July 24, 2014

U-19 EURO 2014: Officials for Matchday 3

UEFA has released the appointments for Matchday 3 of 2014 UEFA U19 Final Tournament, held in Hungary.


25/07/2014, 18:00 CET, Budapest
Israel - Hungary (Group A)
Referee: Kevin Clancy (SCO)
Assistant referee 1: Yashar Abbasov (AZE)
Assistant referee 2: Gylfi Mar Sigurdsson (ISL)
Fourth official: Javier Estrada (ESP)

25/07/2014, 18:00 CET, Felcsut
Austria - Portugal (Group A)
Referee: Stephan Klossner (SUI)
Assistant referee 1: Wayne McDonnell (IRL)
Assistant referee 2: Henrik Larsen (DEN)
Fourth official: István Kovács (ROU)

25/07/2014, 20:15 CET, Papa
Serbia - Bulgaria (Group B)
Referee: Enea Jorgji (ALB)
Assistant referee 1: Darren England (ENG)
Assistant referee 2: Ivo Nadvornik (CZE)
Fourth official: Ádám Németh (HUN)

25/07/2014, 20:15 CET, Gyor
Germany - Ukraine (Group B)
Referee: Tore Hansen (NOR)
Assistant referee 1: Laurent Conotte (BEL)
Assistant referee 2: Evgeni Belski (KAZ)
Fourth official: Tamás Bognar (HUN)

39 Comments:

  1. Portugal and Austria are already qualified in group A, so this match will determine only the winner of the group and the runner up. In the same group, Israel - Hungary is really without any interest. Here we have Clancy.
    More important appointments for Jorgji and Hansen, in group B everything is still possible.
    Ádám Németh appointed as fourth official in SRB - BUL to replace Mihaly Fabian, who is busy in Europa League today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well ISR and HUN will fight for a spot at the next U-20 WC. ;)

      Delete
    2. I didn't know that, sorry ;)

      Delete
  2. Have a look at this situation from Ferencvaros-Sliema Wanderers two weeks ago. Referee is Ognjen Valjic from Bosnia.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIz2Vk_hOD4 1:42:10

    Seems like an extremely harsh second yellow to me..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't know what did he say. His expression wasn't dynamic, but sometimes same words are enough.

      Delete
  3. Some more Ekstraklasa situations:

    MARCIN BORSKI (FIFA):
    https://vimeo.com/101575757 - what if there was a contact, what if wasn't?
    https://vimeo.com/101575758 - was the referee right to stop the play?
    https://vimeo.com/101575759 - the same player in two situations: was the yellow correct and was the referee right in not sending him off for a second yellow some minutes later

    PAWEŁ RACZKOWSKI (FIFA)
    https://vimeo.com/101576250 and https://vimeo.com/101576944 - two non-penalty calls
    https://vimeo.com/101576249 - no card #1
    https://vimeo.com/101576247 - no card #2
    https://vimeo.com/101576943 - correct yellow?
    https://vimeo.com/101576945 - correct play-on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Borski: 1) As Chefren says, difficult situation. I couldn't detect any contact from the replay, but the referee should have used his body language in this situation to clearly signalise to players that this was no penalty (arms out, "get up", or a similar hand signal).

      2) Common sense, nothing to lose by stopping play and allowing the player to get his shoe on without having to stress while the ball is in play.

      3) Clear yellow, bordering on SFP. The second situation is a good example of SPA, another clear yellow.

      Raczkowski:

      1) A: I can agree with the no penalty decision as long as the defender hits the ball first (no clear replay, AR2 should have helped in this case). B: No penalty (+DOGSO). This type of contact is seen a ton of times during matches, and can not be considered enough for a penalty (or free kick)

      2) YC. If the referee used more body language and a more stern warning I could accept no card under doubt.

      3) Well, the advantage is good, the tackle in question is no mandatory yellow in my opinion. However, the correct decision would have been a free kick for the first challenge.

      4) YC again, RC for SFP (-advantage) would also have been acceptable.

      5) Correct decision. Attacker makes a fair attempt to get the ball and even tries to avoid the goalkeeper by throwing his legs and body down.

      Keep these clips coming!

      Delete
    2. Thank you! Of course, next clips will come as soon as possible. The second matchday starts today. Polish Ekstraklasa is always full of interesting situations to review :)

      Delete
    3. Borski: 1) Difficult situation. I can't see any contact from the replay, but the referee should have used his body language in this situation to make a signal of either play-on or get up.

      2) Can't detect something illegal here.

      3) The first example is a clear YC for a scissors type challenge. Even according to UEFA. The second one is definitely mandatory for SPA. The referee is letting him go with the second situation.

      Raczkowski:

      1) A: We can't say for sure if the defender hits the ball. But tbh it looks like more a penalty than nothing. B: No penalty is correct. There is a slight pushing but IMO not enough for penalty.

      2) Mandatory YC.

      3) The advantage was correctly given. Don't see a reason for a YC here.

      4) RC for SFP

      5) Correct decision. Both attacker and defender are trying to play the ball.

      Delete
  4. Borski
    1) Extremely difficult situation to read. At the end I don't see the contact, so NO PENALTY is an acceptable decision. Then, we can discuss about a possible simulation but also in this case, it seems to me that the attacker tries to jump, not committing a dive. At the end PLAY ON seems acceptable... but very difficult. Borski was also unlucky because the team later didn't score. That might have solved every problem ;)
    2) It wasn't still mandatory in this case. The lost boot didn't interfere with play. The referee might have urged the player to normalize his equipment without stopping the play.. But... if the player was going to play the ball without the boot, intentionally, he had to be booked.
    3) It seems to me that the player committed a SFP. I would have liked a RC, not YC. Then, in the second situation, tactical foul from behind, not that blatant but still a YC might have been given. I anyway don't mark this situation as 100% mistake because there is at least room for discussion. Just free kick is still acceptable, but yes, considering what the player did in the previous situation... at the end he was lucky to remain on the pitch.

    Raczkowski
    1) Both situations are in my opinion penalty. Especially the second one, tthe first was quite difficult to detect, but still a very stupid action by defender.
    2) Mandatory YC
    3) Ok the advantage but the player had to be booked also for his persistent irregular action....
    4) RC for SFP
    5) Yes, why? I don't see any contact here. Nothing happens between the keeper and the player, both try to catch the ball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always, dependable Chefren. :) Thank you!

      Delete
  5. Agree with all the choices Chefren and norgeref made, especially the RC for SFP (4). However, I believe that was rather difficult, especially on a first glance.

    BTW: Niclas, I sent the E-Mail again just in case it got lost somehow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One scene that stays in my mind and I would be very interested in your opinion.
    World Cup 2010, RSA - URU, Busacca, RC Khune for DOGSO
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLbIlqyVoVk (03:03).
    RC correct or is a YC still possible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ukrainian Supercup some days ago between Shakhtar Donetsk and Dynamo Kyiv. The ref was Yury Mozharovsky (FIFA).

    #1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=1908
    #2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=2295
    #3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=2740
    #4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=2800
    #5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=3785
    #6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=3890
    #7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=3987
    #8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=4358
    #9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=5140
    #10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=5440
    #11) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=5540
    #12) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=5635
    #13) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=5838
    #14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=6070
    #15) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAowpdAohjE#t=6102

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) The two YC are acceptable, but not really mandatory. A better solution would be to identify the key players and defuse the situation quickly, anduse personality to give a strong, public warning. The referee should also think more about distance to players and what he does in the confrontation with Srna is unacceptable, with moving his forehead towards his and and getting close to headbutting.

      2) Correct YC. No SFP in my opinion as long as he makes no contact with the studs.

      3) I can't see any contact, and if there is, it seems purely accidental. IFK for dangerous play and a quick word would be a good way to solve this.

      4) Correct FK and good warning.

      5) Kicking the ball away like this is a mandatory YC.

      6) FK is enough.

      7) In my opinion, penalty. The defender has a good grip around the attacker and lays his body weight on him.

      8) Clearly a free kick. If nothing, the referee should have taken action against the obvious dissent against the AR.

      9) I can't see any irregularities, the attacker jumps fairly in both challenges.

      10) Without having any replay, I would say that free kick is a correct decision. GOOD YC for dissent/UB.

      11) I can understand why the referee does not deem this to be SPA, as the player is beginning to turn away from goal, but in my opinion it is and therefore a YC would be more appropriate.

      12) I can't see any contact, and if there is, it is very slight and not enough for a penalty.

      13) The type of situation I really hate. In this case, the goalkeeper touches the ball first and the attacker jumps into the goalkeeper. The keeper jumps very fairly with his knee down, this video should be seen by all keepers (do you hear me, Neuer? :P)

      14) Good use of personality to solve the situation.

      15) YC in my opinion, with RC for SFP as an option as well. Catches him with the studs on the foot from behind.









      Delete
    2. 1) I agree with Norwegian referee, it is not recommended to have a head-to-head confrontation with a player. The two YC are ok.
      2) YC is enough, I can accept this decision.
      3) Not deliberate, in my opinion. And the player pretends a hit. One can give indirect free kick.
      4) No need to give a YC, so correct decision by referee.
      5) Missed mandatory YC, the action was too blatant.
      6) Good attempt to wait for a while for a possible advantage, but then the card was mandatory. Really reckless tackle in my opinion.
      7) This is enough or a penalty. The holding is quite blatant and not mutual.
      8) Missed free kick and perhaps YC, if you want to punish the tackle. Furthermore, allowed too many complaints against AR1. More alterness was needed by referee.
      9) I can understand the complaints because two players fell down and it seemed at first glance an irregular action, but watching the replay I agree with referee. No foul in each situation. PLAY ON is ok.
      10) Difficult, but it seems to me that nothing happened. So mistake in whistling the free kick. The YC given for complaints is anyway ok.
      11) If foul, I can accept NO CARD. But I'm in trouble looking for the contact...
      12) It seems the most controversial and perhaps important situation of the match. Well, I agree with NO PENALTY. It seems to me that the white player looks desperately for a contact, falling inside the penalty area. Borderline to YC for dive. The referee might have managed better this situation perhaps giving a warning to the player.
      13) Keepers are always overprotected and allowed to such actions :) but in this case for me ok decision, nothing, the ball was clearly hit.
      14) No need of a YC, it is ok.
      15) YC is definitely enough for me, even though this tackel from behind could appear as really rough.
      At the end in my opinion the only clear (in a certain way) mistake or point for discussion is the possible penalty at #7.

      Delete
  8. Polish appointments for UEFA CL and EL:

    UCL:

    29.07
    Debreceni VSC – BATE Borisov
    Szymon Marciniak, Paweł Sokolnicki, Tomasz Listkiewicz, Paweł Raczkowski

    30.07
    HJK Helsinki – APOEL FC
    Paweł Gil, Piotr Sadczuk, Marcin Borkowski, Bartosz Frankowski

    UEL:

    31.07
    Chornomorets Odessa – RNK Split
    Marcin Borski, Rafał Rostkowski, Krzysztof Myrmus, Jarosław Rynkiewicz

    7.08
    IF Brommapojkarna – Torino FC
    Paweł Raczkowski, Tomasz Listkiewicz, Michał Obukowicz, Szymon Marciniak

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Observer for Marciniak is Alain Hamer.

      Delete
    2. I liked this ref much. Is he a highly-rated observer?

      Delete
    3. I think that he is now a quite important observer, I remember many notable referees observed by him in the last times, even in important situations.

      Delete
    4. I would not consider him as important as e.g. Rosetti, de Bleeckere, Layec, Hauge etc., but as Chefren said, he mostly observes younger / promising officials for the future. Normal appointment. Strahonja's observer confirms that his UEFA journey has probably come to an end in First Group. Same for Istvan Vad who has an unimportant observer in the 2nd legs.
      Next week we have some interesting fixtures and observers; Oliver has Hans Reijgwaart (with Mullarkey btw), Zelinka has Mejuto, Madden has Fröjdfeldt and Zwayer will be active in Turkey, where it is likely that Uilenberg has a seat in the stadium (I could imagine so).

      Delete
    5. @Hubert
      match for Paweł Raczkowski should be Torino - IF Brommapojkarna (in Italy not in Sweden) because for the match in Sweden (first leg), UEFA has appointed Serdar Gözübüyük:
      http://www.knvb.nl/nieuws/35687/internationale-aanstellingen-nederlandse-scheidsrechters
      if you can confirm, thanks

      Delete
    6. Yes, it's a second leg. I must mixed hosts up.

      Delete
  9. "According to FIFA, the referees who scored the highest once the tournament was over were Bjorn Kuipers, Velasco Carballo, Vera, Bakary Papa Gassama, Eriksson and Ricci. FIFA believes that they put in impeccable performances."

    http://allafrica.com/stories/201407241774.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, they are joking... ;) Of course, nice to read for Gassama but then why only one match?
      No comment about Velasco.

      Delete
    2. Of course they are joking, Chefren. No comment.

      Delete
    3. I guess (and hope) they mean single matches. Indeed I could imagine that FIFA was extremely satisfied with ENG-ITA, URU-ENG, GRE-CIV, NED-CHI, ARG-SUI and FRA-HON.

      Delete
  10. EL match (yesterday)

    Asteras Tripolis - ROPS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulkOPF6ywI

    Starts from 1:40. DOGSO?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. YC. For me a clear 7.9.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't be so harsh calling it a crucial mistake, but I rather agree on yellow card. Difficult situation for the referee due to strange ball movement.

      Delete
    3. For me a crucial mistake because the ball was impossible to play, I would also like to be sure that when the foul occurred, the ball was still inside the pitch.

      Delete
    4. That's it, there is not even 1 criteria that is fulfilled for DOGSO and I would dare to say that the referee must see that. The ball can never be reached by the attacker. Even his AR could have theoretically seen that. That's why I call the crucial mistake inevitable.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without a replay and clear video image, I don't want to judge it. It was probably advised by AR2. Referee was Gunnar Jonsson. I am wondering why he moved around that much instead of staying and standing firm during the thinking process. He did not really appear sovereignly here.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Niclas, it is too difficult to understand without a replay. Video is not clear, but surely referee was informed by his assistant because he missed the scene.

      Delete
    3. Impossible to judge without a replay. However, Jonssons handling of the situation and body language is very good.

      Delete
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LFzCCe4LMw
    Zimbru - CSKA Sofia.
    Referee: Marco Fritz (GER)
    What about this red card (00:40)?

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.nordlys.no/sporten/til/article7494077.ece I am of corse bias but the video doesnt show me deliberate violent conduct. handling of situation good, player isolated and taken aside from opponents

    ReplyDelete

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