It wasn't unlucky number thirteen for all the referees - two of the darker horses performed very well on important games, while candidate number one for the final emerged from a potentially tricky encounter ultimately unscathed. Full analysis in this prose-format post.
A report on Antonio Mateu Lahoz's performance in the Portugal vs. France game can be found here (link). On this post, we focus on Wednesday's three other games in the EURO.
After a good job in Denmark - Belgium, experienced Björn Kuipers was appointed to handle the Slovakia vs. Spain game, and while it ultimately turned into a rout for the hosts in Seville, the designation was one to a match of at least medium risk.
The most significant situation for us is the penalty awarded to Spain early in the match (clip). Kuipers reversed his on-field decision of a defensive freekick having been called to the review area by fellow Dutchman, VAR Pol van Boekal, to award a spot kick for a tripping offence.
The penalty decision was widely accepted by both media and, I'd say, a majority (?) of our commenters too. The review process was quick and besides anything, the final score ensured that this situation was quite far away from the media glaze in any case. But personally, I cannot see how this decision should be considered anything other than wrong.
Hromada is about to kick the ball away, Koke is late to the duel, and quite blatantly puts his leg out in order to ensure he gets hit. Actually, it is Koke who should be punished, for illicitly impeding Hromada's attempt to clear the ball, and Kuipers was quite correct with his initial decision for a defensive freekick.
I would argue there is clearly more to assessing duels than "who kicked who" (this excellent penalty decision from WC 2014, eg). However, this theoretical discussion is one taking place on our blog only. Actually, the whole scene was probably perfectly summed up by our commentator here - "he is going to have to give this, isn't he?".
To call the rest of Kuipers' performance in the first half 'not totally convincing' would be a relatively polite way of formulating it, in my view. His technical accuracy was quite genuinely all-over-the-place, so many whistles with excessive delay for deliberate (or teammate input) - 13', 16', 16', 21', 28', 40', 41', 45'.
It was only by experience, personality, and actually a bit of luck, that the whole thing didn't go genuinely south for Kuipers in the first half. A potential violent conduct by Juraj Kucka went totally missed by the officials (clip) - the expected decision is yellow card nowadays, Kucka's kick lacked brutality or huge force.
The second half was a bit quieter, where the only really relevant scene is a caution to Škrinar for a flagrant push on Kuipers right at the end of the game (clip). Sometimes it is a bit cheap to declare that an easy win helped 'save' a referee, but given how the first forty-five went for the referee, I would argue that this time, it is a fair charge.
After a good job in Denmark - Belgium, experienced Björn Kuipers was appointed to handle the Slovakia vs. Spain game, and while it ultimately turned into a rout for the hosts in Seville, the designation was one to a match of at least medium risk.
The most significant situation for us is the penalty awarded to Spain early in the match (clip). Kuipers reversed his on-field decision of a defensive freekick having been called to the review area by fellow Dutchman, VAR Pol van Boekal, to award a spot kick for a tripping offence.
The penalty decision was widely accepted by both media and, I'd say, a majority (?) of our commenters too. The review process was quick and besides anything, the final score ensured that this situation was quite far away from the media glaze in any case. But personally, I cannot see how this decision should be considered anything other than wrong.
Hromada is about to kick the ball away, Koke is late to the duel, and quite blatantly puts his leg out in order to ensure he gets hit. Actually, it is Koke who should be punished, for illicitly impeding Hromada's attempt to clear the ball, and Kuipers was quite correct with his initial decision for a defensive freekick.
I would argue there is clearly more to assessing duels than "who kicked who" (this excellent penalty decision from WC 2014, eg). However, this theoretical discussion is one taking place on our blog only. Actually, the whole scene was probably perfectly summed up by our commentator here - "he is going to have to give this, isn't he?".
To call the rest of Kuipers' performance in the first half 'not totally convincing' would be a relatively polite way of formulating it, in my view. His technical accuracy was quite genuinely all-over-the-place, so many whistles with excessive delay for deliberate (or teammate input) - 13', 16', 16', 21', 28', 40', 41', 45'.
It was only by experience, personality, and actually a bit of luck, that the whole thing didn't go genuinely south for Kuipers in the first half. A potential violent conduct by Juraj Kucka went totally missed by the officials (clip) - the expected decision is yellow card nowadays, Kucka's kick lacked brutality or huge force.
The second half was a bit quieter, where the only really relevant scene is a caution to Škrinar for a flagrant push on Kuipers right at the end of the game (clip). Sometimes it is a bit cheap to declare that an easy win helped 'save' a referee, but given how the first forty-five went for the referee, I would argue that this time, it is a fair charge.
-> In the end, nobody outside this blog surely noticed how weak Björn Kuipers' performance in this game was, and without doubt we can expect a further assignment for him in the knockout stage. However, in order to reach the final in accordance with the performance principle, the Dutchman will have to significantly improve next time out.
Sergej Karasëv performed well in a quiet Italy - Switzerland game to open his EURO, and was correctly rewarded with a pretty important second assignment, Germany vs. Hungary. In a game of some difficulty and great tension, the Russian referee delivered perhaps the best performance of the whole group stage in my opinion.
His use of sanctions was faultless - clear warning to Fiola after he committed the same foul for the second time (6', then 27'), before five correct cautions (tackle, SPA, SPA, tackle, challenge). An overly managerial approach to sanctions would have been a bad idea in this game, and Karasëv always kept to his predictable line.
Recognition and punishment of foul infractions was a strength of this performance (only besides 32'), he calmed down the hotter periods of the match (26'-35', 60'-67' ish) well, and his player interactions were very satisfying.
I honestly noted one real point for improvement - in his card showing procedure, a couple of times his presence was a bit isolated. Some more whistling, words, presence, wouldn't have gone amiss on a couple of occasions.
-> In general, a more-or-less faultless performance by Sergej Karasëv. His appointment to a knockout stage game was not only correct according to the performance principle, but actually totally mandatory, after his two group stage appearances (especially this one).
Sweden vs. Poland was the lesserly sonorous leg of the Group E final round, but ultimately proved to be the much-tighter game of the two for referee Michael Oliver. His major tournament debut, Hungary - France, was a successful one, and in St. Petersburg, the Englishman confirmed that convincing impression.
Oliver synthesised cautions (10', 74', 83') and verbal admonitions (32', 37', 38') perfectly, especially according to the tournament's guidelines. He became the first referee to issue a sanction to a technical staff member (84'); personally, I'd have liked a further yellow at 46' for a tactical foul, but acceptable no card.
The mutual respect between players, even / especially 'big name' protagonists, and referee was very visible in this match. Oliver benefits a lot from his Premier League recognition, in addition to his co-operative way of dealing with teams in his games.
There were three interesting penalty appeals in the second half (clip), and Stuart Burt was correct to raise his flag at 65', Poland had the ball in the net; the assistant had correctly computed the situation as offside (clip).
-> This English trio ensured a third appointment with a fully convincing performance in an important and moderately challenging second assignment.
Balance: Michael Oliver and Sergej Karasëv certainly recommended themselves for higher tasks with sovereign performances in important games, and Björn Kuipers didn't disqualify himself for bigger things either, getting through in Seville.
It will be fascinating to see how all three perform in the knockout stage (assuming that Kuipers, a given(!), and Oliver will get further appointments).
Refereeing highlights:
Slovakia - Spain
Germany - Hungary
It will be fascinating to see how all three perform in the knockout stage (assuming that Kuipers, a given(!), and Oliver will get further appointments).
Refereeing highlights:
Slovakia - Spain
Germany - Hungary
發佈留言