May 1, 2016

Cüneyt Çakır to Referee his 2nd 2015/16 Semifinal Bayern vs Atlético

Novelty in Champions League Refereeing: For the first time in the past years, a referee has been chosen to handle two semifinal matches in the same season. Having already taken charge of Manchester City vs Real Madrid last week, Turkish Cüneyt Çakır will now take charge of Bayern München's return leg against Atlético Madrid as well. 

For the Turkish official, it will be the 7th Champions League in this season. The last UEFA official who managed that was Wolfgang Stark of Germany back in 2008/09.

It is surely kind of alarming that in times of the largest UEFA Elite Group for years, there seems to be a very limited number of referees who come into question for these "big" games...




03/05/2016
20:45 CET - Allianz Arena, München (Germany)
Bayern München
Bayern
-:-
Atlético
Atlético Madrid

Referee: Cüneyt Çakır (TUR)
Assistant Referee 1: Cem Satman (TUR)
Assistant Referee 2: Tarik Ongun (TUR)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Hüseyin Göçek (TUR)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Barış Şimşek (TUR)
4th Official: Serkan Ok (TUR)
UEFA Referee Observer: Bertrand Layec (FRA)
UEFA Delegate: Campbell Ogilvie (SCO)
Referee Liaison Officer: Josef Maier (GER)
The 3rd Team Referee Observer: Chefren (ITA)




101 Comments:

  1. Is it possible that someone else was appointed and now Cakir is replacing him? Maybe Atkinson was appointed, but since he is injured, Cakir steps in? Or maybe he replaced someone last week? It makes no logic to appoint Cakir twice while you have Kuipers, Mazic, Kassai, Skomina in realy good form (I expect Eriksson in final).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't believe to my eyes. Definitely, an extremely poor signal by committee. Even in case of last minute replacement (but I don't think it was for that), there aren't (this is the negative message we can read) Elite referees for such matches, if we exclude 3 or 4 names. It is a worrying appointment, in my opinion.
    Perhaps Rizzoli and Kuipers with some remarkable mistakes, Atkinson injured, other referees planned for different matches, and well, for these reasons we have this as result.
    I'm really disappointed.

    On another note, merely reading the appointment, we can say that Cakir today wrote the history and he is at moment surely the best among Elite officials, considering his form. Very well done and excellent achievement! I think nobody will have the honor to do again that in future, it is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am very dissapointing, too. To be honest, Cakir was the best ref last year and he deserved CL final, but this year he wasn't on his highest level (read reports). Now he got 2 semis in a week, which is a disaster for Referee Commitee. There are at least 5 names that could handle this match. IMO if is Eriksson was already planned for the final, he could also take this match (no matter he'll have the winning team in the final). That is better option than to have the same ref officiating both semis. Maybe they didn't want to take the ruski, because in case of some big mistakes, it could be a problem who to be given the final (the same is with Mazic, in case he was already picked for EL final). Also, if they didn't trust to Kassai or Kuipers, the Rizzoli was there as well (look, in Madrid Rizzoli was brilliant 85 minutes, ok he made two big mistakes, but he didn't forgot how to do the work, and he has been always the first pick for this kind of matches). I don't know, but this is not the best news from Collina's team. Now they are telling us that we can expect unexpected!

      Delete
  3. I believe, if Turkey don't qualify to the final and he doesn't make huge mistake during the tournament, he is the clear final referee for Euro 2016.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least he is the biggest favorite currently, yes...

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. One thing for sure: Clattenburg cannot get a second semifinal as well... :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I beliave that they could give this match to other referee for sure. It`s not really the best message for other referees which were in quite good form this season (Mazic, Kassai, Kuipers) but I think that Skomina would be able to take this match as he is in good form instead of Europa league semi-final.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely agree with you, on the other hand we also have to keep in mind that compared to the past seasons, the three above mentioned officials already had much better seasons. Kassai for example was OK in his KO phase games, which were not so challenging though. The group stage was partly a disaster if we remember Leverkusen-Roma.
      Mazic is recovering from WC 2014 but, IMO, still not at the same very high level he had in before 2014. And Kuipers made a not that motivated impression in some of his games this year, paired with a clear 7.9 in Lisbon. So... there are not that many choices, nonetheless I think that e.g. Marciniak would have been an alternative...or Brych in ManCity-Real.

      Delete
  7. As a Turk, i am proud of Cakir's appointment. I don't know if there is any other referee (at least since Champions League formed) whistled on both legs of CL semi finals.
    However i am really worried about Cakir and European Refereeing. First of all this appointment will put him under pressure. If any major mistake by him will put UEFA Referee Committee in a terrible position and will reduce his chances for Euro 2016.
    Also worried by European Refereeing. IMO Mazic, Rizzoli (despite the problems he had in recent round), Kassai, Skomina all had the capacity to officiate the game. Brych, Velasco, Clattenburg, Atkinson were not eligible. I still don't understand this appointment and wish all the best for Cakir and his team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In English please.

      Delete
    2. That's the point, Ugur. Cakir is human and for sure he now feels enormous pressure. It is not easy to officiate two such a big games only in one week. He could also make a mistake. What if he makes one or two crucial mistakes that can decide the finalist. I hope that is not going to happen, but what if? The Committee and PFC himself would be in big, big problem, and they will be criticized by many people in football. Of course if Cakir do good job everyone would be satisfied. But there are lots of "ifs" and the Committee could be in big problem for this decision.

      Delete
    3. Well in this point I tend to disagree a bit with you, Teo. Imagine that someone else would have got ManCity-Real. In this case, Cakir would have surely got Bayern-Atlético. So: even if he had only got 1 semifinal, you could have said "what if?"...this is a risk these worldclass referees have to take as they are those who get the big games where mistakes may be painful.

      Delete
    4. All the referees make mistakes, of course. It could happen in first legs, too, but there were hardly difficult situations to decide. But my point, Niclas, was that if Cakir makes big mistake, PFC could be in big problem just because of that he nominated the same ref in two very important matches in 7 days, and put big pressure on him. Then many people could say that this was mistake. Off course, I hope that won't happen and that Cakir will do great job.

      Delete
  8. I'm really disappointed with this. Of course, Cakir is really a great referee. It's not about him that I'm disappointed. It is about the fact that UEFA has a pool of "Elite" referees with more than 20 members. However, they seem to rely on only about 10. Take that, from these ten, 2 are completely out due to draws or previous appointments (Velasco and Clattenburg), 1 is injuried (Atkinson), 2 more have not had their performance recently and probably will not referee again this season (Rizzoli and Kuipers). You are then left with 5 referees, one of which has already had a semifinal. But you have to keep two for the finals. You are left with very little option. So this appointment would seem even reasonable...

    ... if it was not for the fact that you don't have only 10 referees. You have more than twice that number. Ok, forget about spaniards, they can't be appointed. Ok, forget also about the newly promoted referees. But still you have 3 italians which have NO CONFLICT except with Shaktar, you have Aytekin who can handle the other semifinal, and they are referees that should be used to handle these kind of matches as they have them every season in their domestic leagues. You have other referees who do not have such intense matches as often but have experience in the Elite category (Collum, Thomson, Moen, etc). Does UEFA really not trust none of them enough to handle semifinal matches? Have they really done so bad this year, all of them?

    (Please, note that I do not mean that any given referee deserves it or not this particular season. I'm talking in general terms).

    My point is... why does UEFA have an Elite category with referees they don't seem to consider as Elite? Isn't it something bad for their motivation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fully agree. I couldn't explain that better.
      I have a question: do you think that this appointment was something like a signal in Collina's (and committee's) mind for the other Elite referees?
      In the meaning that everything is possible and they must perform always well in order to get important achievements.
      But still... I can't find the reasons for which another name was not possible here. Really, the only explanation is that Rizzoli was planned for a semifinal and after his mistakes, it was not possible to replace him with another name.

      Delete
    2. I would say, and I am strengthening that for years, that this Elite Group is partly not Elite at all. And Collina and co. surely know that best. Conservative estimation: 1/3 the referees who are joining Elite at the moment are basically there for political reasons and nothing else.

      An alternative explanation raised by our user Hagi, to whom I just spoke, might be that Brych's appointment in Saudi-Arabia made UEFA replace him by Cakir. But I think that UEFA would overrule such an appointment in case of a semifinal.

      Of course it was difficult to find experienced, reliable and good-performing referees for the last 5 UCL matches, for many different reasons. But damn... ONE referee more could have been found.

      Definitely UEFA indicated such an "everything is possible scenario" during the last weeks... just consider Cakir 2x with Dortmund and Velasco 2x with Liverpool within a few weeks as a sign for what happened today. Who knows. Maybe soon referees are able to get 2 UCL finals in their careers and not only 1...one of many things that are against the performance principle and could be touched in future.

      Delete
    3. Or PLC decides to abolish the age restrictions and to whistle the EURO 2016 final - after having controlled final games of the World Cup, the Olympic Tournament, the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Cup but no EURO final match (so far) - himself. ;-)

      Delete
  9. You know what would be even funnier? If Eriksson injures himself and Cakir replaces him for the final :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps Mazic and Kralovec are out because they had games in Saudi Arabia on 29 and 30 April...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no doubt that refs are probably much better paid in Saudi Arabia than in CL or EL but I am sure that UEFA has priority before Saudi Arabia.

      Delete
    2. Who decides which referee is going to officiate games in Saudi Arabia? Who receives the call - refs themselves or UEFA? I believe that refs cannot decide for themselves to recieve the offer, someone has to send them.

      Delete
    3. Why do they referee there at all?...

      Delete
    4. National federations from what I know.

      Delete
  11. I wouldn't even be surprised if Cakir gets EL final.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Amazing ! Cakir is one of the best, but why the other ones are so negletted?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I find it disappointing that UEFA has so limited options when it comes to top clashes. I have always thought that certain decisions from UEFA (after PLC came into office) didn't have the logical element into them. Now we are definitely on a dangerous path. In theory there are 29 Elite referees, but how many of them are really Elite?

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW Cakir made 27.000 € only in 2016 only with UEFA matches. Not bad isn't it? Think about that when whistling an amateur match for 10€ ;) (of course we are doing it for joy, no doubt).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Interesting.

    I have a feeling that Rizzoli was pencilled in for one of the semis; but his "off day" in the previous round left them with little options.

    Either way, it does send out a message that the committee only trust a pool of 6/7 refs (Cakir, Clattenburg, Brych, Eriksson, Mazic, Rizzoli and Velasco) with the really big games.

    I personally think Messrs Kassai, Kuipers and Skomina have had solid seasons, after past woes. And their exploits this term would have merited CL semi appointments. Alas, they'll have to settle for the Europa League.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clattenburg for Real Madrid vs Manchester City?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably, if he wasn't from England :-)

      Delete
    2. What about Marciniak? He is faultless in this UEFA campaign. May he be rewarded by another game after EL semifinal first leg?

      Delete
    3. Marciniak would be indeed a deserved appointment, but I think this appointment of Cakir was something "special", therefore I guess we wont see other referees already appeared in CL and EL semifinals.
      At least in my opinion.
      I must add, among the new Elite officials, Marciniak at moment is surely the best one, even in terms of consideration and appointments received by committee. But... there is surely something to be reviewed for the other officials. Some of them are still below expectations.

      Delete
  17. Important news: I have read (not watched directly, but it is a realible source) that Collina, during the press conference following EURO seminary, among other situations, reported the goal scored by Rabiot in PSG - City had to be annulled for Ibrahimovic's offside. We discussed that on the blog. Collina stated that, even if Ibrahimovic didn't have a blatant influence on the goalkeeper, the goal had to be annulled because the Swedish player from PSG clearly tried to play the ball, and that should be enough to raise the flag.
    This will be used as example, among others, for EURO tournament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree with this interpretation, but OK. IMO, only real impact should be punished, not a virtual one. There was clear move but definitely no impact on the GK.

      Delete
    2. I do not agree, too. We have links here on the blog and from one angle (from camera above the pitch) it is obvious that Ibrahimovic is far away from the ball and has absolutely no impact on the play. City goalkeeper would surely protest if he was marked. Ibra's reaction was late. I think that Collina started to exaggerate in many things. This may mean that Mazic's crew is out for remaining matches? Most of us saw him at least in one of the semis, and even favorite for the EL final. Now, no one has the courage to predict the ref for the second semifinal, and we are not speaking anymore about the final :-)

      Delete
    3. Brych, Clattenburg, Eriksson, Kassai, Kuipers, Marciniak, Mazic and Skomina are the names that should be considered for remaining matches. To be honest, I can't predict any game. It has became a lottery.

      Delete
  18. Off topic: your thoughts about incident between Huth and Fellaini? Huth grabbed Fellaini's hair from behind (penalty?), and then Fellaini used his elbow as a weapon and afterwards punch Huth in the face (mandatory RC). Oliver didn't see it. Besides that I think he did very good job (there were PK appeals from Utd players, but Oliver gave only free kick. It was close to the line, camera angle doesn't help, but it seems that Oliver was well positioned).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the ball was in play, then penalty, YC Huth, RC Fellaini. However, grabbing Fellaini's hair was very difficult to catch for both Oliver and AR. I can imagine the referee who sees only a retaliation (elbow) and knows something more happened. He chooses to let it go because he doesn't want to punish only one side. Video Assistant Referee will be helpful in the future. ;)

      Delete
  19. OT:Did anyone see how Clattenburg officiated the match between Chelsea and Tottenham?12 cards,lots of dirty fouls,no reds,couple of brawls,some journals are writing that it was surprising to see match end without red card for any player.
    Maybe Clattenburg was too strict with his bookings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clattenburg was IMO all but not strict. Very intensive and challenging game, overall a good Clattenburg - but IMO too lenient, 1-2 send-offs (2nd YC in the add. time for sure, furthermore the whole team oversaw a violent conduct) would be mandatory for me, 2-3 fouls borderline to SFP & red, Clattenburg only booked them all, for me barely acceptable (especially in the Premier Leaue). He waited quite a long time with his first caution too - for me good, but definitely not strict (what was your question).

      All in all nevertheless a good performance - great personality, excellent dealing with players, strong body language!

      Delete
    2. The worst-of:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8fGEeCOks8

      Delete
  20. Excellent, very brave penalty awarded by Çakır. Same decision sold perfectly. Masterclass. The game is becoming feisty now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but cakir more than excellent

      Delete
  21. I've just started to watch the game and in several minutes there were everything (as expected): acting, protesting, pushing and punching... Clear PK and YC, excellent decision, but before Muller kicked the ball at least 5 players went in. Should the penalty been repeated? The rules say yes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the LOTG clearly yes, but according to a wise tactical approach too? Difficult - but it is not the referee's fault when that (!) many players went in too early. On the other side he would make the game much more difficult for himself, I'm sure...

      It's not the first time for Cakir, his decision is always the same (no whistle).

      Delete
    2. I agree Gitzlo. Very tough match, semifinal, and to repeat the penalty? Tactically not the best decision, even 7 players (I counted them during half time) went inside PK area. Some rules are hard to apply in such matches, you have to be smart, not always strict.

      Delete
  22. I waited before commenting, but the 1-1 seems an outstanding NO FLAG by Ongun. Absolutely brilliant. Live, it looked offside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. The replay shown a bit later proved how good call it was.

      Delete
    2. There were two offside situation slow motion. Have you noticed that the picture wasn't get frozen at the same time? From first angle it looked offside, but from the second, which came few minutes later, it was onside, but I have some doubts that it wasn't just the moment Torres players the ball (I need to rewatch, hope I am wrong). Tough and close decision anyway. If onside - the decision was extraordinary!

      Delete
  23. One can strongly argue that Vidal pushed Filipe Luis in the neck/head, assisting at the 2-1 goal. Probably only AR1 could have detected that...

    ReplyDelete
  24. How Koke didn't get a yellow card for unsporting behaviour (kicking the ball away in order to delay the restart of play) is beyond me. Also Torres did something similar by punching the ball away at throw in some seconds later.

    ReplyDelete
  25. But now the crucial mistake - from near to 9 to 7,9

    ReplyDelete
  26. One could easily say, after so many excellent decisions and two challenging games in a few days, it is even natural to make a mistake... luckily penalty has been saved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dare to say that the second contact was inside (not 100% sure to be honest) if so, penalty is correct.

      Delete
  27. Looked to me that there also was contact inside the box.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very, very unfair and unsporting behavior by Simeone all match long. I must admit that, and it is not the first time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two weeks ago, Simeone was sent off by Mateu Lahoz due to a ball coming into the pitch from nearby Atlético's bench when Málaga was attacking, in order to stop that attack. Although he didn't throw the ball himself, he, as the responsible for the bench, had to be sent off. He said that it had been a ballpicker (I don't know how to translate it, so sorry if it's not the correct word), but later these images came: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-kftHICY8

      Of course it doesn't show to whom he was speaking. However, looking at the gestures and reactions, for me it is quite obvious. He won't be in the bench for the remaining two matches.

      Tonight, he had a very poor attitude the whole match, towards the referee, towards Bayern, towards HIS OWN TEAM, but specially towards the game. He had it also in the Camp Nou. I think it is time for UEFA to stop this attitude and ban him for quite a few matches. Including the final.

      Delete
  29. The key is whether the second contact had an impact on the attacker. If yes, penalty, if not, it's the first contact that counts.

    Simeone should have been sent to the stands for a strong push on fourth official.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that it wasn't fourth official but an official from the same Spanish team.

      Delete
    2. Ah OK, my mistake then.

      Delete
    3. He did not push the fourth official, also not an UEFA official, but rather someone from his own team.

      Delete
    4. Agree with Chefren :)

      Delete
    5. It wasn't fourth official, but I agree that Simeone should have been sent to the stands.

      Delete
    6. I think it was not the 4 official.
      But i can't agree with a second contact! I have not seen that and if there was one when the player still fall down there is no penalty!
      Cakir whistled a phantastic game but this is a crucial mistake if someone wants it to see or Not

      Delete
  30. IMO 2 missing cautions for Vidal (pushing the referee after his penalty whistle) and Koke (kicking the ball away). But that should not tarnish a (very) good performance including strong personality skills, a clear line and as always a good body, calm body language. Furthermore Cakir had always the control of this challenging game. Good (but not perfect) evening for him, congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right with the cautions but this is bot really interesting in my opinion! And also there was no goal the penalty is a big mistake

      Delete
  31. IMO:
    Excellent Cakir (8.6) with exception of Koke incident (obligatory YC missed, -0.1).

    Two big situations to be deeply analysed:
    - was there a foul of Vidal at 2-1 goal?
    - should a free kick or a penalty kick been awarded to Atlético?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2-1 is correct after last replay and without the penalty or free kick would ne correct the mark must be more than 8,8! Despite the missed yc (2) the performance was phantastic in a minimum difficult match

      Delete
    2. The evaluation system is not good. For example, one ref could be brilliant, make one crucial mistake that didn't affect the result, and get 7,9. Other ref could make several mistakes (missing fouls, advantages, YCs...) and get 8.1 or 8.0 just because there wasn't any problematic situation to make crucial mistake. Well, for Cakir: Vidal clearly pushed Felipe Luis and get advantage (even he was higher in jumping), so we can argue whether it was foul. Somewhere 50:50, maybe 51:49 for foul, but acceptable decision. Penalty: first contact was clear outside, second somewhere on the line. Hard to judge and it was fast attack. For me - more out, but maybe I am wrong. Strictly by the rules: if we say those two situations are mistakes - then Cakir fails to 7,4! Of course, that's abnormal, because he did very good job (not excellent - missed some fouls, at least 2 YCs, soft foul before first goal etc.). If we say both situations were correctly decided, then the mark rises to more than 8,5. It is not easy to give mark tonight, because there were many arguable situations. Somewhere around 8,4 (or 7,9/8,4 if penalty was outside) is suitable.

      Delete
  32. My view: I think apart from the penalty mistake he did well, but not more (this sounds bad, which it should not. But we are far away from a 9 or whatever).
    Control was really good, in an overall fair match, communication was great in the first half, not so great anymore in half 2 (less verbal communication, his mimic did not reach its target anymore as it did in half 1).

    As Gitzlo said, you actually cannot tolerate being pushed. A YC would have been suitable. See the mobbing the referee post we once published in the past. UEFA wants yellow cards for that.

    The biggest point to improve is IMO additional time management. He cannot - on the one hand - refrain from issuing any caution for partly relatively clear cases of delaying the restart of play and rely on pointing to his watch signalling "This will be added on!" and - on the other hand - only award 5 minutes (+25 s). 3 or 4 minutes are standard in UEFA matches. The goalkeeper's (faked?) injury in 89' lasted 90 seconds. Before that many Atlético players wasted several seconds at throw-ins and substitutions. So... 6 or 7 minutes would have been OK. Yes, it is at Cakir's discretion, but then I really don't understand his laissez-faire approach in terms of time wasting.

    Here and there small lacks of concentration in half 1 (really small ones like a wrong corner, almost missed throw-in (AR2 had to shout into the micro multiple times at it seemed).

    I agree with RayHD, the 2:1 was (actually) illegal. Vidal clearly supported himself with a hand on the Atlético player's shoulder. Should that be whistled? Not really...hardly any complaint, hardly visible, hardly wanted by any player. Overall acceptable.

    Ongun was great, Satman did well as well, maybe 1 offside call was rather level, but nobody cared as the 2:1 had just been scored.

    Finally on the most important situations, the penalties: No.1, great, but also a free line of sight. Well seen, consistent, good body language, everything else would be a 7.9 though..; No.2: outside. Cakir had the best angle you can have to judge it. He has to be blamed and he can thank God and Neuer that the ball did not reach the goal. Otherwise the aftermath of this decision could have had MUCH more impact on his EURO "appointability".

    On the whole 7.9 (8.3, maybe 8.4) from my point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks inside to me.
      http://postimg.org/image/4a48zuixt/

      Delete
    2. Sorry, from that angle I can neither say inside nor outside.
      There were other angles (I don't know whether they were only shown by German TV) where I had the impression that both contacts were outside. I would be more than happy if rewatching these angles would proof me wrong!

      Delete
    3. Another angle.
      http://postimg.org/image/601qea8v5/

      Delete
    4. Sorry... even worse than the first one. If you see something in this screenshot, you'll must have eagle eyes ;)

      Delete
    5. Everything correct Niclas but i can't agree with the note without looking at the 2nd penalty! The control and communication in first and most parts of Second halftime in combination with the Nearly perfect foul detection you can not report with 8,3/8,4! I See there 2 clear yc but also there must be more... If you see that so strict in group stage there are only 5 Games in expected level the other games then 8,1/8,2

      Delete
    6. https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/13087728_651831011633434_6347534858748022141_n.jpg?oh=02dd2497a26f5379411ebd2a594c7990&oe=57E22A12

      It is outside. IMO the picture is showing the second contact.

      Delete
    7. The review by Niclas is absolutely outstanding; there are some situations where I can understand that others may have slightly different opinions, but I happen to agree with Niclas both on the details and on the overall. On the second penalty: from the TV pictures I had, both live and in replay, it was quite clear that the contact was outside; and I think a fundamental rule for all referees in such situations is that if there is any doubt, then you do NOT give a penalty-kick.

      Delete
  33. After the missed penalty by Torres, Cakir whistled a free kick in favor of Bayern, following a foul by attacker (you can see that he switches immediately his gesture).
    In this situation it is very difficult to understand whether the ball was still in play at the moment of the foul. In case of negative answer, it is a mistake, but I think nobody can / will question on that... just an interestig case to be reported.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15T-lrYviJA

    ReplyDelete
  34. From my point of view, the foul Cakir whistled before 1-0 was rather cheap, not to say wrong. IMO the attacker provokes the contact and therefore it should have been an IFK to ATL. The penalty he awarded to ATL, is probably outside (both replays I saw indicate that).

    All in all, not the best night. Clearly he shouldn't have been put under such pressure for a 2nd time, with only a few days apart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ifk to atl is impossible! The only other option is to Play on! For me the free kick is correct despite alaba provokate the contact

      Delete
  35. http://postimg.org/image/3mc2szjhd/

    No offside. Shown by ZDF (German TV). Anyway, poor Ongun's position.

    Hypothetical question: What if Griezmann was in an offside position and Alaba would have played the ball deliberately? Would have Griezmann been adjudged as impacting Alaba's ability to play the ball or would it be treated simply as a deliberate play and offside would be annulled by that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question if have asked exactly the same but i have to rewatch! First Impression is offside in that case... I rewatch and explain my point of view! With mobile Phone it's difficult for me

      Delete
    2. I am still not convinced it was onside. I still think that the picture is frozed a bit of a second before it left Torres' foot (see, it is still in his possession). 0.1 second later Grizman is offside. Nevertheless, tough to decide, but AR2 didn't see the situation properly because he was bad positioned, and he could only guess whether it was offside.

      Delete
    3. https://youtu.be/tZftF68zRI8
      https://youtu.be/F29FP6C_vzE

      See those two replays (watch not only the feet, but Griezman head and the body, as well.
      About the penalty: clear outside. Just watch the link that Chefren posted in 22:59! Both contacts were out and Torres begun to fall just outside.
      I can see on YouTube many criticisms about Cakir's decisions.

      Delete
    4. I'm still sure there is no offside, specially having watched the first video you posted. Excellent no-flag.

      Re penalty. Yeah, even if there is a second contact on the line, Torres is already falling down, so it has no impact on him. The first contact has to be punished in such case and it was clearly outside the box.

      Delete
    5. Italian TV showed that first contact was 1.2 meters outside the box. In my opinion the first contact is the crucial one, because Torres starts to fall down. Second contact, difficult to spot when it exactly occurred, was very likely on the line, but the effect for the opponent had been already caused. So, for me, it is a crucial mistake.

      Delete
  36. Very difficult match tonight for the Turkish officials - as expected. Cakir overall with a good performance, which didn't influence the result of the game. But - of course especially in such a game - there were situations I can't accept and ignore:

    - Probably the most important issue of Cakir, not only, but also tonight: Dealing with unsporting behaviours and dissenting players.
    To be honest, at least two, if not three yellow cards concerning unsporting behaviours and dissenting players, were missed. The behaviour of some players - and of course one special coach ... - is unacceptable.
    Koke e.g. should have been booked for kicking the ball away in order to delay the restart of play. Clear and compulsory YC missed.
    After the second - probably wrong - penalty decision, Vidal obviously touched and held Cakir indecently, which should have been punished with a yellow card.
    Maybe not mandatory, but justified would have been a YC - or at least a strong verbal warning - against Lewandowski. He was almost always discussing or even criticising, mostly AAR1.
    Overall I would have liked to see a stricter Cakir concerning this topic. 7.9 (8.3)

    AR1 with a wrong offside flag, close no offside. Cooperation with referee should be improved, especially in situations a YC is necessary (Koke). 8.2

    Fantastic onside before 1:1 by AR2. Very good performance. 8.5

    Calm evening for AAR1, who performed on expected level. 8.4

    AAR2: Good cooperation in 33' (leading to 1st penalty and YC), otherwise expected level. 8.5

    The fourth official was not accepted and respected by the benches, so he had big problems to face his duties. A stronger personality and more courage would have been necessary. The unsporting behaviour of Simeone can't be accepted and must be punished (with a strong verbal warning). Absolutely unacceptable was - of course - the punch of Simeone, who hit an official. Also improved cooperation with referee is needed, when Koke kicked the ball away, a signal of FO was necessary. Addiditional time was adequate, no problems with substitutions. 8.2

    Finally the Turkish team can be satisfied with tonight's performance, however there are points to improve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good analysis. Two small things I have to add:

      - for me it was quite challenging, but not VERY challenging (remember: not a single YC despite both penalty calls)

      - in my opinion AR1 cannot be blamed for the missing YC for Koke. Cakir has best view and decides to not book him. It is clearly Cakir's decision who saw the incident, so what should AR1 do? (Furthermore, IF someone could support him, then more the 4th Official, I think)

      Delete
    2. I agree, for me it was also just a quite challenging game within the meaning of referee observation. I just used 'very difficult' to underline the hardness of particular situations and the character of the game. Overall, of course, according to the guidelines 'just' a quite challenging game - as you have already described above.

      Delete
  37. I am still surprised that AR2 could see the onside prior to 1:1... his positioning was bad in this situation, I cannot imagine that he was really sure if offside or not.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "We feel a little bit cheated. The Atletico goal was offside, the foul for the penalty [which Atletico missed] was outside of the box. The referee had two matches in the last seven days. I don't know whether those UEFA guys can have too many matches, too. The UEFA delegate told me: 'It's a shame what he did.'" - Karl Heinz Rummenigge

    What a bloke he is...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The typical Bayern symptoms after a loss...

      Delete
    2. BTW Either Mr Ogilvie needs to be suspended or Rummenigge lied, I think the latter is true.

      Delete
  39. Goal.com news. Point of cakir "8.5". Very good performance.. http://m.goal.com/s/tr/news/234/%C5%9Fampiyonlar-ligi/2016/05/04/23121512/c%C3%BCneyt-%C3%A7ak%C4%B1r%C4%B1n-bayern-m%C3%BCnih-atletico-madrid-ma%C3%A7%C4%B1ndaki-notu-belli-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These marks are confidential and usually made by the UEFA observers 48h after the match and later confirmed by PLC and co. So.... almost impossible that the mark is already defined/communicated.

      Delete

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