Second game for German referee Daniel Siebert, in charge of Slovakia - Romania.
Game 33, Group E
Frankfurt, 26 June 2024 18:00 CET
SLOVAKIA - ROMANIA
Referee: Daniel Siebert GER
Assistant Referee 1: Jan Seidel GER
Assistant Referee 2: Rafael Foltyn GER
Fourth Official: Felix Zwayer GER
Reserve Assistant Referee: Marco Achmüller GER
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert GER
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 1: Christian Dingert GER
Assistant Video Assistant Referee 2: Massimiliano Irrati ITA
UEFA Referee Observer: Nicola Rizzoli ITA
UEFA Delegate: Konul Mehtiyeva AZE
First opportunity for a YC in 6' for a slightly-cynical, potential failing to show respect for the game situation. Siebert correctly remains patient, delivering a strong warning, and keeping his options for disciplinary escalation later in the match open.
ReplyDeleteVAR check 35'. Foul moved inside the box and therefore penalty
ReplyDeleteI must maybe rewatched but it looked to me that the first contact, ended and then a second started on the line, the first contact didn't continue inside the box.
Delete34' Siebert whistled free kick to Romania just outside the box, replay showed that there was a first touch outside and a second inside.
ReplyDeleteAfter a long check, VAR overturned into penalty, without OFR.
In this case communication VAR - referee should be; "Did you punish first or second contact?" Otherwise, in my opinion, better OFR because referee can have different idea once rewatched.
Very interesting situation. Lutz Wagner agrees that first contact (outside) doesn't cause the fall, whereas the second (inside) did. Agree with Chefren that Siebert should have been given a chance to decide himself whether he agreed with Dankert.
DeleteAbsolutely. It is crucial that the VAR asked Siebert what contact whistled. I hope it happened. The YC was also removed as per regularion because the defender attempted to play the ball.
DeleteI agree with the final decision due to the first contact being absolutely minimal, however, situations like these should IMO warrant an OFR. We've seen some confusing decisions caused by miscommunication between VAR and the Referee and therefore if there were 2 separate contacts like in this case, it should no longer be considered a factual decision, and an OFR should be justified.
DeleteI agree with MT, so this was my point in case Dankert can't decide by himself that second contact was the punishable one.
DeleteWhatever Siebert have said, I don't understand how VAR made factual decision instead of OFR...
Delete1) If Siebert said second contact is not foul
It must be OFR
2) If Siebert said that he didn't see second contact
It must be OFR
The only way that leads to factual decision (VAR Intervention) is that first contact was inside...but it wasn't
The only option is Siebert told VAR that both contacts were outside. That would lead to factual decision.
DeleteYup, even though the chance for something like that is minimal.
DeleteIf you see that second contact is outside than it's a big big mistake.
He might have said something along the lines of "I didn't whistle for the contact with the foot, but the one with the shin". That might have turned it into a factual decision. However I stand by my first comment. An OFR in this case would help if nothing else, but transparency.
DeleteAs I said in the comment above, if Siebert saw second contact outside, I'm affraid it's a massive mistake.
DeleteWhy is the fact that the second contact is a foul not more controversially discussed? I struggle to see that it's a clear foul. The attacker seems to "look for the touch". I'd love to hear your opinions on why this seems to be a clear foul.
DeleteFor me the first contact is not enough for giving foul and the 2nd one with the knee is a foul but in the opening game with Turpin was nearly the same thing do you give the first contact or the 2nd so don’t really know, but on this game correct decision for me
ReplyDeleteAlready 15th VAR intervetnion?
ReplyDeleteWhat I do really like about the penalty, is taking back the yellow card. I've often seen that did not happen. Yellow was for SPA, that wasn't the case anymore so no yellow card.
ReplyDeleteFor the rest, good and accepted performance.
This must always happen with VAR protocol, once a free kick (and genuine SPA) decision is changed in penalty by VAR.
DeleteDon't know where you saw that this doesn't happen?
@RikB
DeleteAnd why can't SPA happen in the box?
Why should refs structly punish SPA with YC when that happens outside?
Same thing with handball that they changed.
When it hits player in the box and goes towards goal,no YC.We couod also say that this is also stopping something promising,in this case,shot.
When it hits player outside when live action,something like counter attack is happening we often see YC issued for SPA.
Nowadays the goal is not to show too much cards and to be in shadows as much as they can.
@Chefren In NL I've often seen that happen.
Delete@M Cause SPA in the box is no yellow card, unless by for example holding.
i think first contact very soft, but the second contact for me justification that only second contact must be punished
ReplyDeletePenalty (inside/outside) incident:
ReplyDeletehttps://streambug.org/cv/b52c7f
Wrong decision imo only the first contact is a foul
DeleteSorry but I cant agree with penalty here. The initial - punishable contact is the first one from which the attacker started to fall and then the second contact occuered. Wrong var intervention in my opinion and possibly wrongly misread situation here.
DeleteThe number of VAR intervention should be 18 at moment.
ReplyDeleteEURO 2020 has been surpassed.
That means 0,52 per game.
Too much.
DeleteEither the game is faster and refs can't keep up or they are just relying on VAR and they don't have courage to make the calls themselves.
Agree with M, but we need to said that football is completley different than in 2021!
Deleteno problem at all, VAR created because of that. Human eyes full of doubtness, VAR help that.
DeleteI don't think you can draw conclusions from these numbers. Statisticly not correct to do so. 18 is such a low number, it can just be a coincidence. There where a few really tight ones.
DeleteI think it's more interesting to look at the absolute amount of avoidable OFR's. Don't think there are a lot more of these than three years ago.
And some of them missed, at least one, if not two penalties for Serbia. Lot of VAR means lower quality of refereeing.
Delete@Nole agree.
DeleteHeavy rain and wind started, affecting the game's quality and more contacts could occur. Siebert must be careful
ReplyDeleteHe may have to stop the game ball isnt moving well in parts
ReplyDeleteWell, you don't know UEFA in this regard, if you say that :D
DeleteIn the 85 min. there was a RC for ROM player, in my oppinion
ReplyDelete88th minute - I agree
DeleteI always or was under the impression VAR 'asks' the referee to review the penalty on the screen i.e. that is the protocol.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he just awarded it after being informed.
So do referees not have to go to the screen?
Can we get all the video clips of the games please?
ReplyDeleteSiebert actually managed to convince me again, despite his mistake corrected by the VAR. He again employed his usual pedantic style and it again worked IMO, both in terms of foul detection and disciplinary management. High technical accuracy and closely monitoring every potential duel are definitely his forte, as he rather lacks in natural authority and leadership of, for example, Marciniak. He needs to work hard to establish and maintain those, but I'd argue he succeeded again and never experienced any issues in his control over the match.
ReplyDeleteDisciplinary management was, IMO, good and well-chosen for this specific match, but with one situation where I would have liked if he had taken a different path. All YCs issued were correct, IMO: 45+1' (ROU15, reckless/SPA), 45+3' (ROU11, reckless kick of the foot), 55' (ROU coach, protest/dissent), 90+1' (SVK8, reckless tackle). I was especially glad that he chose the moment of the first card wisely, issuing a strong warning in 6' instead of cautioning immediately, thus saving his "ammo" in a situation which permitted such an approach. However, the YC issued to ROU9 in 88', for a very reckless high kick with studs in the back, was actually more SFP than anything else for my personal taste. On the other hand, due to more of a glancing nature of that foul, rather than an actual "full planting", I think the Committee will probably support him.
The key decision of the match came after a careless foul by SVK16 right on the side line of the PA. I think Siebert quite correctly perceived that the second contact (on the shin) was punishable, not the slight first contact with the tip of the shoe. Unfortunately, he failed to properly assess the depth, deciding it happened just outside the PA. The subsequent VAR intervention was IMO correct, as I think the only fault here was Siebert's misjudgment of the exact position of the foul, but I understand all those who were in favour of an OFR, as it would have definitely provided some more clarity on the issue. However, I do think they managed the whole thing correctly in the end. Whether I place the full blame on Siebert is a question of its own: although it is probably regarded as a significant mistake, this misjudgment is still somehow understandable, as it happened right on the line (according to a still photo provided by the broadcaster) and I don't think anyone can say that they would have certainly perceived it correctly in Siebert's place. After all, VAR was invented to prevent "understandable" errors like this from ruining matches.
All things considered, a good performance for me overall, even with the mistake that required some outside help.