June 10, 2016

EURO 2016 Referee Appointments for Matches 2-4: Velasco, Moen and Rizzoli in charge of Saturday ties

UEFA has appointed the match officials who will take charge of Saturday's EURO 2016 Matches 2-4. Carlos Velasco Carballo of Spain will initiate the matchday handling Albania vs Switzerland in Lens at 15:00 CET. Norwegian Svein Oddvar Moen will give his debut in Wales vs Slovakia, while World Cup 2014 final referee Nicola Rizzoli has been appointed to oversee England's first match against Russia.



11/06/2016, 15:00 CET
GROUP A, Match 2 
Lens Agglo (Stade Bollaerts-Delelis)

ALBANIA
0:1
SWITZERLAND
 

Referee: Carlos VELASCO CARBALLO (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Roberto ALONSO FERNÁNDEZ (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Juan Carlos YUSTE JIMÉNEZ (ESP)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Jesús GIL MANZANO (ESP)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Carlos DEL CERRO GR. (ESP)
4th Official: Pol VAN BOEKEL (NED)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Erwin E.J. ZEINSTRA (NED)
UEFA Referee Observer: Bo KARLSSON (SWE) 
UEFA Delegate: Alan MCRAE (SCO)


11/06/2016, 18:00 CET
GROUP B, Match 3 
Bordeaux (Stade de Bordeaux)

WALES
2:1
SLOVAKIA


Referee: Svein Oddvar MOEN (NOR)
Assistant Referee 1: Kim Thomas HAGLUND (NOR)
Assistant Referee 2: Frank ANDÅS (NOR)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Ken Henry JOHNSEN (NOR)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Svein Erik EDVARTSEN (NOR)
4th Official: Aleksei KULBAKOV (BLR)
Reserve Assistant Referee:  Vitali MALIUTSIN (BLR)
UEFA Referee Observer: Kyros VASSARAS (GRE)
UEFA Delegate: Sviatlana HRYNKEVICH (BLR)


11/06/2016, 21:00 CET
GROUP B, Match 4 
Marseille (Stade Vélodrome)

ENGLAND
-:-
RUSSIA


Referee: Nicola RIZZOLI (ITA)
Assistant Referee 1: Elenito DI LIBERATORE (ITA)
Assistant Referee 2: Mauro TONOLINI (ITA)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Daniele ORSATO (ITA)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Antonio DAMATO (ITA)
4th Official: Tasos SIDIROPOULOS (GRE)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Damianos EFTHYMIADIS (GRE)
UEFA Referee Observer: Herbert FANDEL (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Roland Albert OSPELT (LIE)

177 Comments:

  1. Van Boekel as 4th official ! Honestly I was convinced that only main referees would be appointed as 4th official and I personally don't agree to appoint additional as reserve. If Velasco will injury during the match (I don't wish it to him) who will replace him ? Gil manzano or Van Boekel ? No one is elite ref

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kulbakov is not either in Wales-Slovakia.
      In this case most likely Gil Manzano would jump in to ensure Spanish communication in the majority of the team, with van Boekel jumping on the AAR1 spot.

      Delete
    2. In this case, Gil Manzano is First Group and as a result the highest ranked official. So, logically, he has to replace Velasco.

      Delete
  2. Sensible idea to put Van Boekel as AAR - it immobilises only Kuipers' team over two matches, rather than requiring another referee team. As for who replaces whom, I believe UEFA will decide case by case.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Poor match for Velasco. And Rizzoli don´t merits the England-Rusia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In your view Velasco should get all 51 matches right?
      You are free to hang up posters of him at your wall or whatever, but please try to be a bit more objective at least in this blog.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Niclas. Honestly talking, you should try to be really more objective. It is not possible that everything is not good. Sometimes it is annoying to read always the same posts.

      Delete
    3. Hahaha, you two are seriously hilarious. You ask others to be objective when the majority of the individuals who post on this blog are"nut huggers" of one or more referees. And furthermore when anybody dares to bad mouth one of your golden boys, that person is censured by your blog. But yeah, you all keep preaching objectivity.

      Delete
    4. Dear Nando Vasquez, where is the censure? He is free to write what he wants, but when you read:

      "Could this prize be for Brych, Çakir, Velasco....But for Kassai?
      More things of Collina and Company."

      "Poor match for Velasco. And Rizzoli don´t merits the England-Rusia."

      And many other similar comments in recent times, I think that it is quite annoying. Always writing that a referee is not good, not deserved appointment, and so son. Everything seems to be wrong for him. That's all. I would have written the same, regardless of the referee involved.

      Delete
    5. Was that all, Nando?

      Delete
    6. Alberto ruiz, Rizzoli was world best referee in 2014 and 2015...

      Delete
  4. Look at this video; At Copa AMERICA CENTENARIO, Before Colombia-Paraguay, brasilian referee Herber Lopes jumped the coin but it falled on its edge and stayed vertical 3 times !!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTW0sQlxHt8


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't three time, but just once, in this video there are two replays :)

      Delete
  5. Appointing also AAR as 4OF is the only wise solution - I had to recognize when I did some predictions :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Predictions for matches 5-7:
    TUR-CRO: Clattenburg, FO: Hategan
    POL-NIR: Turpin, FO: Johannesson
    GER-UKR: Skomina, FO: Eriksson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My updated predictions:

      TUR-CRO: Clattenburg, FO: Collum
      POL-NIR: Hategan, FO: Grujic
      GER-UKR: Eriksson, FO: Mazic

      Delete
    2. Mine:

      Turkey - Croatia
      Felix Brych (GER) with Collum (SCO) Fourth official.

      Poland - Northern Ireland
      Clément Turpin (FRA) with Karasev (RUS) Fourth official.

      Germany - Ukraine
      Jonas Eriksson (SWE) with Královec (CZE) Fourth official.

      Delete
  7. Good appointment for Rizzoli, England - Russia is the first "top clash" of this Euro, in my opinion. But of course all matches, at this level, are worthy of a big attention.
    I was wrong about the fourth officials, so the additional assistant referees will be appointed in this role.

    ReplyDelete














  8. After reading the comments from the opening game, I really have a wish for the comments and discussion from the rest of the games, but I suspect I am a bit optimistic...: I wish there would be less focus on using replay and personal opinions/impressions to 'look for mistakes' or to debate endlessly whether a particular decision was 'right' or 'wrong'. Instead, when there are situations causing debate, or cases of clearly good or questionable decisions, it would be more useful to see these as 'learning opportunities'. In other words, WHAT was it that seemed to lead to the decision/issue in question? Was it a matter of unclear rules/instructions? Was it a good/poor referee positioning? Was it good/missing support from AR/AAR? Is it a situation which is inherently difficult in a top level game, and what could be done to improve the referee's chances of seeing or judging correctly? Or was it some tendency of a particular referee, such as being too fast/slow with YC, being good/weak in judging when advantage is appropriate, being good or not so good at player management etc. In addition I really would want to get away from the speculation/haggling about the evaluation in terms of points for the referees, especially on a scale that has an absurdly minimal differentiation between superior and mediocre performances. So could we stop 'showing off' with so many opinions about right and wrong and instead see what we can LEARN from the performances of these top referees!? What can WE do better? What can THEY do better? What can UEFA/FIFA do better?


    ReplyDelete
  9. 13th min.fist yc...Too strict maybe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely. This match is a paramount example of a not applied stepwise approach. Velasco had 2 good chances to increase his level of refereeing with discreet warnings (foul by Xhaka in 3') and a high stood/stud tackle some minutes later. He chose to not issue warnings.

      In 13', suddenly he sorts out a YC for a foul, yes, but where the ball was played as well. Not predictable and by that harsh if not incorrect YC he has now relatively low degrees of freedom to raise his disciplinary sanctions.

      Delete
    2. In 23 min. albanian player also gets card.Too me again too strict..And commentator on croatian tv said that Velasco is showing too easily cards.

      Delete
    3. I think the card in 23' was somehow mandatory. I can understand it both technically and also tactically - after the 1st YC against Switzerland, it makes sense to balance the disciplinary control with a deserved YC against Albania.

      Yes, 32' should be a YC actually, the 4th official might have helped here.

      Delete
    4. About the situation with high studs.
      Carballo awarded IFK, but there was clear contact.

      Delete
    5. Totlly agree with Niclas. Very good analysis about dis.warnings and 1 YC.
      Carballo underestimate this match. He is oldest ref and much experienced then others, he must show high level refereeing in any match.
      On this match he is average

      Delete
  10. Wrong offside call AR2, a player from Albania was lying down keeping onside the opponent by head.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Minute 32': this was surely more YC than the first one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Absolutely mandatory second YC card, but was YC enough? I think we can discuss about a possible RC for DOGSO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the moment of the 1st contact with the hand the attacker still did not have the ball and would have had to turn around a bit to face the goal and goalkeeper. I think a 2nd YC is the safer option here, but to be honest, the debate would be bigger if he had not gone with a 2nd YC anyway :)

      Delete
    2. Watching it again, you are actually right. Free in front of the goal, noone to intervene, very high likelihood of scoring a goal. Have to agree Chefren.

      Delete
  13. Cana with 2nd yellow card...1st was to me too strict but this for sure was yc..

    ReplyDelete
  14. By the way...at the free-kick following the 2nd YC a Suisse player formed an attacking wall. Shouldn't this be taken out of the game with yellow cards at this tournament?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 86': superb onside decision by AR2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent indeed.

      Both penalty area decisions some minutes ago were OK for me (no penalty, the 1st one not enough, the 2nd one rather simulation which AAR1 might have recommended).

      Delete
    2. Agreed. Both situations didn't deserve a penalty.

      Delete
  16. Sorry Velasco failed imo. Too many mistakes which is not acceptable at this level. It should have been a straight RC for dogso, unlucky advantage for Albania which almost ended in a goal for Swiss, a missed penalty for Albania (defender is holding the attacker with no chance to play te ball), tactical attacking foul whistled but without showing a YC and poor player and disciplinary management. Also too much walking instead of being more active. Velasco and his team will not stay very long in this Euro believe me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot agree less. Full control of the match, the "unlucky advantage that almost ended in a goal for Swiss" was so because Albania failed their chance of advantage, which they took. There was no holding in the "missed penalty" in the replays that I have seen. At most, there is a hand holding nothing but touching the opponent with a force that cannot be deemed as a penalty, at least for me. I don't know which foul you are talking about with no YC, but I have seen at least 3 SPAs which have been yellow-carded. Finally, I don't think he has "walked too much" as he has been quite close to the game at most situations and has not missed anything due to positioning, at least from minutes 40' to 90' (as those are the minutes I have been able to see after discovering that UEFA streaming only works from Microsoft Edge) plus both yellow cards of the RC. The only thing I agree with is that the 2nd YC might have been a straight RC.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Stuart's first sentence. Call it failed or not, the performance was not meeting the requirements which does not mean that the game was not under his control.

      Delete
    3. George I respect your opinion. But for me it's a PK for holding/blocking the opponent with his hand/arm. This action has nothing to do with a correct/normal duel for the ball. Then the Swiss striker made a foul on an Albanian defender (holding) to put himself in a obvious goalscoring opportunity. This kind of actions should be punished with a YC. And the advantage with only 1 attacker and several defenders is not the best advantage to give. Full control means blow the whistle, show the YC and give a FK which would be more dangerous. And I am not saying it was wrong, but it could be done better.

      Delete
    4. You are perfectly right, Stuart, on the advantage. These situations are always a dilemma for the referee, I think Velasco pretty quickly knew himself that applying an advantage was not the best idea. 2 attackers vs 6 defenders or so, with both attackers waiting for the free-kick-whistle, is not ideal.

      I disagree with you on the penalty area decision. There was a holding like it happens often in the game, yes, but the attacker went to the ground a bit too easily for my taste. A penalty would be justified, but I would not call this a black-or-white-situation, just a grey area.

      Delete
  17. In my opinion the second YC was a straight RC. Clear DOGSO. Without the handball, ball was there, player from Switzerland was alone in penalty area. I think that there was consultation between Velasco and AAR2, they decided for YC but it was a wrong choice. The first YC of the game was really soft, one can try to accept it but why not warnings? It would have helped Velasco in applying a wise disciplinary control. On the penalty appeals: I have still some doubts regarding the first one, the second is a correct decision (play on).
    More or less, I think that, apart from the crucial mistake, something is still missing for an expected level performance.
    That's my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree with Chefren. And Niclas I haven't said that the match was not under his control. But neither full control. His performance was just not the expected level.

      Delete
    2. No no, I referred to George.

      Delete
  18. Moen why would you start a match like this? Two fouls missed on Wales and then a FK for Slovakia quickly restarted while a player is still injured at the ground. Why not easy refereeing in the early beginning and take full control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why some referees allow the restart of the play following a whistled free kick, when there are not still the conditions to do that.

      Delete
  19. Moen starts with a really lenient approach already leading to the one or other small discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No spray for this FK?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Niclas/Artur, where did you find the information about attacking walls being disallowed? I looked over the new LOTG and I found nothing. If walls are illegal, then Wales' first goal is a crucial mistake. However, I haven't found a confirmation of that anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a guideline by UEFA, at least this was reported:
      http://www.welt.de/sport/fussball/em-2016/article154644380/Die-Unsitte-der-Angriffsmauer-wird-jetzt-verboten.html

      Delete
    2. If they are disallowed, then Wales 1-0 should have been re-kicked? And if it's only a guideline, then it can justify a crucial mistake?

      Delete
    3. I think, it is only illegal, if the attackers are in an offside position, when they form that wall. That's how I understand the caption of the last picture in the article.

      Delete
    4. Yes yes, you are right. In fact, I understood more under the concept of an attacking wall than the UEFA guideline seems to include. So forget what I said about the Velasco free-kick..

      Delete
  22. What a foul on Hashik?
    Moen sinking minute by minute

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A foul and a yellow card.

      Delete
    2. Of course.
      But he gave yc to slovakian player for kick the player through the ball. -))))
      No good for him. No good for this interesting match

      Delete
  23. 26': missed YC (reckless foul)
    IMO too lenient approach, a few fouls were missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Borderline situation in the penalty area in 32'. The defender didn't really want to play the ball, he was just looking for the attacker. However, the decision to play-on suits to Moen's approach. I have to rewatch this incident.

      Delete
  24. 32': was that a penalty?
    BTW Moen's style is always the same, committee should know him, but one must guess they are content with such foul selection and card management.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stone Wall penalty.

      Delete
    2. Oooh yes it was. YC was a minimum, I'd say (haven't had a good replay, but it did not look good).

      Delete
    3. Yes, IMO a reckless use of elbow - should have been a penalty. Crucial mistake (only?) by AAR1.

      Delete
    4. Imo also the responsibility of the referee. It's a duel on the touchline where the referee also have to look. It was not a matter of a coming cross. Better positioning and getting the best angle of view would have been a help for him.

      Delete
    5. https://twitter.com/EurosRelated/status/741670884499394562

      Delete
    6. I can be wrong, but in the first replay I had the impression that AAR1 rather looked at the bottom and not so much to the top (head/facial area). At any rate, penalty. Only used as a tool? I am not sure whether it was not rather used as a weapon... a penalty would be step no.1.

      Delete
    7. Definitely a penalty. The Slovakian defender only tries to stop his opponent from getting the ball.

      Delete
    8. Just re-watched it. Clear red card for me. Crucial mistake by the AAR (Moen did not have the angle I think). It is always harder to see incidents really close (judging a close offside next to the touchline is hard for ARs as well), but this is too blatant to be missed.

      Delete
  25. Clear PK missed... elbow! How's this possible with additional standing their?!

    ReplyDelete
  26. It seems that replays are being shown in the stadium (at least that has been said by UEFA streaming commentators). I think this should not be allowed. It creates pressure on the referee and the players, which can increase the heat of the match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like it. No need for secrets. And it's the referee to ensure that he maintains control of the match regardless of the stadium replays. But Moen wants a wrestling match not a football match.

      Delete
    2. Replays are normally not shown to ensure crowd control. Makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if people get better views at home than in the stadium, why go to the stadium?

      Delete
    3. It's not about secrecy. It's a matter of safety. Mistakes are made, even in good performances, and I think those replays can increase the anger of the fans and the players. Even it could affect the referees, because if they know they have made a mistake, they will be prone to have more, as usually that means a decrease in concentration. Of course, Elite referees are expected to keep concentration at maximum level, but they are humans, and knowing they've made a mistake will affect them too. That leads to more controversy and more anger, so I think it's better not to show the replays.

      Emil, most people (at least those I know, which of course may not be representative) don't go to the stadium to get the best view (you will probably have that at home), but for the atmosphere and the environment of a match, which is something you don't have at home.

      Delete
    4. I cannot agree more George.

      Delete
  27. Missed clear reckless foul and clear penalty kick. Typical Moen. I really don't know how is he still Elite. Maybe he has no many crucial mistakes but definitely no progress from him. Always the same huge problems - one can be lenient but not to have both eyes closed. Many pushings were missed too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must be honest, the level of foul detection and feeling for the game in form of having a predictable and well-tuned line is far below expected level in all 3 matches so far.

      Delete
    2. Possibly the Busacca/Collina effect? Or possibly the fact that referees now try to "manage" their matches while they trample the LOTG.

      Delete
    3. 100% Argee.
      Bad message for all from the first 3 refs. Not good for tournament.
      Penalty for Wales is unbeliveble mistake by ref and aar. Very easy situation. Card management awful. Moen walking and walking. Not a single sprint. Dont deserve another match

      Delete
    4. Agreed, Niclas. The foul detection in all 3 matches were below expected level so far.

      Delete
    5. I agree Niclas. Collina can't be happy. It is time to change names on elite for (much) better referees. Stop political interests and go for quality only. There are too many referees on elite who are not at expected level. We saw that already in UCL this year and the appointments in finals.

      Delete
    6. @ Nando: Good idea, I think that's a misunderstanding of game management. Applying Laws without any management is not better than only managing the match - and vice versa. I don't know why it should be so difficult to find a balance between both poles. In case of Moen, I have to agree with RayHD - he is showing these weaknesses for years and UEFA knows that they would get when appointing him.

      Delete
  28. Yet another AAR who is simply vacationing in France to pick up an easy paycheck. Get rid of them, they serve very little purpose. They refuse to make the big game changing calls. So if they're not going to do that, bye bye AAR's and the easy payday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean like Kassai's AAR on the penalty yesterday?

      Delete
    2. Emil, good that you try it, but for people who tend to think from A to B (and not farther) and think in black/white / all/nobody categories ("they" serve very little) arguments like a referees reporting that AARs are a huge added value for their refereing are invalid. But...Kassai should have seen the penalty himself yesterday.

      Delete
    3. Don't point to easily on the AAR. There is still a responsibility for the referee. The AAR is a big help in cooperation but it doesn't mean that the referees can close their eyes. Where are the referees with strong personality these days.

      Delete
    4. Today in the evening we'll see one of those personalities. One who however forgets the Laws of the Game at times, too. I hope he can compensate (at least a bit) what happened in the first 2,5 games so far.

      Delete
    5. We will see, Rizolli.

      Delete
  29. Oh you mean the AAR who refused to assist Kassai when the Romanian player was fouled at the top of the penalty box. Either they all do what they're supposed to do, or get rid of them. When AAR's on the same team can't be on the same page, that's simply poor.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Weak Moen so far. His foul detection is really below expections, also a clear YC in 26' was missed. I'm not sure whether Moen can really be blamed for the missed penalty - a YC would have been enough in this situation in my book (because of the 'low' hitting point). Of course AAR1 should have seen that. One good onside decision by AR2. I hope they have a better 2nd half.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not speaking about semi final Barcelona - Atletico...

    ReplyDelete
  32. 62: another possible YC. For sure, Moen tries to handle every match without issuing a single YC. In case of YC given, the foul should be something close to SFP.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mistake by Kulbakov during a substitution.

    ReplyDelete
  34. PK and YC for deliberately blocking the attacker! How can this be ignored?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. Correct decision this time.

      Delete
    2. Thats what I thought at first, but after watching replay, I'm not sure was it PK. More NO penalty.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Ref_1707. No penalty.

      Delete
    4. Rewatched again- no penalty.

      Delete
    5. So running towards an opponent (eyes only on him) to block his way to where the ball is/comes... is no foul?? This was a deliberate act to avoid him to get involved in play. The defender had his focus only on the attacker. English commentator said clear foul obstruction and IFK. But for me this was blocking and therfore direct and PK.

      For those who say no PK.. can you explain me why you justify the action of the defender?

      Delete
    6. Yes he had focus only on the attacker,
      Yes he had intention to block the player, but the contact was too soft IMO. I'm okay with IFK, but deffinitely no PK

      Delete
    7. Okey so yes he kicked his opponent and yes he had the intention to hit his opponent but the contact was soft so no foul. That make sense.

      Delete
  35. 84' Ramsey with a clear simulation, in my opinion. Missed YC. He wanted a penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why suddenly so many cautions? Tree cards in 6-7 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1st lesson in referee courses for such 1v1 conflicts: caution both. Furthermore, Moen is continuously showing no awareness for what it means to maintain a social distance to the players he is just cautioning.

    This performance is everything but worth of an Elite Category Referee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope Rizolli will do much better then the first three referees.

      Delete
    2. Agree. No he was no proactive.

      Delete
  38. To be fair the second half was okay by Moen. The YCs were all justified, maybe one or two more YCs should have been given. A positive point today was the application of the advantage rule, there were some good situations concerning the advantage rule. One must also say that the AR's performed well. After rewatching the penalty scene I've to say that Moen should have been able to see the incident himself. So I'd assign AAR1 AND Moen a crucial mistake.
    Impressions:
    Moen 7.8 (8.0/8.1)
    AR1 8.4/8.5
    AR2 8.4/8.5
    AAR1 7.9
    AAR2 8.4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fully agree, these are my marks to

      Delete
  39. It seems to me that Moen is perfectly happy with mediocrity. Has he really improved from 4-5 years ago? I don't think so. At 37; he should really be approaching the peak years of his career - but he *still* looks far off an elite category referee.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Definitely Moen didn't make a good start to this Euro tournament. Apart from the foul detection (which in some moments couldn't be explained), the referee had quite a few weaknesses.

    First of all. He wasn't interested to manage the players. We observed 3-4 times on the first half, players clearly protesting after a foul. Moreover he should make a clear warning at least twice for tackles (04', 33', 48' for example). The 1st real warning came at min. 53'. That approach definitely didn't work so he had to use his cards in the 2nd half (3 cautions in 5 minutes and all for SVK). His non-existent proactiveness led to the wild nature of the match at the last 12'. Also he could manage better the duel at 90+2' (both players should be booked -> #03 from SVK and #03 from WAL).

    The missed penalty for WAL is a clear mistake. I am under the impression that Moen could see it. He was on his AAR's side when he indicated the goal-kick.

    Another big issue was his running and positioning. He was caught twice in play (65', 90') and in some other scenes he was very close to the action. Static movement especially at min. 14'. Also he should use sprints more especially when players made long passes.

    Positive points: Advantage rule, usage of spray.

    AR2 missed an offside at min. 17'. AR1 with good offside calls.
    FO with a mistake on a substitution (min. 70').

    That's all. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Positive points: usage of spray? Haha can we spot this also as positive?? Hilarious.

      Delete
  41. I just caught something. SVK #19 kicked Welsh player in the head. It seems he did it deliberately (53').

    ReplyDelete
  42. Very good match at the beginning and very good start for Rizzoli - very authoritative. But, I can't believe his AR1 missed offside. There was no whistle and there was goal kick, even though Kane touched the ball. It would be big mistake if the goal was scored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He didn't touch the ball.

      Delete
    2. I thought he did. Nevertheless the flag should gone up.

      Delete
    3. Attempting to play the ball is actually equivalent to interfering with play in UEFA's guidelines.

      Delete
  43. What a relief to see Rizolli so far. Very good start of the match and this is what I mean with full control. Offside situation, I think the AR would have raised his flag if Kane touched the ball. Now he missed and there was no influence on the defenders and goal keeper. So I can live with a GK instead. But raising the flag would be more clear for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it was some kind of advantage / making the game fluent. Rizzoli is at 8.4 level but, to be fair, the game is really easy. Visible professionalism and alertness though.

      Delete
    2. You are right. For me it's the best Game (so far) from a referee in the tournament... Total clear!

      Delete
  44. Excellent first half of team Rizolli. I agree it seems to be easy, HOWEVER this is the result of good refereeing. The match of Moen was also easy but became difficult because of poor refereeing. So I give the benefit of the difficulty to Rizolli.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rizzoli is very good so far in a not that challenging match. His 1st clear warning (min. 08') send the message to everyone that he won't tolerate any wrong-doing.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rizzoli proves once again why he is one of the best refs in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dont be funny bro.. we saw him 1 month ago. he eliminated barca.

      Delete
    2. @Unknown
      Somethimes it's better to say nothing.

      Delete
    3. Unknown you don't understand nothing

      Delete
    4. And your idol Rizzoli doesn't understand what a handball clearly in the penalty box is.

      Delete
    5. And you Nando should consider to change your way of dealing with other users. Otherwise I will have to be guilty of censoring your comments (shame on me in advance!!).

      Delete
    6. First of all, Atletico eliminated Barca because they played better and they deserved to win.Second of all, its clear that Barca is the best for you two.Why didnt you then mention that Iniesta should have gotten straight red when he played with his hand? And third of all, Rizzoli is top ref, he was in charge of cl 2013 finals,2014 wc finals and many top matches so if that doesnt prove that he is top ref i dont what does...

      Delete
  47. Totally unexpected and unbelievably calm game and therefore easy match for Rizzoli in 1st half. There was neither one doubtful situation on the pitch, clear fouls, all of them detected, everything gone so easy and fluid. Of course, Rizzoli is top class referee. To be honest, Moen did badly today, but that match was much tougher for officiating.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Strong Rizzoli so far, suitable verbal warning at the beginning. Of course this match isn't challenging yet but I think that's also Rizzoli's merit. He stays in the background but if he's needed, he's on the spot. I'm really excited. AR1 missed an offside position in 8'. I hope the team continues at this level of refereeing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Have you mentioned that we didn't see several offside situations in slow motion in every game of the tournament? In CL there is slow motion immediately, or later, but here we can see that only when it was important situation in front of a goal. I am not satisfied with that at all. Now some perfect advantages and fouls given from Rizzoli - classy performance in these 60 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Rizolli is superieur. Normally he's not my favorite. But I am enjoying his leadership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW it is Rizzoli not Rizolli.

      Delete
  51. Was this a foul, FK and YC? Imo the defender did nothing wrong.. stood still and didn't make a movement towards the England attacker.. or did I saw it wrongly? Replay was really fast. Crucial decision otherwise with goal as outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me good decisione and nobody said nothing ,full acceptance

      Delete
    2. I didn't see a foul too. I have to rewatch that scene.

      Delete
    3. That the player(s) say nothing is not always an indication that that the referee is right. Maybe an introvert player or the players just believe the referee after his previous decisions. But I am not convinced this was a foul. Attacker looked for the contact and was rewarded with a FK.

      Delete
    4. So just because the Russians didn't argue, that makes it a correct decision? So what exactly would the Russians have accomplished by complaining to the referee? Was he going to some how miraculously change his mind?

      Delete
    5. Key moment of the match is 72min situation.
      Admin please open this question.
      Cheers

      Delete
    6. I did see the foul there, or a yellow card. Defender stayed at the same place when the ball was played and attacking player run into him.

      Delete
    7. Correct decision for me. Foul and YC.

      Delete
    8. Correct but without YC.

      Delete
    9. The attacking player loses possession of the ball, he goes and runs into the defender, and he creates the contact. But this is somehow a foul against the defending player who is simply standing there. A lot of you are saying correct call, but what exactly is the defending player supposed to do in that situation?

      Delete
  52. Ufff ! 72mins very good
    Then key moment of the match: is it a foul?
    Rizzoli said yes. Whistle 3 sec. Later after contact gave yc to prove himself this is a foul. England scores from free kick..
    Or is it a wrong decision? Very easy contact, russian show no interest to do any foul he is just on way... yc no way .. foul??? But in previous 72mins Rizzoli for such contact said play on

    ReplyDelete
  53. How is that ever a foul? The English player sees that he's lost the ball. So he goes and runs into the defender who simply stands his ground. And to top it off, he cautions the Russian player. Furthermore, if it was a foul, shouldn't it have been obstruction and an indirect free kick?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a foul, and it is direct - any obstruction with contact gives a direct free kick (Holding an opponent). See the new laws for confirmation.

      Delete
    2. So in the new laws that you mention. Whenever an attacking player loses the ball but he goes and runs into a player that simply stands his ground, it's now a foul. Okay got it. So when I make the same mistake Rizzoli made, I'll just tell the players, "it's the new Rizzoli rule". Thanks!

      Delete
    3. You got it, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for clarifying.

      Delete
    4. @ Nando: How about accepting an opinion which is different than yours?

      Delete
    5. We don't need to have same opinion, and we can stay alive if we have different opinion then yours ;)

      Delete
  54. Easy game for Rizzoli.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Huh, glad to see 1:1.
    way better situation for Rizzoli.
    Good performance of Italian team.
    they will go to 2 matches in k.o.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Very well Rizzoli, solid performance.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Wonderful refereeing, best performance of the tournament - no doubts. The free-kick and YC before 1:0 were correct, also no foul and offside before 1:1. I really enjoyed it, I'd go for 8.5 .

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well done in a not too demanding match. Foul leading to 1:0 ok (YC maybe evitable), no foul before 1:1 ok for me as well. As you said. I enjoyed watching his team.

    ReplyDelete
  59. AR2 with excellent offside and non offside decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I have rewatched the FK. For me still no foul and certainly no YC. Properly Rizzoli wanted to balance the YC's. I would not say 7.9 because it's always borderline such situations. Only question is, what could the defender do differently? It's still the attacker who's looking for contact. Anyway the performance of Rizzoli was really good and solid. Best referee so far on Euro.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I think many of you here have seen what you wanted to see. To say Rizzoli's performance is worth 8.5 is to overrate it. It has not been bad, but there are mistakes. One that no one has pointed out and maybe it's me who has it wrong is a missed foul for a trailing leg tackle early in the second half, which for me is also a YC. Yes, the defender plays the ball, but also hits his opponent with the rear leg without having control of it. That alone, considering some of your previous reports, would be -0.1. Furthermore, there is the foul from which England scored their goal. For me it is not a foul. And I'm really sorry but I cannot understand what do you see to deem it as a foul (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3As2xk_sBXY). As soon as the attacker plays the ball, the defender turns and starts running towards the ball, without making ANY attempt to stop the attacker. He stops as soon as he sees its mate getting control of the ball, for those of you who may say that he stops running doubting if he has done a foul. It's in fact the attacker the one who runs into the defender, and for me this is a clear mistake. Crucial, considering the consequences. Any way, in the best case, I wouldn't give this performance more than a 8.3 (7.9 if we consider the foul as a crucial mistake), which for me is still good. But 8.5 is excellent, and I don't think that this has been excellent.

    Also I don't know if any of you noticed, but there was a foul on one of the keepers (can't remember which one) which was quite similar to the foul not given by Kassai yesterday. Today Rizzoli gave it, and here I think that was the right decision.

    Greetings

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I almost fully agree with you. In foul situation the defender couldn't disappear from the place where he was and he did nothing, absolutely nothing to foul or obstruct attacker. No foul by any means, and no YC especially. Mistake became crucial but for me 7.9 would be great punishment. I agree also about the foul on goalkeeper (Akinfeev was fouled by Kane), similar situation as in France-Romania, but more obvious - so correct foul decision. I missed beginning of the 2nd half so I can't comment situation about possible YC. But, the most important thing is that Rizzoli and his crew were very good, they have absolute control in whole (but easy to handle) match, and I enjoyed their performance. Because of foul mistake I would go with 8.3, 8.4 might be possible as well.

      Delete
    2. Excellent comment, George. I fully agree with you. Just to add. Dier (ENG) fouled twice at the beginning of the second half. In the 47th minute Rizzoli played an advantage but missed mandatory yellow card afterwards. Two minutes later Italian referee missed another foul of Dier who attacked his opponent with trailing leg carelessly borderline to recklessly. One mandatory yellow card missed, otherwise a good expected level in an easy-going match. Unfortunately, one crucial mistake for me at the 1-0 goal. 7.9 (8.3) is the only mark I can imagine to give. To be honest, it was the easiest match also for the referee observer.

      Delete
    3. Finally, other people who saw the match that I saw.

      Delete
  62. I think that Eriksson has toughest match for tomorrow, match between Turkey and Croatia.Both of these teams play with lots of fouls and dirty plays, they have history between them, so it will be interesting to see his officiating.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Predictions for Wednesday:

    RUS-SVK: Collum (SCO); FO: Raczkowski (POL)
    ROU-SUI: Karasev (RUS); FO: Orsato (ITA)
    FRA-ALB: Kralovec (CZE); FO: Johannesson (SWE)

    ReplyDelete
  64. all ref's have been critical mistake so far. moen is the worst all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I have rewatched the FK. For me still no foul and certainly no YC. Properly Rizzoli wanted to balance the YC's. I would not say 7.9 because it's always borderline such situations. Only question is, what could the defender do differently? It's still the attacker who's looking for contact. Anyway the performance of Rizzoli was really good and solid. Best referee so far on Euro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you deem the free-kick as clearly wrong, then it is a mandatory 7.9. A free-kick which is directly converted into the goal is a crucial mistake.

      Delete
    2. In my view, in this situation, as the Giroud goal, where opinion is almost evenly split between referee observers, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the referee. Therefore, I don't think you can assess a crucial mistake to Kassai (Urs Meier on one side, Kenn Hansen on the other), and neither can you assign a crucial mistake to Rizzoli. We are not re-refereeing the match.

      Delete

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