November 19, 2013

Discussion: European Play-Offs 2nd legs

Due to a too high number of comments posted under the last thread ( :-) ), please use this post to discuss about the pending European Play-Offs for 2014 FIFA World Cup.

116 Comments:

  1. Out of topic
    ------------------
    Anyone watched Serbia U21-Italy U21 and Firat Aydinus ? (1:0) Very interesting second half,with lot of job for Turkish referee. I didn‘t saw the first half, but his performance was good in second half. Control and Man managment were outstanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched,poor performance by Turkish referee!!!! 55 fouls during the game!!!!! KATASTROFA!!!!!!!!!! He was on side by Italy team!!! Clear!!!

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately I missed this match. I can't say anything.

      Delete
    3. I didnt see the game either. But, let me correct, referee was Halis Ozkahya, not Aydinus..

      Delete
  2. Missing comments blogspot was incapable of treating properly in the last thread (overload), #1:

    Anonymous
    There are many reasons for friendly appointments. They are at the request of the home country to another neutral country - it may be they have a referee exchange scheme with other country; it may be that a cat egory1 or category 2 referee may have a mentor observers from the host country and he may be specific requested so his mentor can watch him and assess development; it may be for reasons of convenient travel; it may be a 'present' for a retiring referee.

    Serik:

    I have watched Alberto Undiano Mallenco in Iceland - Croatia duel. I want to say his foul detection was mostly very good. He let the game flow when no foul occured and whistled nearly every single infringement he could have whistled. Of course, small mistakes like lack of corner kick in 9' or missed handball in 65' must be forgiven in every match we observe. Spaniard nicely detected no-foul in 43' and 67' during very dynamic action and avoided to issue harsh yellow cards in 10' and 41'. His presence was very calm, he showed self-confidence and excellent fitness preparation. Maybe not too communicative, but using very clear verbal warnings when needed. Being close to actions in which players had their doubts only strengthened the control of this game. The only critical situation was the DOGSO and I'm with the referee here to punish it by straight red card, no other way. Assistants were rather unemployed. I detected a good cooperation between REF and AR2 on foul detection area and one.

    Anonymous:

    Well, I am not convinced. What you're saying is, for example, that Belarus, Belgium and Slovenia have invited Turkish referees for tonight's friendlies. Don't have a clue why. As for "as habitually, Niklas has reason" - it's called an argument of an authority, not an authority of an argument. Therefore the debate stays opened as far as I'm concerned.

    Edward:

    Excellent analysis Serik. my report is almost the same.

    Swedish observer:

    I saw only the first half, and as usual there was no charisma from Undiano. That is what I lack about him, and almost all other UEFA candidates have that (apart from Thomson and Velasco Carballo), in my view at least. He also has a fussy style and has difficulties in selling his decision. I think that this is due to his lack of charisma / man-management. Compare him with Webb for example. Two different refereeing styles and one can easily understand why Webb is so much more successful and accepted than Undiano. Impressions of course, but utterly important for an elite ref.

    ReplyDelete
  3. #2

    Phil:

    top clash on saturday between Dortmund and Bayern: what are your predictions? I would love to see Kircher since he is the german ref who IMO is best in interprating the LOTG. He uses the LOTG in a way which helps a match most to become a good match and tends to lenient approach in top clashes. Concerning my prediction: I see three candidates: Gräfe, Kircher, Meyer. Thus Kircher had Dortmund 3 weeks ago and Meyer 2 weeks ago and Gräfe neither officated Bayern nor Dortmund in the last month, I would say Gräfe will be the selected one by Fandel. (remember that Stark (lives in Bavaria) and Brych (lives in Munich) are not possible)

    Mario:

    Coming back to discussion on France, I think that it could be too much strong playing a WC without neither french team, neither french referee, because France is really powerful from politics point of view and I agree with Niclas that, right or wrong, politics plays an important role. Personally I think that it should not be a criteria of appointment but.....that's it or probably it is. In my opinion at least 10 Uefa referees deserve WC attendance more than Lannoy (Webb, Rizzoli, Brych, Proenca, Kuipers, Skomina, Cakir, Moen, Undiano, Kassai) as well Stark, Velasco and Mazic in some cases demonstrated higher performances than Lannoy. But if french team will be out I suppose that its' not impossible that one of the previous names will be replaced by Lannoy. On other hand I would set Eriksson at the end of the ranking listed below, personally I don't like his perfomances. That's just my opinion. Rgs Mario

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Phil: My personal favourite is Manuel Gräfe. Kircher had Dortmund in the Ruhr Area Derby some weeks ago, Meyer had Dortmund-Stuttgart only 2 matchdays ago. The only possible choice is Gräfe (probably with Guido Kleve and Markus Sinn on the sidelines).

    @ Mario: I agree with everything you said except your view on Eriksson (but ok question of taste as you said).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Straight red card for Mandzukic (CRO) given by Bjorn Kuipers after 38 minutes. Correct decision if you ask me. Serious foul play.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAnon0dGhcY

    I totally agree. Correct RC, brave call.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Crucial mistake by Zunic disallowing the 2-0 goal scored by France.
    Player was clearly onside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saying how good he was to allow the first goal (It was tight and onside). He is that bad to disallow the clear goal.
      Very crucial mistake by AR1.

      Now France scored once more is pure offside !!!

      Delete
    2. 1 metre offside missed in 2-0 goal....Zunic missed this deflection. Skomina did not inform him about that. Puuuuuuh.

      Delete
    3. Two incredible mistakes by Skomina's Assistant Referee 1! The second controversial decison is clearly to make up for the earlier mistake...meanwhile Webb is performing in pretty smooth fashion as the match is creating no major problems.

      Delete
  8. Matej Zunic wrongly disallowed the possible 2-0 of France for offside. Decision was wrong by 20/30 cms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. France's second goal is offside and the decision was taken to make up for the earlier mistake!

      Delete
    2. And you know that for sure.... Any referee at that level will not make a second mistake just to correct the first one.

      Delete
  9. Good first half from Webb, Mullarkey and Cann in Stockholm. 0-0 at half time.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sorry for Zunic not the best ticket for WC.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Poor performance by Mazic so far.Incredible missed penalty for Salpingidis' handball in second half.Also missed free kick of Samaras just outside penalty area min74...some problems for assistants too,especially AR1.Some YC also missed for both teams...Disappointing

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh my God, two crucial mistakes with off-/onsides by Zunic and Skomina (he should inform Zunic the pass existed in second case)... 7.9 Skomina, 7.9 or 7.4 for Zunic depending on how observer will evaluate the second goal scored by France (one can say Skomina said about the pass and Zunic missed offside, too; only observer at the stadium could rightly evaluates that after post-match debrief!). It could be an obstacle on their road for WC, because two 7.9s are clear!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, my fault! If we say that Skomina informed Zunic about the pass, the mark for main referee would be of course without crucial mistake.

      Delete
    2. Skomina is poor tonight!!! Body language is soft,And also Zunic made two mistakes!!! 7,4

      Delete
  13. @Manos
    please,be objective... :)
    Anyone watched Romania-Greece?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that Mazic was very good during the game!! He showed good performance tonight!!! He is always in good possition and he can see everything!!! Manos please!!!

      Delete
    2. I did. Mazic missed the Salpingidis situation but IMO it is a foul and not a penalty. He was extremely lenient and could/should have shown at least 4 YC's. Probably an 8.2/8.1 performance.

      Delete
    3. Superb decisions AR1- Ristic prior 0:1 (onside). Hand Salpingidis in 54'- no intention to put the ball hits the hand outside the penalty-area. Good management, full control of the match, a good card policy in a difficult match. Successful! IMO, there is no need for a lot of cards, it only added fuel to the fire.

      Delete
    4. Salpingidis hand is in an unnatural position. The only reason the hand can be at this position is to stop the ball.

      Delete
    5. And again the lobbying starts...

      Delete
    6. Edward, I agree " unnatural ". But, we looks too rigid. Mazic was at 3-4 m from Salpingidis. Three or four cards would be, also, too rigid. You need to have some sense of the game, the events around the pitch, temperament representation. Key decisions are correct, everything else is a rigid watch.

      Delete
    7. What does rigid means. It is either natural and play on or unnatural and a foul. There is no middle solution. When the referee is surrounded by 5 players protesting to him about this decision and the referee does nothing that is a problem. When a Romanian player tries to hit a Greek one before a substitute and the FO informs the referee about that but again nothing that is a problem. When AR1 tries to break a duel which started by a Romanian attacker and the referee does nothing that is a problem.

      Delete
    8. Mazic was exemplary yet again. Having a fantastic 12 months as the blog agrees.

      Re Salpi hand claim - the ball is too close, and it is a natural jump for a defensive move, with slightly outstretched arm. Unintentional.

      Re the intervention by AR1, Mazic is quickly on the scene and diffuses situation with stern body language and a strong word.

      Excellent refereeing, with strategy not to find cards everywhere, in a game where passions were high, Romanians were falling to ground very easily and the crowd were calling for every decision for 70 mins of the 90.

      Skomina and Webb their usual selfs, though agree with analysis of Zunic, who has done himself no favours tonight. In addition to the two goals (on and off) described, there is potential that the 3rd goal is also off - though I accept this is merely a matter of mm rather than anything more. Skomina will still go to the WC though, and is still the 'individual' who sets the standards.

      Delete
  14. @Manos
    Salpingidis situation was out of penalty area

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ronaldo beat Zlatan tonight. Webb did well, only controversial decision in 69 min. Penalty or not? Webb booked for a dive and I think he got it right.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I think it was a superb decision of Webb, also a crucial decision for the game.

      Delete
    2. A great footballing spectacle and a thoroughly enjoyable game to watch. For most parts I thought this game was between Ronaldo and Ibrahimović and not Sweden and Portugal. However, the former came on top in this encounter. My commiserations Swedish observer. I agree, I too thought Webb was well within his rights to book Källström for a dive. Overall, a very good performance from Webb and co.

      Delete
  16. @anonymous
    As you can see i am Greek,and i think i am objective enough to judge this situation.I am happy that also someone else saw what i saw-edward-
    All this was in favour of my team so no reason for me to report it.But it was a poor performance...
    As for salpigidis i will check it and be back...
    BTW anonymous i guess you must be one of many friends that mr mazic has in this blog....
    So you better try to be objective

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Maresca katastrofa
      Are you saying please to me?
      :))))
      I can only lough with your comment on "aydinus" performance

      Delete
    2. @Manos,
      No, Anonimus doesn't like Mazic at all...

      Delete
  17. Edward and Manos, I think you're absolutely right!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It seems that Mazic has always many friends on this blog, ready to protect and defend him after every match. That is not intellectually honest. People from Serbia is very intelligent, they don't need to do that. We know that Mazic is now a great referee at UEFA and FIFA, but this doesn't mean that every match must be always excellent.
    I would like to have an answer on that. On this blog all the other referees are NEVER protected in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Calm down everyone....stop destructive lobbying... discuss factually and wait for Chefren's report.

    Short overview on Skomina. The team really did not perform well. That was NO application for Brazil.
    Mark for Skomina won't be higher than 8.1 in my report. Many points to improve and he has to assume responsibility for not informing AR1 about deflection making the player being offside in the 2-0...8.0 or 8.1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * Discuss like Nikos et al. please..

      Delete
    2. Well, I have also seen Skomina full. I was really unhappy with overall performance. I believe that his foul-card correspondence was very very bad. His control was again weak, he even yelled to players, however both legs were really hard to control.
      And, I might be wrong but as far as I have seen he has booked the wrong player in Min 89. (I am not sure of it)
      AR1, as we discussed made two clear consequtive mistakes. Addittionally, 3rd goal could also be slightly offside.

      Overall, the performance was under average, I guess the team has missed the chance to be at WC.

      Delete
    3. The 3-0 was valid imo, since the attacker in offside did not interfere with play or an opponent.

      Completely agree with your situation in 89'. But I rather thought the card itself was wrong and not that he mixed up the players. One scene was very interesting in 68': Skomina gave a YC to Debuchy...Debuchy heavily threw the ball onto the pitch a second later while Skomina still had the card raised...a clear dissent, a mandatory caution = 2nd yc.... Skomina did not savour the respect of the players and partly I felt that he even did not care about that.

      Delete
    4. SIAPOA
      Atmosphere - would you send off player for throwing ball with little bit anger ?! In that kind of atmosphere . It will look like compensation for red card . We don´t know what he said . Maybe he said "I am stupid idiot I deserved that YC " or "sacrebleu (darn it)" .

      Delete
    5. 68': I watched the scene and I had the same idea, but at the end probably not enough in order to show the second card.
      It might have been a really harsh punishment for the player.

      Delete
    6. I think he could warn the players KHACHERIDI and SAKHO instead of YC.

      Delete
    7. Sometimes players are clever, they understand when they can do dissenting gestures without the risk to be booked again, if you understand what I mean..

      Delete
    8. Disagree with you re overall performance of Skomina Nic. His style was minimal and allowing players to have freedom. The 2nd YC you want is rarely applied in world football. Its enough to caution and to 'allow' player frustration in testing, emotional games such as these...

      Though I agree on:
      3rd goal - I see that the defender scores, not Sakho = not offside
      Wrong YC
      Should inform Zunic of Valbuena touch

      Delete
    9. "Not enough for a caution", that is really a mandatory caution guys..
      I am aware of the fact that at this level there seems to be a different version of the Laws of the Game but I cannot accept when a referee allows dissent and protests approximately five times without (most significant situation as said in 68') even a secret warning...
      Skomina seemed insecure at times. Before the 2nd YC he even spoke into his micro and waited several seconds. Of course his line in foul detection and tactical cleverness were great points of his performance, imo.
      Concerning the 2-0 goal, the problem I have with that is the circumstance that Skomina again failed to assist his AR1 in a crucial offside decision where it was necessary to interact in a team (of course I mean Old Trafford). I am not questioning Skomina's progress but just believe that isolatedly considering this match, it was way below expected level in a very challenging match.

      Delete
  20. Excellent Stephane Lannoy at Wembley. 8/10.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just to finish the whole Romania - Greece match. From day 1 I thought the FIFA underestimated the whole duel. Proenca wasn't at his top level at the first match and gave both teams the right to be unhappy.

    The second match needed a more experienced referee. It was a stupid move from FIFA to spoil Eriksson at the Uruguay - Jordan. They could have appointed him at this match. That is my view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think that Eriksson is better than Mazic.

      Delete
    2. Eriksson is surely more experienced. That should be enough.

      Delete
    3. "The second match needed a more experienced referee."

      Please read what Edward said.

      I completely agree with you. Same goes with Brych...I would have liked to see Brych and Eriksson in those GRE-ROU (but okay Eriksson with Greece could have been problematic after Euro 2012).

      Delete
    4. As a matter of taste, sure. But on form, and evaluating his performance this evening, Mazic was absolutely the right decision. Aside from two goal kick/ corner decisions, I can't think of anything he was close to getting wrong?

      On Proenca, whilst I agree he has not been at his strongest since his CL final / Euro final, he was still a good choice in theory due to experience, so again I can't agree with your summation.

      Perhaps Eriksson instead of Mallenco, and you have a near perfect line-up for these qualifiers. I tweeted tonight that the four guys chosen are potentially the 4 'form referees' of the world right now (ok you have to include Roldan et al), but the logic was there from FIFA ...

      Delete
    5. Of course, Nic. Edward, I do the best you please don't enter into debate with " anonymous ". They deliberately provoke you. That's your opinion and it is completely relevant. Anonymous should first be presented. I admit, I'm his biggest lobbyists, but they want to provoke you. Don't you see?
      Best regards from Belgrade!

      Delete
    6. Nikos, about Proenca you have to watch the match.

      On Mazic now. He has made excellent progress those last months but sometimes we have to admit that he is not always perfect. Some guys maybe like him more that the ordinary but every referee can have a bad match or even an average one. I have seen Mazic in great performances (Fenerbahce - Benfica, Tottenham - Basel) and in not so good ones. Today wasn't his best night.

      Delete
    7. Proenca decision can't be made in hindsight though edward, that's my point.

      On Mazic tonight, please indicate to me where he was poor in your opinion. I thought his team superlative, 8.6. Strategy for the game was splendid and outcome proved as such. I don't know of which yellows you talk, and if you want them for mere comings together like you allude to above, I can't support that sorry. No. 1 aim as a referee (team): Minimise FUSS whilst controlling the game and applying law.

      Delete
    8. I agree! We are all people. Superman doesn't exist. My opinion is closer to Nikos. Edward, take the two teams that are very temperamental, " southern mentality ", the fire on the ground. I watched the game from many angles. I agree that it could have a few more cards, but " de facto " is rigid. But, Mažić opted for an entirely different refereeing tactic- react only when necessary! Who better to know the mentality of the players in the game Romania-Greece by Mr. Mažić or Croatia-Serbia from Mr. Cakyr? I would like to praise AR1 (Milovan Ristić) in his all decisions tonight, especially prior 0-1.

      Delete
    9. I guess Branko we have different views on this performance. Don't forget the my team drew and qualified so naturally I should be happy of Mazic performance. But I am not just a fan but an active referee and with the capacity I can have an opinion on the referee's performance.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Skomina very challenging match .
    To be fair better team won tonight . Red card was all right , good call !
    Number 11 for Ukraine was hopeless player from the bench .Maybe should get YC for dissent .
    90 minute bad decision YC UKR#16
    91 minute bad position , should be closer to the corner flag !
    Assistant referee
    2 very challanging decisions
    I am not sure about 3rd goal , might gain advantage from offside possition before the goal .
    Dissalowed 2nd goal misstake ....YES !!! but doesn´t affect the match , luckily

    ReplyDelete
  24. As Edward analyzed there are several situations that needed more experience...this was not a performance for an elite referee.thats my opinion.
    I respect your point of view but...if you saw just two mistakes in goal kicks,i am afraid i cannot agree with you...
    No intention to argue with nobody about Mazic

    ReplyDelete
  25. OK, I try to sum it up by dividing the text into some points:

    Goals:
    Disallowed goal of Benzema is clear and unacceptable mistake of Matej Zunic. The goal on 2-0 is clearly offside, but here the issue is more complicated. Finally, I went to the conclusion that Matej Zunic should've detected this pass by chest (even by deduction) and Damir Skomina probably also missed that or didn't inform assistant about it at all. As Niclas said: 'The 3-0 was valid imo, since the attacker in offside did not interfere with play or an opponent.'

    Penalty appeal:
    In 17' there was the penalty appeal from French side. Yarmolenko is in duel with Ribery in the corner of the penalty area. In my opinion, his action exceeds allowed body challenge and hence penalty kick should have been whistled in favour of home team. But here, it's difficult to describe it as crucial mistake. I think it's the question of taste of the referee.

    Cards:
    I saw no clear line in issuing individual punishments. I can agree with strong verbal warning to Yarmolenko in 5' for tactical push stopping promissing attack. Avoiding cards in 9' (Rakitskiy), 15' (Edmar) and 56' (Edmar) is understandable. However, there are some clear mistakes too. In 43', Cabaye stepped on opponent's foot. It was in front of fourth official and should be punished by strong yellow or - and it would be my decision - straight red card for using excessive force. Referees missed it at all what made me much surprised. There was no replay, but I made a zoom to be sure there was a foul. Mandzyuk should be booked in 59' for reckless foul on Ribery instead of receiving the yellow card for nothing in 90' (it was Rakitskiy who fouled in this situation...).

    Personality:
    Damir Skomina felt the right moments for issuing verbal warnings, and here it's really nice predisposition. I must however say that his usage of gestures and talking with players was very school. I missed bigger charisma and calmer, more friendly rapport with players. It's a (small?) point for improvement to be more relaxed, more friendly or not so arrogant (it's my feeling he was such).

    Positioning/fitness:
    I had a feeling he was really far from the play (as always), but it never prevented him to take quick reactions. He was taking good angle of observation in most of cases.

    Having said that, I would mark the team with following marks:
    7.8 (8.0) - Damir Skomina (the mark in case of not informing AR1 about the pass; otherwise, 8.0 for missed YC or even RC to Cabaye, wrong YC to Mandzyuk and problems with approach/attitude/personality)
    7.4 - Matej Zunic (two crucial mistakes, he should detect the pass himself too)
    8.5 - Bojan Ul (very good calls, faultless)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I didnt remember the exact minute, I wasnt able to note it. But, I should also stress it that Min 59 was a clear/must YC to Mandyzuk. The late tackle to Ribery has stopped a very promising quick counter attack of France. The position was just in front of fourth offical.

      And, 3rd goal: I didnt mean the possible offside for the goal's itself, but just before the goal, # 19 Pogba (and also #8 runs to ball) gets the ball to give the pass, His position seemed to be offside to me when the shot was first taken. But, I should see it once more.

      Delete
  26. France went to WC 2010 due to a mistake by Team Hansson, whose consequence was that Hansson & Co. only went to South Africa as a reserve trio. Now France (again!) will be going to WC 2014 due to a mistake by Team Skomina. In order to be fair to all referees, Skomina's trio should have the same destiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But this time there is also a wrongly disallowed goal, we must be honest stating that France deserved this qualification.
      At the end Ukraine can't make complaints.

      Delete
    2. Some thoughts here on Skomina and Webb.

      Skomina
      A lot of agitated comments and I think that we should calm down here... and start analyzing a bit more reasonably about Skomina.

      We all know the capabilities of Skomina and his team. The fact that they might (I say "might" since I did not see the match) have made one bad match should not disqualify them from the World Cup. They have made a series of very important matches over the last couple of years - and almost always with a very good result. Even a great refereeing team can have a bad match once in a while - that is human. But FIFA should - and probably would - not leave them out from the World Cup for one single match.

      The story about Martin Hansson is different. He was never really top rated by UEFA, and he had some other shaky matches before the World Cup play off match. I still think that the treatment he got for the handball was unfair, because it must have been virtually impossible for him to detect the hand ball.

      Without any insight in how the FIFA referees committee reasoned back then, I however have a feeling that he only would have been fourth official in South Africa even if he had made an impeccable play off match in France back in 2009. In order to go to the World Cup you have to prove yourself with a lot of good performances. Even though Hansson was good when he was in top form, he was never a great referee (in my view). And I think that UEFA clearly had the same feeling, and FIFA presumably took that into account.

      Webb
      Just to confirm my comments from last night, I think that Webb and his team made a very good match, and presumably 8.5 is an adequate mark for Webb. I think that Cann had a better match than Mullarkey, since Cann had to deal with some tricky situations which I think that he came to the right decisisons. So 8.5 for him, and 8.4 for Mullarkey. A calm match on the boards for Marriner.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    3. Thank God, Swedish observer, I respect your rational thoughts. Of course I agree that mistakes have been made and that it definitely wasn't a very "suitable" match to make it, however one "bad evening" of a refereeing team does not disqualify them from WC, as @catagay_iris and alike would obsiously like to see. If we don't allow referees to make mistakes, than we woudn't have any referees left for WC - I'm sure every single official on the short-list had their own bad evenings ...

      Delete
    4. Hansson did the FIFA Confederations Cup final in 2009, so he must have been considered as a top referee in that year!

      Delete
    5. Hansson was an UEFA elite official then, but not one of the top ones in UEFA's view. FIFA probably saw him a bit more positively. With hindsight I think that the appointment more showed that FIFA was unsure of how good he really was. Remember he had only one more match in that tournament, Egypt-Italy, in which he was pretty good (but not more than that). The final was controversial for the Swedish team with one particular incident (had the ball crossed the line or not...?).

      I don't think that FIFA was convinced of his qualities at that point in time, even though he got the final of that tournament. The play off appointment could be viewed in the same way, and we all know what happened there. But I am merely speculating of course.

      The same could be said for other referees. Terje Hauge (Norway) referred the 2005 final of the U20 World Cup and was still not appointed to the 2006 World Cup. So we have other similar cases in FIFA history. An appointment to a final in a tournament is in my view not an indication for a secured World Cup place. Let us see if the history repeats itself - I don't think that Clattenburg or Thomson will be going to the World Cup, even though they refereed two FIFA finals in 2012 and 2013.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous We all know that there is a really huge actual competition between referee teams of UEFA to be the main referees at WC2014. They are all very good to be there, hence the selection should be made on what we see with important/recent matches. I think mistakes (even the big/small ones) count on this process, I have watched a lot of Skomina performances, we know him very well. However, I can not say that his place is guaranteed in Brasil. Everyone has a list in his mind, and it changes dynamically and time will tell in the end. Thats my opinion. I know, but it is just a guess

      Delete
    7. I agree with anonymous and also Cagatay. Referees may make mistakes or have a bad approach in a match. That's not debated. But of course if you have such a high-profile match with an immense pressure on France and if Peter Mikkelsen is sitting in the stadium to assess you, what else should we say after a "not so good" performance except that his chances more likely have decreased instead of having increased?

      What I actually try to refer to when writing reports is how a referee behaves in the match, his management / soft skills..and there I had the feeling - it is just one single opinion among many - that Skomina struggled in this extremely challenging match. But of course, one should not forget that until the offside goals (approximately) the performance was very good.

      Delete
    8. I hope that the suggestion that the second mistake "fixed" the first mistake was a joke. A very basic principle of refereeing is that a mistake will never compensate for another mistake. 1+1=2 (always!). Zunic did 2 huge mistakes, in a very important match. He is part of Skomina's team and FIFA is applying the trio policy. If Team Skomina will still go to the World Cup, in spite of these big mistakes, whit huge consequences, it will not be fair for the other referee candidates who did not do such mistakes.

      Delete
  27. Brych gave two penalties in NZL - MEX

    First one: correct.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6QjYScb6mY


    Second (handball?), I have some doubts. (starts from 00:43): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Wet3agpjA

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well, well, well... the second penalty seems highly dubious, I must say. It surely is not intentional, but is the player making himself bigger in an unnatural way and therefore should be penalized? I don't think so. But we have seen penalties given for it before of course, but still my feeling is that this is NOT a penalty.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
  29. For me neither the first one is penalty.He searched for the contact and the goalie does his best to avoid it,but the player starts falling very early...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So I present my opinion and it is a 3rd version differing from swedish observer and darko..
      For me the first penalty is not correct. The forward is falling before a contact with the goalkeeper, therefore seeks the contact and tries (and has managed) to deceive the referee.
      For the second one I agree with Brych. The hand was highly up and therefore the player significantly enlarged his body hitting surface. This criterion has become more important and hence the decision is absolutely okay.

      Delete
    2. I did not look at the first penalty incident until now, but I can certainly understand why Brych gave the first penalty. The angel of the clip is not 100% conclusive, so I don't think that we can tell for sure that the first penalty was wrong. If there is another clip of this from behind the goal (on the side where the incident took place) we might say something for sure. But as long as we don't have that, I will back the referee's decision. It looked like a stone wall penalty in live speed to me anyway. So I support our German referee on this one!

      On the second penalty,however, I agree to disagree with Niclas (and Brych), though :-)

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    3. @Swedish observer Analyzing carefully match Romania-Greece, the camera is repeatedly caught a smile Mr. Mažić. If nothing else, at least that's commendable! :)
      Best regards from Belgrade, gentlemen!

      Delete
    4. Emil Archambault20/11/13 16:29

      Agree with Brych on both. The goalkeeper misses the ball and tackles the player. The striker is in the motion of kicking the ball, and as such is in an unstable position; that does not mean he seeks the contact.

      For the second one, the defender has no business sliding with the arms above his chest. He enlarges his body surface, and therefore must be punished by a penalty.

      Delete
    5. Surely the first penalty is one of the sorts that I personally would not give, but I also must say that one can almost completely sure that FIFA perfectly agrees with the decision.

      Delete
    6. @Branko DDM: ;-) Good to hear that because that has been lacking those 2-3 times I have seen him. A smile can be very good now and then!

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
  30. UEFA Youth League

    Bayern Munchen - Manchester City MD5

    R: Ilias Spathas (GRE)
    AR1: Lazaros Dimitriadis (GRE)
    AR2: Koula Hasan (GRE)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it MD6 then?

      Peter/Vienna

      Delete
    2. Sorry Peter. My mistake.

      MD6 it is. 10/12/2013

      Delete
  31. Do not play with the trial. This is serious business. Your comments offend profession. Think about it. The trial did not "segamega" games. Excluded from serious comments. They are not many.

    ReplyDelete
  32. István Vad was again unlucky with a goalline-decision:
    http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/19/geoff-cameron-goal-united-states-usmnt-us-austria/

    AR2 involved was Oszkar Lemón as far as I know. Perspective might be irritating but it seems as if it crossed the line.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Impossible to be sure, but it seems more goal than nothing.

      Delete
  33. Replies
    1. Eriksson. Penalty or not?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E6yqLkWLGA

      Delete
    2. As always happens for handball, 50 - 50 call.
      There are reasons for which one can evaluate as unintentional the touch, but at the same, there are arguments to say that the player increased the volume of his body.
      For me still unintentional, there is a small distance.
      The player trying a tackle doesn't want to touch the ball by hand, of course.

      Delete
    3. No penalty for me either!The volume of the body is not increased significally and its even too close

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Penalty should've been given. Player tries to block the ball by hand that position increases body surface.

      Delete
    6. I support Hubert here. The instructions are pretty clear. The player increases the body hitting surface by jumping / sliding into the ball with outstretched arms. That was of course no deliberate action in itself, but in the sense of the Laws of the Game, it is. Can be compared to Brych in NZL-MEX, but I think in this case (Eriksson), it was even a bit clearer.

      Delete
    7. Sorry guys, but someone must be kidding here. This can never be a penalty. I have the same view here as I had with Brych's situation.

      The defender tries to make a sliding tackle and the ball accidentaly hits his arm. I have a question to all of you who wants a penalty: where should the defender's arms have been in order for you to say that the arm was not in an unnatural position in a situation like this?

      In my book this is never a penalty and it never should be one either. It is a fundamental difference between this situation and when a player deliberately enlarges his body volume.

      You can call me pro-Swedish or whatever but this is my genuine opinion.

      I did not see the rest of the match. Did anyone else do that and how did the referee team do (apart from this situation)?

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    8. Swedish observer, with all due respect to your statements and nice contribution in our debates. But I think you should definitely check the renewed instructions having arised during the past 2 years.
      If you ask me, these instructions go into the wrong direction, but they exist...whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    9. Niclas - of course I have read the LoTG and the interpretations from both FIFA and the Swedish FA.

      Help me out here and show me where I can find these instructions saying this? Because I can't find in the LoTG (see below). And the LoTG seem to indicate that the handelling has to be deliberate. If not deliberate - no punishable handball.

      In that sense an intentional enlargement of the body could be viewed as intentional - I am fully aware of that - but (and this is a big BUT in my view) please also note that the LoTG clearly say that the distance between the ball and the hand should be taken into account. In Brych's and Eriksson's case I don't think that there was any intentional enlargement - but even if it was the distance in the URU-JOR case was not more than one meter. That can not be a penalty. That is my clear view. And I think that there is clear support in the wording of the LoTG for that view.

      /Swedish observer

      Handling the ball

      Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
      • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
      • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
      • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
      • touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
      • hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement

      Delete
    10. I can also read FIFA's guidelines in the 2nd part of the Laws of the Game. But they totally leave open what criteria is more relevant than others. This remains open to the federation's interpretation who of course strive for finding uniformity.

      The problem of deliberate handball is that the interpretations seem to differ in almost every domestic federation. As far as I am informed, UEFA has advised their referees to consider handball as deliberate as soon as a player jumps into the ball with outstretched hands / arms, as this shows a careless act. In Germany, the criteria of increasing the body surface has become the most important and Herbert Fandel emphasized that as often as he could. Mostly, these instructions were communicated by DFB after handballs occurred in Bundesliga. There usually is a referee's newspaper with match situations and DFB's interpretation based on the new international standards.

      But to stress that, too, I would never blame Eriksson for this no-call. It is always a grey area and in the specific case the increased body surface was imo existing, but not that striking. As I always say, IFAB should start to do sth with that rule..

      Delete
  34. Hello! Do you know referee observer and UEFA delegat for round 5 and 6 in UCL and EL? Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will be posted very soon. As you seem to be Romanian, it might interest you that Jozef Marko (=UEFA committee) is present at Steaua-Schalke. The rest follows later.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. First Category referee a possibility? If so, Turpin, Oliver, Zwayer etc. are all in with a chance. Lahoz had his last match day and going through Chefren's report, he didn't seem impress.

      Delete
    3. I expect Gautier or Nijhuis in Bucharest.

      Delete
    4. I think Stavrev in Bucharest.

      Delete
  35. Gräfe whistle between Dortmund against Bayern Munich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No surprise at all. Great appointment for him and his team.

      Delete
  36. I'm watching Mazic match. The scene happened at 62' (not 54' as written by anonymous) in my opinion can be considered as intentional handball. The arm is too widely open. Body volume absolutely increased.
    The problem is that it is very difficult to understand whether this touch happened inside or outside area.
    Watching the replays, situation is still not clear.
    If somebody can confirm that it was outside or inside (maybe having watched different videos), I would thank him.

    http://img120.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=121835679_szz00005_122_401lo.jpg

    http://img146.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=121837177_szz00004_122_88lo.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chefren, you can check this video.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLVIOfITH0&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL5148926FE52DE35D

      Delete
    2. It is not available in my country, I already checked this link.
      I don't find the full match elsewhere, yesterday I was lucky to download it from youtube but now it is not still available.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXgmxNjaIk
      This video is from different cameras, as you can see from the caps I have posted, it is on the other side of the pitch, than AR1 and benches. I think in Greece was aired in a different way by another broadcaster...
      Anyway you can help me just confirming that it was outside or inside.
      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. You may just download the video.

      I will try to find it from the Greek channel and watch this scene.

      Delete
  37. Handball inside the penalty area. It's clear. The right arm is way inside.

    ReplyDelete
  38. My impression is that the handball happened inside the penalty area, too. Hard decision, not so good replays, but I am quite sure.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I agree, inside, missed penalty.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger