Daniel Siebert about to officiate Georgia - Czech Republic. It will be the second EURO tournament for him.
Game 24, Group F
Hamburg, 22 June 2024 15:00 CET
GEORGIA - CZECH REPUBLIC Hamburg, 22 June 2024 15:00 CET
Referee: Daniel Siebert GER
Assistant Referee 1: Jan Seidel GER
Assistant Referee 2: Rafael Foltyn GER
Assistant Referee 2: Rafael Foltyn GER
Fourth Official: Irfan Peljto BIH
Reserve Assistant Referee: Senad Ibrišimbegović BIH
Video Assistant Referee: Marco Fritz GER
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: David Coote ENG
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Pol van Boekel NED
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Pol van Boekel NED
UEFA Referee Observer: Darko Čeferin SVN
UEFA Delegate: Mark Evans WAL
Could be a tense game for Siebert. Could already have given a YC for SPA (3) and there was a correctly solved PAI (4).
ReplyDeleteMinute 7, arm closed, no penalty, correct decision
ReplyDeleteVery good no penalty call in 9‘. Looked like a clear foul in real speed.
ReplyDeleteMinute 10 Georgia is waiting for a penalty, there is an intervention from behind but the decision to continue is correct, it is not enough for a penalty, bravo Siebert started well
ReplyDeleteminute 9, no penalty for Georgia, good decision! even great, because first it looked like tripping.
ReplyDeleteGood no penalty decision
ReplyDeleteGood start by Siebert, well done to decline that penalty appeal by Georgia.
ReplyDeleteWrong YC for #CZE5, normal foul.
ReplyDeleteI understand why, as he thinks CZE are targeting Kvaratskhelia, but yes definitely wrong decision
Delete17 minutes Czech Republic yellow card correct
ReplyDeleteharsh decision with that first YC. could be good for game management but Siebert should have waited for a harder foul to open cards.
ReplyDeleteSome tricky incidents already for Siebert - 3 PAI all correctly ignored, wrong YC and good no backpass call. Now a goal which looked like handball, let’s see
ReplyDeleteHandball detected by VAR, impossible to spot on field. Good decision
Delete4' looked like a penalty to me. VAR should ve intervened. Other than this incident, good performance from the German ref.
ReplyDeleteA clear handball and a successful VAR intervention, difficult position for Siebert, no one can blame her in this position
ReplyDeletehandball, but almost impossible to spot. correct VAR intervention.
ReplyDeleteCorrect VAR intervention, handball missed before 1-0 for CZE. It will always be difficult to detect handballs like that. Almost no chance if you don‘t have the front view.
ReplyDeletetwo correct YCs now, Siebert is no hesitating. Strong performance so far, he is also very present when things could heaten up.
ReplyDeleteGame heating up, Siebert is trying to manage and keep control with his strict line.
ReplyDeleteImo better that than Vincic's style.
Next correct VAR intervention, penalty for handball. Arm was far from the body, long distance, ball was expected. Not easy to see but not impossible.
ReplyDeleteSiebert position for the handball was good and he had a direct view of the scene. If he decided at that moment no penalty then intervention of the VAR is questíonable.
DeleteSuch penalty must absolutely be given for UEFA, in case Siebert saw it, but be sure it didn't happen, he did a mistake in not whistling it.
DeleteAgree
DeleteAmazing reaction time from the VAR
ReplyDeleteNow penalty but I dont get this.
ReplyDeleteYes his arm is not in natural position,but advantage was gained, Georgia had clear chance to score if we look at it like that.
They missed,but ref tehnicaly let the advantage.
No, because advantage was not given by Siebert. Advantage rule does not apply if the match only continues because the referee did not see the punishable incident.
DeleteAn advantage needs to be given actively. In order to do so, Siebert would have needed to spot the hand ball. Since that was not the case, VAR had to intervene and advantage as final decision is not an option for VAR.
DeleteOkay then, just some thoughts that went through my head .
Deletesecond intervention, penalty for handball. very far away from body, expected ball. I think it is the rigth decision at the end.
ReplyDeleteNice to see Peltjo act as a bodyguard at the var screen for Siebert
ReplyDeleteA difficult first half for Siebert, he was good in other positions except the penalty position, 2 important decisions with VAR correction
ReplyDeleteExpecting another challenging half for Siebert, both teams need points so don't be surprised if game gets even tougher for German.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of a decision that is "technically correct" but very strange. If Siebert had seen the handball live, advantage would have been given for sure, and with the clear chance, there is no need for penalty. Now, since he didn't see the handball and had to go to OFR, penalty is the only possible decision, and Georgia gets an undeserved second chance for a goal. Mind bending VAR rules.
ReplyDeleteNo referee would have given advantage in case of a punishable handball in the (crowded) penalty area without a 100 % chance to score a goal.
DeleteIf you play advantage in the penalty area, and no goal follows, you must give the penalty. That’s how I was always told anyway
DeleteThere is no way the chance Georgia got was better than a penalty, even if he might have waited it out, he would still likely gone back to the handball when the chance was saved
DeleteBtw, Glenn Nyberg had a quite similar situation in the Gothenburg derby between IFK Göteborg and BK Häcken last year where he waited out the situation and then gave the penalty: https://x.com/dplus_sportSE/status/1695834790702841860
DeleteAs a referee you’ll pretty much never show advantage in the penalty area for a PK situation, unless the ball is going into the net with 120% certainty. If you’re smart, you delay your whistle, wait for the attack to potentially finish and then whistle the penalty.
DeleteI agree with all the commenters here: the best "advantage" in the penalty area is actually a penalty. The only thing a referee can do is to delay the whistle in case of a 100% goal-scoring chance. Nevertheless, if it doesn't result in a goal, the only expected decision is a penalty. So it's not an actual advantage, more of a smart delayed whistle (the most important outcome is a goal, teams shouldn't be denied of it in order to just get a penalty).
DeleteSuch a pity he needed VAR for that handball penalty, otherwise a very good, consistent performance with a clear tactics by the German.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to see again the situation leading to the penalty? Thanks in advance
Deletehttps://dubz.co/v/13652a
DeleteMany thanks
DeleteMixed first half for Siebert in a challenging match. Many, many minor fouls to be whistled, so Siebert was not able to stay in the background. In general, I‘d say foul detection was good. Not as convinced in respect to disciplinary control, first two YCs were harsh, first one definitely wrong. He could have spared them.
ReplyDeleteThen, we have the fact of two correct VAR interventions. Impossible to see the handball before potential 1-0 for CZE. In 45‘, handball penalty was missed by Siebert. With a more central positioning, it would not have been impossible to detect it, but still tough in real speed. Good work by Fritz.
Surely Siebert won‘t be satisfied about the fact of two interventions, however, one cannot really blame hin in all the situations. Nevertheless, Rosetti has some arguments in his pockets if he wants to give Siebert one match only…
At penalty kicks he takes too long to window dress. I've seen it before with him he spends 3 hrs in the kitchen to make a 4 min microwave meal.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually quite pleased with Siebert in this 1H: he had a high number of technical decisions to be made, thus making the game difficult from this standpoint. He is clearly trying to control things using his usual strict line and high technical accuracy, and I think he mostly succeeded up until this point. Of the KMIs presented, he correctly solved potential penalties for GEO in 4' (good play on), for CZE in 7' (no handball, the arm was stuck to the body) and again for GEO in 10' (another correct play on, IMO). VAR intervention for a handball directly leading to the goal of CZE in 24' is the best example of a decision perfectly fitting VAR, this was impossible to see on field and I put no blame on Siebert. On the other hand, the OFR for a handball penalty in 45+2' was probably avoidable, although still not easy to correctly perceive from Siebert's position (we had a benefit of a sideways camera view on TV). Of course, very good work by the VAR crew.
ReplyDeleteDisciplinary line is strict, but used well, with correct YCs in 36' (GEO4) and 39' (CZE14), indicating Siebert's good feeling for the match heating up in those moments and trying to prevent any possible problems. Unfortunately, the first YC for CZE5 in 18' seems to be rather wrong (a normal, careless foul). Siebert maybe thought it was beneficial from the game management perspective (many fouls on Kvaratskhelia, similar to Orsato with Bellingham in SRB – ENG), but I don't think it was the best moment to "open the cards". However, there are no issues in control whatsoever, Siebert is actually respected a lot (at least that's my feeling). His attentiveness at set pieces is of particular note: he is really paying close attention to prevention there, and it actually works quite well, to be honest.
This was an extremely challenging first half if compared to other games. You see, one can even discuss about good performance by the German regarding the rest, but when you have two interventions, it's alwyas hard. I think he should have spotted the penalty without VAR intervention, while definitely no chances for the previous situation. German referee is quite unlucky I must admit, once penalty area incidents are hard to assess, it's always demanding for referee.
ReplyDeleteSo when we see other games, and mostly without any particular happening, we say "excellent", we should then think about that.
Agree with you that he should have detected the penalty by himself, based on his quite good position. He was from approx. 15 meters directly looking into the handball situation. OFR could have been avoided. Curious how UEFA will evaluate this, although we will most probably never know.
DeleteHow many Var coreections we have. Did I correctly count that it is 12?
ReplyDeleteYes, 12. The interventions today were the first of MD2. (Thx to HowardMaxi for the stats).
DeleteWrong YC for Soucek, not even a foul
ReplyDeleteOverall I liked his style and a decent performance.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion a at least convincing performance by Siebert, despite the two VAR interventions. First one is almost impossible for the whole crew, second one could be seen live, but is not easy. Otherwise he is in full control with very good movements and convincing disciplinary management. He could have another game, probably even a KO one. He was better as for example Vincic or Taylor, I think.
ReplyDeleteSiebert executed the job he was sent to do in this tie. To be honest, I thought his performance was very good (one could easily forget it wasn't a WC2006 game taking place in Hamburg :)). The official from Berlin would be a good choice for the Slovakia-Romania tie on Wednesday imo.
ReplyDeleteGood overall in a challenging game. Siebert still allowed for his usual style but also blew when he had to. 7 of the 9 cautions were correct, and all KMIs even with 2 interventions. Should get another game, maybe Slovakia-Romania suitable for him
ReplyDeleteI have the same feeling like after the 1H: a very good performance generally, and one I actually liked quite a lot. The game was challenging in terms of the sheer amount of situations to assess, some of them quite difficult. Siebert continued with his high technical accuracy in the 2H. IMHO, his foul detection was good, he managed to maintain a clear line and the style he used was actually well chosen for this match, which enabled him to keep overall control well. I also liked his disciplinary line in the 2H (quite strict and pedantic, actually, but well chosen and maintained again): YCs in 46' (CZE15, hard reckless block), 53' (CZE3, SPA), 81' (CZE22, reckless tackle), 82' (GEO15, premature entering during substitution), 83' (GEO20, very reckless studs-on-ankle tackle) and 90+5' (GEO6, DtR, preventing execution of a FK) were all correct for me, and none were actually missed. The tackle in 83' was, at least for my taste, quite close to a RC offence, but I would back Siebert's assessment here as I deem it a borderline decision.
ReplyDeleteHe again faced some PAI and solved all of them correctly IMO: while I'm still not sure if the ball even touched the arm of the GEO player in 61', the potential penalties for CZE in 64' and 87' were correctly rejected for my taste, as none of the incidents involved enough intensity to actually bring the players down; they both rather fell on their own.
To sum up, Siebert presented a high technical accuracy, adopted a strict, but optimal line in foul detection and disciplinary management (well chosen for this specific match), and showed quite good prevention skills which all assured he was respected by the players and controlled the proceedings quite well. Unfortunately, the OFR in 45+2' stays as a mistake that could have been avoided, but I still think it was not an easy situation to assess from Siebert's position and hope that it will not hinder his progress towards a second game in the tournament, which I strongly think he deserves to get.
Already three cards for (re)entering w/o permission in this Euro! 😀
DeleteFully agree with 2 additional remarks from my side
DeleteIn my opinion, Siebert was a little too early in giving cards, which ultimately resulted in 9 YCs, all of which can be given, but should not be given
Using clearly visible energetic public admonitions/warnings before starting to give cards is part of the disciplinary toolbox could have been used a bit more.
He has a very good physical condition as well as good sprinting ability. He often stands where he should stand.
Nice athletic running ability and style.
Apart from the penalty decision in 45'+2' an effective and good performance.
61': https://www.streambug.io/cv/01edf9
DeleteAfter the penalty awarded against them, if there was clear evidence of a touch via the snickometer, could the Czechs feel hard done by here in a comparable incident?
Dukat, thanks for the good summary.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely
His analisys for entire Euro are top tier.
DeleteBravo,just bravo.
+1 M.
DeleteAgree, very interesting analisys, as always. Thank you
DeleteThank you for your appreciation. I'm actually always in doubt about the quality of my comments, but if anyone finds them even a bit useful for this blog, it makes me happy.
DeleteGood performance by Siebert. I think that his second performnace will decide does he go on round of 16 or not!
ReplyDeleteI don’t know about Siebert for KO phase, because is also Zwayer and Germany team. Maybe Siebert could be the FO in KO stage.
DeleteMost YCs in a EURO game
ReplyDelete10 - GER-CZE 1996, David Elleray (ENG)
9 - POR-ESP 2012 (extra time), Cüneyt Cakir (TUR)
9 - POR-FRA 2016 (extra time), Mark Clattenburg (ENG)
9 - GEO-CZE 2024, Daniel Siebert (GER)
8 - RUS-GRE 2004, Gilles Veissiere (FRA)
8 - SUI-POR 2008, Konrad Plautz (AUT)
8 - CZE-POL 2012, Craig Thomson (SCO)
You forgot Denmark-Spain in 1984! ;)
DeleteOne of the hardest games ever and ten yellow cards at this time is like 20+ these days. Elleray was rejected by UEFA for that^^ performance by the way, missed red card(s), an assessment I'd agree with personally.
OK, then the stats are incomplete here
Deletehttps://www.worldfootball.net/report/em-1984-in-frankreich-halbfinale-spanien-daenemark/
So, for completeness:
10 - ESP-DEN 1984 (extra time), George Courtney (ENG)
Interesting that three English referees are in the top 5.
And the actual incentive for the comment:
For 90 minutes games, Siebert had the highest YCs count in the last 7 tournaments.
Highlights:
ReplyDeletehttps://files.fm/u/x85ugv686j