Friday 2 July 2021

UEFA EURO Analysis: Round of Sixteen no.II (BELPOR, NEDCZE)

While Felix Brych's performance in the night game might not have been widely controversial in the media, it is an extremely interesting one for us to assess in refereeing. An attempt to do exactly that in this post, in addition to looking back at the other match on Sunday. 



There is only one place to start - a look back in intricate detail of the match which got everyone talking in refereeing. 


Felix Brych's team in Belgium vs. Portugal


(actually, the 'KMI' portion for this match is less central than other games, but we will start there)


Big Decisions




I would like to make the case that both João Palhinha's challenge at 45' and Pepe's aggressive behaviour at 77' should have been punished with red cards, not yellow:


Trying to avoid bringing up old World Cups unless totally necessary, I believe it is valuable here. At France 1998, FIFA declared that any tackle from behind which endangered the safety of an opponent would result in a red card. 

Football is played so, so differently now to then, but there was a reason why FIFA turned their line of fire against such fouls - because of their high propensity to cause serious injury to those players fouled, often talented attackers too. 

We shouldn't be guided exclusively by injuries and what not, but in the same way that the consensus nowadays is that we should avoid ejecting players where possible in big games, major tournaments, the same can be said about not wanting star players to receive bad injuries which put them out of the matches. 

The only way that Palhinha can reach the ball in this scene is by making a contact with Kevin de Bruyne's standing leg of an at least reckless manner - and I would argue it should be assessed actually as Serious Foul Play. 

While Palhinha's contact might not be with studs, the way he comes down on De Bruyne's leg is extremely dangerous - so much so that de Bruyne was forced off just a few game minutes later. Perhaps we are going in the wrong direction in refereeing when that situation wasn't even discussed on this (expert) blog? 


On the theoretical level, Pepe's action can only be considered as violent conduct in my view. The Portugal defender has clearly heard the whistle of the referee, the game is dead, when he commits a nasty studs challenge on Thorgan Hazard. 

When you combine the live sequence with the slow-motion replay which highlights the actual nature of the contact, in my view we can only reach the conclusion that this was an act which reaches the mark of "brutality" and "excessive force", and thus should be considered a red card. 


For the record - I don't blame Felix Brych at all for issuing yellow cards in this scene, UEFA's expectation will be clearly cautioning for both situations. But, just in my view, that is the wrong track!



Managing the Game


As a rule of thumb, I usually opt to avoid talking chronologically through each relevant incident in a game, because it is not the most sophisticated way of analysing a refereeing performance; but on this occasion it is necessary!


As follows:


(the first fifteen minutes, besides a couple of small scenes at 5', were actually extremely quiet)


16' - Moutinho commits an actually reckless foul on Witsel, missed by the referee for two reasons - 1) Moutinho in a successful attempt to avoid censure goes down himself; 2) Tielemans runs across slightly afterwards, obscuring the referee's chance to take a moment and perceive what happened. 

Actually giving a yellow card would have inflamed everything (the challenge wasn't that reckless, no players really cared), but it was an excellent chance to clearly warn Moutinho and send a clear signal to everyone, which passed for the referee. 


18'
- the game would have benefitted from some short, sharp whistles in this period; Brych inflamed, rather than calmed, things here by not punishing the small push which got Palhinha on the floor, but the ball obstruction he performed while on it. 


21' - missed careless impeding foul on Ronaldo. Between Brych and fourth official Georgi Kabakov, someone should have had a trailing eye here, and it was obvious that the referees team had simply missed the incident (passive rather than positive play on gestures. Ronaldo's flagrant exaggeration increased the tension on the pitch. 


24' - Brych uses intuition to reach the correct solution, freekick for handling, and no sanction. Good, but one cannot help but feel that his foul detection was still quite reactive in this hotter period (eg. 19'). The game calmed down for some minutes after that. 


(it is worth stating that after this point, the game became very dynamic indeed, and foul recognition became a real test for the referee, whom I would argue - see below - actually had the right idea from this period on)


31' - the first feeling I had that Brych was not totally on top of all the incidents. Pepe ought to have received a clear warning for this deliberate (but not reckless) foul on Eden Hazard; the referee only gives an extended blow of the whistle, he doesn't seem certain how bad or not this foul was. 


31' - off-the-ball tripping incident missed by the officials. 


33' - a deliberate tripping foul penalised by Brych from a distance away (no problem with his position!).


36' - comparable incident to Pepe's foul at 31', Vertonghen impatiently holds Moutinho before kicking the ball away towards the stands in a non-dissenting manner. Brych only whistled from a distance, he ought to have jumped in on some level and not just hit the whistle for an extended time. 


38' - missed clear holding on Lukaku, missed freekick and a yellow card. Interestingly, none of the players around this scene really noticed it; on a tactical approach, managing the game, level, this incident actually isn't really relevant to be honest. 


40' - good advantage.


41' - correct freekick awarded for a striking offence; I guess theoretically more a reckless one than not, but not really an offence to open the cards on. 


42' - goal for Belgium! They lead 1-0


45' - yellow card to Palhinha for a reckless tackle, in my view should be assessed as SFP, see above (clip). 



Halftime 



(the second half started in a very intense manner, and put Brych in a difficult position)



47' - okay warning to Moutinho after a foul on Eden Hazard. However, if Brych had warned him in the first half at 16', then Brych could have gestured "two" here and given himself a hugely valuable PI card, but anyway. 


48' - deliberately late charging foul by Silva, this really has to be an instant yellow card at this moment of the match, to try and calm everything down, but a small warning only is the solution of the German referee. 


49' - Portugal's Sanches is pushed by an opponent into Tielemans, which obviously enrages him, and he commits a very deliberate late foul on him. A weird scene indeed. 

Brych is correct to react. Again like 48', on the theoretical level at least (disregarding the weirdness of how it happened), a caution to Tielemans would be an excellent choice to calm things down. 

Brych instead decides to only warn Tielemans. Portugal wanted an advantage in that situation, and given that an opponent wasn't booked, the German referee actually only ended up inflaming both teams here. 


51' - things were getting rather desperate at this point, Brych really needed a clear yellow card to calm everyone down, and was de facto forced to pick Dalot's kicking away of the ball as that caution, even despite the tournament guidelines to just avoid even managing such scenes, pretending that they didn't happen. 

(in this regard, I am an ideologue; I was quite irked by this otherwise sensible caution - at major tournaments, UEFA and FIFA always issue the referees with specific dogmatic guidelines which remove their common sense and discretion, making their job harder, not easier

the skill is, in my view, having to work round those constraints, not knowing when you can get away with ignoring them; so from that viewpoint I'd say that Brych should have chosen one of the previous other such cautions, and having not done so, tough luck! 

it is a slightly inane discussion to be honest, and in general I would never criticise referees for acting according to common-sense, but in the final analysis I'd be lying to say that such practices are not actually a bit 'cheap'
)


55' - in principle, I agree with Brych's play on decision after the two contacts on Eden Hazard; I really like the PGMOL doctrine that players should try to go on if they can. However, in this instance, it was a clear tactical own goal; the game so, so clearly needed slowing down at this point! 

How late the following freekick decision was, is actually quite remarkable, and the first signal in the direction that the German referee was in serious, serious trouble. 


58' - very clear reckless stamp by Thorgan Hazard missed by both the referee and Georgi Kabakov, for whom it should have been in his line of sight as fourth official. 


59' - the problem with the 51' card becomes more evident, Brych now only warns Sanches for a more more blatant instance of kicking the ball away, this time in a dissenting manner. One can perhaps realise the sense in the UEFA directive to not even try and manage such scenes, in case of not giving a yellow card!

A frustrated Sanches doesn't respond well to Brych, and the warning is extremely pro forma. However, to the German referee's credit, at the next time they cross paths a minute later, he emphasises the point to the Portugal player. 

 
(Brych finally managed to at least calm the game a bit for some minutes after this)


69' - after 55', the second time that Brych got totally lost in this game. Fernandes deliberately stamps on Hazard and should receive a yellow card; it is clear that the officials missed the incident.

The German ref then quite indecisively ushers Belgium to kick the ball out, at this point it would be better just to blow up for the freekick, and they comply. 

This is a key moment, because unlike the oft-mentioned holding at 36', here all the players very clearly had the idea that their referee was really losing the thread of what he was doing out there. 

If you look closely, it seems that Brych actually pushes Fernandes away(!). Sorry, but that should be totally avoided, and does nothing for the impression that the referee was seriously over his head in these moments. 

The minor contretemps results in a warning for the two players most going at each other, Pepe and Lukaku, from which Pepes actually takes the p*ss out of the referee by leaving before he is finished, no reaction from the German referee. He lost control of the game at this moment. 


72' - rather correct yellow card for a standing tackle from behind, but one with no actual real value (negative or positive) for Brych in terms of managing the players, the game. 


75' - Eden Hazard does a very good job of pretending that his stamp on Fernandes was somehow an accident, but in reality I cannot see how this was anything but a reckless revenge foul.


76' - correct play on decision, potential caution for simulation even. 


77' - surely the most memorable scene in the match (clip). As I argued above, Pepe should have been ejected for my taste. 

Like in 69', Brych is again hurt by his indecisiveness in this scene. To be fair, the way Lukaku actually does get his kick to the head is so random (second yellow card to Palhinha? :D), I wouldn't blame him for not stopping immediately, but he just lets everything pass him by for too long here. 

He blows up too late, and this scene is an utter, utter mess. I want to highlight one element which shows how much Brych lost control in this period beginning at 69'. 

Not waved on by any match official, two Belgium physios decide to instantly sprint on the pitch. We only see what one of them gets up to. Initially looking like a peacemaker, the physio then tries to confront Pepe, only to be pulled away by Brych's assistant Mark Borsch(!!). 

The physio continues to go at Pepe as Brych ushers him off the pitch about thirty seconds later! And the only player cautioned is Pepe himself, after an absolutely furious confrontation involving many players, and indeed some non-playing participants too. 

The German referee totally, totally, lost control of the game in this moment. Actually, such a confrontation and scene - much more befitting of amateur football than the EURO - was a fully logical consequence of how Felix Brych officiated the game onto this point. 


79' - Brych correctly rejects a Ronaldo appeal for a freekick on the edge of the penalty, before having a lapse in his "football understanding", waiving Lukaku on at an awful time, as he challenges and then fouls Fernandes who has the ball!

It is quite remarkable that things didn't get even worse for the German referee, who is extremely fortunate that jumping in at this exact moment does, just about, manage to keep a lid on this game. 


81' - an excellent card (for the challenge? DtR?) which is both technically correct and of immense tactical value, much needed at this moment. 


84' - correct freekick decision. 


(perhaps the most remarkable thing about this performance is that Brych was actually fully in control of the players actions in the last ten minutes of the game!)


+94' - funny situation where the normal roles were reversed, it was the attacker shielding the ball out for a throw-in, waiting for the contact from the defender; Brych did well to play on I'd say. 


Fulltime - Belgium win through to the quarterfinals, defeating Portugal by a goal to nothing. 




Summary


Some key points I would pick out from this performance:


--> The big, big problem with this performance, which caused Felix Brych to fail in this game, was technical accuracy. It was very clear from pretty early on that the German referee didn't really feel like he was assessing the incidents that well at all, he couldn't 'go deep' in doing that at all. 

In the first half, there was no nuance at all to his foul recognition, he couldn't really feel when he had to jump in at all. That all comes back to technical accuracy - he simply wasn't confident enough in his own perception to act on it in a decisive way; varying his whistle tone was the only tactical devise Brych really used on a sophisticated level in the first half. 

I was quite stunned by the number of basic technical and tactical errors Brych made in the second half, making the absolutely furious and totally unhinged confrontation at 77' an inevitability. No other referee lost control of his game at this EURO even that close to what the German ref did on this evening. 


--> What the subpar performances by both Clément Turpin and Felix Brych reminded us very aptly is that proficient refereeing is not a tap which we can turn on and off; it takes time to build up form, deep confidence in ourselves and our abilities, to succeed in the most difficult games. 

Foul recognition has been such a weak feature of two Brych performances this year (Real Madrid vs. Liverpool, Finland vs. Belgium), but in these games, the German could essentially get away with it, as their difficulty level was relatively low. He was not so lucky here. 

Brych simply couldn't switch from his passive approach of recent times by clicking his fingers when he realised he was in a real battle. And that is the most worrying take home from this performance for me - the German referee did the best he could at the current moment, and it was really far away from being enough. 


--> Despite the lack of a clear match error, I would assess this performance as one of three which UEFA should have rejected at this EURO so far (they correctly did so in the other two cases). Furthermore, I would give Brych the lowest mark unto now in this EURO - a "4" in my evaluation scale (link). 

I felt like an idiot on Wednesday afternoon, learning of the Ukraine - England appointment. I had written rather extensive pieces why on a technical level, including but not exclusively considering, the big decisions made by Turpin and Mateu, why their performances were too weak, they lost their respective games, and that UEFA had no choice but to reject these referees. 

Now, after this game, with the weakest technical and tactical showing of the tournament, that feels rather superfluous. We can, and in my view must, in refereeing, do better than surrendering to the tyranny of accepting any performance which lacks a big mistake and doesn't create scandalous coverage. 

This showing might not have sported a clear match error - but the whole performance, in many ways, was a clear match error itself. 


--> That being said, there are two things which count quite significantly in Brych's favour:

- Remarkably, despite how weak this performance was, the German referee actually finished the game in control of the players actions! The last ten minutes were perhaps the only period where the referee really had a hand on proceedings in this match. 

- Manner. To his credit, Brych kept a strong presence, and his mimics and gestures were a key reason why this match didn't go yet further south. I would highlight 55' and 79' as particularly successful in this regard. 



Balance: UEFA not rejecting Felix Brych's performance, in my view, is extremely disappointing. 

Perform as poorly as you like, but avoid a clear match error, and you have still passed the test - at least if you are one of the two biggest names. I am quite sure that all the other officials have understood this message quite clearly. 




Sergej Karasëv's performance in 
Netherlands vs. Czech Republic

Big Decision




Another monological question and answer section. 


Why did Karasëv issue a yellow card initially?

It is just an inclination, but in handling scenes like this (crafty handling on the floor), somehow evaluating DOGSO goes out of your head on a perception-expectation-recognition level; somehow, the success is in detecting the handling itself. 

The second yellow card issued by this tournament's VAR co-ordinator, Carlos Velasco Carballo, at the Albania vs. Switzerland game at the last EURO, is further evidence of that I'd say. 


Is the situation DOGSO?

In my view, yes. 

Schick, despite starting from a wide position, would be one-on-one with the goalkeeper if not for De Ligt's handling, so I would assess this situation as a (clear) DOGSO. 


Do you think De Ligt was fouled though?

No. The Netherlands player slips of his own accord, and any 'push' on him by Schick is extremely minimal. If at the OFR had Karasëv given a defensive freekick upon rewatching, then that decision would be viewed as scandalous by the world's media. 


-> Ultimately, the officials reached the correct conclusion - red card for DOGSO. Karasëv should have gotten it right in real time, but in quite a unique sort of scene, I wouldn't blame him too(ooo) much not having not done so. 



Summary


A third good performance at this EURO by Sergej Karasëv! He used his sanctions well, got through the game's trickier moments (eg. 56', 57'), and interacted well with players, as he steered this game to a good conclusion. 

A fourth official appointment to a quarterfinal game is a fair yield from a very good tournament for the Russian, well done to him!




Balance



A day without clear match errors by the officials is a good one for UEFA in the bigger picture! 

However, not rejecting Felix Brych's performance in Belgium vs. Portugal, as valuable as they might see it in the short term, will damage their internal credibility quite significantly. 

31 comments:

  1. Perfect analysis about brych’s perdformance. Lack of foul recognition and technical accuracy were the key reasons eüwhich made his performance worst of EURO 2020. And if you continue to appoint the referee who has the worst performance committe lose respect with his appointments. And also i ask myself why hategan, lahoz and turpin didn’t get any match after group stage. At this tournament they were cöearly better than brych.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on Hategan. Lahoz depends on how you evaluate ENGSCO (if someone thinks that’s a penalty Lahoz made 2 crucial mistakes in 3 games, in that case he wasn’t better). Turpin definitely wasn’t better, he was as clueless in DENRUS as Brych was in BELPOR, but with less presence and 2 more crucial mistakes. Definitely worse

      Delete
    2. Rosetti publicly praised the decision in ENGSCO in a recent interview, so no crucial mistake there at all.

      Delete
  2. Great analysis, Mikael! The effort you put into these is incredible! Thank you!

    On another note, do we think dCG was originally planned for ENG-UKR? So he got replaced by Brych because Brych's performance wasn't good enough for a SF (or final)? I guess dCG will now stay without any further appointments. Sounds rather comical :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doesn't this law 5 blog make any sense at all. This is uncomfortable for the admins themselves, but they no longer have any control.

    And card player Brych is almost as useful as card player Gräfe. Namely zero.

    Brych has the lowest card average in the tournament 🤦‍♂️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was only able to make full sense out of the last part, which I must refute. Brych gave 6 YCs in 3 matches for an average of 2 (1 in NEDUKR, 0 in FINBEL, 5 in BELPOR). Cüneyt Çakır gave only 5 in 3 matches (3 in HUNPOR, 0 in UKRAUT, 2 in CROESP). Therefore he has the lowest average.

      Delete
  4. IMO it's also important for the consequences of Brych's treatment, how UEFA communicated both to him and to the referee group.
    Did they analyze and point out his weaknesses in a similar manner than your report? And then argued for his QF appointment, that he deserved it based on his performances over the last years.
    The last point, if delivered well, could be even a positive message for the referees, that your long-term development is decisive and you don't have to be afraid of messing up an individual game.

    Or did they go the other way and claim that the performance was alright (maybe with some small points for improvement like being quicker in some situations)?
    Would be better for the self-confidence of Brych. But it would give indeed a bad message to the referee team - unless they had the same opinion anyway that this was an acceptable performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the performance was definitely acceptable in a difficult game to manage, except for minor scenes.

      Delete
    2. “ that he deserved it based on his performances over the last years.
      The last point, if delivered well, could be even a positive message for the referees, that your long-term development is decisive and you don't have to be afraid of messing up an individual game”

      This is the approach that I prefer from UEFA. Referees are discarded too hastily for one or two bad mistakes, instead of looking at the whole body of work. One bad game does not mean the next one will be bad. Appointing a (for example) Karasev to that QF poses significantly more risk (in my opinion) than appointing the much more experienced Brych, even if Karasev has had the better tournament. And as you said, it incentivized long-term growth the most of all, which is best for the refereeing program as a whole.

      Delete
  5. Absolutely brilliant analysis on BELPOR. I just want make a small correction. The missed (mandatory) YC at 38th minute actually had significant impact on the game because it allowed the offending player - Palhinha, to make the horrible challenge later on De Bruyne. So by not fulfilling his obligations Brych not only brought a bad image of football but clearly endangered the safety of the players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a small addition - the missed mandatory card at 38' for the blatant holding of Lukaku is actually the type of refere's mistake that generally inflames the players most.

      Delete
  6. Thank you for the in depth analysis, Mikael! I agree, that football expects a RC for de Light, because he messed up. If the ref gave a offensive foul on the field, VAR should not have intervened hovever IMO. The 'foul' is more the clip of the foot, than it is for pushing IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and totally agree with your comment, David!

      Delete
  7. OT

    From start 2021/22 season 1st League in Poland with VAR! (League after Ekstraklasa)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for your analysis, Mikael. On BEL-POR, I agree with you on all points except the potential red cards.

    I don't see a red card in 45'. Yes, tackle from behind with high intensity, but no studs, instead a usually quite harmless contact with the shin. I think if De Bruyne hadn't been injured, the majority here would clearly feel yellow is correct, especially as the ball is also played (yes, he can't play the ball without fouling, but it still makes the foul look better than if he hadn't played the ball).

    Then to 77': I'm not with you on brutality. In normal play, the foul would be yellow at most. However, since Pepe probably knows that the game is suspended, it is indeed excessive force in the sense of violent conduct. For me, however, that would not have fitted with the previous decisions of the game and the tournament. On the other hand Pepe should be ejected. Therefore, I would have preferred a yellow for the foul and then a second yellow for Pepe's gesture. (Brych is well known for such decisions, but probably these are exactly the decisions that UEFA has asked its referees to avoid.)

    A last side note on 38' : Maybe you are right that it was not so relevant for the further course of the game, but for me as a spectator it was extremely unsatisfactory. We want the players to keep playing instead of throwing themselves on the ground every time they are held. Then things like that have to be penalised, there are four referees, one has to see it and make the call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, I do agree really agree with you on your 1st and 3rd point! For Pepe though, I think football does not expect a red card. Yes, Pepe knows that the play is dead, BUT so does Hazard! (Why does he keep on dribbling?!) I see a hard challenge, but nothing brutal or with the studs.

      Delete
  9. I do agree on your analysis, Mikael. I only watched the second half, but it was quite negatively surprising to see Brych lose control so much. The incident with Pepe would have been easily prevented just by giving the foul on Lukaku, which he obviously missed too. There was not clear advantage in this situation (Belgium kept possession for about 3 more seconds and not in full control) and also, the foul was reckless to me, so a 2nd YC should have been shown.

    And yes, as I said yesterday, that Brych got a further appointment was unfair to all other referees.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I’ve enjoyed reading your observations of all referees in each match and until know have saw / read them as measured views, some of which I have agreed with, and some I have not.
    Regarding today’s observations I feel they are ridiculous and very ‘unbalanced’ and verge on being ‘anti’ Felix Brych.
    To speak paragraph after paragraph berating Brych’s decision making then only taking a couple of paragraphs to offer a view on Karasev is very unbalanced and very much not makes one feel to ignore your views completely. Brych didn’t have his best game, but to explore it in the way you have had really undermined your reflections and I for one, will bypass them from now on. Accurate is fine! Being biased for or against an official is not acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not Mikael, but... Bye :)

      Delete
    2. I'm not Mikael either, but I want to give a different perspective on this.
      Mikael is of the opinion that Felix Brych has shown an inadequate performance, but not because of crucial mistakes, but because of loss of control. And that is not only a rather serious judgement, but also not so easy to prove. That's why I think his approach of showing how the referee's decisions affected the game in individual key moments is right. If I understand it correctly, Mikeal is of the opinion that the mass confrontation in 77' was not a random event, but rather the inevitable result of technically and tactically flawed management by the referee. And to provide evidence (whether he succeeds or not is for the reader to decide), I think one has to delve quite deeply into the events of the game and place individual decisions in the overall context.

      Of course, it would have been appropriate to look at Karasev's game in more detail, especially since in my opinion it was a pretty good performance. But I can also understand that one (unfortunately) only has a finite amount of time available and therefore sometimes cannot cover every game in the detail it deserves.

      Delete
    3. To put forward the argument "loss of control" is actually quite easy: Just put the blame on the referee if the players decide not to give a hoot about behaving themselves. Mikael seems convinced that scenes like in 77' could have been avoided (and even easily so) - I am not that sure that a strict, even disciplinarian approach would have achieved this.

      Moreover, if the committee thought that performance to be unacceptable, then it could have relegated Brych to some obscure Fourth Official assignment or sent him home right away. Instead, to assign him directly to the QF - in view of the competition - shows some kind approval. Whatever the reason for that, the committee does not consist of idiots and political hacks (granted, not solely). That could invite to rethink this assessment and the premises that undergird them.

      What still is right, however, that we have seen here the grave danger of the current philosophy to consider the referee a some sort of politician and to instruct them to an approach that verges on disregard for unsportsmanlike conduct and a turning a blind eye on violent behaviour and discourages punishment at almost every price.

      Delete
  11. One thing that has been missing from analysis in this blog, and which I would think UEFA is taking into consideration in Brych’s QF appointment, is degree of difficulty. Belgium-Portugal was, by far, the most difficult match of this tournament so far to referee. Someone had to ref that game, and preferably someone who UEFA really really trusts, so they threw Brych into the furnace. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to them, after throwing him into that furnace, that he got a little burned.

    It’s all good and well to say that Slavko Vincic has had a good tournament when he aced two very easy tests in the group stage. It’s a little more complicated when assessing the performance of a referee to whom you have a very difficult task, *knowing* to some extent that he (and any referee) would have a high likelihood of failing. That has to be taken into account when the referee does, inevitably, fail: the game was ripe for that to happen and it isn’t entirely his fault that the match turned into a circus. But someone has to ref the game, someone has to be given this task which could easily go very badly. It’s not Brych’s fault he was given this match (in fact, it’s more accurate to say it’s due to his great talent that he was given this match!), so he should not be punished too harshly when it doesn’t go well.

    If getting tough matches poses too much of a danger to a referee’s future assignments, referees will stop wanting tough matches. How nice it would’ve been for Lahoz if he was only given two group games like everyone else, and wasn’t entrusted with a third! His tournament would still be continuing…

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you very much please add the links of matches

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Mikael W, thanks for your deep and thoughtful analysis on Brych's performance in Bel vs Por.

    I will however STRONGLY DISAGREE with your summary about the German referee's performance in that match. Firstly, the impression that I get from reading many comments here is that some people here want the referee to handle games like a robot. Many people here seem to despise referees who use a lot of emotional and football intelligence in refereeing games. But the best elite refereees will always use their better overall judgement rather than using strict textbook measures.

    Palhinha's tackle is never ever a RC. As a defensive midfielder, he had every right to stop the counter attack sprung by Belgium. And he made an almost perfect tackle to stop that attack, by playing the ball. The only problem was his follow-through, which caught De Bruyne. Now, if we say that tackle is worthy of a RC, then we can as well ban all types of tackles. Period. It's almost impossible to tackle a ball without touching the opposition player.

    My emphasis here has always been to remind people that football is a contact sport. And not every contact between two opposing players is a foul or RC. Tackles like the one made by Palhinha were what made defensive players like Gattuso, Vieira, Roy Keane, Maldini, Makelele etc popular in their day.

    My greatest fear of the "modern day" style of football refereeing is that some young referees are beginning to referee football like basketball, where the tiniest bit of contact is penalized. Also today, many young referees frown at the tiniest bit of physicality. But the truth is that physicality is PART of the game. We should be careful not to completely eradicate it. It's important for refereees to distinguish between 'physicality' and 'fouls'.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Also, Pepe's tackle after the whistle was a perfect YC, and I agree with Brych's decision. Now the reason I say that is this: after the whistle had been blown, Thorgan Hazard did NOT stop, but CONTINUED to play. This in itself is worthy of a YC for time wasting, provocation and unsporting behavior from the Belgian player. Pepe's tackle on Hazard was therefore an attempt to win back the ball and stop Hazard from continuing to waste the time. And to be fair to Pepe, his tackle was not violent. Just a little reckless, and since it was made after the whistle, a YC was perfectly sufficient.

    The Belgian players' angry reaction to Pepe slightly embellished the incident, and they tried to get Pepe sent off. Brych however kept a cool head and calmed the situation before issuing Pepe a correct YC.

    As far as foul detection was concerned, Dr Brych was largely consistent throughout the game. Many players from both sides were exaggerating contacts and rolling around on the ground unsportingly, trying to get the opposition sent off. Ronaldo was perhaps the most guilty of this. This acts of simulation from many players and the scoreline being 1-0 made the game feel and look more intense than it really was.

    Dr Brych's decision on dealing with the players' exaggerated reactions to fouls was to rightly ignore some of them. But many people on this blog interpreted this decision as being careless by the referee.

    However, on the contrary, Dr Brych's decision to ignore players trying to con him made him have a firm grip of the game. But like I mentioned earlier, with the game staying at 1-0, frustration and desperation for an equalizer naturally set in for the Portuguese players, and made the game even more intense.

    And let me emphasize that UEFA is VERY VERY pleased to welcome "tense" KO games, as long as they do not turn violent. They don't want drab and emotionless games. Football is not golf.

    And for anyone who has played the game, they surely will respect and recognize that players are within their rights to show their emotions on the pitch (without becoming too aggressive or going overboard of course). That is what FANS and Coaches themselves would love to see from their players. And NONE of them will want referees to kill this.

    To conclude, almost NOBODY in regular and social media were talking about the referee after the Bel vs Por game, which is usually a GREAT sign. And most importantly, UEFA's refereeing committee enjoyed Dr Brych's performance and have rewarded him with today's QF match between Ukr & Eng.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I let the analysis above entirely for your account, it’s your opinion that you’re entitled to have and to express. On some aspects I agree, on others I disagree.

      My question on your final conclusion however would be, if committee enjoyed his performance so much, wouldn’t they have rewarded him with a SF or even the final? A QF for a referee of Brych’s caliber doesn’t really seem a reward to me.

      Delete
  15. @Anonymous 16:51

    Including today's Eng vs Ukr, Dr Brych will have officiated 4 games so far (the highest of any referee in this tournament).

    This includes the biggest R16 game in Bel vs Por. And now a big QF involving a big team in Eng vs Ukr.

    If this doesn't prove the faith of the committee in a referee, then I don't know what else does.

    Plus the Final match at this point is still a possibility for Dr Brych, if he performs well in today's match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn’t contradict the committee having faith in Brych, I just don’t see a QF of this format (after having handled a R16 game as well) as a reward for the BEL-POR performance.
      Actually I see it as a sign that committee didn’t really like his performance, but still awarding him a QF instead of the SF or final for which he in my opinion would have contest for without the BEL-POR game.
      But let’s wait the SF and final appointments before making a final conclusion.

      Delete
    2. I see your point too.
      But like you said, let's wait and see how the next appointments go.

      Delete
    3. Although I should also point out that there are loads of other big candidates for the remaining 3 games, such as Cakir, Makkiele and Orsato.

      Any or all of these names may have a big influence on the committee's final 3 appointments.

      Delete
    4. Orsato by no means. He’s not in the tournament anymore.

      Delete

Thank you for writing a comment on our blog!