June 22, 2016

Refereeing Analyses for Matches 22-24 (Çakır BEL-IRL, Karasev ISL-HUN, Rizzoli POR-AUT)

Our analyses for the Matchday 2 games in Group F including Cüneyt Çakır's, Sergei Karasev's and Nicola Rizzoli's second performances at these EURO finals.



Cüneyt Çakır's Team in Belgium vs Ireland

(the analysis on Cüneyt Çakır has been written by our teammember RayHD)

We introduced Cüneyt Çakır as “one of the favourites to officiate the EURO 2016 final” before the tournament had started. Despite some problems he experienced during the Portugal - Iceland game, such as a visible imbalance in treating both teams, missing anticipative positioning and controlling a free kick execution, his performance conveyed an overall decent impression. However, this is not the case in Çakır's second game... Although he presented a much more friendly approach and radiation, one of his weaknesses observed in the first game cropped up again: Anticipative movement. With huge deficits in terms of alertness at the beginning! Due to that, he made a crucial mistake and missed a very reckless foul while not being interested in following the action anymore as he just wanted to whistle a half time. Apart from those situations, he was really good but, c'mon, we are at the Euro 2016 and such blackouts should simply not happen.

VIDEO 1, VIDEO 2

Important situations:

1| Disallowed 1-0 goal in 24'

Well positioned Bahattin Duran flags an offside of BEL #11 who, some moments later, scores a goal for 1-0. Excellent spot from him! The offside position was minimal.

2| Missed foul and mandatory yellow card in 45+1'

The play is about 45:00 and the referee decided to not add any time to the first half. However, he totally forgot that waiting for a half-time whistle does not authorize him to resign from creating a good visual angle. Unfortunately, he loses visual control over the incident by getting obstructed by two Belgian players. Thus, the referee misses a very reckless foul of IRL #9. What does Çakır do? He whistles... for half-time.

3| Missed penalty and mandatory yellow card(s) in 47'

The ball is centred from a free kick into the BEL penalty area. Both BEL #2 and #3 try to clear the ball by raising their legs at IRL #9’s head height. Although the ball is successfully cleared by BEL #2, his action is highly reckless as his leg hits his opponent’s neck fraction a second later. The same goes for BEL #3’s action as he kicks IRL #9 into the head. Both challenges are reckless, both are not punished by the referee who is positioned far away from the penalty area and, most likely his view, is obstructed by another Irish player. In addition, this missed penalty indirectly leads to the 1-0 goal on the opposite side. Again a lack of anticipative positioning leads to missed foul(s). This time in the penalty area. Crucial mistake and this point for improvement become significant.

As for a head injury (some of you raised the issue: why Çakır didn't break up the play due to that?): Irish player got up quite quickly so it was at least acceptable if not simply correct to break up the play.



Positive points:

1| Friendly approach and radiation: Çakır really changed his approach towards players. As it was pointed out after his last game, his behaviour towards Icelandic players was somehow aggressive and unfriendly. He was firm but surely not angry and nervous throughout this game.

2| Match control and acceptance: Either after missed fouls or debatable calls, the players were not dissenting against his decisions. Maybe because of they are just good boys but most likely Çakır showed good soft skills and charisma in contacts with them.

3| Punishing unsporting behaviours strictly:

42' - IRL #13 keeps the ball that went out of play on the field, waits a bit, and kicks it towards a new action launched by Belgians in order to stop it. After a good teamwork (Çakır-Ongun), the player is rightly booked for unsporting behaviour and the play is restarted by an indirect free kick to Belgian.

49' - Vermaelen committs a ‘half-SPA’ foul and kicks the ball away to steal some time for his team’s defensive line. The referee wasn't going to issue a caution for the first offence but was forced to do that after a clear case of unsporting behaviour.

4| Undeliberate handballs are not whistled: Çakır rightly waves Irish free kick appeals away when the ball is kicked in Witsel's hand by his teammate (natural positioned, not stiffed hand; 54')


Points for improvement:

1| Alertness: What is more important? To whistle for a half-time at 45:00 or being able to detect a very reckless foul? If you choose the first option, it's a sign you are your watch hostage and you don't care for player's health. Expect unexpected also in the penalty area!

2| Anticipative movements/positioning: Missing foul and yellow card in 45' + missing penalty kick and yellow card(s) for reckless, high-leg foul(s) as a result of being too centrally and far away positioned - thus he did not have the needed sidewise viewing angles, thus he missed important situations...

3| Late whistles in 17', 23' and 32'. It can make players angry and frustrated and due to that can even bring some conflicts. The referee should avoid to wait with a whistle when there is a clear foul and attacking player is moving towards his own goal.


Our Observers' Mark Proposals




Ø
Artur (SUI)
Carter (AUS)
Chefren (ITA)
Detelin (BUL)
Edward (GRE)
Harry
(ENG)
Niclas
(GER)
RayHD (POL)
Rik (NED)
Maxi (GER)
Ref: Çakır
7.88
n.a.
7.8
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
7.8
8.1
7.8
AR1: Duran
8.50





8.5

AR2: Ongun
8.40






8.4

AAR1: Göçek
7.90





7.9

AAR2: Şimşek
8.40






8.4

4OF: Bastien
8.40






8.4












TEAM AVERAGE
8.09




Sergei Karasev's Team in Iceland vs Hungary

The Russian delivered a pretty good performance in Romania vs Switzerland. In fact, it was the 2nd best performance of the tournament according to our mark averages. In this game, however, he did not always show the necessary feeling for the game from my point of view.

VIDEO 1, VIDEO 2

A controversial performance based on three controversial, crucial decisions.

Important Situations:

1| Penalty Kick given in 41'

At a corner-kick taken from the right side, Iceland's #17 is getting the ball that has come from several deflections and unclear situations (many holdings and a goalkeeper contact there, but nothing which are clear offences requiring a penalty). He takes a slight right turn and makes contact with HUN #4. Karasev deems the contact as a careless trip / foul by the defender and gives a penalty.


For me, this is no penalty. Not in such a game, not in such a tournament, and actually in no match at all. ISL #17 is rather walking into his opponent who actually does nothing wrong. The only thing he does is putting a foot forward while approaching his opponent. Can he be blamed for that? Is that a careless tackle? In my view, no. This rather looks like a normal collision maybe even more caused by the Icelandic player who is more or less walking into the defender's mainstay - and falls by that. Too easy, and for my taste a simply incorrect penalty. The opinions on that differ in our team.

"Actually the defender does nothing wrong. He just stands there. Not every contact is a penalty and for this reason, I think the decision is rather not the right one."



An alternative explanation would be that the AAR1 moved Karasev to the penalty for the hand contact of the goalkeeper hitting an opponent in the face during his rescue action. At least the AAR started to walk towards the goal after this contact, which he actually only does in case of a decision.


2| Incorrect YC - missed simulation - missing 2nd YC in 81'

In the video, you'll find a situation where ISL #11 can be very very lucky to stay on the field of play. Being already on a yellow card, he clearly dives and tries to deceive the referee, who wrongly cautions HUN #4 for stopping a promising attack (SPA).

There is not even any contact. Actually, missing 2nd yellow cards are crucial mistakes. There can be some discussion though whether a simulation call is absolutely necessary there. The Laws of the Game do not really say whether simulation is treated differently in different positions on the field of play. But common sense and guidelines tell us that, for example, deep in the own half a defender's dive is rather a play-on. In the midfield, play-on is a sensible call as well, as long as the opposite team quickly gets ball possession and can maybe even initiate a counterattack.

In this situation, the ISL player wants to produce a yellow card for SPA though. In situations in and around the penalty area as well as in SPA scenarios, simulation should be whistled as such. However, this can be discussed. So, I rather blame Karasev for failing to identify the dive as such and decide either on simulation or on play-on. If he gets a crucial mistake for that, he cannot really complain though. The free-kick and YC are definitely wrong and -0.1 at least.


3| Outside or Inside?

Very difficult situation, but for my taste Karasev decides correctly here. The holding stops very shortly before the penalty area line - and the Icelandic player rather throws himself into the penalty area instead of the foul going on into the penalty area. So: Correct, very well taken decision.


Our Observers' Mark Proposals




Ø
Artur (SUI)
Carter (AUS)
Chefren (ITA)
Detelin (BUL)
Edward (GRE)
Harry
(ENG)
Niclas
(GER)
RayHD (POL)
Rik (NED)
Maxi (GER)
Ref: Karasev
8.00
n.a.
n.a.
7.8
n.a.
8.5
7.9
7.8
8.3
n.a.
n.a.
AR1: Golubev
8.35



8.4
8.3

AR2: Kalugin
8.25




8.2
8.3

AAR1: Lapochkin
8.40



8.4
8.4

AAR2: Ivanov
8.40




8.4
8.4

4OF: Kulbakov
8.40




8.4
8.4












TEAM AVERAGE
8.18




Nicola Rizzoli's Team in Portugal vs Austria

The Italian delivered a very elegant and good piece of refereeing in this Group F match. Good decision-taking and player management, full control and acceptance.  However, he lacked in preventive refereeing and confirmed a weakness we have also seen from other referees at this tournament: Correctly identifying and assessing the level of punishment of stud-tackles. He saw both of tackles, both of the same player (AUT #14), but unfortunately did not issue the mandatory yellow cards (-0.1 each, 63' and 70', both in the video). Such tackles need to be taken out of the game and as he failed to caution #14 in 63', Rizzoli has to be blamed for the tackle in 70'. A verbal warning is nice, but not enough in such situations. His assistants were not faultless, specially in terms of handball (AR2) and offside (AR1).


The most important, game-relevant key decision was however taken correctly and solely taken by AAR2. Rizzoli was looking elsewhere, AAR2 Damato was fully responsible for this decision. Efficient teamwork and an exemplary situation which shows that, at times, AARs are useful, even though it is often suggested differently in the media.

Important Situation (VIDEO 1, VIDEO 2)

1| Penalty in favour of Portugal (holding, 78')

AUT #4 clearly holds POR #7 and makes him fall. Thus he prevents the attacker to participate in the attacking situation. AAR2 spots the incident with the referee looking elsewhere. He correctly submits his pieces of information so that the correct decision is taken. Correct yellow card (YC), as the attacker does not have full control over the ball. There is no clear goal-scoring opportunity, but definitely a promising attack.


Our Observers' Mark Proposals




Ø
Artur (SUI)
Carter (AUS)
Chefren (ITA)
Detelin (BUL)
Edward (GRE)
Harry
(ENG)
Niclas
(GER)
RayHD (POL)
Rik (NED)
Maxi (GER)
Ref: Rizzoli
8.35
n.a.
8.3
8.4
n.a.
8.5
n.a.
8.3
8.2
n.a.
8.4
AR1: Di Liberatore
8.20

8.2

8.2

AR2: Tonolini
8.35

8.4


8.3

AAR1: Orsato
8.35

8.4

8.3

AAR2: Damato
8.50

8.5


8.5

4OF: Tudor
8.40

8.4


8.4












TEAM AVERAGE
8.35


* Team Average: Referee's Average Mark 50% + Marks of AR1, AR2, AAR1 and AAR2 50%
** The highest and lowest average marks are eliminated to control deviations (statistical reasons), but only if 5 or more observers have submitted their marks.

11 Comments:

  1. I think, no penalty for ireland rebuplic.this pic after position. #3 and #2 BEL only focus on ball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can focus on the ball all you want, but if you kick the attacker in the head at nearly 2m - it is a penalty.

      Delete
  2. Good read. Thanks for your time.
    Disagree with your point on Karasev penalty. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Question: In Belgium-Ireland. Gocek gets a 7.9 because of the penalty situation. But what if he shouts PENALTY trough the headset but Cakir doesn't call it? Then he has done everything he could but the referee is always responsible. I'm not saying this realy happend but it is possible. Is it fair to give him a 7.9 in that case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I remember correctly, UEFA keeps a recording of headset communication, and I'm sure the UEFA observer can absolve the AAR if the above is the case.

      Without access to any recordings it'd be pointless to grade 40F/AARs (and ARs to some extent) if you'd have to take into account possible communications. You could argue teams should be graded as a unit, or simply take the grades above for what they are - neither official nor of any real impact.

      Delete
    2. You can argue that one of them simply has to see it if you deem it as a clear penalty.

      Overall, this is only a mark proposal, I can imagine that in the real report the full team got marks of 8.2 and above.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for your comment. I was just wondering!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't find your point unsympathetic, to say the least. You can only give reliable marks if you have spoken with the team. Therefore our marks posted here are an orientation, but not more.

      Delete
  5. Karasevs mark must be below 7.8
    Awful performance in this match.
    Almost every decision is wrong.
    When us clear foul he plays on. When no foul he gives free kick and yc. Funny penalty and funny backwards running 10-15meters, scared of one player. Cherry on a cake is last situtaion 2mins 5 sec for placing wall and restarting game.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Instead of penalty for Irl, Belgium scores...
    Sad for Cakir. Will be hard to see him in final.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree with the opinion in the Belguim - Ireland penalty situation.
    The Ireland forward is behind the Belgian player when he forms the intent to clear the ball, therefore if he does not clear the ball, the attacker has a chance to score.
    He is not endangering the safety of his opponent initially as he is behind him. Once he clears the ball, the Irish forward comes into the area of the defenders natural movement and a collision occurs. The defender is unable to prevent contact.

    ReplyDelete

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