easy handball penalties, that’s why the think this one is punishable.

      Delete
    7. @Osborne:
      Because previously there was no clear definition of "unnaturally bigger" in the LotG. The common interpretation was however that stretching the arm away like that is not natural. Even if it is a part of the normal movement.

      Now we have a definition of "unnaturally bigger" which states that it is no handball if the arm position is "justifiable by the player's body movement". Some condition, which didn't exist before. So now, you always have to find an argument, why the arm position can't be justified, I think.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, I (Anonymous 23:50) just read your reaction Osborne. Actually my answer would exactly be what Philipp S wrote. I couldn’t have put my opinion in clearer words than he did.
      It’s the definition of ‘unnaturally bigger’ that makes the difference for me.

      Delete
    9. Well, I trust your judgement, as I have been reading your comments for years here, especially Philipp. As I read and interpret the new rule, I still find it hard to consider that a natural position.
      I do agree, however, as far as I know from this blog and other links I followed, that there have been cases of too easy penalties in Serie A - not only relating to handballs but also tripping, pushing, holding etc. But I did not expect the new rule would go that far to not punishing a wide stretched arm like that, when a cross was to be expected. I still don't find "the arm position justifiable by the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

      Let's hope that there will be consistency on this matter throughout the tournament, but I can't say I'm optimistic. I expect as much controversy as we had in the past.

      Delete
    10. I think, as time goes by, we will have it much easier to decide those situations :)

      Delete
    11. @Philipp S i concur with Osborne's view, your opinion while sound comes squarely against IFAB further examples and explanations. I respectfully suggest to view the videos in the presentation made available on the IFAB website.
      Additionaly please note that there is no provisions regarding the distance or the speed of the ball, i.e. an "unnaturaly bigger" posture should be judged independently from them.
      All considering Makkelie position is (imho) absolutely untenable.
      Finally i sincerily hope that UEFA mades an official statement further clarifying the rule. I do not want to image a similar situation in the knock out stage.

      Delete
  76. Gotta love to see Makkelie replace AR1 for this mistake like he replaced AR2 before EURO.

    ReplyDelete
  77. What wonders me most about the situation with the offside after the corner is the moment of the flag being raised. This was quite late. Only after the backpass was received. If it was a clear offside this could have done earlier.

    It is a indication for the Makkelie and Steegstra had short communication about it. What other reason could there be to signal offside so late?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it’s still correct to cancel the corner kick and award a free kick. Player was standing outside the field of play. I only think it’s not an IDF for offside but a DFK and YC. Maybe they were discussing what’s the best decision to take? Because a YC would have been harsh. Interesting situation.

      Delete
  78. HIGHLIGHTS

    https://we.tl/t-yilzxiPgHG

    ReplyDelete
  79. While everyone's busy losing their minds over the corner/offside situation, please allow me to praise the decision and reference the following paragraph from the LotG:

    "An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... except if the player gets the ball directly after corner kick (!), throw in, ... "

      Delete
    2. " No offence
      There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
      • a goal kick
      • a throw-in
      • a corner kick"

      Delete
    3. If Rosetti will be correct with other referees, after Makkelie's team performance yesterday, it was the first and last one match on Euro for the Dutch.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, you're right. Inside my mind there had to be a clause relating to him not being inside the field of play when the ball is played, and thus doesn't count as having received the ball from a corner.. But there isn't and I totally dropped it on that one.

      Mistakes were made.

      Delete
  80. Funny to see the Makkelie hate here.

    Law 12. Fouls and Misconduct
    Handball:
    Not every contact of the ball with the hand/arm is an offence
    A player’s hand/arm position should be judged in relation to their body movement in that particular situation

    In this situation the defender used his arm in a completely natural way. Excellent call and good to see the new interpretation (wording) applied in the opening match of the EURO.

    The IDF for infringement corner kick should be DFK + YC. But its a minor thing. Only referees are interested in this discussion.

    Makkelie was superb and in Germany he is praised for his good and sovereign performance.

    Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry but you are doubly wrong.... Please take some times to carefully peruse IFAB documentation you will find some excellent examples of what is a punishable handball.
      Please bear also in mind that IFAB made no provision for distance from the ball or relative speed.
      About the offside the lineman is obviously at fault. "A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence." [law 3.8 pag 49]. In this case starting a few cm out of the field didn't gain any advantage. Additionally the neliman signaled an infraction several seconds after the player crossed the boundary line...
      In my opinion the only fault of Makkelie's good performance was not personally reviewing the video of the contested handball.

      Delete
  81. Bad this time Makkelie, very bad.

    Far from the natural position at hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bad this time anonymous, very bad.

      Far from proper, understandable post.

      Delete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!