Harry Kane's conversion of his saved extra time spot-kick proved decisive in determining the victor of the second EURO semifinal; the context of Danny Makkelie's penalty call was the most extreme of the whole tournament. A deeper look at the merits of it, and the Dutch referee's performance as a whole, in this post.
We will begin by analysing the key match incidents in chronological turn.
Big Decisions
The video montage above contains the following situations:
29' - Freekick call; Denmark score for 0-1
74' - Potential penalty to England (tripping)
102' - Penalty given to England (tripping)
114' - Potential penalty to England (tripping)
---
29': While Makkelie is correct to penalise the impeding offence by Shaw, it isn't immediately obvious that the foul continues after the freekick is struck. Looking at the sequence on frame-by-frame, the Makkelie's decision is at least supportable, if not correct. Ordering the kick retaken was probably still also an option, too.
Technically, perhaps one can find a reason for disallowing the goal and awarding an indirect freekick for illicit behaviour regarding the wall, but this is a moment to ask "what does football expect?" and using the so-called Law 18, of common sense.
74': The comments on this situation on the blog were in two camps; "clear penalty", or "supportable, not enough"; I disagree with both, this was an excellent decision by the Dutch referee.
Kane tries to run around the back of Nørgaard in reaching the ball, and while the England attacker does get to the ball first, he pokes it forward in a manner so as not to trying to continue running with it, while crashing into the defender who has won the position.
Makkelie perceives all of this instantly, and reacts perfectly to the incident. While many would have panicked, awarded a defensive freekick or played on for perceived self-preservation, the Dutchman took the right decision by simply perceiving the incident correctly. Well done.
102': The most important and controversial refereeing decision of UEFA EURO 2020!
The big problem with this decision is that Sterling ultimately falls of his own accord, putting his arms out to break his own decent. Mæhle does make contact with the attacker, but it is after when Jensen gets in Sterling's way (not illegally!) of what he was trying to do, does he go down.
Sterling is noted for premeditated dives, but I do not believe that was the case here; in the moment, he decides that going down is actually his best option, when the ball is no longer reachable. I do feel for Makkelie, this is not the sort of decision one wants to face in extra time of a EURO semifinal.
Technically, perhaps one can find a reason for disallowing the goal and awarding an indirect freekick for illicit behaviour regarding the wall, but this is a moment to ask "what does football expect?" and using the so-called Law 18, of common sense.
74': The comments on this situation on the blog were in two camps; "clear penalty", or "supportable, not enough"; I disagree with both, this was an excellent decision by the Dutch referee.
Kane tries to run around the back of Nørgaard in reaching the ball, and while the England attacker does get to the ball first, he pokes it forward in a manner so as not to trying to continue running with it, while crashing into the defender who has won the position.
Makkelie perceives all of this instantly, and reacts perfectly to the incident. While many would have panicked, awarded a defensive freekick or played on for perceived self-preservation, the Dutchman took the right decision by simply perceiving the incident correctly. Well done.
102': The most important and controversial refereeing decision of UEFA EURO 2020!
The big problem with this decision is that Sterling ultimately falls of his own accord, putting his arms out to break his own decent. Mæhle does make contact with the attacker, but it is after when Jensen gets in Sterling's way (not illegally!) of what he was trying to do, does he go down.
Sterling is noted for premeditated dives, but I do not believe that was the case here; in the moment, he decides that going down is actually his best option, when the ball is no longer reachable. I do feel for Makkelie, this is not the sort of decision one wants to face in extra time of a EURO semifinal.
Having rewatched the situation after the final whistle, I would be quite sure that the Dutch referee wished he had played on, and not awarded a penalty. Ironic, somehow, that when Rosetti decides to publicly state his internal mantra - "no soft penalties!" - that exactly that proved decisive in one of the tournament's huge games.
Pol van Boekel was correct to support this decision in UEFA vision of video assistant refereeing, and the second ball is an interesting curiosity of this situation and not more - it didn't interfere with the play. Though instantly blowing when the two nearly touched each other might have proved valuable in the end...
114': Actually quite a borderline situation! As Henderson touches the ball too far ahead of himself, and the late challenge didn't prevent him from reaching the ball and was carless - the referee was correct to give the go on.
Pol van Boekel was correct to support this decision in UEFA vision of video assistant refereeing, and the second ball is an interesting curiosity of this situation and not more - it didn't interfere with the play. Though instantly blowing when the two nearly touched each other might have proved valuable in the end...
114': Actually quite a borderline situation! As Henderson touches the ball too far ahead of himself, and the late challenge didn't prevent him from reaching the ball and was carless - the referee was correct to give the go on.
Managing the Game
For more of this semifinal than not, Danny Makkelie refereed it pretty optimally, keeping all the incidents in view while staying in the background successfully. By the end, even besides the penalty call, he had lost it a bit.
The game started very intensely - the referee could have had one caution for SPA (1'), two for reckless challenges (1', 2') if so wished, and a potential deliberate pass to the goalkeeper incident (3'). In all of those scenes, Makkelie took the most sensible decisions, and secured the game.
I thought he used his sanctions pretty optimally until 80' - no card at 28' was borderline but okay, striking offence at 49' was clearly reckless, 72' was a very good refereeing card. His quiet whistle tones, unobtrusive manner, was working perfectly until about 80'.
The game started very intensely - the referee could have had one caution for SPA (1'), two for reckless challenges (1', 2') if so wished, and a potential deliberate pass to the goalkeeper incident (3'). In all of those scenes, Makkelie took the most sensible decisions, and secured the game.
I thought he used his sanctions pretty optimally until 80' - no card at 28' was borderline but okay, striking offence at 49' was clearly reckless, 72' was a very good refereeing card. His quiet whistle tones, unobtrusive manner, was working perfectly until about 80'.
After that, I thought Makkelie became a bit isolated. He solved a player-player altercation okay at 80', but that should have been the signal to change his approach a bit; having not done so, he became a bit stuck.
He had to bare a blatant dissent at 82' after a wrong freekick call, missed a yellow card at 85' for an LoR holding and was the loser in dealing with another dissent at +94'. One had the feeling that the no longer was the Dutch referee on top of the incidents in a sophisticated way anymore.
His management of additional time at the end of the second half, missed foul at 94', and rather failed DtR handling at 109' were further signals in that direction. Dare I say, that the penalty decision itself at 102' was perhaps the clearest sign of all.
He had to bare a blatant dissent at 82' after a wrong freekick call, missed a yellow card at 85' for an LoR holding and was the loser in dealing with another dissent at +94'. One had the feeling that the no longer was the Dutch referee on top of the incidents in a sophisticated way anymore.
His management of additional time at the end of the second half, missed foul at 94', and rather failed DtR handling at 109' were further signals in that direction. Dare I say, that the penalty decision itself at 102' was perhaps the clearest sign of all.
Summary: In the holistic picture, I would say that Danny Makkelie - despite being excellent for eighty minutes - ultimately 'failed the test' in this match; one could expect this performance to be rejected by UEFA.
Balance
At the moment of the excellent 74' decision, Danny Makkelie had realised an excellent performance in a demanding and pretty frenzied match. By the end however, the Dutch referee had partly lost his grip on proceedings, and the match had become the most controversial of the tournament.
The penalty was perhaps the image of the "soft" penalty which Roberto Rosetti had cautioned his referees against awarding - one can be quite sure that Makkelie upon rewatching, after the match, wished upon wished that he had decided differently on the pitch.
The great irony is that, of course, video assistant refereeing could have given him exactly that rewatching chance; but yet, they couldn't. Whether those guidelines, this vision for VAR is good - or bad - for football, perhaps requires some quite existential ponderance after the tournament's end.
發佈留言