June 28, 2015

Women's World Cup 2015: Teodora Albon appointed to handle the semifinal USA - Germany

Romanian Teodora Albon has been selected by FIFA to oversee the semifinal between USA and Germany at the Women's World Cup 2015. Salomé Di Iorio (ARG) will be the fourth official. 
1 July 2015, 01:00 CET (Montreal)
USA - Germany
Referee: Teodora Albon (ROU) 
Assistant Referee 1: Petruţa Iugulescu (ROU) 
Assistant Referee 2: Mária Súkeníková (SVK)
Fourth Official: Salomé Di Iorio (ARG)


  1. Anonymous28/6/15 23:17

    Mitsi for Japan - England
    Di Iorio Final
    Keighley Third Place

    1. Anonymous28/6/15 23:49

      Again an UEFA referee for the second SF?


  2. Anonymous29/6/15 04:27

    Weird to have a UEFA ref doing a UEFA-CONCACAF semi, no?

  3. Anonymous29/6/15 06:42

    Men's WC they showed It wasn't an issue. Rizzoli on final with Germany v Argentina and Cakir on semi with Netherlands v Argentina

    1. Anonymous29/6/15 18:28

      Fair enough. No ref would kill their own careers over favouritism...

  4. Keighley to referee final?

    1. Anonymous29/6/15 22:02

      Keighley or Chenard IMO. Both referees have been consistent through out the tournament in terms of performances. Keighley had a solid performance in CAN vs SWZ game. She confirmed that she can handle high profile games at this level even though coming for a small confederation.

      As of Chenard, people have been bashing about her level of fitness. Last game confirmed why she was a top class referee. She has shown ''intelligent'' and ''practical'' refereeing. Her game readiness is at another level compared to other referees of this tournament. Good anticipation, ability to make a brilliant PA to PA sprint in the extra time and still being at distance of play, I certainly do not have any issues with her level of fitness

      Referee fanatic

    2. Anonymous29/6/15 22:13

      Chenard would only be there cause of politics, just like last year, during the U20 WWC in Canada.

      If I remember well, once Busacca and Collina said: "Today's referees must be athletes. They should train everyday to cope with today's high standards of football"...

      Well, it could be me, but Chenard doesn't really looks like an athlete to me, but I could be wrong, right Emil / Ref Al...

      If we only should look to performances, then Keighley and Staubli would deserve (at least) a (semi)final.

    3. Anonymous30/6/15 00:21

      2011... Germany out, Steinhaus in the final; 2015... Canada out...

    4. Anonymous30/6/15 04:41

      2007 (women) semi-finals: UEFA-UEFA: UEFA ref, CONCACAF-CONMEBOL: UEFA ref; final: UEFA-CONMEBOL: AFC ref
      2011 (women) semi-finals: UEFA-CONCACAF: UEFA ref, AFC-UEFA: CONCACAF ref; final: AFC-CONCACAF: UEFA ref
      2010 (men) semi-finals: CONMEBOL-UEFA: AFC ref, UEFA-UEFA: UEFA ref; final: UEFA-UEFA: UEFA ref
      2014 (men) semi-finals: CONMEBOL-UEFA: CONCACAF ref, UEFA-CONMEBOL: UEFA ref; final: UEFA-CONMEBOL: UEFA ref.

  5. Anonymous29/6/15 19:14

    Does anyone know who has been retained for the last 4 matches?

    1. Anonymous30/6/15 00:23

      Based on performance, Staubli and Keighley should be retained.

  6. Anonymous29/6/15 23:44

    IMHO the best two showings have been from the Uruguyan and the North Korean. Chenard looks 20 pounds overweight.

    1. Anonymous30/6/15 11:43

      You sir are correct and yes Chenard needs to lay off the poutine.

    2. Uruguayan referee did very poor Jon ENG-CAN.

  7. Appointment for Japan vs England have been announced by FIFA
    Referee: Anna-Marie KEIGHLEY (NZL)
    Assistant Referee 1: Sarah WALKER (NZL)
    Assistant Referee 2: Allyson FLYNN (AUS)
    Fourth official: Stephanie FRAPPART (FRA)

  8. Thought so, she is doing well at the tournament let's hope that this is a great for her to referee

  9. Anonymous30/6/15 04:39

    So, Albon, Keighley, Di Iorio and Frappart are out of the final. Remaining candidates are Staubli (GER-ENG, USA-JPN) and Chenard (GER-JPN, if she is allowed to ref Germany for the third time in the same tournament). For a final USA-ENG, the best neutral candidate would be Ri.

  10. Anonymous30/6/15 04:39

    It was unthinkable before the tournament that a referee from Oceania would be in charge of a semi final, but Keighley (NZL) has been rewarded for her outstanding performance in the tournament. This is a very big step forward for refereeing in general from Oceania Region.

  11. I just watched some of the "Referees at the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™"-movies on YOUTUBE with Katalin Anna Kulcsár stating that she was 30 years of age and has became a FIFA referee in 2004 (when she was still 19). How can such - even for female referees - fast international careers be possible?


    1. Anonymous30/6/15 08:38

      First of all, I want to congratulate Team Albon and Keighley with their thoroughly deserved appointments. The fact that Busacca/Denoncourt appointed refereeing teams for the semi final who more than deserved it, gives me hope for the final.

      Early prediction:

      FINAL: Staubli, De Vries, Ratajova, Ri, Hong

      3RD PLACE: Umpierrez, Mascarana, Toloza, Mitsi, Kourompylia

      All the best for the appointed teams!

    2. Anonymous30/6/15 11:40

      FIFA fast tracks these women in the spirit of equality. However FIFA does more harm than good when they appoint women who have no business near an international competition. The end results are laughable and infantile mistakes made by these women with FIFA badges.

      But I've learned far more from these poorly officiated games than from games that are well officiated. Because I've seen how not to do it. And, therefore, I've learned how to do it.

    3. Anonymous30/6/15 18:28

      Nobody can become FIFA referee at 19!!! According to FIFA, the minimum age is 25 for referees and 23 for ARs: http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/44/97/54/circularno.1444-2015fifarefereeinginternationallists_neutral.pdf

  12. Predictions for the final

    USA-JPN: Staubli
    GER-JPN: Chenard
    USA-ENG: Ri
    GER-ENG: Staubli

    1. Mine are
      USA-JPN: Staubli
      GER-JPN: Venegas
      USA-ENG: Ri (but maybe there are political problems, alternative: Umpierrez)
      GER-ENG: Venegas

  13. Anonymous30/6/15 11:19

    Happy with the appointment of keighly. She really deserved one of the 3big matches of the tournament.My Prediction for the finals

    Final: staubli and di iorio i cant decide who to pick as 1st ref and who as 4th official but id like di iorio there as first ref.

    3rd place: ri with chenard as 4th official.. just to keep some canadians involved..

    1. Anonymous30/6/15 17:20

      Di Iorio is 4th in a semi-final. Usually, a 4th in a semi will not get a further appointment.
      An African ref may get 4th in the third place match, just to give something to CAF.

    2. Anonymous30/6/15 17:50

      I personally think this is a nonsense argument. She has been one of the best and since theres no comnebol team in tournament she fits all possible finals. But i would be happy with team staubli as well.

  14. Anonymous30/6/15 20:46

    The fact that some of you have said "just to keep some canadians involved" and "just to give something to CAF" is nonsense. The "to be fair" argument is pure rubbish.
    The best trios need to be in the pitch. But FIFA in their quest to globalize the game constantly puts out inferior trios while sending home those who have been stellar.

    1. Anonymous30/6/15 21:11

      This pure rubbish is exactly what FIFA does, you should know that. And I agree. For example, very likely CAF will get third place.

  15. Albon outstanding first half. Timely warnings. Two correct Cautions -- 1st SPA; 2nd Reckless tackle. Contact above ankle but not excessive. Couple appeals for PKs, including one for handling. Both correctly not given. Positioning/fitness no issues. Unlike Umpierrez, throw ins locations corrected and foul decisions very predictable. What I've liked best is warm personality, smiles, willingness to listen to players, and approachability.

  16. Anonymous1/7/15 02:29

    Why is the USA still playing with 11 players?

  17. Albon had a tough decision and IMO she got it right. PK no doubt. Caution or DOGSO? I think there was some doubt that GER attacker would have had clean control and/or shot with ball at shoulder level.

    Now one the other way. Outside or in. Looked like hold (with body) continued well in. Initial contact may have been very, very slightly out.

    1. Anonymous1/7/15 02:39

      Your ability to come up with excuses is certainly impressive. However the majority of the stuff you write is rubbish.

      "Tough decision"? Not at all. It was a gutsy decision that showed that Albon lacked the guts to show red.

      The foul is clearly outside the box. But you're probably going to tell everybody that because Morgan lands in the box Albon was correct to point to the spot.

    2. If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

      Albon got it right. Initial contact irrelevant with holds. You can hold with more than your hands.

    3. Anonymous1/7/15 03:06

      Well isn't that cute. Now you choose to see things that didn't actually happen. There is no "continued contact" as you're trying to insinuate. The German player does not hold. What she does is body check Morgan impeding her progress. But keep grabbing for things that are clearly not there to justify Albon's game changing mistake.

      I like the fact that you had no rebuttal to what I said about Albon showing the wrong color card to Johnston. Because deep down inside, your excuse making self knows darn well that Albon effed up.

    4. There are 10 fouls resulting in DFK. "Body check impeding progress" (you sound like a television commentator) is not one of them. This is a hold (with body).

      It's called doGSO (goal scoring opportunity). Last defender means nothing. Take out foul, there's only one opportunity to shoot. It's a shot with a very high level of difficulty with keeper closing in rapidly. It is not DOSAK (shot at keeper) nor DOSAG (shot at goal). It's DOGSO.

    5. Anonymous1/7/15 03:54

      Regardless of what you want to call the foul. The fact that it happened outside the box can't be changed no matter how many justifications you come up with.

      Previously you posted that the ball was shoulder level for Popp. Well, like you are so very often, you are wrong again. Because as Popp is being pulled back and hauled down by Johnston. The ball is on Popp's foot, not at her shoulder. If Popp doesn't get pulled back and hauled down, she could have very easily controlled the ball and gone in alone on Solo.

    6. Anonymous1/7/15 04:22

      Ref Al is more right than you might think. Here what the LOTG say for the 2nd PK.

      Part 1: Impeding resulting in contact should considered by the referee to be a hold. If it was "impeding", there would have been an IFK (in or out of PA).
      Part 2: There was contact, now we have a hold and a DFK or PK.
      Part 3: Holding that begins outside the PA and continues into the PA must be sanctioned as a PK (we'd do that with no hesitation with a hold on jersey; why not hold of entire player with body?). The initial contact began outside the PA. The hold continued into the PA.

      The DOGSO decision is more debatable. But again Ref Al is onto something: in order to have DOGSO, there must be control (there wasn't) or a high potential for control (some doubt). "Some doubt" and "obvious" are contradictory. The German player had not even yet touched the ball before being fouled. This in itself is not an excuse, but the LOTG does say somewhere, "A caution for unsporting behaviour must be issued when a player holds an opponent to prevent him gaining possession of the ball or taking up an advantageous position." You need possession before you can have an obvious scoring opportunity. Most people will likely disagree with me and Ref Al, but it is something to put in the mix. Take out the foul and the German player IMO had a very brief opportunity to take possession and shoot toward goal with the keeper charging in. Was there obvious opportunity or possible opportunity?

    7. She was about to shoot, Anonymous. Due to the holding, she fell / lost balance. If you are about to shoot in a 1v1 situations with the goalkeeper, having the necessary balance before receiving contact by the defender, then isn't this an OGSO? For me it is.
      And: You need possession before you can have an obvious scoring opportunity. - a clear NO. The likelihood of getting in control (possession) of the ball is enough, as long as it is very high, which it was.
      I am very surprised those days how seemlingly undefendable decisions are turned into defendable ones even called "correct". Of course we can discuss situations, but that is just an observation I felt multiple times over the last weeks.

    8. Anonymous1/7/15 10:07

      Thank you!!!
      Finally somebody who watched the same match I watched. And who saw the same DOGSO play that I and the rest of the world saw.
      But don't be so surprised Niclas. All "Al Ref" has done this whole tournament is be an apologist and try to justify the unjustifiable. To be quite honest, he's doing more harm than good by taking that type of attitude. His careless comments may even influence young or new referee's into making the wrong choices like Albon did today.

    9. After watching FIFA's highlights I can only say one thing: Albon with 2 very crucial/match changing mistakes.

      I can't understand how someone cannot see a DOGSO on GER penalty. You can't have it more clear than that.

  18. Anonymous1/7/15 02:33

    And in 25 minutes Albon's game has gone to shit. She first does her best Haimouddi impression by showing Johnston yellow instead of red on a clear DOGSO. And the cherry on top, she calls PK on a foul that is clearly outside the box.

    Referee's deciding games. LETS GO FIFA!!!

  19. Anonymous1/7/15 02:49

    In a tournament where FIFA has freely admitted to setting up certain match ups due to revenue. Why am I not surprised that the USA is getting that helping nudge into the Final.

    After all the corruption in FIFA that has been exposed, I can't watch a match in which decisions like these happen without having doubts.

    Bravo Albon, for today it was your turn to do FIFA's dirty work.

    1. Anonymous1/7/15 03:37

      Conspiracy theories at best. Albon did not miskick the German penalty. Albon did not hold the USA player on the PA line. Albon did not score the 2nd USA goal. Albon did not make any saves for Solo. Albon did not make any saves for Angerer.

    2. Anonymous1/7/15 04:06

      You're right.
      But you forgot to list one more thing that Albon "did not" do.
      She "did not" red card Johnston for her foul on Popp that Denied an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

      A game changing decision in which Albon showed that she lacks the guts to show red in a big match. Remember that playing against 10 is not the same as playing against 11.

    3. Anonymous1/7/15 04:08

      Those are alot of did nots for Albon.
      But what about what she "did do"?

      She "did" point to the spot on a foul that was clearly outside of the box. Not "on the line" as you're trying to say.

      Lastly, do you trust FIFA?

  20. Anonymous1/7/15 03:12

    As somebody asked above. Why did the USA finish with 11 players on the field and not 10? DOGSO is still punished with a red card, correct? I've been away from officiating for a while, but that foul on the German looked like a clear DOGSO to me. Not to mention that the German player was in a position to bring the ball down with her foot prior to her being hauled down.

    I am trying to get back into officiating and into soccer a whole. But when I see things like I did today. I am reminded why I lost interest in the sport. The referee's wield too much game changing power.

    1. Anonymous1/7/15 03:50

      U r 2 weak in your resolve: "looked like"? It either is or isn't. Albon and Ref Al said it isn't. Anonymouses said it is.

      If u want to be part of those who ruin the game by calling TV referees terrible, join the few here. If u want to learn, make the game better, and resolve to do your best, pick up the whistle.

    2. Anonymous1/7/15 03:58

      Okay, I will rephrase. It was a DOGSO, and Johnston should have been sent off. Better?

      By the way, I am not the "bad guy" here. Today that title belongs to Albon and Ref Al.

  21. All right, my turn to enter the debate.

    59': German PK. The decision to me is defendable, because: 1) Popp never has control of the ball, while she may have gained control, there is no certainty, as the goalkeeper also was very close and had a strong chance of getting to the ball first. So I can accept the decision: when the foul is committed, Popp does not have control of the ball. It is a very close decision, though, and I'd love to hear what Niclas, Chefren et. al. have to say.

    67': US Penalty: Clear YC, never a red. There is a German defender in a great position to intervene, and she kicks the ball away from goal before the foul. The initial contact happens outside, but continues on the line and inside. Albon does not hesitate and it is a correct decision. Compare to De Michelis' tackle on Messi (Jonas Eriksson refereeing) from a few years back - it is a very similar situation.

    1. For me the first penalty is 100% DOGSO.
      Popp was about to shoot (this is better visible in live view than in the replay) and lost balance / started to fall after and due to the holding. So maybe she was not in 100% control during the foul, but the likelihood of getting in control if there had not been this foul was amazingly high.

      I can't understand this decision actually, as I learnt such examples as stonewall and paramount examples for DOGSO (knowing the control-criteria).

    2. Anonymous1/7/15 10:14

      The criterias for DOGSO are very clear in the laws of the game. I don't understand why there's a debat on this but Hey we are all in rights to have are own opinions.

      One of the criterias is : likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball...... If she was not in control she had a clear sky of gaining control. What more do you want ?

      This is a perfect video for a match incident analysis

    3. That's the point.

    4. My opinion (I watched video highlights on FIFATV).
      Penalty in favor of Germany is a correct decision but the card is definitely wrong. It is a clear DOGSO. Player is about to control the ball and shot, being very close to goal. She is impeded by defender and for this reason (only after that) she loses her balance, falling down and hitting the ball accidentally. So, the main cause for that was the contact.Without the foul, she could have controlled the ball, being also able to shot directly.
      It would have been a different case if the foul had occurred before the shot by attacker, so in that case, penalty and YC (or even nothing), considering that the ball had been already kicked. But in this case, it is a clear DOGSO and for me a crucial mistake.
      Second situation is very difficult to assess, here I must be honest, one can back the referee. Clearly the contact started before entering the penalty area, then one can discuss about the fact that it lasted at least until the line of penalty area. According to LotG, a situation like that, can be penalty, if a referee evaluates that the foul ends inside the box. But I think that , merely looking at the video (and that's my feeling), this should be more free kick than penalty. I can anyway understand why Albon decided for that, and I would accept this call. One interesting question is: how to understand and detect when a continuative contact causing a foul has its main effect? If you can answer...

    5. After rewatching the first video, Popp does manage to kick the ball (indicating some form of control), so DOGSO would be appropriate.

    6. Of course to be fair with Albon and her assistant, one can back this decision. Technically I would however dare to say that the decisive contact happened 30-40 cms outside the penalty area. But...no complaints (although here you could argue that you also have to be 100% sure to give a penalty there).

    7. I was surprised at how fast Albon pointed to the spot on the USA PK. Either Albon did not consult her AR, or her AR was screaming "Penalty" in her ear.

  22. Anonymous1/7/15 13:32

    IMO in the second situation Albon would have been well advised to give an IFK.

  23. Anonymous: Holding -- DFK (never, ever IFK).

    Chefren, the LOTG answer your question: "Holding an opponent includes the act of preventing him from moving past using...the body." and then, "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the PA and continues holding him inside the PA, the referee must award a PK." The final contact was about 1 yard inside the PA.

    Holding is just one foul that can be continuous. I'd also give a PK if a defender caught ball outside PA and walked in, a push that starts outside and is finished in, a charge that starts out and finishes in. Conversely, when a keeper catches a ball inside PA and falls outside with it, why do we stop play for deliberate handling?

    Emil's initial doubt re: DOGSO was same as mine. Albon has one look and must have 100% NO doubt before sending off. If a referee is only 99% certain that a ball crossed the goal line, it's not a goal -- this is refereeing 101. Even if a referee has 1% doubt that it's not DOGSO, it's not a Send Off. I am 100% convinced that Popp would have had an opportunity to shoot toward goal. I am not 100% convinced that is was an obvious goal SCORING opportunity (ball bouncing, ball slightly behind her, Solo charging out). Benefit of doubt is applied in many aspects of officiating a match. This doesn't mean we create doubt -- it has to be there. Emil initially thought there was some doubt, I do as well.

    Some of you think I'm making up excuses and write rubbish. Far from it (well perhaps the latter is true). Refereeing is a complex art and a healthy discussion (whether we agree or not) is never a bad thing. Were Albon's decisions popular (by no means), were they justifiable (some think yes; most think no). We are but a jury and not unanimous. She was the final judge. If 98% of referees sent off Johnson and 2% do not, that doesn't mean the 2% are incorrect.

    1. Ref Al, I am happy to have a large variety of opinions and it is your good right to contribute to them. Therefore don't be irritated, I do not consider your words as rubbish. However I fundamentally disagree in the concrete situation, as I think we cannot sell a 100% clear DOGSO case (in my eyes it is 100%, but this is only my interpretation and the one of many others) as defendable. On your last sentence: No, it does not necessarily mean that these 2% are incorrect. But it could equally be the case that these 2% have wrongly interpreted the situation (also AR2 by the way) and that, for this reason, their interpretation needs improvement and reflection.

    2. Sending Johnson off is a very, very, very easy 100% sell and any referee would have little trouble explaining such to a match assessor or observer. If the decision is such an easy sell, either Albon is incompetent or doesn't care or is very brave.

      My comments reflect the possible reasons going on in Albon's head and my opinion of why she had doubt. I'm 100% certain she did not produce red because she was "weak" or "incompetent" or "lacked recognition" or "wanted to keep everyone in the game -- doesn't care" or "FIFA wants the USA to advance". No other element in her match showed those characteristics.

      If I was her assessor/observer I would have no option but to ask and wait for her view. Since we can't interview her, we can only guess. I'm providing some of those guesses. They are possibly legitimate and must be considered as learning elements and considerations (whether correct or not). Was it Albon's positioning, that Popp had ball beside her (not in front) just before foul, that ball was bouncing high as it always does on artificial turf, that ball's slight touch off defender's chest changed its direction/speed, that Popp may have had a difficult time pulling down and controlling and/or shooting this ball for a legitimate opportunity?

    3. My first impression was that she was very centrally positioned behind the ongoing attack (not her fault). So she had kind of 0° angle into the situation (thus it is difficult to estimate the distance between the goalkeeper and the attacker and all that stuff). But even if, her assistant should have provided her with these pieces of information. In my opinion, all that is not too complex but simply a wrong call resulting from a wrong on-field perception or interpretation. I am also a fan of root-cause-analyses but in this case the explanation "wrong decision, not more and not less" maybe does.

  24. Anonymous1/7/15 19:49

    Ref Al,
    First you said that the ball was at shoulder level for Popp. Then you said that the ball was slightly behind her. And now you said that Popp had the ball beside her. So which one is it? Or is it the one the best suites you and whatever justification your looking for?
    Not to mention that it is physically impossible for Popp to have stretched her leg out and gotten a touch on the ball with her foot (like she did) if the ball is at any of the positions you said.
    You keep trying to explain the situation, but you are clearly grasping at straws.

  25. Anonymous2/7/15 05:38

    Did anyone see a foul against Germany not sanctioned immediately preceding the PK for USA?

    1. Anonymous2/7/15 10:09

      No. Everybody has chosen to ignore it (especially Ref Al) to try and justify Albon's terrible 2nd half.

      And lets not even mention Hope Solo's intentional delaying of a restart. Which she has gone and bragged about to the media,

      Yay Albon and LETS GO FIFA!!! smh


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