June 22, 2016

Refereeing Analyses for Matches 25-28 (Skomina SUI-FRA, Královec ROU-ALB, Velasco SVK-ENG, Eriksson RUS-WAL)

These are our views and marks on the four performances shown by Damir Skomina, Pavel Královec, Carlos Velasco Carballo and Jonas Eriksson in Matchday 3's Group A and B deciding games. 



Damir Skomina's Team in Switzerland vs France

Slovenian Damir Skomina and his teammates refereed Switzerland vs France, determing the winner of Group A. While the overall performance was solid in most parts (full control, acceptance, positioning was good), there were two problems.

First, Skomina conveyed an impression as if he was mainly externally controlled by his assistants. In some occasions, they took decisions he should have seen himself (e.g. 38', AAR2 reports a foul from 25m distance, while AR2 (10m away) and the referee (15-20m away) deemed it as no foul - this caused confusion also due to the delay in the headset communication). Other examples are 6' and 58', where a simulation by Shaqiri resulted in a play-on which was actually not enough.

Second, there was a penalty appeal in the additional time which revealed a main problem in Skomina's performance: He lacked in preventing holding offences. There were 2-3 situations where clear holding offences were either missed or not taken out of the game with the aid of warnings or yellow cards. Some of the Suisse jerseys even got torn by these pulls (Puma apologized in the meantime..). An example is 36', but there were other ones in half 2.

VIDEO 1, VIDEO 2

Therefore, it is no surprise that this was no penalty in the match officials' eyes:

Important situations:

1| Penalty in 90+2'?

FRA #19 clearly holds SUI #15 while a high pass is travelling into the penalty area. SUI #15 falls and asks for a penalty.

While nobody can deny that there was actually a clear holding, this does not automatically mean that it has to be a penalty. Otherwise every shirt pulling would result in a free-kick, which is prescribed by the Laws of the Game, but neither meets reality nor common sense (otherwise we would have 20 free kicks more per game).

So of course it also depends on other factors. Some of these factors are those:

1) Was the holding excessive or blatant? Yes, it was. Maybe not as blatant as the one by Lichtsteiner in Romania - Switzerland, but surely not far away from that. #19 continuously pulled the jersey for more than a second.

2) What about the referee's chances to spot it? He definitely saw that. It happened right in front of him, with a free line of vision.

3) Was the attacker impeded or prevented from participating in a promising attacking action due to the holding? For me, rather no. He would have never reached the ball. Therefore, it was kind of "off-the-ball-incident" which mostly do not result in penalty kicks at the highest level. They only do if there is something really big and clear (a clear reckless offence or sth like that).

4) Did the attacker go to ground due to the holding? No, rather not. I guess that as soon as #15 recognized that he would not get control or possession of the ball, he decided to fall. The holding did definitely not cause him to fall.

In my view, there are arguments for both. We are in 90+2' at 0:0 at a EURO tournament. There has to happen more to give a penalty for my taste. I clearly support Skomina's decision as criteria 3) and 4) are rather favouring play-on here. Out of 7 observers submitting their marks, 4 prefer a penalty though.

Nonetheless, what the referee (team) must be blamed for is that he / they did not take holding offences or actions out of the game earlier. Three key words to be kept in mind: prevention, prevention, prevention.


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: Skomina
8.04
n.a.
7.9
n.a.
n.a.
7.9
7.9
8.2
8.3
7.8
8.3
AR1: Praprotnik
8.40




8.4 8.4

AR2: Vukan
8.25





8.3
8.2

AAR1: Jug
8.35




8.3 8.4

AAR2: Vinčić
8.35





8.3
8.4

4OF: Fritz
8.30





8.3
8.3












TEAM AVERAGE
8.19


* 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.


Pavel Královec' Team in Romania vs Albania

I have not watched this game myself, so that I cannot really comment on it. Our observers Chefren and RayHD both reported that Královec had this Balcan duel under his control on the whole. However, he lacked in prevention, did not issue verbal warnings in situations (13') where they had to be expected and did not issue clear yellows and fouls in some situations (e.g. 4' or 22').

Overall, Královec has to work on his body language, self-presentation and personality in dealing with the players (--> verbal warnings, wall management etc.). At times, he conveys a too uncertain and hesitant impression, not being in full control (this is the message one gets). This was a core observation our observer Artur confirmed having been live in the stadium. His conclusion was that despite of many solid moments, Královec simply is no name for the really big games. Thus, he could be a candidate to leave the tournament early.

His assistant referees delivered a widely good performance (AR1 with many difficult situations, 1 mistake) - unfortunately, assistant referee 2 wrongly raised his flag for offside due to a late and bad positioning (thus his view got distorted and he could not identify the 2nd last defender line properly - probably a matter of experience). This denied Romania a big chance to score the equalizer, even though it is unclear whether the Albanian defenders would have cleared the ball if they had not stopped play seeing the raised flag (check this video at 27:20 video minute for that). Královec received good support from the additional assistant referees in some situations. The fourth official should be more focused on the incidents near to him (22’, 59’, 73’), even though our stadium observer reported that Sidiropoulos had been a very alert and active fourth official in this game.


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: Královec
8.15
n.a.
n.a.
8.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
8.1
n.a.
n.a.
AR1: Slyško
8.50





8.5

AR2: Mokrusch
7.90






7.9

AAR1: Ardeleanu
8.50





8.5

AAR2: Patak
8.50






8.5

4OF: Sidiropoulos
8.20






8.2












TEAM AVERAGE
8.25


* 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.


Carlos Velasco Carballo's Team in Slovakia vs England

We can make it short for the Spanish team. In the big picture, there was little talk about the referees. Full control, good authority, clear body language this time and overall a sovereign performance. Apart from a poorly played advantage in 67', there were two single situations that tarnish this actually OK impression.

Important situations:

1| Illegal Use of Arm in 18'


As you can see, there was a strong elbow contact caused by ENG #21's outstretched arm fully hitting SVK #2's face. Considering that it was not targeted punch with the elbow used as a weapon but a widely extended arm during a backwards jump, it should be deemed as an arm used as a tool and therefore as a reckless elbow requiring a yellow card. But surely, there were some orange spots on it.

First of all, it is actually not acceptable that Assistant Referee 1 and the Fourth Official missed this situation. If both had been a bit more alert and active, this incident could have been spotted. Velasco was far away, 20-25m. Maybe too far away. At any rate, missing this offence completely is of course a quite heavy mistake.


2| Missed Penalty for Deliberate Handball


Maybe the clearest crucial mistake of the tournament so far, completely missed by the players themselves. The hand clearly goes out and deliberately blocks the deflected shot on goal. Contrary to many other situations where we often discuss whether a handball had been deliberate in the sense of the Laws of the Game, this one is even an example for a deliberate handball in the sense of the word "deliberate".

Velasco Carballo had a free line of sight, was fully focussed on the situation and had the best visual angle possible. A clear crucial mistake with impact on the group standings.


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: Velasco
7.83
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
7.8
n.a.
7.9
n.a.
7.8
7.8
AR1: Alonso
8.20






8.2

AR2: Yuste
8.30






8.3

AAR1: Gil Manzano
8.40






8.4

AAR2: Del Cerro
8.30






8.3
4OF: Damato
8.20






8.2











TEAM AVERAGE
8.07


* 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.



Jonas Eriksson's Team in Russia vs Wales

According to our observer Chefren, Eriksson delivered a really good performance in an easy-going match. Indeed, there were many positive moments including correct disciplinary sanctions for reckless elbows (well done and spotted!). Good body language, good management and full control.

His assistant referees showed very good performances as well. AR1 Klasenius applied the wait-and-see-technique brilliantly in the 0:3 goal. AR2 Wärnmark faced many tight situations and got all of them right, two of them were however not 100% satisfying (in one case, lucky call due to bad positioning and if there was an offside, then only by 10 cms - in the other case - in min.1 - he actually raised his flag too early and should have waited and seen longer). Good onside in the 0:1, good teamwork in the 0:2 goal in terms of off-/onside (the ball came from a defender!).

We do not have videos for all these positive moments, so maybe simply watch a highlight video on one of the popular video channels (e.g. here). We will most likely analyze these situations more deeply after the tournament to better foster the educational value they had.

A situation we present you in a video is more problematic and should be raised for discussion.


I am going to present some arguments that are favouring the one or other view now:

Actually, Eriksson should have sent off a Russian defender who was already cautioned. Clear holding, clear tactical foul. Eriksson definitely did not want to send him off. Like in CRO-TUR, he seems to have a very tolerant line in terms of SPA and tends to miss clear yellows for these offences.

BUT: The foul happened at the sideline and there were not that many attacking players save the player fouled - which are normally arguments against SPA.

On the other hand, it was obvious that the player in ball possession had a relatively free right wing in front of him and was about and willing to initiate a dynamic attack.

Considering the importance of goals for the outcome of the group, SPA cannot be tolerated at no time and by no player as - regardless whether Wales already led by 0:3 - it is understandable that they strived for scoring a fourth one. It does not matter whether Russia have already given up either. Weakness does not justify offences.

However, one can fully understand Eriksson's decision and in game-reality, it was somehow accepted despite some light protests at the beginning. Nobody made a big deal out of it, the Russians were already down and had given up...so who cares?

All in all, let me say that personally I am torn between both poles. Between clever, intelligent refereeing on the one hand and "clear yellows must be given" on the other hand.

What is your view? Clearly missing sending-off (= crucial mistake) or great game-feeling?

For sure, this would be a crucial mistake - if it is one - about which the media did not really care. Nothing which would kick Eriksson out of further games.


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: Eriksson
8.15
n.a.
n.a.
7.9
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
8.4
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
AR1: Klasenius
8.50


8.5




AR2: Wärnmark
8.50


8.5




AAR1: Johannesson
8.40


8.4




AAR2: Strömbergsson
8.40


8.4




4OF: Orsato
8.40


8.4















TEAM AVERAGE
8.30


* 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.

2 Comments:

  1. Great read again!
    I fully agree with Skomina not awarding a penalty - for the reasons you gave - attacker only fell realising he is not reaching a ball (he actually throws himself to the ground), but as you said (and it is even well shown in the video) - he had few moments when, at least by clear warning, he could have given a sign that's not accepted (e.g. not actually needed advantage for SUI when Pogba pulled opponents twice, Lichsteiner holding etc.).

    For Velasco, I think that was his last big game - quite sad he ends really great career this way, but in his both games he showed he doesn't deserve to be in the KO stage - TBF he had the worst performances, next to Moen, and they both will surely go home (or at least should)

    With Eriksson though I'd prefer 2nd YC here and I think in such situations you don't even look for the requirements for SPA. If the player is beaten by the opponent and he decides to stop the attack by holding - it is one of the mostly unsporting behaviours, it is fully deliberate behaviour from defender and should be kicked out of the game, so even if it's not SPA, it should be YC (and it obviously would be if he didn't have YC before, but why we should give him an advantage for that?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have seen now the penalty in slk-eng. It's penalty, but i think it's very very difficult to see. Velasco is a great ref and he has done an excellent season. I don't think he will be out of KO stage.

    ReplyDelete

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