June 20, 2016

EURO 2016 Referee Appointments for Matches 27 & 28: Eriksson and Velasco in charge of Group B deciders

Second games for two UEFA referee routiniers: Jonas Eriksson of Sweden and Spaniard Carlos Velasco Carballo will officiate the last matches of Group B.





20/06/2016, 21:00 CET
GROUP B, Match 27
Toulouse (Stadium de Toulouse)
RUSSIA
-:-
WALES

Referee: Jonas ERIKSSON (SWE)
Assistant Referee 1: Mathias KLASENIUS (SWE)
Assistant Referee 2: Daniel WÄRNMARK (SWE)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Stefan JOHANNESSON (SWE)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Markus STRÖMBERGSSON
4th Official: Daniele ORSATO (ITA)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Mauro TONOLINI (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Jaap UILENBERG (NED)
UEFA Delegate: Ales ZAVRL (SVN)


20/06/2016, 21:00 CET
GROUP B, Match 28 
Saint-Étienne (Stade Geoffroy Guichard)
SLOVAKIA
-:-
ENGLAND

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: Antonio DAMATO (ITA)
Reserve Assistant Referee: Elenito DI LIBERATORE (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Herbert FANDEL (GER)
UEFA Delegate: Nodar AKHALKATSI (GEO)
The3rdTeam is live in Saint-Étienne 
 

70 Comments:

  1. Predictions for Tuesday:
    NIR-GER: Turpin, FO: Kulbakov
    UKR-POL: Moen, FO: Mazic
    CRO-SPA: Kuipers, FO: Kassai
    CZE-TUR: Collum, FO: Bognar

    ReplyDelete
  2. Looking at the referee ratings and team rating s they are actually extremely close and btw at an unexpected consistent high level. PLC and co are doing something right we have to confess. So far no big discussions on crucial mistakes or match influencing decisions. Match and player management on a consistently good to very good level. Just the normal discussions on technical errors that can happen every day.... missed YC/RC or missed foul etc. On the comments here.... I think they are much more expressed in an adult way were we can agree to disagree. Maybe still a bit too much focussed on what goes wrong instead of what going well. Regards RC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good comment, RC. Thanks

      Delete
  3. Because of previous appointments and referee teams from the same countries, only three referee teams among the remaining ones can officiate in Group C: Collum's team (can they handle NIR-GER as Damien Macgraith (IRL) is part of the team?), Moen's team and Turpin's team.

    Then for group C: no Marciniak, for group E: no Collum.
    Martin Atkinson has to be mentioned: can he be appointed in groups where Mark Clattenburg officiated? If the answer is positive, the only solution for him is group F.

    I'd go for:

    UKR-POL: TURPIN Clément (FRA)
    NIR-GER: MOEN Svein Oddvar (NOR)
    CZE-TUR: BRYCH Felix (GER)
    CRO-SPA: COLLUM William (SCO/IRL)
    ISL-AUT: ATKINSON Martin (ENG)
    HUN-POR: MARCINIAK Szymon (POL)
    ITA-IRL: HAŢEGAN Ovidiu Alin (ROU)
    SWE-BEL: KUIPERS Björn (NED)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I meant: "group D: no Marciniak" instead of group C.

      Delete
    2. Dutch referees usually do not handle Belgium. I'd rather swap Kuipers and Hategan in Group E or - even more likely in my opinion - swap Kuipers and Brych between Group D and E.

      Delete
  4. BTW I think we can't be still sure that all 18 referees will get a second game.
    In the next days we will know that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would make sense that all the referees get a second game in my opinion.
      I think the number of selected referees was more or less decided for that.
      As there were no huge controversy after the first 18 appointments, I think there aren't many arguments for the Committee to change their plans actually.
      But you're right: we've to expect everything and we'll know more in the next days.

      Delete
    2. Right, we can't be totally sure, but I don't see a reason not to give someone a second match. The only candidates are Moen and Turpin and I think on the one hand, their performances were not catastrophic or heavily criticised in public and on the other hand, there are some matches, that are "low-profile" enough to appoint them there (NIR-GER: important, but normally a clear and easy match, UKR-POL: Ukraine already out, Poland nearly through, ITA-IRL: Italy already qualified and should not be too difficult as well).

      Delete
    3. OK, maybe Atkinson, if there are indeed fitness issues...

      Delete
    4. Yes, and even for Moen and Turpin, we don't know how UEFA assessed their performances!

      Difficult to know exactly, because as you mentioned: no catastrophic games for any referee. Each mark here (for the 18 referee teams) is over 8.
      UEFA's marks may (significantly or not) differ and change the "ranking" of referees so far, since all the marks are probably between 7.9 and 8.5, and with a very low standard deviation.

      For all those reasons, I think they feel like seeing each referee another time and they may consider that nobody is clearly out for the moment.

      Delete
    5. I think that UEFA's appointment policy will not only depend on the performances at EURO 2016 but rather on the teams' long-term development. I neither believe team Velasco (currently lowest average referee mark here) to be completely out of Second Stage considerations nor do I strongly regard team Karasev (currently highest average referee mark here) to be a hot candiate for handling the final. Less experienced referees with solid performances might rather become an option for the Super Cup final or the Europa League final next season.

      Delete
  5. I wonder why Marciniak isn't appointed yet. He did good job in his match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can certainly expect him in Group E or F. With regard to the current standings after today's match BELGIUM - IRELAND, SWEDEN - BELGIUM on Matchday 3 could go to team Brych. I think we will see Marciniak in one of the three other matches in one of those groups.

      Delete
  6. Appointments

    NIR-GER: Turpin
    POL-UKR: Moen

    CZE-TUR: Collum
    CRO-ESP: Kuipers

    I would have swapped both appointments each.

    Now it is clear that Hategan has Italy-Ireland - Brych probably in Sweden-Belgium. Marciniak probably with Portugal-Hungary and Atkinson with Austria-Iceland.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1': very important and correct offside call by AR2 Warnmark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11' excellent ONSIDE for Wales goal

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

      Delete
  8. Excellent no offside call by Wärnmark before 0-1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonderful decision.

      Delete
    2. 16' correct YC for Wales. Using elbow as tool, not weapon.

      Delete
    3. 18' Similar situation in Svk-Eng. Should have been a YC

      Delete
    4. 20' Another great no offside call by Wärnmark. 0-2. Ball played by defender.

      Delete
    5. 30'-32' Imo, correct to not give PK for wales. Good advantage play a minute earlier and another tight corrent no offside call by Wärnmark.

      Delete
    6. 68' another good no offside call by Klasenius before 0-3

      Delete
  9. 0-2 another excellent assessment by Warnmark, it was a pass by defender...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is, that's excellent teamwork. I need to see the replay.

      Delete
    2. Fantastic teamwork and fantastic Warnmark so far. I think attacker was onside anyway, but I need to rewatch.

      Delete
  10. 18' Yellow card to ENG missed by Carballo and his assistant. Clear reckless elbow in my opinion. Especially in the line of this tournament, with a strong line on elbows, this should be yellow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 23' Correct YC for reckless challenge for Russia.

      Delete
    2. Yes, min. 18' incident is a case of bad co-operation between referee and AR1.

      Delete
    3. I don't know where were they looking at! Just in front AR1. It was close to RC, elbow used more as a weapon than a tool. The player was bleeding a lot and they give nothing.

      Delete
    4. Well, a red card was not mandatory for me, yellow card was enough, but not even a whistle... I would at least consider it as a 'serious mistake', if they excisted.

      Delete
    5. YC would be suitable, but RC was surely in neighborhood.

      Delete
    6. Also the 4th official could have seen it, he had the best angle possible, even though far away.

      Velasco was good overall, with the dark YC missed and his advantage in 67' being the main weaknesses. Full control in an easy-going match. 8.3 for me, although the missed elbow could also be deemed as a significant mistake (-0.2) (maybe).

      Delete
    7. RC according to the rule expert from the Swedish Referee Committee.

      Delete
    8. I checked now this incident, a mandatory YC, close to RC, but YC is OK. However, one can easily guess that the whole situation was totally missed.

      Delete
  11. 36' wrong offside call by AR2. Defender played the ball, not atacker.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wales 3-0 looks like slightly offside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Bale was 2 meters onside. Attacker which was offside didn't try to play the ball. I tried to watch both matches, and for what I saw ARs did excellent job (I think AR2 wrongly raised the flag once, angle was not good, but it was not goal scoring chance, so nothing important). On the other side, Velasco didn't convince me in one easy going match for the ref.

      Delete
  13. What a wrong advantage from Velasco in 67'. Example when you never give advantage. Foul was on 20 meters straight from the goal, good opportunity. The ball gone away from the goal, no goal chance, no advantage whatsoever and Velasco gave it. Now Eriksson forgive second YC to Russian player. Pulling from behind, clear YC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again doubtful advantage from Velasco. Foul was on 25 meters, Rooney got the ball but was blocked...

      Delete
    2. It's an easy going match, in which almost nothing happens. I don't really had problems with it (but I will rewatch it).

      Delete
    3. I rewatched it, and I agree with you now. I didn't see the situation immediately, but he should have whistled there if it was a foul.

      Delete
  14. I think that Velasco missed clear penalty in 83' (handball) , need to rewatch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO no penalty at all. Non deliberate handball.

      Delete
    2. I thought that I was the only one who saw that. 81' 13"

      Delete
    3. It wasnt Škrtel who played the ball, it was his teammate. There is clear movement of the hand towards the ball.
      Please rewatch. Replay was in 83'.

      Delete
    4. Hard to see, so that means it wasn't a clear penalty at least. IMO, this wasn't a deliberate handball, if it was one at all (here in Holland we had no replay of the situation). If something happened, I think the player quite much was in a natural position. No penalty for me.

      Delete
    5. https://postimg.org/image/s5zvovnpt/

      Delete
    6. I think that you really need to rewatch. I didnt even see the incident live, only after the first replay.
      Carballo saw the situation and waved on.. To correct myself, it wasn't clear , but it's PK for me.

      Unfortunately, because overall Carballo had good performance.

      Delete
    7. https://vid.me/t4VT

      Delete
    8. Hard to see for Carballo in that mess. But, clearly hand to the ball, it seems that player moved his arms to play the ball (just watch how he moved his arms and he knows where the ball was). He extended his body by his arms. Penalty for me. It is hard to say that this is crucial mistake, because situation in live was complexed for the ref, but he should give PK.

      Delete
    9. Very complexed situation to see.
      But player played two-handed backhand :)

      Delete
    10. Well some things are sure:

      1) This is a clear deliberate handball. Not only in the sense of Law 12, but in the sense of the word.

      2) Velasco had a free line of sight and was well positioned.

      3) He saw this incident and deemed it as no deliberate handball immediately (his usual play-on gesture).

      = for me, it is difficult to back Velasco. Crucial mistake.

      Delete
    11. I agree, Niclas. On Dutch tv, this incident wasn't even mentioned, and nothing could be see. Now that I see this, it's a clear handball, and a clear mistake. We can't say it's not a crucial mistake, I am afraid.

      Delete
    12. The difference to many other incidents is that here not the TV spectators but the referee himself had the best view possible. So this time it's not like criticizing a referee for a mistake only visible by replay, but only seeing what the referee saw live thanks to replays.

      I fear that retrospecting on all crucial situations including handballs so far this one was by far the clearest deliberate handball and maybe the clearest penalty.

      Delete
    13. I watched now. Clear deliberate handball, player from SVK moved his arms to block the ball, something blatant.. but I'm not sure that Velasco saw it, perhaps the incident was hidden to his view? And... chances for AAR1?
      However, a clear penalty.

      Delete
    14. I was surprised that none of the players didn't notice handball.
      So clear deliberate handball, so strange that no one protested.

      Delete
  15. Good job for Velasco. A clear YC missed in the first half and a bad advantage in the second one, but overall a good performance IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ericsson and team with a good job in an easy game. Only a clearly missed 2nd YC/=RC in 72nd minute for russian Player Mamaev was clearly a mistake. But not match-deciding at all. Ericsson did not want to punish a depressive russian Team. If I compare what we See in France and in USA we should really be proud and happy about the performance of all teams here. May be the best in history of big tournaments so far. Compliments!

    ReplyDelete
  17. What about penalty for england, when dier ran from left side into the box? At the time of shooting, rusian player tackled him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My final assessment on Russia-Wales: overall, a easy-going game for Eriksson. In first half a penalty appeal was correctly waved on (31'), but in second half, as it was reported, a clear YC was missed. It is impossible to close eyes in this situation, after having lost the ball, player from Russia pulls the shirt of the opponent stopping a counterattack. This was a mandatory YC, in the specific case the second for the player involved, therefore one must assign a crucial mistake.
    Sometimes Eriksson, by keeping cards, makes things complicated without a real need... I can understand that Russian player were depressed and hopeless, but this doesn't change the LotG.
    So for me 7.9 (8.4).
    Excellent both AR1 and AR2, all three goals were scored following very good ONSIDE decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My assesment on England-Slovakia: an easy-going game for Velasco Carballo. However, I consider the missed foul and yellow card after 18 minutes as an important mistake. A red card would have been acceptable to me, but no foul is not acceptable. Furthermore, I think he gave an advantage that should never be advantage. In my opinion, those lead to a reduction of -0,2. However, he also missed a clear penalty (after a replay from his position). For that reason, his note should be 7,8 (8,2) in my opinion. Not a bad job, but by far not as good as I have seen him this season.

    I think that I also have to reduce the mark of AR1 and the fourth official (missed foul after 18 minutes), and probably AAR2 en AR2 (missed foul '47). I am not sure whether or not AAR1 should be blamed for the missed penalty. I noticed that all the assistants were a little bit passive. I don't know or AR2 gave a signal after 52 minutes (foul and YC), but I couldn't see him waving his flag, even though it was clearly in his working area.

    So over-all, not a bad performance, but a performance with some point for improvement and a crucial mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Russia - Wales 1st goal
    When the ball was sent to the scorer (who was onside - great call by the AR), another red attacker in an offside position goes for the ball and clearly attempts to play it. The AR (possibly) failed to raise the flag as he was probably concentrated on the attacker who received the ball. There is a room for discussion here since according to the recent changes of the LoTG, from maybe 2 years ago, this should be deemed an offside as the attacker is “clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him and is interfering with the opponent”.
    Please give your comment.
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually clearly attempting to play the ball should be dealt with like interfering with play, at least if UEFA's guidelines from 1-2 seasons ago still apply. So yes, actually I agree with you. The flag could have been raised, the defender even seemed to be irritated for a tenth of a second.

      Delete
    2. For me, it wasn't a clear attempt to play the ball.

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FqwRNm9BYs

      For me, most important thing is that there wasn't contact/block from attacker. You can see it after 0:43 on video.
      Also, I don't think that his movement was attempting to play the ball.

      Delete
  21. Pffff, firstly miss foul for Ireland, and in counterattack missed clear and mandatory second YC and therefore RC to Ireland player. So what that it would be second RC of the match?

    ReplyDelete

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