Kristo Tohver, Armenia - Spain

Let's start with the total number of fouls in this game: 15. This is a clear signal that it was not really difficult for referee, and indeed I can confirm that game was mostly fair with both teams focused on playing football. This was even more visible in second half, especially when Spain scored 3 goals and there wasn't any chance for Armenia. In first half, however, something happened and there are for sure interesting incidents, in addition to the one already discussed on the blog (thank to those who posted the video). I fully agree with Tohver final choice to allow the goal because I think that in case of foul, this should have been against keeper.

A few words about assistant referees before starting with clips: both with an expected level game, never challenged about offside, no offside calls to make, I can report only the situation at the end of first half (45'+3), that started very likely (video doesn't help us from a good ONSIDE decision, however not difficult. Both assistant referees cooperated with referee (AR1: 28' [YC], 65', 88' | AR2: 72').

So now I will introduce you the clips and this will help you to understand more about what I'm saying.

I start with a possible penalty to Spain exactly in the last action before cooling break in first half (23'):

As you can see from the video, it is not clear whether there was a contact between players and it is also difficult in case to understand where (penalty or free kick?). There weren't protest at all for this situation and I agree with referee.

Following one is the first YC of the game in 28':

Tohver was forced to book the player because one can see arguments for both reckless challenge and SPA. This was a mandatory YC and AR1 cooperated with reporting the foul, very good.

In 32', there was a small moment of tension, the only one of the game, I would say, for this situation:

Deliberate action by attacker against keeper? Could he have avoided that? I think that situation is not clear, one can't read a VC so the management by Tohver seems appropriate. I repeat, very isolated situation in a calm context.

In 41' Spain claimed for penalty but replay helps us: no handball by Armenian defender.

In 44' there was a late challenge by a player from Armenia that is very likely a reckless one.

Referee opted for a warning, I must say that watching replay I would have liked YC here. What is difficult to understand is the exact intensity of the contact, but also in case of very slight touch, this was for sure something dangerous. YC wouldn't have been wrong, however referee showed alertness at least issuing a warning.

The last action of first half (45'+3) was the most interesting situation of the game to analyze, I think that there are strong arguments for a penalty there. Unluckily the lack of closer replays doesn't help us in understanding how much significant this contact was, but my perception is that defender hit attacker when he had already kicked the ball. This sounds like a penalty for me and I would have whistled it. In any case, good by Tohver to wait before whistling, because Armenia could have scored. But then when nothing happened, I think he had to call this penalty. In addition, he whistled the end 13 seconds before the minimum time added (3 minutes) and this was a blatant mistake. About this particular incident (the possible penalty), I really would like to hear your opinions. Also, I don't know how much Tohver was aware of the situation, he didn't make clear gestures.

50': free kick leading to 1-1. As already discussed on the blog, I agree with you that goal was regularly allowed, however in this video you can see the free kick and the YC issued by Tohver for the foul before the goal. Excellent spot, if you ask me, and this can be a "+" in his performance, not all the referees would have noticed it. Spanish player left the leg and he created a reckless challenge.

As already said, second half, when Spain dominated the game, was without story. Referee was rarely challenged, I can report this situation in the very last minute of the game (90'+7):

It is forsure soft but not totally wrong. Attempt to hold opponent after a defensive mistake. However, given the nature of the foul, and despite the fact that maybe it wasn't a clear promising action, I have the feeling once whistled YC should have been issued there. Maybe the fact that foul was soft convinced Tohver in whistling without booking? This would be wrong.

As you can see, there are for sure points for improvements for Tohver, however at the same time I can understand why he can be considered a talent in perspective, spotting the YC before 1-1 was very good, and also the decision to allow the goal. He had a certain courage in front of a situation in which most of the referees call foul in favor of keeper. Also, absolutely correct to add 6 minutes in second half due to cooling break, injures and substitutions. Further 30 seconds were then added because there was another substitution during added time. Points for improvement are the following: always wait for the minimum added time, this is very important and it is also reported by RAPs clips, and for UEFA I would say it is a significant mistake. Also, a more convincing body language to show that you have detected a certain challenge but you prefer to wait / give advantage. I'm sure he will polish his officiating, we should not forge that officiating games as Category 1 referee brings you great experience.

I would like to see Tohver in a more challenging (second) game.

LAW 5 - THE REFEREE BLOG REPORTER:
Chefren