A EURO-record three penalties were given by Antonio Mateu Lahoz in the most controversy match so far. While the two-each draw was enough to see both Portugal and France advance, the Spanish referee might be in more difficulty. This post explains why.
Analysis of the remaining three group matches from Wednesday will be out tomorrow, but in this post we will focus exclusively on Portugal vs. France. Let's begin with the key match incidents.
Big Decisions
In the above montage:
28' - Penalty given to Portugal (charging / striking) + YC (reckless)
45' - Penalty given to France (impeding)
47' - Offside call by Roberto Díaz Pérez del Palomar overruled; goal to France (1-2*)
28' - Penalty given to Portugal (charging / striking) + YC (reckless)
45' - Penalty given to France (impeding)
47' - Offside call by Roberto Díaz Pérez del Palomar overruled; goal to France (1-2*)
58' - Penalty given to Portugal (handling)
+92' - Challenge incident involving Portugal no.11
+92' - Challenge incident involving Portugal no.11
---
The key scene to analyse in order to assess this performance, especially the resonance it generated outside the refereeing world, is the penalty kick awarded to France just before halftime (separate clip is here).
In general this decision caused wide consternation, but actually I can definitely see what Mateu saw - Semedo can see that Mbappé is likely to receive a promising ball into the penalty area, and deliberately steps across his path in order to block his run.
In general this decision caused wide consternation, but actually I can definitely see what Mateu saw - Semedo can see that Mbappé is likely to receive a promising ball into the penalty area, and deliberately steps across his path in order to block his run.
Pundits on television here bemoaned the lack of "contact", but I am surprised former top footballers don't understand that it is the desired position that is so important. As I said for Turpin's penalty awarded on Monday - attackers cannot run through brick walls. This decision is not without merit.
However, I was (and am) stunned that Mateu gave it. A referee with his football understanding surely realises that such challenges are widely understood as "normal defensive play". With a play on call, the world would probably have seen one replay and almost unanimously decided that it wasn't enough.
I can only think that the Spanish ref panicked - reading exactly where Pogba's pass was likely to go, he must have been focused on this Semedo-Mbappé duel, and when the Portugal defender did step across the France attacker, in his 'zoomed in' focus, he must have felt like it was too clear to ignore.
Mateu doesn't even signal for a penalty straight away; it is almost like he realises he had to, after perceiving the duel. Honestly, I am still not totally convinced that the contact which made this a (potential) foul was actually inside the penalty area. Cause perhaps for the kind of backdoor OFR which our user usaref advocated in Turpin's situation?
There was much talk of a missed intervention by VAR Alejandro Hernández Hernández, thus far the best at the tournament so far in my estimation, but actually I think he acted in perfect accordance with UEFA's vision for video assistant refereeing.
For the reasons that I have analysed, a foul call is - at least in the technical sense - an acceptable decision in my eyes. And in general, I actually appreciate the UEFA line on this, the referee's perception should still count for something, you should still be focused in assessing the incident as best possible on the pitch. VAR is a safety net which can't catch everything.
-> my final analysis on this draws the same conclusion as for Clément Turpin's penalty to Russia; both he and Mateu panicked a bit in those moments. Play on was the expected call in this scene!
I can only think that the Spanish ref panicked - reading exactly where Pogba's pass was likely to go, he must have been focused on this Semedo-Mbappé duel, and when the Portugal defender did step across the France attacker, in his 'zoomed in' focus, he must have felt like it was too clear to ignore.
Mateu doesn't even signal for a penalty straight away; it is almost like he realises he had to, after perceiving the duel. Honestly, I am still not totally convinced that the contact which made this a (potential) foul was actually inside the penalty area. Cause perhaps for the kind of backdoor OFR which our user usaref advocated in Turpin's situation?
There was much talk of a missed intervention by VAR Alejandro Hernández Hernández, thus far the best at the tournament so far in my estimation, but actually I think he acted in perfect accordance with UEFA's vision for video assistant refereeing.
For the reasons that I have analysed, a foul call is - at least in the technical sense - an acceptable decision in my eyes. And in general, I actually appreciate the UEFA line on this, the referee's perception should still count for something, you should still be focused in assessing the incident as best possible on the pitch. VAR is a safety net which can't catch everything.
-> my final analysis on this draws the same conclusion as for Clément Turpin's penalty to Russia; both he and Mateu panicked a bit in those moments. Play on was the expected call in this scene!
Personally, I can't too 'angry' about this call, I would even say in the technical sense it is a defendable one! But there is something else worth saying too - there are some 'hills worth dying on' in refereeing, the red card to Ampadu, for instance, is one in my view. This penalty call is not.
---
The remaining calls don't require such detailed analysis:
28' - an excellently alert call, well done! Danilo beat Lloris to the ball, the only touch the 'keeper could make on the ball was a deflectionary one. Correct penalty and a yellow card.
47' - a mistake more on the Alonso Fernández / Danos lines than De Vries / Borsch; I don't think it is so unreasonable to expect a EURO-level assistant referee to get that correct in real time. Quick VAR intervention and correct decision reached, onside.
58' - with the arm extended much above the shoulder, a penalty is the correct decision here (distance is 100% immaterial nowadays, according to IFAB anyway)
The final scene (+92') is more interesting. Using frame-by-frame, I came to the conclusion that the fouling contact stopped just before the penalty area line, so the correct solution would be a freekick and a yellow card (not enough for SFP). Another 'backdoor' OFR would be possible somehow, but Hernández was correct in the UEFA vision to say "check complete".
28' - an excellently alert call, well done! Danilo beat Lloris to the ball, the only touch the 'keeper could make on the ball was a deflectionary one. Correct penalty and a yellow card.
47' - a mistake more on the Alonso Fernández / Danos lines than De Vries / Borsch; I don't think it is so unreasonable to expect a EURO-level assistant referee to get that correct in real time. Quick VAR intervention and correct decision reached, onside.
58' - with the arm extended much above the shoulder, a penalty is the correct decision here (distance is 100% immaterial nowadays, according to IFAB anyway)
The final scene (+92') is more interesting. Using frame-by-frame, I came to the conclusion that the fouling contact stopped just before the penalty area line, so the correct solution would be a freekick and a yellow card (not enough for SFP). Another 'backdoor' OFR would be possible somehow, but Hernández was correct in the UEFA vision to say "check complete".
Managing the Game
While the Spanish ref's very visible tactic to let the game flow was beneficial to the game (12', 17', 17', 18', 22'), he started to lose the thread by the 39' card - it is admirable that Mateu wanted 'football to win', but this ultra delayed-whistle procedure was just a bit chaotic and poor game management; not successful idiosyncrasy in this case.
The players didn't make it easy for a referee who has to use cards pretty sparingly by committing multiple ultra-blatant holding fouls in the first half (13', 22', 36'), Mateu decided to issue a caution on the third instance, the one with the field position closest to the opponent's goal.
Showing the caution to Hernandez's back was not a wise tactical choice - the referee should have called the player to him and very clearly shown to everyone that such fouls were not going to go unpunished, or just given a freekick, which the players expected. Of 36' and 39', neither were really an optimal use of sanctions to be honest.
The game changed after the second penalty call, and after halftime as a consequence.
While this period was actually not terribly challenging to be the referee, I had the strong feeling that the referee was not really any longer really in control of the players.
The mobbing incidents at all three penalty scenes helped contribute to that - Portugal players 'forced' him so far back after Mateu had given the penalty to France! And even his management of the first penalty seemed more than the Spaniard as we know him, to me anyway, he seemed pretty flustered (also internally).
In the second half, his security in foul recognition seemed to quite significantly disappear (eg. 52', 53', 63', 85'), and I genuinely had the feeling that he really benefitted from both sets of players accepting that a draw was a decent result for them after the conversion of the penalty in this half.
Summary: Antonio Mateu Lahoz in the past showed the ability to stay calm even in immensely, beyond-very challenging matches (Italy - Sweden playoff, eg.), but in this match I genuinely saw a referee flustered; I think we are slightly in danger of assessing whatever Mateu does as a caprice of a brilliantly unique referee, when that isn't always the case.
He had an off-night, even besides the penalty calls in my view.
Balance
I was quite shocked to see discussions along the lines of "Mateu now out from the final, so he will get a quarterfinal maximum" - to me anyway, it was (and is!) quite obvious to me that Antonio Mateu Lahoz will not be appointed again at this tournament as referee.
The more controversial a performance is, the more distant the actual details of it become. And this was - by far - the most controversial of the EURO so far. The fact that two of the penalties given were quite correct fades away, as Mateu gave three "controversial" penalties, one of which was "blatantly wrong".
For surely the first time at this EURO, sports pages will lead with the image of a referee, not the player(s). UEFA actually have no interest in giving further appointments to a referee who makes such a splash, unless they want to show he was categorically right in all of the key scenes. And in the penalty to France, he wasn't.
The more controversial a performance is, the more distant the actual details of it become. And this was - by far - the most controversial of the EURO so far. The fact that two of the penalties given were quite correct fades away, as Mateu gave three "controversial" penalties, one of which was "blatantly wrong".
For surely the first time at this EURO, sports pages will lead with the image of a referee, not the player(s). UEFA actually have no interest in giving further appointments to a referee who makes such a splash, unless they want to show he was categorically right in all of the key scenes. And in the penalty to France, he wasn't.
UEFA will surely reject this performance. I simply cannot see where in the knockout stage Mateu's name now fits. So, at least as I see it, his tournament is now over.
But we should finish on another note. I genuinely feel very sorry for Mateu Lahoz. UEFA risked him on a third game in the group stage, the only referee to be appointed thrice, and he fell foul of the last hurdle. I quite understand him being more flustered, tired, in his third match in eleven days - this mistake, this performance, was even pretty logical, to be honest.
UEFA could have quite easily avoided this appointment, if they'd so wished. It made perfect sense to appoint another referee, who actually officiated on the same day, to this top clash. It would have hardly been unexpected, I bet many a prediction gamer quite understandably selected his name in what was ultimately Mateu's stead.
But we should finish on another note. I genuinely feel very sorry for Mateu Lahoz. UEFA risked him on a third game in the group stage, the only referee to be appointed thrice, and he fell foul of the last hurdle. I quite understand him being more flustered, tired, in his third match in eleven days - this mistake, this performance, was even pretty logical, to be honest.
UEFA could have quite easily avoided this appointment, if they'd so wished. It made perfect sense to appoint another referee, who actually officiated on the same day, to this top clash. It would have hardly been unexpected, I bet many a prediction gamer quite understandably selected his name in what was ultimately Mateu's stead.
The stakes are much higher in Portugal - France than Finland - Belgium, or Slovakia - Spain; everyone knows that. And it seems UEFA were much more content for some to fail than a couple of others (and, whisper it quietly, the one they really want to succeed really isn't refereeing well at the moment...).
Antonio Mateu Lahoz (and Clément Turpin) will surely now be rejected, while worse-performing, more-favoured referees remain. UEFA seemed unsettlingly relaxed about exactly that happening.
For me at least, that all leaves a pretty sour taste in the mouth.
Refereeing highlights:
Portugal - France
Refereeing highlights:
Portugal - France
發佈留言