Referee Sergey Ivanov adapted very quickly to the requirements of the match. It was evident from the 1st 10’ that both teams concentrated only on playing football and the match was played on a fair manner. The referee had a consistent line regarding foul detection. His approach to the match was to stay on the background as much as possible and intervene when it was absolutely necessary. His maintained control the whole 120’ and had a good management of players on the few scenes that was necessary (08’ warning to N8 ESP and N9 FRA, 35’ warning to N9 FRA -> I would prefer a caution here but not mandatory).
At min. 28’ there is a possible penalty. N7 ESP gets inside the penalty area and is challenged by N4 FRA. The FRA defender plays the ball clearly and the ESP attacker fells. The referee upon consultation with AR2 signals for a goal-kick.
The referee issued only 1 caution (min. 80’). The match was played on a fair manner without harsh challenges and with little dissent.
Areas for improvement:
Application of Law 16. As we can see in the picture below, this goal-kick wasn’t executed properly. The ESP player N18 is inside the penalty area and looks at the ball. His intention is to intercept the ball before it goes to a FRA defender (not visible from that angle). The ESP player had all the time needed to leave the penalty area but chooses to stay in it. The referee should have retaken the goal-kick.
The referee has a good physical condition and is always close to play. However, on some instances, he intervened in play and was even hit by the ball once (40’ -> restart with drop ball since possession has changed). He should use the diagonal movement more (40’, 51’, 59’).
Both AR’s had good offside calls (AR1 -> 33’, 62’, 70’ AR2 -> 17’, 87’). Both AR’s helped the referee by signaling fouls on their area of vicinity (13’, 43’, 116’).
LAW 5 - THE REFEREE BLOG REPORTER: