June 15, 2016

Refereeing Analysis for Matches 11 & 12 (Turpin AUT-HUN, Çakır POR-ISL)

Yesterday, there were only two matches: Group F kicked off. How the match officials in charge, Clément Turpin and Cüneyt Çakır did from our point of view, see below!



Clément Turpin's Team in Austria vs Hungary

The hosting nation's match officiating team headed by French Clément Turpin gave their debut in Group F. The youngest EURO referee, whose nomination for the final tournament was widely discussed as politically motivated before the competition, showed why this EURO came way too early for him. The most important match situation was all right though.

VIDEO1, VIDEO2

Important Situations:

1| 2nd Yellow Card against AUT #3 (and disallowed goal) in 66'

Absolutely correct decision - as you can see in the screenshot above and in the video, #3 is making a late tackle while fighting for the ball. His studs make light, but reckless contact with HUN #4's calf. Such tackles are yellow cards and even red cards if the contact is more intense. So: brave call, well done. However, two things should be mentioned:

1) Clément Turpin's card showing procedure was very weak in this situation. He well and determinedly sorted out the YC, but then waited several seconds until finally showing the RC... surrounded by many Austrian players, without any verbal communication and while already walking away and being busy with keeping an eye on the riot going on some metres away. This neither shows the needed certainty and confidence nor the sufficient respect. In fact, the Hungarian fans only celebrated the sending-off as soon as they saw the 2nd YC graphic by UEFA on the big screen. This underlines that something went wrong in this card showing process.

2) Turpin was not really predictable in this game. He never found a balance between what was an offence and what was fairplay for him on a foul detection and selection level. The same accounts for his disciplinary control. This circumstance has no effect on the correctness of the 2nd Yellow Card. But it can help explain why he lost the respect and acceptance of the players in the course of the game.

Positive Points:

1| Verbal Warnings. In general, Turpin had a good stepwise tactic. In 7' for example, he found a good moment for the first warning. A tackle with studs, still careless, but nonetheless the first harder foul. In other warnings, he visibly improved his communication skills compared to previous games, too.

2| Sprinting Abilities. Great sprints, great fitness and very athletic impression until the final moments of the game.

3| His teammates did a really good job. AAR2 during the light confrontation after the 2nd YC, AR1 with a good onside call before the 0:1 goal.


Points for Improvement:

1| Consistency, uniformity and predictability in his foul detection, selection and disciplinary control. Just the watch two videos and you know what I mean. I won't go into counting the number of inaccurate decisions and missing cards.

2| Positioning. That's a big point, as it explains why his foul detection was at such a weak level. In many cases, like in 1', the missed fouls and cards were due to a partly extremely odd positioning play. Mostly, Turpin failed to adapt his positioning to the situation - he did not produce sidewise visual angles and thus could not see some incidents due to obstructions. Furthermore, he was once even hit by the ball.

3| Control of the Players, Level of Acceptance and Respect. Also these ones were huge problems in this performance, manifesting itself the more the longer the match lasted. Turpin is no personality like Eriksson. He does not possess a height of 1,94m and a perceived span of the same size. He is rather small, young, a bit lean and thus has to deserve the respect of the players. Receiving the player's respect and acceptance can be based on a) having a certain reputation (Turpin does not have it), b) taking good decisions (Turpin only partly managed that), c) proximity and presence in his positioning play (as outlined, positioning was a problem), d) being able to communicate effectively via body language (his skills in this regard are very limited) or e) showing respect for them. Also point e) was a problem in 31' when he slightly pushed an Hungarian player away, which actually is a no-go for referees.

Overall, Turpin was simply not up to this level of passion and football. His deficits in personality and acceptance among the players paired with having no uniform line made him almost lose the overview and full level of control at certain times of the second half. And this must be stressed. Most of the problems cropped up in the heated, decisive moments of the game (65- end). The first half was just OK, even though not faultless either. Unfortunately, a football match has two halves. I have to say: poor performance, sorry Turpin. But don't blame him, blame UEFA.


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: Turpin
8.06
8.0
n.a.
8.2
n.a.
8.1
n.a.
8.0
8.0
8.1
8.1
AR1: Cano
8.45


8.4

8.5

AR2: Danos
8.40



8.4

8.4

AAR1: Bastien
8.40


8.4

8.4

AAR2: Fautrel
8.50



8.5

8.5

4OF: Gil Manzano
8.40



8.4

8.4












TEAM AVERAGE
8.25









 


Cüneyt Çakır's Team in Portugal vs Iceland

One of the favourites to officiate the EURO 2016 final finished the first matchday with a quite exotic game: Portugal met newcomers Iceland. Somehow, I think that Çakır did not have his best day. A bit more offensive than usual, a bit more inaccurate as mostly. Still an OK performance. But not more from my point of view.

VIDEO1, VIDEO2

Important Situations:

1| Violent Conduct by Pepe?

That surely was the most discussed situation in terms of refereeing yesterday. Did Pepe retaliate in 68'? Actually, he did. Look at his mimic, look at his body. Actually, this would be a good education video to be shown at newcomer seminars for what it means to make or at least attempt a violent conduct. However, the kick was rather light or moderate, did not fully hit the opponent. At UEFA level, this is enough to justify the decision to not deem this as a violent conduct. Common sense should apply and for this reason a yellow card might be considered as the ideal solution. But what did Çakır do?

At first I thought: Wow, what a sprint. What a mimic. He shows presence. Great. But contrary to my hopes, his body language and presence were only directed at the Icelandic players who were - justifiably - upset by Pepe's behaviour. It is not in line with the spirit of fairness that Pepe gets away with some calm words (if at all) and that two non-offending players have to bear a relatively offensive warning by the referee at the same time. Same goes for minute 7: A Portuguese unsportingly impedes the goalkeeper. Çakır well waits how the situation develops and then whistles the foul to the disadvantage of Iceland who had to take the ball 20m back into the own penalty area again. A warning against the Portuguese player? No. A warning against Icelandic player? Yes, and quite intense ones.

Çakır reacted way too offensive and thin-skinned at these and other occasions. His mimic was a bit too offensive, too stern. I sometimes thought Çakır got up on the wrong side of bed in the morning. Kenn Hansen, who knows several Icelandic players from the Danish 1st division, has another explanation:

I personally experienced several of the Icelandic players in Denmark, and this appears to be a really good approach. Firmness!



So maybe he was simply well prepared and all this belonged to his match plan? Might be, specially as the match officials receive extra video instructions on the teams they are about to referee at this EURO. And as Çakır normally is by far less offensive, I think he did that deliberately.

Nonetheless, at the moment of his quite unexpected appointment - as you could have thought that Portugal vs Iceland would be rather a low-profile game - I thought sending Çakır into this game was like sending a university professor into a primary school lesson. Staying in this analogy, he treated some Icelandic players like primary school pupils and most Portuguese players like students. This imbalance was simply too striking and is, for me, not acceptable. No matter whether he did it deliberately or whether it belonged to his match plan. You have to respect the players. Çakır was at the borderline of forgetting that - at least in my view.



Positive Points:

1| Good Game-Management, high acceptance level. 

2| Very good fitness and stamina.

3| Overall good foul and handball detection, with 2 exceptions (19', 87').


Points for Improvement:

1| As elaborated above, there was some imbalance in treating both teams. This conveys a negative and de facto the worst possible image a referee can convey: that he is not completely impartial. Of course Çakır is - but someone who just watched this match and has little idea of refereeing could have got a different impression. He was relatively accepted and respected though - so maybe the end justifies the means?...

2| Anticipative Positioning: Missing foul and maybe a missing Yellow Card for reckless tackle (19') as a result of a too static positioning not adapting new situations - thus he did not have the needed sidewise viewing angles.

3| Keep Control at Free-Kicks: In 90+2', Portugal executed a free-kick close to the penalty area. While Çakır was walking towards the penalty area to occupy a good position or maybe to preventively warn the players, Portugal already took the free-kick without waiting for Çakır's whistle. How to avoid that? Show them your whistle and send the clear message: Wait for my whistle. Also this situation was a good example showing that Çakır was not 100% focussed from my point of view.


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
8.26
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.4
8.3
AR1: Duran
8.40


8.4



8.4


AR2: Ongun
8.40



8.4



8.4


AAR1: Göçek
8.30


8.3


8.3


AAR2: Şimşek
8.45



8.4


8.5


4OF: Del Cerro
8.35



8.4


8.3













TEAM AVERAGE
8.32









 

4 Comments:

  1. " he treated some Icelandic players like primary school pupils and most Portuguese players like students" - Excellent analogy

    ReplyDelete
  2. very good analysis for each game. very professional!

    ReplyDelete
  3. watching the highlights of Turpin perfomance - he looked like he didn't take a whistle with him for the first 5 minutes - 3 or 4 clear fouls - it's not that it was physical duels so he wanted to let the play go - there was kicking and tripping. unacceptable at this level and I fully agree with this analysis. maybe that's the pressure?

    ReplyDelete
  4. fouls missed obvoiuosly*

    ReplyDelete

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