April 24, 2016

The 3rd Team's Performance Review on: Björn Kuipers in SL Benfica vs Bayern München (UCL Quarterfinal, 2nd Leg)

A good performance with one clear crucial mistake, that's how our observer summarized Björn Kuipers' work in the Champions League quarterfinal between SL Benfica and Bayern München.

Read the full report!


13/04/2016
20:45 CET - Estádio da Luz, Lisbon (Champions League Quarterfinal, 2nd Leg)


SL Benfica

2:2
Bayern München

7,9
(1 crucial mistake,
otherwise good)
Referee
Björn Kuipers
NED
Assistant Referee 1
Sander van Roekel
NED
Assistant Referee 2
Erwin Zeinstra
NED
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Pol van Boekel
NED
Additional Assistant Referee 2
Richard Liesveld
NED
4th Official
Mario Diks
NED



UEFA Referee Observer
Roberto Rosetti
ITA
UEFA Delegate
Kris Bellon
BEL
Blog Referee Observer
Artur
SUI


  3 (2:1)

  0 (0:0)

  0 (0:0)


Performance Review: Strong personality skills, weak disciplinary control

An overall pleasant evening for the Dutch referee team around Björn Kuipers who faced an exciting game in the second leg of the UEFA Champions League quarter-finals. Nevertheless the match character was always fair why I can assess a normal challenging evening for the whole team who had to evaluate only a few really crucial tackles. 
An important reason for the fair match character was also the good approach of Kuipers and especially his good and predictable foul detection, an excellent player’s management, a strong body language and a physical condition still on the expected level. 
All the more it is really a pity the Dutchman had some problems in his disciplinary control, especially regarding two situations. While the first one (42’) was a lack of awareness which can always happen, the second one (74’) was a clear and unintelligible mistake which should not occur on this level. This mistake tarnishes an otherwise really good performance – both situations are descripted below.

Important Situations   > Video

Let's focus on 2 situations.

1|  42' reckless foul by BEN#9, missing YC
BEN#9 treads on his opponent’s leg near to the halfway line, directly in front of the fourth official, and commits therefore a reckless foul. Unfortunately the referee team decides to play-on what is clearly wrong. Not only a whistle, also at least a strong verbal warning or – at the best – a caution would be necessary. It was not only a lack of awareness but also a lack of co-operation as the referee was positioned far away while the fourth official was located besides. In this situation the referee could expect an information of the fourth official, nevertheless it was neither that difficult to detect for the referee who should judge it himself too (at least the foul by itself).

2|  74' DOGSO by BAY#8, missing RC
BAY#8 commits a carless sliding tackle short before the penalty area, the referee awards a free-kick and after a short communication with his team mates he cautions the offender. Unfortunately this is clearly not enough in this situation. BAY#8 is the last defender and denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity with his foul – all the criteria for a DOGSO (distance and angular to goal, other defenders, etc.) are fulfilled, a red card would be the only correct decision. A clear (!) crucial mistake by the referee but also by AR1 and AAR1 who were visibly involved in the emergence of this decision too. The following send-off of the host’s coach was correct as he left the technical area for a lot of meters only to protest.


Positive Points

1. Appearance, Body Language, Communication
Björn Kuipers showed this evening all his great personality skills we know. He had a very consequent appearance and a calm but nevertheless strong body language. Furthermore his player’s management was another really positive point, he had a good communication with all actors why he had the full acceptance and match control all the time. He proved still to be a man for ‘big’ games!

2. Foul detection, especially inside and around the penalty area
Kuipers applied Law 12 in a sensible way, especially inside and short before the penalty area. There were two penalty appeals (34’, 54’) he rejected absolutely correctly. Furthermore he awarded four free-kicks (2’, 62’, 74’, 84’) short before the penalty area, some of these decisions were controversial but the TV replays showed all his decisions were absolutely correct, especially in the 2nd minute when he evaluated the illegal use of arms very well. Moreover a good application of the advantage ‘rule’ (e.g. 4’, 13’).

3. Physical Condition, Movement, Positioning
Despite his age of 43 years Björn Kuipers has still an excellent physical condition as well as good sprinting abilities. His positioning was very good too, he had always a good visual angle thanks to a flexible diagonal movement. His mistakes in 42’ and 74’ occurred despite a very good positioning in both situations, his large distance to the first tackle was sensible and comprehensible – but all the more the teamwork (in this case with the fourth official) should work better...


Points for Improvement

1. Evaluation & Identification of DOGSO
A mistake like that one in the 74th minute should simply not happen on this level of refereeing. A crystal clear DOGSO, wrongly evaluated by six eyes around this situation, make a really disappointing picture. This evening it was luckily a mistake without any important consequences but it could have some in France, especially for Team Kuipers themselves. Mistakes can always happen but to be honest, this situation was simply too clear to fail.

2. Co-operation with the (additional) assistant referees 
A very important point for improvement! Both mistakes this evening (42’ missing YC, 74’ missing RC) were lacks of co-operation too. In the 42nd minute the fourth official should support the referee who was obviously too far away (especially for differentiating between carless and reckless), in the 74th minute it was visibly a team decision but all the more it is really disappointing that six eyes evaluated this decision wrongly. There was also a controversial situation already in the 34th minute (handball by the attacker?) not ideally solved by the referee and AAR1.

3. Some food for thought: Free-kick Management
It is only a very little detail but always keep in mind: First position the free-kick wall, not only then use your vanishing spray (e.g. 75’). For UEFA it is acceptable but not the preferred way of positioning the wall. Furthermore the repetition of a free-kick in the 85th minute due the place the free-kick was taken was at least questionable, afterwards the free-kick was taken only 2-3 meters away from the first position and the referee permitted. Is it really necessary to be that fussy in their own half of field and in that phase of game?


Performance of the Referee's Teammates

Assistant Referees:

AR1 Sander van Roekel: Correct onside decisions in 18’, 38’ and 45’. He signalled only a single offside position (30’) and even this one was questionable – the question was if the player did really interfere with play? Barely acceptable. Unfortunately he did not support the referee at his crucial mistake in 78’, probably due his bad positioning and suboptimal sprinting abilities as it was to see in a lot of situations this evening as well as in this one too.

AR2 Erwin Zeinstra: A very alert performance on the expected level. Correct offside decisions in 33’, 45+1’, 68’ (disallowed goal) and 78’, same counts for his onside decisions in 8’ (good “wait and see” technique), 49’ and 82’. Well done!

Additional Assistant Referees:

AAR1 Pol van Boekel: Generally an alert performance, tarnished by the mentioned crucial mistake in 78’ (DOGSO) what would be a good situation fur supporting the referee. His assessment of a possible attacker’s handball in 34’ (according to the AAR no handball) is barely acceptable.

AAR2 Richard Liesveld: Good and alert performance on the expected level.

4th Official:

Mario Diks: Generally a good performance with a good control of both benches and his technical duties. Unfortunately he did not support the referee in 42’ when a reckless foul play occurred directly in front of him. Therefore a satisfying performance but slightly below the expected level.

Overall:

A normal challenging evening for Björn Kuipers and his Dutch team who did generally a really good job including the full acceptance and control of this quarter-final. Unfortunately the co-operation of the whole team and following the referee’s disciplinary control tarnish this performance noticeable, especially his clear crucial mistake in 74’ when the referee issued only a caution for a crystal clear DOGSO by BAY#8.

Kuipers’ mark reflects a basically very good performance as well as two important lacks in the disciplinary control (1 missing YC = -0.1, 1 missing RC = crucial mistake). My general impact and my impression concerning the EURO 2016 is anyway a positive one. All the best for France!


Conclusion & Evaluation (Marks and Difficulty)                                                      

Role
Name
Mark1
Mark2


Referee
Björn Kuipers
7.9 (1)
8.3
Assistant Referee 1
Sander van Roekel
7.9 (1)
8.3

Assistant Referee 2
Erwin Zeinstra
8.4 (1)
 ---
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Pol van Boekel
7.9 (1)
 8.4

Additional Assistant Referee 2
Richard Liesveld
8.4 (1)
 ---

4th Official
Mario Diks
8.2 (1)
 ---
The 3rd Team Observer
Artur
---
---



Further Links: 
> Mark Overviews

2 Comments:

  1. Your Feedback on the report format is appreciated! --> Survey

    ReplyDelete
  2. Done ;) It's really nice this kind of feedback imo! I sent it to you, hope you get it and if yes, I gave you my e-mail and I would be pleased to co-op with y'all!
    Anyway great report on Kuipers to my mind - congrats to the observer!

    ReplyDelete

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