Björn Kuipers to referee Slovakia - Spain in group E as second appearance at EURO 2020.
Group E
Seville, 23 June 2021 18:00 CET
SLOVAKIA - SPAIN
Referee: Björn Kuipers (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: Sander van Roekel (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: Erwin E. J. Zeinstra (NED)
Fourth Official: Stéphanie Frappart (FRA)
Fifth Official: Mikael Berchebru (FRA)
Video Assistant Referee: Pol van Boekel (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Kevin Blom (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Christian Gittelmann (NED)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 3: Bastian Dankert (GER)
UEFA Referee Observer: Frank De Bleeckere (BEL)
UEFA Delegate: Iveta Stoyanova (BUL)
I just realised that all referees who had just one match, had their only match in the same group. Interesting
ReplyDeleteIf Poland doesn’t win and this game doesn’t end in a draw, Netherlands have a path with Czech Republic and Denmark / Wales to the semis, which would make it realistic that they reach the semis which would mean no final to Kuipers. This, or the fact that he wants to give the Dutch team an easier opponent, might be brought up in case of controversial decisions. I’m not implying anything as I fully trust Kuipers’ professionalism, but I think it should at least be said. Should UEFA have avoided this?
ReplyDeleteThat's almost impossible to prevent with this system... Any other game would have had the same effect basically. In that respect, maybe Austria - Ukraine would have been the safest match to give him.
DeleteWow, difficult incident for Kuipers in 9'. I am not sure about offensive foul... OFR to follow?
ReplyDeleteCorrect penalty given, clearly kicks the strikers leg
DeletePenalty given after OFR! Difficult to evaluate, defender wanted to play the ball and was in movement, then the Spanish player was moving his leg into the defender's kicking movement. Anyway, Spain missed the penalty. But not a good start for Kuipers to have an OFR after nine minutes.
DeleteCorrect Penalty, Kuipers is good.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
DeleteWrong decision by Kuipers to award free kick to Slovakia at first. Good VAR review and OFR: I think penalty is the clearly correct outcome.
ReplyDeleteClear and obvious mistake, a perfect OFR.
ReplyDeleteGood VAR intervention, but not a good moment for Kuipers...
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I totally disagree with that penalty call. What is the difference between that and eg. 77' from SUITUR with Vinčić?
ReplyDeleteWell, he clearly catches the strikers leg whether it was delibrate or not and therefore it should be a penalty
DeleteI definitely get your point, Mikael. It looks strange but it is not as clear as it seems...
DeleteFor me, clearly different incident. Today defender kicks blatantly attacker, it was not the same in SUI - TUR. First, because of intensity, then I wouldn't call that challenge as reckless, never. In addition, I was not watching before, but it is reported Kuipers had whistled a foul in favor of defender, so this was another argument to allow OFR, because a mistake in all cases.
DeleteI also don't see the similarity to the SUI-TUR situation.
DeleteMy opinion is clear penalty. 100 % correct decision.
DeleteI think this is a real debatable situations. I'd prefer a free kick for Slovakia.
ReplyDeleteIMO the defender has ball possession and wants to kick the ball away. The Spanish attacker blocks him by putting his foot in front. For me the attacker takes the risk to injure his opponent, without being able to get the ball under control. So I would prefer a free kick to Slovakia
Exactly. van Boekal and Kuipers should have been strong enough to stick with that, sorry.
DeleteWell to be fair when i saw it in real time i did think it was a free kick to Slovakia, but once they showed the replay i don't think they had any other option but to award a penalty
DeleteI agree with you and Mikael. Not a PK, never a clear and obvious error.
DeleteClear penalty. A top referee can’t miss this. Open situation. Not concentrated from the beginning unfortunately. Good VAR intervention.
ReplyDeleteIt feels so unfair. The defender had no idea that leg would be there. It's the 2.0 version of a dive...
ReplyDeleteWell either way he catches him and therefore a penalty should be given
DeleteGood YC for Duda.
ReplyDeleteA correct correction by VAR. It's not a bad game for Kuipers. Keep calm
I am definitely for penalty kick. Attacking player didn't move his feet towards defender's way. Defender clearly kicks the opponent. It's a clear and obvious error for me.
ReplyDeleteIn the live situation, I assumed, it was a 50/50 call and Kuipers's decision would surely be supported by VAR.
ReplyDeleteWith the replays, it became apparent to me that the attacker didn't do anything wrong (only natural running movements, no explicit movement in front of the opponent) and the defender kicks him with high intensity. Obviously not intentional, but surely a careless foul.
Given the discussions above, it doesn't seem to be really "clear and obvious" though, therefore the VAR intervention can be doubted.
DeleteGuys there can’t be any discussion about this penalty. Clear foul and thank god there is a VAR.
ReplyDeleteI understand both points of view but there is one thing I do not get. In ENG-SCO the main argument against penalty for stamping was that the attacker made a movement towards the defender who could not do anything because he has already been moving in that direction. Could you explain me the difference? The argumentation seems the same in terms of today's incident but the outcome is different.
ReplyDeleteOne strong argument in my opinion is that today the outcome resulted in a quite violent kick to opponent, totally different from both ENG - SCO and SUI -TUR.
DeleteSterling made a movement, that could be assessed as unnatural and provoking the contact. I don't see that at all in today's situation.
Delete(Besides that, penalty was the better decision for me in ENG-SCO anyway).
Minute 28' maybe a missed YC.
ReplyDeleteDisagree. An oral warning is better in this situation.
DeleteIt was the situation Koke hitting the foot of his opponent? In that situation Koke first played the ball, so I can perfectly live with no sanction there.
DeleteIndeed. It's this situation.
DeleteWhat an unnecessary VAR intervention. I don't understand why he didn't support the referee decision.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all the defender didn't see his opponent. And the attacker didn't play with the ball. VAR should easily support the referee decision. Unnecessary intervention
Good YC for Busquets. Quite dangerous
ReplyDeleteNobody's commenting 13th min. For me qute a big mistake by the whole referees' team - missed red card for SVK 19 for kicking at an opponent - the intensity does not matter here + a yello card for ESP 5 for provoking a conflict situation.
ReplyDeleteSeemed to be checked by VAR as well.
DeleteIMO, it lacks intensity ("brutality") to be assessed as violent conduct. One or two YCs would have been the best solution, I think.
Why doesn’t intensity matter? Of course it does! For a VC by kicking the offence requires brutality or excessive force. When only reckless it’s a YC.
DeleteI don't think it was VC. Maximum YC for me.
DeleteThe talk was more than enough here. Both players were wrong.
ReplyDeleteNever a red card
Well, match under control. But, in terms of contenders for Euro final, Kuipers does not convince me like Rappallini last night. He need to be more concentrate. Clear penalty missed, perfectly intervention from Var. Will se second half.
ReplyDeleteOn the penalty: Do those who think it was a penalty also demand a YC? It was a pretty solid kick against the leg, even if unintentional.
ReplyDeletePossible YC, I would say. But one could argue, that it isn't reckless, because he doesn't know that his opponent is there.
DeleteExcept the missed penalty expected level of Kuipers. One missed YC for stamp on ankle, but the given YC’s are correct. Movement and positioning can be more active. Otherwise his appearance looks a bit bored.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to tell this but dutch referee teams are not performing enough to get the final.
ReplyDeleteWhy you apologise. That is the fact. They perform very good, in terms of final, not enough.
DeleteI would still not exclude Kuipers from getting it, but I agree that if performance on this tournament is the only criterium (which it isnt) some refs have been better till now.
DeleteWell there are a lot of fans here :)
DeleteYeah, lot fans of Kuipers(respect for them), but I think that merit is most important.
DeleteIMO Makkelie is performing better than Kuipers during this tournament based on foul detection and feeling the game, however based on his age and the fact that it’s his first Euro he will not be a final candidate. Seeing Kuipers tonight it’s obvious that Brych will be the favourite for the final.
DeleteI agree and indeed Brych or Cakir will be the final referee. Of course if Germany doesn’t reach the final.
DeleteLahoz, Brych and Cakir(Turkey is eliminated) are one step closer to final IMO.
DeleteIs it really necessary to bring the fans of anybody in again? You can perfectly give an opinion while adding the fan part out. Sorry, no added value of that
DeleteCakir not convincing enough for a final as well, his first appearance in HUNPOR was not the top level required for a final appointment. SF, dependent on the teams involved, should be more realistic.
DeleteI like Kuipers and respect him, but everybody, who is objective knows, that he can't get the final. He missed a clear penalty and VAR had to correct him. It should be enough for his elimination from final candidates list. Brych had some difficult non penalty decisions and he made all correct in the real time and didn't need VAR help, so based on performances, the strongest candidate should be him. Number two should be Cakir, or maybe Makkelie, Hategan, Taylor, Oliver, Rappalini... I think Lahoz should be out because of very soft penalty against Portugal too. It is true, that FIFA is not always objective and fair, I hope will be this time.
DeleteSorry, UEFA, not FIFA.
DeleteI think these days, situations like the penalty is a lose-lose situation for the defender.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I think it's 50-50 'pen' OR 'no pen'.
So there are strong arguments for both sides.
For those who say it's a penalty, they will argue that the defender clearly kicks Koke. And therefore, it's a foul against the defender.
On the other hand, it can also be argued that the defender was in possession of the ball. And that Koke actually impeded the defender, and obstructed him from kicking the ball. Therefore, a foul against Koke.
So like I said earlier, it's 50-50.
But here's a food for thought, what if Koke was the defender in this case, and Duda (the Slovakian player) was the attacking player, will VAR have awarded a pen against Koke???
I guess so, and that's why I think cases like this always go against the defending player, and it's a lose-lose situation for them.
I think there is a slight difference here. If Koke moved his foot towards the opponent's way i would be OK for attacking foul but Koke didn't move at all, his foot was in natural position.
Deletegreat onside call by AR1 prior to 0-4
ReplyDelete0-5 game, a pity that Kuipers needed VAR in such a game, not positive for him if he wants the final!
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm always amused when people on this blog write off a referee's future appointment because they used an OFR.
ReplyDeleteIt's just so ridiculous.
Agreed. Thanks to say that !!!
DeleteYes final for Kuipers! 100%!
DeleteCheers!
Final 100% no. I'm a Kuipers fan, but I think Brych are currently the best candidate for the Final. Mateu 2nd and Kuipers 3rd.
DeleteTo be fair Grinfeld wasn't that lucky
DeleteGrinfeeld had OFR and he didn't get the second appointment.
DeleteKevin Blom didn't offer OFR at ITA-TUR and he didn't get another appointment as VAR.
Yes i do write off a referee's future appointment because they used OFR (clear and obvious error, not missed incident).
Hahaha. What a nonsensical comment. In that case Rapallini would not have reffed yesterdays do or die game. There were no real big issues besides the OFR. No big media backlash and the tournament is still young. Anything can happen in KO stage. We will see Kuipers again and im not writing him off completely for the final. Altough indeed mateu and brych should be the frontrunners performance wise
Delete@hugostiglitz,
DeleteHmmm...so from your genius calculation, referees like Orsato and Kuipers who have used an OFR will not get any other appointments in this tourney.
You are truly a brilliant genius.
I am not telling they will not get another appointment. I am telling they are getting further to the final. Orsato can be even out of tournament due to his performance. Because he had one of the worst referee performance of EURO 2020 on his last game.
DeleteThis time you are right Lawaj but i'm also amused about your prediction to sent Hategan home for sure because of a RC that has it's arguments...
DeleteI believe that a convincing performance by Mateu tonight might represent a huge step towards the Wembley Final for him.
ReplyDeleteA very big game tonight ! Go Mateu !
DeleteI think WAL-DEN, SWE-(SUI or UKR) games are key for the final referee.
ReplyDeleteMy names for KO phase are:
ReplyDeleteMateu Lahoz
Brych
Oliver
Taylor
Rapallini
Orsato
Hategan
Kuipers
Makkelie
Cakir
Vincic
round of 16: Hategan, Vincic, Cakir, Mateu, Orsato, Brych, Kuipers and Oliver
Quarter final: Rapallini, Makkelie, Taylor and Cakir
Semifinal: Brych and Mateu
Final: Kuipers FO Mateu
I meant Makkelie as FO with Kuipers
DeleteThere are two myths that seem to persist among a lot of posters here.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that using an OFR is somehow a black mark against a referee. It can almost be the opposite, if it's done well and efficiently. Would a constant need to rely on OFRs be a problem? Absolutely. Do OFRs after expected decisions raise questions? Yes. But using an OFR on an understandable miss is nothing. VAR and OFRs are a tool. The best referees use them well.
The second myth seems to be that assignments are determined solely on who missed the fewest "mandatory YCs." That would be laughable if it wasn't obvious that people seem to be serious about it. Again, everything needs to be put in context. If a referee is constantly missing or ignoring misconduct, then sure, he's not going to stick around too long at the tournament. But if we are comparing one referee who missed no yellow cards to a referee who misses 1 or 2 yellow cards... that does not mean the first referee has performed better or deserves the tougher/latter stage assignments. It's as though people who believe this completely ignore other factors, particularly soft skills. I've said it elsewhere--we are not robots. If you have an elite senior referee who is managing teams and players well, supported by ARs who are excelling, doesn't make CMEs and also happens to miss a couple yellow cards juxtaposed against a newer referee who doesn't possess all those qualities but nails every yellow card... well, that doesn't mean the second referee has performed better. Evaluating performances and making future appointment decisions are about a LOT more than who missed a yellow card and who didn't. It's almost childish to think that's the case.
None of that should be read as a defense of Kuipers or even praise of this particular performance. Nor is it a criticism of any other referee in some other match. It's just an urging for everyone to not be so myopic about OFRs and yellow cards. In the end, there are several referees who bodies of work over the last 5+ years make them trustworthy for big matches at this tournament. Maybe someone from that group will play themselves out of the conversation with a catastrophic performance. None has done so thus far (with the possible exception of Turpin, but even there you have to debate if he was even in the mix or QFs beyond and then debate if the match at Parken was "catastrophic"). We should be applauding the fact that the top referees have done so well. In the end, the fate of Kuipers, Mateu, Brych, etc. will most likely be determined by how well their own national teams do. And that's a testament to how good the officiating has been to-date.
Hear, hear! Excellent arguments and vision!
Delete+1!!! Thx for that one :-)
DeleteSeems to me that third EURO in a row we will have in the final the same referee as in Champions League final.
ReplyDeleteI can’t believe that I read here several posts discussing that there was no penalty. It was STONEWALL PENALTY! In MY ountry we say PENALTY AS A HOUSE!
ReplyDeleteHIGHLIGHTS
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-NB3wWL5pgZ