Filip Glova, France - Norway

I think that it is impossible to make any judgement because a player from France is obstructing our view in the video. I think we can't blame referee for this incident, I think he had also players obstructing his line of vision. A close positioning wouldn't have helped. AR2 is never shown so I can't judge on his assessment as well.

The feeling is that it could be goal, but one must back officials here. Nopwadays it sounds very particular to observe games without VAR and GLT, to be honest :) 

Having already talked above about the most important incident (possible goal, difficult to detect), I must say that I was not really impressed by Slovakian. You can support him in all the crucial situations (apart from the possible goal, there were two penalty appeals), but I think he could have managed better the game especially under the disciplinary point of view. The only YC of the game was a very mandatory one, for a frustration foul (one could even discuss about straight RC here), but the tendency by referee was to keep cards all match long. There were some situations in which YC was possible, but all were not 100% mandatory, the classic cases in which you can decided based on the game. However, I must also add that he spent a warning for the only significant challenge of first half (if you exclude the first penalty appeal). The management of added time in first half was a point for improvement, he added 2 minutes but game was stopped for 2 minutes (cooling break) and then further 1 minute and 30 seconds for a double injury. So at least 3 minutes if not 4 should have been the correct decision. 
Assistant referees were very good, all the offside decisions were correct, in addition there were some great onsides.
A small summary about that:
13' Good onside AR1
14' Correct offside AR2 
21' Correct offside AR1 
75' Correct offside AR2
87' Correct offside AR2 
There were also other ONSIDE decisions, important for the game, but impossible to judge. In addition, good cooperation by both of them, according to the folllowing pattern:
11' cooperation (handball) AR2
63' cooperation (foul) AR2
90'+1 cooperation (foul and YC) AR1.

Let's start with the cooperation by AR2 in 11', reporting deliberate handball

In 30', there was a penalty appeal by Norway, until that moment, game had been very, very calm.
A very risky challenge in any case by defender. It is not clear how much he hit the ball and how much the opponent, however I think that the decision by referee is supportable, for me not a clear penalty. One must also add that whistling a penalty wouldn't have been wrong. I'm interested in your opinions.

A warning was spent in 38' for a challenge against keeper. Careless or reckless? Referee is aware with a warning. Can be this enough?

In 87' another penalty appeal:
In this case I think referee was right. Attacker went against the opponent to win easily the penalty, despite of a possible contact. I praise the referee in this case. Replay was shown later during the game, but this short live sequence is the best footage for assessing it. 

In 90'+1 frustration came for Norway, this foul was a mandatory YC if not more:
But maybe with a different approach by referee this could have been avoided. 

I think that with the end of group stage, Glova reached his maximum in this tournament, indeed I see that he has been appointed as fourth official for a semifinal, I think that he still needs time to develop.

LAW 5 - THE REFEREE BLOG REPORTER:
Chefren