June 12, 2016

EURO 2016 Referee Appointments for Matches 5-7: Eriksson, Hategan and Atkinson appointed

UEFA has appointed the match officials who will take charge of Saturday's EURO 2016 Matches 5-7. Swedish Jonas Eriksson will initiate the matchday refereeing the earlier Group D match between Turkey and Croatia in Paris. Romanian Ovidiu Alin Hațegan will handle Poland vs Northern Ireland (Group C), while Martin Atkinson has been assigned to oversee Germany's first match against Ukraine in the same group.




12/06/2016, 15:00 CET
GROUP D, Match 5 
Paris (Parc des Princes)

TURKEY
-:-
CROATIA

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: William COLLUM (SCO)
Reserve Assistant Referee:  Damien MACGRAITH (IRL)
UEFA Referee Observer: David ELLERAY (ENG)
UEFA Delegate: Steen DAHRUP (DEN)


12/06/2016, 18:00 CET
GROUP C, Match 6 
Nice (Stade de Nice)

POLAND
-:-
NORTHERN IRELAND

Referee: Ovidiu Alin HAŢEGAN (ROU)
Assistant Referee 1: Octavian SOVRE (ROU)
Assistant Referee 2: Sebastian GHEORGHE (ROU)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Alexandru TUDOR (ROU)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Sebastian COLTESCU (ROU)
4th Official: Tasos SIDIROPOULOS (GRE)
Reserve Assistant Referee:  Damianos EFTHYMIADIS (GRE)
UEFA Referee Observer: Vlado ŠAJN (SVN)
UEFA Delegate: Bjorn VASSALLO (MLT)


12/06/2016, 21:00 CET
GROUP C, Match 7 
Lille (Stade Pierre Mauroy)

GERMANY
-:-
UKRAINE


Referee: Martin ATKINSON (ENG)
Assistant Referee 1: Michael MULLARKEY (ENG)
Assistant Referee 2: Stephen CHILD (ENG)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Michael OLIVER (ENG)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Craig PAWSON (ENG)
4th Official: Robert MADDEN (SCO)
Reserve Assistant Referee:  Francis CONNOR (SCO)
UEFA Referee Observer: Bo KARLSSON (SWE)
UEFA Delegate: Adonis PROCOPIOU (CYP)



147 Comments:

  1. An Englishman observing a Scottish FO...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's no problem for UEFA (obviously it isn't) - it already happened that Hugh Dallas observed English referees (for example Atkinson in DEN-SWE).

      Delete
    2. For instance Trentalange observed Rizzoli in one match of WC 2014

      Delete
    3. Elleray had been incredibly inactive over the 18-24 months. I had the feeling he left the commitee; but it's obviously not the case...

      Delete
  2. All 3 are sensible appointments.

    However I am surprised to see Collum as FO there. UEFA must really be afraid of this match.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sidiropoulos two days in a row 4OF - an intensive weekend for him :)

    @ Edward: Of course it will be a duel with a lot of emotions, also on the benches. But I think we'll see some more referees as 4OF during the tournament, in my opinion it doesn't show any fear, it is a normal appointment in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So far I appreciate appointments from committee. Really happy about the opportunity grant by Kassai to come back at glorious time of 2010 and 2011, opening game can demonstrated that committee now trust on him much more than before.
    I would assign Rizzoli or Brych for Turkey-Croatia, which seems hotter, in my opinion, much reliable for risky match than Eriksson.
    I'm pretty disagree on the fat to appoint Sidiropolus two times as 4FO in 2 days !! There is the risk that on the second match he could loose some attention due to emotional and physical stress of previous match, no enough recover on time.
    But first of all, best wishes to all our officials...... I wish them a marvelous Uefa championship, with lower mistakes as possible and a lot of very good decision like a goal score.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think so. Erikson is not in form. We saw him ago 15 days. He was very bad in final.

      Delete
    2. I would have also thought that Hategan gets a more experienced 4th official who can support him on a mental side. I mean, Hategan is really young and this will be the first REALLY big task for him. Someone like Velasco/Kuipers/Mazic etc. could have made sense.

      Delete
  5. Brych was terrible in 2011 turkey-croatia. I think uefa should have appointmented mediterranean region' refeere. I'm anxious about erikson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO it's the perfect choice. You need someone who can manage players and not be influenced by the crowd. And Eriksson can do both.

      Delete
    2. About Brych in 2011 - I remember this match. His performance was widely seen as very positive http://worldreferee.com/site/match.php?refID=540&matchID=46372 and from what I know, this also counted for UEFA.

      But that match showed how tensed this game can become. Eriksson faces a tough task for sure. A game which could kill or boost his chances and hopes for refereeing one of the last games at the tournament.

      Delete
    3. Never I saw Brych terrible.

      Delete
  6. Hațegan... Quite unexperienced referee appointed for the game that has potential to become a feisty affair. Most likely, in Nicea we'll experience a very physical play, many body challenges and sliding tackles. I hope he'll be able to control that game and prevent some dirty football.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My predictions for Monday:
    SPA-CZE: Turpin, FO: Kuipers
    IRL-SWE: Mazic, FO: Kulbakov
    BEL-ITA: Brych, FO: Kassai

    Contrary to other statements here, I don't expect SPA-CZE to be especially difficult or important, therefore I chose Turpin. Furthermore it is on a weekday afternoon, so less in focus than other matches, maybe UEFA considers that as well.
    On the other hand, IRL-SWE is quite open and probably more decisive and hard-fought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ESP - CZE: Sergey Karasev
      IRL - SWE: Pavel Kralovec
      BEL - ITA: Felix Brych

      Delete
    2. Maybe I am a bit too conservative in this regard, but I do think that with Spain losing vs Georgia and Czech Rep. having played an excellent qualification - knowing that Slovakia also won vs Spain - we'll see a referee with more experience. Clattenburg, Brych or Mazic for example.

      Delete
    3. Marciniak is a good compromise between our ideas for SPA-CZE. :)

      Delete
  8. I must say that the blog is becoming more and more recognizable. Today one of the most important sport newspapers in Poland, on its website published an article about the referee for Pol-NIR. They took the info about who the referee is from here. And they cited almost exactly the commentary about Hategan that was published here few days ago (pre euro refereees presentation). In other words, keep up the good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least, they quoted the source. :)

      http://www.przegladsportowy.pl/pilka-nozna/euro-2016,ovidiu-alin-hategan-poprowadzi-mecz-polska-irlandia-polnocna-na-euro-2016,artykul,690936,1,13297.html

      Delete
    2. That's a pleasure for us. And even more that they quoted the source as RayHD said. In the past years I often enough experienced the opposite.

      Delete
  9. Does anybody know, what time the appointments for the next matches will be released?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Expect them at 13:05.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So far a very good half of Eriksson in a very difficult match. High tempo and aggressive play between two temperament teams. Eriksson speaks a lot with players. His first verbal warning was a bit overdone but oke. Now he should gave a YC for a reckless manner with an elbow. Anyway he's managing the play well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A YC for the foul in the 3' minute would have been ok, as well. But perhaps we can still back the choice of a strong warning.

      Delete
    2. IMO YC in the 3' would be a mistake.
      Very good decision to use strong verbal warning :)

      Delete
  12. Turkish players using lot of elbows...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but for me in both situations no more than YC. I think that in the first case, Eriksson was convinced by the blood to issue the card... I think there weren't deliberate acts.

      Delete
    2. No brutality and neither excessive force. So YC is the max indeed.

      Delete
    3. Both weren't deliberate, timing difference caused the contact on YC case.

      Delete
  13. But Eriksson should do more against the protesting players. I see too many reactions and protest to the referee without a strong and corrective approach.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So far so good team Ericsson
    Wishing all best 2nd half

    ReplyDelete
  15. In such a game you cannot start with a too early YC for something you can also handle with your personality. That's why Eriksson was chosen by UEFA and his approach in min 3 has succeeded so far. Very good management of the game. Also ok to give the players some freedoms to express their high level of testosterone and adrenaline and to not overreact. But I agree: the line to dissent is fine and Eriksson has to be careful in half 2.

    Eriksson had no chance to see the elbow leading to the YC and either he decided by intuition (and after seeing the blood) or upon the advice of a far-away-positioned teammate. YC is ok for me there. But Calhanoglu should have got one as well. He used his arm as a tool. Missing YC for me.

    The rest, really spot-on so far, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most demanding game so far and the referees are nearly faultless. The YC to Tosun was indeed a result of intuition or teamwork. YC for persistent infringement is also possible. Tosun was previously sternly warned for dissent. Eriksson missed the elbow offence of Çalhanoğlu what should have been another yellow card to be honest. But single situations are not the most important in such games. It's keeping things under control what is very difficult and it really matters (of course with making good important calls but there were no key match incidents so far).

      P.S. Sometimes it's better to whistle than play an advantage for all cost (small dissent by fouled player in the 43'). The best performance so far.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. But we should not count our chickens before they are hatched. Hoping for an equally good 2nd half!

      Delete
    3. True. We said that yesterday in regard to Rizzoli, too.

      Delete
    4. I agree with every word you say.

      Delete
  16. Generaly, good first half.
    I have a feeling that some people here are mistake hunters..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you have this feeling? I cannot really understand that for the current match and discussion.

      Delete
    2. My comment is based on some visitor's comments from the begining of the tournament. For every single match they are just typing what's bad and what's mistake. Neither one positive statement.. they are waiting from minute to minute to catch some potential mistake and share it with us here. Come on, enjoy the match, enjoy the tournament, don't search for minor and important mistakes.
      That's all.

      Delete
    3. Fully agree with you, RefRef. My English level is bad and I can't explain well what I want to say, but you have said perfectly what I would want to explain. IMO the majority of comments are negative and it seems most of you are mistake hunters, as you said perfectly. I was referee eleven years, five of them in the second b division of spain. Refereeing is very dificult and if we focus our atention at mistakes, the majority of performances are bad. There were some mistakes in the first matches, but overall the performances were very good. This is only an opinion, of course.

      Delete
  17. Number 20 from Turkey with a very dangerous foul...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Two missed YC from Eriksson. His leniency is a bit too exaggerated.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Agree with perf comm about eriksson but mandatory YC (perhaps RED for SFP) missed now. No help by aa1...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now he missed two clear cards! First one is really orange! Borderline with red. High leg from behind on the calf/knee.. maybe only because the speed was low and therefore the impact more reckless instead of excessive. But no card? And then stopping a promising attack close to the penalty area without YC. Both decisions are not acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree about TUR#20 position but, disagree with the foul, I doubt that was a foul.

      Delete
    2. If you whistle you must give YC.

      Delete
    3. Do you think Rakitic's position was a foul?

      Delete
  21. Now too lenient approach...

    ReplyDelete
  22. 62' first offside call of the game, correct decision AR1, very tight offside.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eriksson is really close to lose control in the second half... He over-uses advantages. Too lenient in foul detection, some cards missed. A pity he relinquished verbal warnings. More verbal contacts with players (like in the first half) would have helped him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfect synthesis of second half. Overall good performance of eriksson team but two YC missed (perhaps RED One). 8.2 for me.

      Delete
    2. I cannot fully agree. Imo he had a good match control all in all, his communication was surely one of the most positive points. I agree with 2-3 missed YC. Overall anyway a good performance with a great game and player's management!

      Delete
    3. IMO good management was the case only in the first half. In the second Eriksson was somehow too relaxed, not being in alert in every possible situation. Just feeling.

      Delete
    4. I agree but only between 46' and 60'. It seemed that Eriksson was still in the dressing room during this time (1-2 missed YC, unconcentrated FKM, some minor mistakes) - after that he was back again IMO and showed an overall good management. You are right saying 1st half was better but in my point of view it was anyway far away from "bad" in 2nd half too.

      Delete
  24. Yesterday Moen, today Eriksson - is it really the same sport they are doing? :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very poor time management by Eriksson. Croatian players were on the ground most of the second half. Perisic requested substitution near the line. Walked 10 m into the pitch and left himself there. YC because of unsportsmanlike behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i thınk so bro. erıkson also was terrible czech republic match in istanbul then uefa again appointment swedish ref. stefan johannesson for latvia match. johannesson very bad managed the match. Fatih Terim Said after match: "We dont want anymore Swedish referee our matches".
      This apointment was not a regular appointment. UEFA made ​​a deliberate appointment.

      Delete
  26. Eriksson didn't impress me today. Normally I like his style and referee skills. But now he was too soft, average foul detection, inconsistent disciplinary application, no strict line against protest, lots of overdone features and whistle tone. Overall he kept control but his performance was not great. Ofcourse the match was not easy, but I expected more of him. It's disappointing that so many referees are substandard. Only Rizzoli did a good job.

    ReplyDelete
  27. as i said before, erikson fall short of this game. there was foul before goal. also croatian players was playing like toy with Erikson. they deserve oscar, especially Ćorluka.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well he was bleeding whole time, thats acting?

      Delete
    2. No, But he excellent used bleeding head.

      Delete
  28. Eriksson to me was too strict on giving yellow cards, for fouls coming from turkish players and time wasting from croats.I mean,Croatia only got 1 for foul, but they deserved atleast 1 or 2 more for wasting time, especially goalkeeper.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Congratulations for Swedish team, good performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ha ha isnt there foul before goal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlA0W6qdIRA&feature=youtu.be

      Delete
    2. Based on THAT video this is hardly possible to say...

      Delete
  30. Eriksson's 2nd half was not that good. All in all 2-3 missed yellows, 1 of them was a stonewall SPA, good management, maybe his gestures were a bit too much today. Kept a tough match under control, but was too laissez-faire-like in several very combatted duels.

    8.2-8.3 for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your analysis, Niclas.
      I can add: assistant referees rarely challenged, all decisions were ok. Additional assistant referees not involved. Fourth official: expected level.
      I would go for:
      Eriksson 8.2 (two missed YCs)
      Klasenius 8.4
      Warnmark 8.4
      Johannesson 8.4
      Strombergsson 8.4
      Collum 8.4

      Delete
    2. I agree with your marks, Chefren.

      Delete
    3. Agree with both Chefren And Edward. But don't you think Klasenius had to help Eriksson with the SFP That it was raised by himself ?

      Delete
    4. IMO Collum could have helped Eriksson much more. At the missed YC incident (49') but also by telling him there were no fouls in 22' and 37'.

      Strömbergsson was very preventive twice (15', 53').

      Delete
  31. Correct decision, not a deliberate handball by the NI defender. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Team Hategan is doing a good job so far.

      Delete
    2. Excellent first half. Only one throw in incorrect. But that's peanuts. No negative points so far. Good management, good following and movement and no cards which I agree in.

      Delete
    3. Our 'experts' said it was a penalty. Facepalm. Then, almost the entire country repeat what he said...

      Delete
    4. In Polish ligue such an incident would be treated as a deliberate handball. Not quite sure about UEFA guidelines, but a player made a technical mistake while trying to take control of a ball. For me more a penalty than no...

      Delete
    5. No, in Polish league it wouldn't be a penalty. As for the latest guidelines it would be seen as an UNEXPECTED ball (bouncing from the knee to the hand), with arm in a NATURAL position and the defender couldn't react not to touch it. TBF, if you are a Polish ref I wouldn't say you are up to date with the guidelines, as so called "technical mistake" is actually not penalised for more than a year now ;-)

      Delete
    6. 100% agree with RefPliz.

      Delete
  32. Coltescu has a good eye! after that double-triple billard contact goal kick was the right decision I think.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have to say that something is wrong with the marks from 3rd team observers. For now, Kassai's team got the biggest mark, bigger than Rizzoli's, but we all saw different I think. To be fair: only mistake from whole Rizzoli's team was incorrect free kick before the first goal. And Kassai's team: very possible foul before first goal, clear foul on French player before penalty, both ARs made one offside mistake each, AAR2 missed foul and YC for Romania in first half, Kassai missed some fouls... Too much mistakes for bigger mark! Also, I have to say that I do not understand observer Detelin: he gave 8.4 to Kassai (was he so excellent? Carter gave only 7.4) and 7.4 to Velasco (where did he saw 2 crucial mistakes from Carballo?).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 points:

      1) 7 or 8 observers do have different views, that's normal. There is little sense to justify each single mark.

      2) You now only highlighted what went wrong in Kassai's team. AR1 made no offside mistake, the one some people reported as wrong here was tight offside and therefore correct. AAR2 missed the YC incident, but also supported the referee in the no penalty situation in 73'. "Very possible foul before first goal" is not enough for a crucial mistake, about the clear foul before the penalty - personally I agree, but apparently many others do not share this opinion. So maybe these mark averages do not reflect my personal ranking either, but the average of our team.

      3) "Always keep in mind: These marks stay mathematical numbers and not (much) more." - see above at the right side of the blog.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Theo. Rizzoli should have a better mark then Kassai and 8.4 for Kassai is too much. Velasco with 7.4 is correct. He missed a straight red for dogso and he missed a penalty for Albania for holding the attacker inside penalty area.

      Delete
    3. These are your views Stuart. No facts. So categories like "should", "must", "correct / incorrect" etc. can hardly apply for such mark averages. We have not rented THE truth and you don't have either.

      Let's focus on identifying positive points and points where referees can improve and become better, paired with discussing match situations from which we can learn. This is the main goal of our analyses.

      Delete
    4. I cannot agree about Velasco's crucial mistakes. And I will try to be objective even though I'm from Spain.

      As in Rizzoli's case yesterday, I understand that one of the important things to label something as a "crucial mistake" is the outcome of the decision (if the foul had been on the midfield/it had not become a goal, it would have been simply a wrong foul and YC). And in this case, although I agree it should have been a straight RC, the outcome is the same. Also in terms of suspension matches, as usually 2nd YC and RC for DOGSO is 1 match each. I doubt the observer will assign a crucial mistake for that, only a point for improvement.

      Apart from that, the crucial mistake of the penalty will depend on whether you think it was a penalty or not. I won't enter there, there are many opinions (both already discussed and defended with arguments) and it will be pointless.

      I think the observer mark *might* be on the range 8.1-8.3, as I think that penalty situation was not quite clear and both decisions can be accepted. Of course, Velasco can (and this season has) do better than that.

      Delete
    5. Niclas in this case, then please stop writing reports/analyses, giving marks etc. Because what you and your blog observers do is not fully what you say. Because if you write reports and give marks, be sure you do this in a correct way. Just like Teo I see often marks here which I can't understand. And I give my opinion only, it's my view on the situations and performances of the referees. I speak on behalf of myself and if I want to use the words should or must, it's my truth. So please don't feel attacked.

      Delete
    6. This is also what I mean, the comment of George. This means for me he is not a referee or observer on high level or neither has the knowledge. Justify a missed straight red card because the outcome with a second YC would be the same suspension is really nonsense for me. How can we take these comments seriously?

      Delete
    7. I've been a referee, of course not on the highest level. But I like refereeing, I know the LOTG, and I express my points of view about the game and how I would assess things without any fear for attacks such as yours. It is indeed my point of view. I can be wrong in the way UEFA takes into consideration some things (after all I'm not involved with them in any way). But I defend my opinions and ideas with arguments, and not with attacks as you do.

      How can we take comments such as mine seriously? Easy answer: read them, and if you find something wrong on them, just correct what you think is wrong and I will be happy to accept that (mainly if it is a written rule and not something you think it has to be that way). Opposite to what some others do (the less, thankfully), I justify what I write. You may not agree with me, but just for that I deserve some respect.

      Thank you :)

      Delete
    8. I really like your comments, George.

      For example, I assessed Velasco Carballo very kindly taking into account what were the other observers' marks. For me it was more DOGSO but not a clear one. The GK was already approaching an attacker who was side to the GK and in need to control the ball and probably even dribble him. I try to be with the referees as long as I can.

      With Rizzoli's free kick leading to the goal and now with Atkinson I personally can't see any room for interpretation. Of course, it's my point of view. And observing the referees is always somehow subjective. You won't find ideally the same observations from the same game and from different referee observers.

      Delete
    9. @ George: It's a matter of fact that even though the outcome is the same, a 2nd YC is a crucial mistake if the offence warranted a red card. These are the guidelines that are used by every football association I know including DFB and UEFA.

      @ Stuart: The feedback we get from other people than you is as positive as of course we won't stop our work. But thanks for the proposal. If you don't bear other opinions or shy away from raising the poor quality in this "forum" by submitting valuable input yourself, then just go away - you are showing disrespect for many other users (this says much about you as a referee, with us supposed to be idols in terms of respect) which I won't tolerate any longer. So: go away. Please.

      Delete
    10. Then I stay corrected about that guideline. Thank you!

      Delete

    11. The great mistake was of Kassai.

      Delete
  34. Not a difficult match but imo the best referee so far. Slightly in front of Rizzoli according to his contentious FK for England.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Good, solid refereeing with some points for consideration and improvement (throw-in accuracy, prevention for holding at set pieces..). Normal difficulty. Absolutely 8.3-8.4 area, I prefer 8.4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. If we are strict: two YC which were too strong. The one on the midfield was actually no foul and the one before stopping time in the corner was not a clear promising attack. So 8.3 would be correct, but if we look to his total performance I rather go for 8.4. And the throw in accuracy is more for the AR's.

      Delete
  36. 3': Atkinson first wanted to award a corner kick but immediately changed his decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16': missed YC for using the elbow in a reckless manner (as tool)

      Delete
  37. 19' : wrong FK - absolutely perfect tackle by Ukraine player - And goal...crucial mistake 100% !

    ReplyDelete
  38. And again wrong FK with goal as outcome. First Rizzoli and know Atkinson. It is already the tournament of the referees.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 16' missed possible YC

    More important thing- I know that Mr Atkinson had an injury, but his fitness conditions isn't on high level. Maybe someone who watched his matches more often can overrule me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 25 ' : atkinson is sleeping ! Enormous foul on Ukraine goalkeeper, seems he doesn't see this obvious infringment....whistle with 3-4 seconds delay....

      Delete
  40. Keeper lying down after a foul and Atkinson allowed the play to go on. Serious lack of alertness, I think AAR2 informed him, but imagine a goal would have been scored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, he relies too much on his assistants. He is too relaxed.

      Delete
    2. I don't think he is too relaxed.
      It looks like he isn't in good shape, he didn't have match for a long time (injury and only one friendly match).
      He can't concentrate on match..

      Just remember how you feel on the pitch after 'long' pause with refereeing.
      Thats why he relies too much on assistants.

      Delete
    3. + not so good fitness

      Delete
    4. He had two friendlies: NIR-SVK and LUX-NGA.

      Delete
    5. Thanks. But it's not enough IMO :)

      Delete
  41. Unfortunately, another goal scored from a free kick awarded for a phantom foul. Crucial mistake. I have a feeling Atkinson relies on his assistants too much (it was a case in Kassai's game too).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And now corner instead of goal kick...atkinson very far from action, no dynamism or speed increase...

      Delete
    2. I agree, it wasn't a foul. Not so easy to evaluate without any replays - but anyway a crucial mistake, no doubt.

      In general, I'm happy the game character is very fair why it is not that obvious Atkinson hasn't his best day. A lot of lacks of awareness, beginning in 3' with his 'phantom' corner signal.

      Delete
    3. This is no crucial mistake. An incorrect free-kick which is INDIRECTLY leading to a goal is -0.2. A free-kick which is DIRECTLY leading to a goal (--> directly scored into the goal) would be 7.9.

      Delete
    4. I believe that both situations would be -0.2

      Delete
    5. We will clear that in the course of the today. I would feel more comfortable if you are right, Unknown & RayHD.

      Delete
  42. It's just that I get frustrated by the many comments here based on ignorance, lack of knowledge (LOTG), strange arguments, etc. Ofcourse there are also many good and constructive comments. But imo the quality if this forum is going down more and more. Just because there are to many bloggers here without any knowledge on high level. So sorry for my participation on this forum. I stop writing here and leave you all alone.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 45+1' : missed mandatory YC for Ukraine player (reckless tackle)...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Missed mandatory YC in the 45+1'. Not the best performance in an easy game. Would have been really poor if it was, for example, TUR-CRO... The same mistakes are acceptable in a demanding games on the one hand but they are an evidence of the referee's poor form in such tactical, easy-going games on the other hand.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Would you explain me your definition of "crucial mistake"? Well, a free kick before the Germans goal shoudln't have been given, but are you not going too far with it? How many times teams score from that sort of free kick? 1 out of 20-30? I think, considering this as a crucial mistake doesn't show us how good is the referee, but how much like he has. What if the goal was scored after wrongly given corner or even a throw-in? What if that was an own goal or a hardly explained mistake from the keeper resulting in a goal for the Germans today, would you still count it as a crucial mistake? Can't see much sense in this TBF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course it should be LUCK insread of LIKE* ;)

      Delete
    2. You're absolutely right, it's exactly my point of view too, but there are observing guidlines and according to them such incidents are crucial mistakes, as far as I know. Maybe it's not fair but it is how it is, these are the guidelines (at least as far as I know, maybe Niclas can confirm).

      Delete
    3. After reading the guidelines I have to correct myself: Rather no crucial mistake. It's only fair, yes.

      Delete
    4. see above, it's -0.2 if you deem the free-kick as wrong because Mustafi headed the free-kick into the goal. If the free-kick had been directly converted, it would be a crucial mistake - at least to my very best knowledge about the guidelines applied by UEFA and co.

      Delete
  46. Am I the only one who doesn't think Atkinson is doing a bad job? Ok he's not running much and lacks dynamism but guys he's just come back from an injury. Other than that I think he's having a good night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With phantom free kick which makes the score...!

      Delete
    2. I dont like 'rule' that wrong free kick leading to a goal is a crucial mistake, honestly.
      Imagine phantom foul on the center of the pitch leading to goal..

      But..

      Delete
    3. Also wrongly awarded corner kick leading to goal.

      Delete
    4. He isn't doing a bad job, but neither a good job. It's simply average but he is absolutely in background and with full match control and acceptance - but I think thats more thanks to the game character than thanks to Atkinson himself.

      Delete
    5. I personally don't see that free kick as a crucial mistake. It wasn't a wrong one. Maybe slightly generous but not plain wrong. 8.3 for me. And great performance by Mullarkey as usual 8.5

      Delete
  47. Leaving aside the debate about his specific decisions: if you have to make excuses for Atkinson due to his recent injury, then the mistake is that he and/or UEFA should have canceled his participation in EURO 2016; it is an insult against the teams to use referees who are not fit or in match form;

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True but let me ask you one thing: has Atkinson ever been very fit? No. It's a bit his style too. What about Eriksson? if he fit? wouldn't say so. And history is full of referees who weren't that fit but were just amazing: Fandel, Ovrebo, Dowd, Van Der Ende and many others. I refuse the idea that fitness should be paramount in selecting a referee. Yes it is important but as long as one can keep up with the pace of the game other aspects come first IMHO.

      Delete
    2. Fitness isn't important until it influence your decision taking.
      Its not most important, but it is important. And Atkinson's pausing cause of the injury resulted that he 'loses' his form (that's the bigger problem than resulting with decrease if fitness level)

      Delete
  48. I must say excellent ONSIDE by Mullarkey before 2-0.

    ReplyDelete
  49. IMO Atkinson controlled the match well, but it was surely the easiest of all so far. 2 yellow cards should have been given (reckless, illegal use of arm by Kroos) and reckless tackle in 45+1. His start was pretty unconcentrated, here and there he did not play the most reasonable advantages.

    All in all 8.2 for me. In a very easy match, this was not Atkinson's best performance, but mostly due to YC mistakes and here it depends on how important you deem such errors at such big tournaments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree. First half wasn't convincing (two clear missed YCs), second half was much better in my opinion. However, this was a really easy match for Atkinson. Due to two missed YCs in first half the performance should be evaluated with 8.2.

      Delete
    2. I would personally give him 8.3. I would not regard the YC as compulsory, as a matter of fact I see the one at 45+1 as a proper decision taken. The foul was maybe worth a YC, but if you look closely the fouling player tries to bring back his leg while tackling. That's a clear sign of unintentional fouling, and given the pace of the game I would have regarded a YC there as unnecessary.

      Easy game, but I personally think Rizzoli's was probably even easier. And I am Italian ...

      Delete
  50. No reactions on the Neuer-incident?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Missed PK according to Jan Berg from the Swedish Referee Commitee.

      Delete
  51. Predictions for Thursday:

    ENG-WAL: Brych (GER); FO: Marciniak (POL)
    UKR-NIR: Kralovec (CZE); FO: Bastien (FRA)
    GER-POL: Kuipers (NED); FO: Orsato (ITA)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brych is forced to ENG - WAL.
      Kralovec and Kuipers can go the other way around but I agree with your prediction. Clearly the Dutch will handle GER - POL :)

      Delete
    2. or maybe anyone get the second math?

      Delete
  52. RefRef and RefPliz, you are right. I just got the info that neither Kassai's missed foul prior to penalty kick nor wrongly awarded free kick/corner kick/throw-in resulted in a goal, are NOT crucial mistakes. The referee observer may go with -0.1 to -0.3 only. Therefore, my mark to Rizzoli will be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  53. England - Wales
    Brych - Borsch, Lupp - Dankert, Fritz - Jug, Vukan

    Ukraine - Northern Ireland
    Královec - Slyško, Mokrusch - Ardeleánu, Paták - Sidiropoulos, Efthymiadis

    Germany - Poland
    Kuipers - van Roekel, Zeinstra - van Boekel, Liesveld - Orsato, Di Liberatore

    ReplyDelete

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