April 6, 2014

Champions League Quarterfinals: Proença and Skomina in charge

Pierluigi Collina and company have defined the referees for the second legs of Champions League's quarterfinals to be played on Tuesday evening.

Portuguese Pedro Proença will control the match between Chelsea FC and Paris SG. The Blues will have to recover from a 1:3 defeat suffered in the first leg which promises an intense and atmospherical game at Stamford Bridge.
While this tie thus is not decided yet, Borussia Dortmund will play Real Madrid without having huge prospect to recover from the clear 0:3-loss of the first match. Slovenian Damir Skomina has been assigned to handle this match being again assisted by Italian Gianluca Cariolato on the far sideline.




08 April 2014, 20:45 CET
Stamford Bridge, London, England
Chelsea FC - Paris SG
Referee: Pedro Proença (POR)
Assistant Referee 1: Bertino Miranda (POR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tiago Trigo (POR)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: João Capela (POR)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Duarte Gomes (POR)
Fourth Official: Paulo Alexandre Santos (POR)
UEFA Referee Observer: Jozef Marko (SVK)
UEFA Delegate: Pierino L. Lardi (SUI)
Blog Referee Observer: Thomas (NED)

08 April 2014, 20:45 CET
Westfalenstadion, Dortmund, Germany
Borussia Dortmund - Real Madrid
Referee: Damir Skomina (SVN)
Assistant Referee 1: Bojan Ul (SVN)
Assistant Referee 2: Gianluca Cariolato (ITA)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Slavko Vinčić (SVN)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Roberto Ponis (SVN)
Fourth Official: Jure Praprotnik (SVN)
UEFA Referee Observer: Alan Snoddy (NIR)
UEFA Delegate: Adrian Titcombe (ENG)
Blog Referee Observer: Emil Archambault (CAN)

94 Comments:

  1. Anonymous6/4/14 12:36

    Now I hope Kuipers in Atlético-Barça and Çakir in Bayern-Arsenal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kuipers is in my opinion now preserved for a semifinal or the final.
      The match is with Man Utd, not Arsenal. Cakir can't handle Manchester United, or at least this is not convenient for UEFA, to say it better.
      We have still seven matches (2 quartefinals, 4 semifinals and the final) the names should be: Cakir, Kassai, Rizzoli, Mazic, Webb, Kupers, Eriksson.
      For tomorrow I guess Cakir in Madrid and Kassai in Munchen.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6/4/14 15:38

      Mazic is not referee for one semifinal.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7/4/14 02:13

      Mazic is one very well referee! Well done! Mazic for the final UEL!

      Delete
  2. Anonymous6/4/14 14:26

    Off topic - read the report about Vellasco Carballo and I have a question. The referee was marked 8,2, but the way the performance is described it seems to me that he could not receive a higher mark than 7,9. A missed second YC is at least in my view a crucial mistake. And it is stated in the report that he missed a clear YC which would have led to a sending off. So either the mark or the text seems to be wrong?

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Swedish observer, a missed second YC is indeed counted as a crucial mistake, but only if it is a CLEAR missed second YC. So no would/should/could/may have/might have etc and so on.
      The definition of clear is I guess that it cannot be avoided, with the LotG in mind. The observer at this match has evidently concluded that this situation was not unambiguous enough for a clear missed second YC.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6/4/14 14:57

      Hi Thomas

      I fully agree with you, but it seems to me that the observer decreased Vellasco Carballo's mark mainly due to the caution the should have been given. And if he decreases the mark - isn't that due to the fact that he thought that this was a black/white situation? What I am trying to say is that is very important that the text and the mark is consistent. I know for a fact that it happens that UEFA sends the report back to the observer with the request to align the text with the mark.

      I have not seen the situation in question, but had I been UEFA ( which I luckily is not!), then I would have returned this report to the observer with a request to clarify this.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    3. Hi Swedish observer.

      Since the start of the season we decided to avoid this 7.9 guideline. Most of our reports have a -0.2/0.3 for a missed YC (2nd). That's what I did here exactly.

      Delete
    4. That's the advantage in our team, we are less people so that we normally discuss every report together before uploading it. So this procedure was in line with the team's agreement and also what UEFA insiders told us about the practical (and not theoretical) application of missed 2nd YCs. It's however a difficult topic and we often asked for clarifications from higher authorities and sometimes even got different feedback.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous6/4/14 19:25

      Ok thanks for the clarification.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    6. Anonymous6/4/14 21:01

      I think that these inconsistencies between text of the reports and marks are the only weak point of this blog. (Of course, different oppinions of different people could play the role.) Otherwise, your job is perfect.

      Regards
      P.L.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous7/4/14 07:57

      I concur with P.L.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    8. Honestly if your problem is the mark I can change it to 7.9. If that satisfies you.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous7/4/14 11:43

      Edward, please let it as you gave it. Because of:
      1. Matter of opinion.
      2. Inexperience (globally or with observer's work).
      3. There is more reports on this blog which are written very well but the final marks are ... hmm. So this is not only your problem.
      Only one example from newer reports: Fiorentina - Juventus and situation with Tevez. I can't imagine that in fact AAR1 got 7.9, AR1 8.2 and R as a "winner" had 8.5.

      Best regards.
      P.L.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous7/4/14 15:26

      Definitely agree. Reports are really good, well-written, touching many aspects. My only objection are marks. They are very often not consistent with a text. Many, many times clear 7.9 marks were not given (you are right, Webb's example is one of the best - he was responsible too and should be rewarded with lower mark than 8.5 for sure). But everything apart from marks is GOOD, so keep the excellent work up!

      Delete
    11. Well we actually are in our first season with UEFA-like reports (at least that is the goal), so surely there are points to improve for us. So it would be nice if you could mention those critical points with concrete examples in future so that we have the chance to think about it. Personally I think that mathematical marks are the less important part of our work and since we don't consider to make a ranking based on the reports, we ask you to "ignore" them to a certain extent. What we regard as our job is what is written from section 1 to section 12.

      As for the concrete match you mentioned, Webb's case is indeed difficult to outline. Given the clear assistance the referee received and the not optimum viewing angle for the kick, we considered him as the official of the 3 who is not "guilty", but "blamed" AAR1 for the wrong assistance (missing concentration) and AR1 since he had a perfect angle on the situation. But if in UEFA praxis it's 7.9 for Webb, I am open to accept this.

      Thanks for the encouragement :) I ask you for patience for the past reports. It will need some time to re-upload them all after the server crashed.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous7/4/14 18:54

      Hi Thomas,
      When you say "The observer at this match has evidently concluded that this situation was not unambiguous enough for a clear missed second YC" ,
      don't you think that one should take into account that the referee gave a YC that led to to a sending off of a a player of the other team (Scweinsteiger) for a comparable 'unambigous' situation? The referee consistency on these 2 situations may be questioned, may it not be?

      --- Fan from Canada.

      Delete
    13. It may certainly if the observer feels that both tackles are similar, but that is up to the observer. I do not wish to involve myself too closely here, as I am the observer nor fully impartial in this specific match ;-).

      Delete
    14. For the sake of clarity: It may certainly be questioned*

      Delete
    15. Anonymous8/4/14 16:28

      Thanks for the instructful answer :-)
      --- Fan from Canada.

      Delete
    16. I actually find you have a very good point. If you consider both tackles, there is a certain inconsistency. I would however defend Velasco since you cannot compare both tackles for my taste. His gestures after the missed 2nd YC against Valencia indicated the team deemed it as collision between both players with a careless action by Valencia. So the problem was no inconsistency but a lack of perception or interpretation IMO.
      Regards.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous6/4/14 14:47

    Levnikov, now Marko. Any reason for two consecutive times that Proenca is being observed by committee member?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6/4/14 14:59

      Possibly because Proenca is going to the World cup, and UEFA wants to give extra attention to the World cup referees in order to ensure that they have a good tournament there.

      /Swedish observer

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6/4/14 15:42

      Proença is too known and I don´t see normal that Levnikov and Marko
      are seeing him.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6/4/14 15:52

      It is also because we are talking about a CL quartefinal match, a very important game at any rate. Sometimes there isn't a real explanation. We know that Proença at moment is one referee without hopes for a final and therefore Marko is there in my opinion just because of the top clash.

      Delete
    4. Well anonymous, Proença has not attended a lot of FIFA tournaments in his career, has he? So he misses a lot of that experience, which means he will benefit from these observers. Of course Proença is well known and has a wealth of experience, but a World Cup is very different from CL or even EURO... (in short I agree with Swedish observer :P)

      Delete
    5. Anonymous6/4/14 20:11

      I don't think the reason is his unexperience on FIFA tournaments. He is CL and EURO final referee, he has been on Conf Cup....
      Take for example Velasco Carballo, one match in Club World Cup and he goes to Brazil and there is no committee member ?!?! I understand that World Cup referees must be observed by "important" observers but two consecutive times to be observed my committee member ?!?! Only logic could bet "top clashes" .. .

      Delete
    6. Anonymous7/4/14 02:10

      I think Proença is a strong candidate to the world cup final. For that, and don't forget that Busacca and Collina work together sometimes, he's having more attention by the committee. Collina likes him and wants him on the world cup final.

      Kind regards,
      Luís Almeida

      Delete
  4. OT: Interesting situation at final moments of the 1st half WHU-LIV. It looks like a big mistake for the refereeing team especially for the (main) referee. ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a definite foul from Carroll on Liverpool's goalkeeper Mignolet. It seemed Stuart Burt raised his flag to disallow to goal but Antony Taylor overruled him. There was a lengthy discussion between those two... Besides that, I feel Taylor has had a decent game, thus far. Correctly awarded a penalty to Liverpool, a mere minutes before West Ham equalised.

      Delete
    2. Two videos:

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1m95l1_west-ham-liverpool-1-1-demel-goal-foul-or-not-45-2-06-04-2014_sport

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1m95rs_west-ham-united-liverpool-demel-1-1-06-04_sport

      I think that it was foul. Taylor had to trust his AR. He raised the flag because he was sure.
      01:01 in the second video... this hand hitting the face of the keeper is enough to whistle.

      Delete
  5. Oh dear. Don't think that was a penalty either...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can this clip change your mind?

      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1m9cmv_gerrard-goal-west-ham-vs-liverpool-1-2-06-04-2014_sport

      Delete
    2. Nope - it hasn't.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous6/4/14 19:57

    Proença handling a match featuring a Mourinho's team in such a crunch clash? Totally avoidable! Collina seems to be borrowing trouble. From what I've realised so far, PSG universe is uncomfortable and even a bit suspicious of this appointment. And to tell the truth they have grounds for that as we all surely remember the terrific performance by Benquerença and his team playing havoc with Barcelona's hopes in Champions League semi-final first leg against Mourinho's Inter back in 2010. Let's see how things will unfold.

    As to Skomina taking charge of Dortmund-Real Madrid, reckon it's a proper choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you surely agree that Carlos Velasco should have never been appointed to ManU-Bayern right? At least Bayern are having a Spanish manager..

      Proenca is one of the best and one of this sort was needed for this clash, specially given the first leg result. There are no problems with this appointment. I know the fears but IMO they are slightly populistic. I remind you also on Mr Pellegrini who had the exclusive idea that Eriksson would be from a small football nation arousing the image of a low-profile referee. In the second leg he got Lannoy and we know what happened. So we and UEFA should not pay attention to what coaches or the media say when appointing referees.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6/4/14 21:59

      Every time Mourinho gets a Portuguese referee these arguments arise... As Niclas pointed out, no one questioned Velasco in Manchester. Last year, at the Europa League quarter-finals, Newcastle played with 5 French players, nobody questioned the choice of Gautier, or thought it was suspicious...
      I think the question here is if the ref has the ability to handle this top clash. Proença has.
      I don´t understand the comparison with Benquerença, for some reason Proença got a Champions League final and a Euro final and Benquerença didn't. Obviously the reason was not their nationality...

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7/4/14 00:03

      Again this story: Mourinho - Benquerença - Proença?
      Please, stop about that, years and years of nothing.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7/4/14 23:26

      It's sad when someone, having no arguments, decides to cowardly delete comments. Shame on you! I won't be back to this blog and will tell as many people as I can not to read this biased nonentity! Being unable do deal with opposing opinions is clear proof of moral and intellectual weakness. Now just confirm your low character and erase this comment.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7/4/14 23:27

      *Being unable TO*

      Delete
    6. The comment was deleted due to the house rules we agreed on and which you should have read before visiting this blog. Furthermore comments like "psychological inconsistency" going against a certain referee and offending him without grounds in the public can be posted elsewhere but not here:

      3. This blog is the wrong place to verbally insult referees in an abusive manner for a general purpose or after matches, i.e. after their performances, and to raise conspiracy theories without evidence and good knowledge.

      So if we lose one reader who is unable to respect this, I can only applaud.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous8/4/14 09:41

      Agreed on Niclas. I am amused that anonymous calls others coward after himself blaming a referee and making conspiracy theory without giving his identity.........

      Delete
    8. Anonymous8/4/14 12:00

      What's the difference between posting "Anonymous" (like you did, Anonymous 8 Apr 9:41 AM) and posting under the name of Niclas without a photo? In fact, intelligence is something really scarce among you.

      Niclas, I can see you're not an enlightened person but.....it´s not hard to get I did not insult anybody! Just said Proença's appointment for today's Chelsea-PSG is a terrible one (and it is by all means as I've already pointed out). By the way, there are many people holding with my view. You can check it out if you're in the mood to do so. Everyone can easily realise you decided to delete my comments because you simply have no arguments.

      Before I have posted the comments, I was told the administrators of this blog didn't have moral stuff to cope with opposing opinions. Your behaviour deleting my comments just bears out this clear reality. Not necessary to write anything else, I said it all above. A coward will always be a coward. Now, do not forget to erase this comment, obviously, squaring with your narrowness of mind and with the shoddy character of this blog.

      Delete
    9. Your line of argumentation has a valid core which is worth to discuss.The comments were not deleted because of the debate itself but due to your insultive choice of words against Mr Proenca. As for the discussion I think you are arguing from a populistic (not meant negatively) point of view, from a club's and maybe the media's perspective. If you had criticized Collina for not protecting Proenca preventively, I could have agreed with that perhaps - but still, what you just lack is accepting Proenca's neutrality and the principle that BEFORE A MATCH such debates harm more than they could be useful.

      Delete
    10. Sorry anonymous by still can't understand your point.

      Why shouldn't Proenca have this match? Because he is from Portugal? That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever read.

      He is a WC referee, he has done a CL final and a EURO final. That's 3 reasons that he should have the match.

      Delete
    11. Edward, that is obviously the only argument of a very intelligent person, no, even of a very enlightened person who has been apparently fed with wisdom as a baby.

      Delete
    12. Why the hell can't you accept that we have rules at this blog which you trampled under both feet? You called Pedro Proenca "psychologically inconsistent" and then claim "Niclas, I can see you're not an enlightened person but.....it´s not hard to get I did not insult anybody!". What is an insult for you? You must be either schizophrenic or definitely have another reality. Otherwise I cannot explain your behaviour. But of course, in the end, you are again the one who knows the truth. I rarely met such a mixture of arrogance and having no manners so far.
      Pedro Proenca is one of the best officials UEFA has. He is able to handle matches under high pressure, with authority and awesome control. Chelsea-PSG is everything but decided and thus UEFA needed a strong referee who is also able to cope with the pressure at Stamford Bridge. So why should not Proenca be assigned? Because Mourinho is Portuguese? Because he criticized FdB, Stark, Webb in the past? Because Benquerenca's team once had a poor performance YEARS ago from which Mourinho's team apparently and truely benefitted? Just because Proenca MAYBE missed a penalty last season to the disadvantage of Lyon, which made their president upset and saying strange things? "Hmmm...."
      Proenca is a very good referee. He is impartial neutral. There have been many controversies around him with Benfica, Greece-Romania and above all the final of EURO 2012 between Spain and Italy. There was always medial slaughter. And none of them have been justified or based on good grounds. I cannot hear these prejudices before a match anymore, really.. it bores me and surely many others as well.
      Your arguments are neither reasonable, nor reflecting the reality of referee management and assignments. And I cannot repeat it often enough... you should weigh your words when you talk publicly about a referee. You can go to marca.com, the Sun or elsewhere to fire off your surrealities and insults. As you said, there are surely a LOT intelligent people who SHARE your views...so there are enough opportunities to satisfy your need to talk.

      As for this evening, we are awaiting two clashes in UCL. I don't see a reason why you should disturb other readers and myself and attract unnecessary attention with your expedition against a young referee blogger deleting comments based on house rules infringements. Did not you say you wanted to leave the blog? Then do it. Now! Of course every further insultive comment will be deleted.

      Delete
    13. Well, I've already said it all in the comments you cowardly deleted. This happens when someone just feels incapable of keeping up a meaningful discussion. But I'll just outline some ideas worth laying stress on:

      1) Given Proença's far-famed blunders, the way you describe him is an example of how this blog is all but an empty and tacky means of adulation, lacking diversity of opinion and most worryingly of all being characterized by a mustily sectarian guideline;

      2) So, you delete comments because I've pointed up the psychological vulnerability of a referee????? You can't be serious. I've just conveyed my opinion and I've duly grounded it. And I keep holding that Proença flops too many times. What's the matter? You either agree or disagree with my view but an ENLIGHTENED person doesn't banish it as if we were under an authoritarian regime. Gosh, this does not bode well for your life;

      3) So you accuse me of insulting you and then you come up with words like "schizophrenic"??? Ever so funny! Just another proof of your shameful incoherence;

      4) You simply can't counter the arguments I've brought up, you get intellectually lost and suddenly your comments turn into a myriad of painful idiocies;

      5) Yes. I'll leave the blog because I only take part in intelligent debates. Everyone has already made out this blog has no credibility at all;

      6) To finish it off, I advise you to rub up on your English. Writing well is TRULY (not "truely") important.

      Now if you want to cut out my comment, please be my guest. ;) A coward is a coward after all. Good-bye!

      Delete
    14. What a martyr! Poor you, poor victim of intellectual mobbing! How brave of you to stand up for the most fundamental of liberties, freedom of expression!

      Of course, you're right, and we're all wrong, because you KNOW, and we think :)
      I can see how you would never go down to our level and make childish, insulting attacks such as calling someone "not intelligent", unreasonable or attack someone for a typo. After all, you concern yourself only with the substance of the argument, and would never be so childish as to dismiss someone based on a spelling mistake (NB: the correct spelling is "Goodbye").

      Again, I pity you and only applaud your efforts to bring light into the darkest corners of the universe. Those who are willing to risk their...something... to fight for freedom of expression deserve all our...admiration...I guess.

      Farewell, noble knight, and arm yourself with prudence and courage when fighting the dark forces of blog commentators.

      Delete
    15. http://www.allmystery.de/i/t1702a3_facepalm.jpg

      Delete
    16. Well, at least you made me laugh. Bye!

      Delete
    17. Both spellings are legitimate, but if you want to go with the most popular one, it’s “goodbye.”

      By the way Anthony - I thought Proença performed rather well tonight, don't you agree?

      Delete
    18. Nur, overall it was decent. It's funny you think you're bothering me with that but I've already stressed there's by no manner of means bad blood with Proença. I simply can't consider him a good referee by reason of his past blunders. Too many for an elite referee. The same holds good for Mallenco, for instance.

      Skomina, in turn, is one of the best. I think Rizzoli is the best of the lot. Skomina sort of ranks second in my view.

      Delete
    19. Not bothering you at all - I may not agree with them, but I totally respect your point of views.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous6/4/14 22:01

    Why is it only in the footballing world we read so much into appointments. At the rugby world cup referees had teams twice in the group stages and refereed games in.the group of their home nation with little fuss and problems. Referees are professional and know that their careers depend on their performance and not whether they are from the same country as one of the managers!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6/4/14 23:03

    For me Semifinals in CL Kassai, Rizzoli, Stark and Webb

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous7/4/14 02:08

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1swwxRtfYo Serbian JSL, Patizan FC vs.Vojvodina FC 1-1... Penalty kick, or? Niclas, Edward, Chefren, Thomas, Nur, Swedish observer... The referee awarded a penalty-kick for Vojvodina, which is scored. Partizan lost the Championship. There was a lot of dust. Yours opinions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7/4/14 08:49

      No penalty, of course.

      Delete
    2. Why Partisan has lost the Championship over one game? Partisan is 3 points behind 1st place and there are 8 more games to be played, so why is it end? Of course it was not a penalty kick, but these things happen all the time. Just look around all national leagues, you will find mistakes everywhere.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7/4/14 11:47

      I asked for an opinion on the situation. Comment on the regularity I gave in on everything seen. Many sins are at the expense of FC Partizan as the previous year at the expense of C. Zvezda. But, why burden the people...

      Delete
    4. Of course no penalty, who was the referee?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7/4/14 13:44

      I think it's called Darko Bogdanovic. IMO, he was a candidate for FIFA, has a fantastic fitness performance, but very little setup. Same, even greater mistake was made two years ago to match Spartak-C.Zvezda. Damaged the Crvena Zvezda! This means there is not a tendency, but ... I'll try to put a snapshot to compare these two very similar situations.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne6Vd1I5Jjc

      Delete
    6. It is again the same referee. Hm...

      Delete
  10. Anonymous7/4/14 08:11

    The problem is that a young and unexprienced fourth official will have to face Mourinho on the sideline, being his countryman. Bad for UEFA, it is a wrong choice because PSG can be suspicious. At this high level this can mean something, since UEFA has a big choice of Elite officials, they could prevent that. You know how much Mourinho is able to make pressure on the officials, I think that he celebrated this appointment, he will talk in Portuguese. Please have a special eye on that in your report.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. F. Taveira7/4/14 10:06

      Dear Anonymous,

      First i want to say as a portuguese and a referee's job fan I feel a bit dissapointed (even outraged) with your comments.
      Please realize that tomorrow 3 teams will fight hard to give a proper show to the fans and to be closer to Lisbon. I must say that Proença's team is by far the most experienced of the 3. Your conspiracy schemes are a nonsense. All members of the blog are unanimous about the quality of Proença and Co. Chelsea and PSG will have the fortune to have both top 5 ref and assistant ref of the last years (Proença and Miranda) so all fans should be relaxed and be present for their teams and enjoy the big party CL is.
      So stop making nonsense comments, support your team tomorrow and let's hope for a big match with no problematic stuff, and Proença will show you are wrong.

      PS: Mourinho is a difficult coach for sure. And should I remind you that he is able to talk almost perfectly spanish, italian and english? .. So no refs from those countries to? ...pff

      Delete
  11. Anonymous7/4/14 09:15

    I think we have to start with the principle of a neutral mind. A referee team at this level should be able to deal with all the pressure that comes with the job. Including dealing with situations were fellow countrymen are involved. Secondly football will benefit if the best referees are appointed without all the discussions about nationality, ethnical background, sexual preferences etc etc. The referee teams will be judged on their performance and that will be taken into account in future appointments. PLC and Co must be independent thinkers and should not be afraid of controversy. I think an excellent and courageous choice by PLC and Co. And I have full confidence in the capabilities of our colleagues to do an excellent job. RC

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous7/4/14 10:58

    Swedish FA confirms Jonas Eriksson in charge of Bayern - Manchester U on Wednesday. Usual AR's and AAR's while Daniel Gustavsson is the fourth official.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous7/4/14 11:12

    And Webb in Atletico - Barcelona. Today's appointments are very likely going to mean that Björn Kuipers will be assigned to take charge of the UCL final later this year. I can't see Jonas Eriksson taking charge of Bayern Munchen in the final, if he has refereed them in the quarter final. A very deserved appointment in my view. Kuipers has had a magnificient year, and 3 finals (if he gets the UCL final) in one year clearly would reflect that.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
  14. Off Topic: a wonderful example of the necessity of GLT in football occurred yesterday in Michael Oliver's match Aston Villa - Fulham, when Holtby's shot was cleared off the line by a hair's breadth. The shouts of incredulity of the commentators really say it all...

    http://livefootballvideo.com/fullmatch/england/premier-league/aston-villa-vs-fulham-2
    Match minute 74:30

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree - saw the highlights of the game on MOTD. GLT has had a great debut season in the Premier League. I hope other leagues follow suit in the near future.

      Delete
  15. Refereeing in the quarterfinals of UCL is amazing so far. Two very strong performances from what I have seen in a simulcast. Skomina made everything correct actually, handball penalty, elbow by Ramos, dive by Reus...just a small doubt on the additional time of only 2 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Proença with a near-perfect performance, IMO...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I must admit that this evening UEFA Referees Committee can celebrate one of the best evenings ever for CL refereeing.
    Damir Skomina in a alleged "easy" match after the first leg, had to take at least two very important decisions and the qualfication was open until the last minute of the game. I agree on both penalty for deliberate handball, and dive for Reus.
    Pedro Proença in a very intensive match (this time in the real meaning of the term "intensive") from the beginning to the end. Not so many major calls like Skomina, but one important no-penalty decision under his eyes in first half. He had an excellent positioning in this case.
    For both officials, in my opinion the mark is not less than 8.5.
    Excellent.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fully agreed. Only one small observation on Proenca: maybe he could have asked Maxwell about his condition after he was obviously (but undeliberately) hit by the arm of an opponent. By doing so, he would have immediately detected the bleeding wound; the controversial medical treatment which made PSG slightly upset would have been evitable. But..I don't want to awake the impression these points were heavier than the whole 90 minutes. Great performances..

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8/4/14 23:13

      IMO skomina missed a Second yellow Card for Alonso

      Best regards
      Phil

      Delete
    3. Hey Phil, do you have a minute please? Or an approximate minute maybe?

      Delete
    4. I checked it. I agree with you. It was a tactical foul stopping a promising attack. And what is even more irritating is that Skomina had the YC already out of his pocket and put it away some seconds later.

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

      Delete
    6. Anonymous9/4/14 00:05

      Niclas, I must correct me a bit after watching the situation again: Skomina didn't give a free-kick because in his eyes Mikitharyan felt down because of wet grass....
      And what you thought to be a yellow card in his hand was the arm of Reus which is taped with yellow tape (camera angle gave you that impression)

      Best regards
      Phil

      Delete
    7. Anonymous9/4/14 00:14

      Even whistling a foul, it was fully acceptable to not book Xabi Alonso. Better management of this situation needed.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous9/4/14 12:46

      What about situation in 27min and YC for Ramos?
      Not enough for RC? :)

      Delete
  18. Anonymous9/4/14 00:05

    What minute is the incident with Alonso? Do you have a clip?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9/4/14 00:18

    It was no foul - Fantastic decision from Skomina in my opinion. Just wet grass and the player slipped - Everyone thought it was a foul, even me. Good job.

    I agree what have been said here earlier. Great start of the second leg quarter finals and I think that the quarter finals have been very well refereed so far!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9/4/14 05:34

    -> Chealsea 1st goal: There seem to be "hand pushes" from Luiz and another Chelsea player (Cahill?) on PSG defender who was jumping for the ball before it felt down to Schurrle who kicked it in the net. Were the pushses kind of soft so that they were not considered by the referee, or are they legal challenges?

    -> Chelsea 2nd goal: Was the deviated by a Chelsea player before getting to D. Ba who netted in? And if that is true, shall that be an off-side call?

    Thanks.

    --- Fan from Canada

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous9/4/14 08:20

    I looked at Chelsea-Paris last night. I must say that I was impressed with the way team Proenca handelled that match. A tense encounter, but full respect towards the refereeing team from both teams. Very good work in my view! I would probably have marked Proenca with 8.5 or so.

    /Swedish observer

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have checked Xabi Alonso situation. No foul, I agree, there wasn't a clear contact.
    Very difficult to spot, anyway. I also agree on the fact that, in case of foul, a YC was not 100% mandatory in this situation.
    BTW for Niclas:
    http://i.imgur.com/q26Pbg3.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9/4/14 12:47

      I agree.
      And I must ask you, what do you think about yellow card for Ramos (27 minute) ?
      /Ref

      Delete
    2. I think that this is a correct decision, it wasn't a violent conduct. Appropriate decision. The free kick was whistled in favor of Real Madrid because Lewandowki at first committed foul on Ramos

      Delete
    3. You are right. Obviously it was too late yesterday night. Of course he did not give a free-kick and of course this was a correct decision based on the replays. For me the elbow was not used as a weapon but in a reckless manner. Therefore Ramos' YC was okay.. really two excellent performances then.

      Delete
  23. Anonymous9/4/14 19:19

    I was wondering, why Skomina allowed some Dortmund players to play with a yellow underwear-shirt long sleeve, although the colour of the arm of the jersey was black. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4aOG72xsws
    Take a look carefully at the penalty kicked by Di Maria.
    It seems that, while slipping, Di Maria kicks the ball with his left foot, hitting the right foot. This would be a double touch, not allowed, and therefore indirect free kick in favor of Borussia.
    Almost impossible to detect, but according to LotG still a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous11/4/14 23:31

    After watching Chelsea-Paris I personally must say that I don´t think that Proenca was as good as it was posted above.
    I would call it a good but not a very good performance because I don´t like his management:
    - YC against Veratti IMO not necessary
    - Lucas did a clear diver - in this case, I miss a mandatory YC
    - YC against Maxwell: normal foul, but never a YC: neither a tactical foul nor a harsh foul

    I expect that such a famous ref controls a match by his personality and uses verbal warnings, but my perception is that Proenca didn´t really do that. It was more the case that he decided either foul or foul and YC but not foul and verbal warning.

    Especially in a competition in that players miss a match after third YC in the competition, I expect that the refs are more careful in using YC.

    I would like to know your thinking about it

    best regards
    phil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about the missing YC for the clear dive (and of course the missing detection was the first problem) and that in three cases, Veratti, Lucas and specially Maxwell Proenca was quite harsh with his interpretation of stopping a promising attack. I can defend the first two situations. But Maxwell's card was indeed a clear mistake. On the other hand the NO penalty call in 33' was surely amazing.

      Delete

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