June 19, 2016

Refereeing Analysis for Matches 16-18 (Brych ENG-WAL, Královec UKR-NIR, Kuipers GER-POL)

Our analyses and marks for the last three referees who gave their debuts on 16 June: Felix Brych, Pavel Královec and Björn Kuipers.



Felix Brych's Team in England vs Wales

It is definitely a sign of trust by the UEFA Referee Committee if you get appointed to take charge of a British derby at a EURO tournament. Felix Brych and his teammates justified it in retrospect. Despite some minor mistakes and weaknesses here and there, the German officiating crew refereed the game very well in the big picture and, most important, got two immensely crucial decisions correct.


Important Situations:

VIDEO

1| Penalty in 16'?

Before coming to those two correct crucial decisions, let's touch on the penalty area incident in 16'. Considering how blatantly Davies pushes Dele Alli inside the penalty area, England could not have complaint much about a penalty. But Brych did not give it and even though this is - actually - a clear offence, it is simply not whistled at this level and such a tournament. This is no argument at all, but, in my view, reality. I strongly doubt that any of the 18 EURO officials would have given a penalty there.

2| Deliberate Handball in the Penalty Area (32')?

English forward Harry Kane and Welsh Ben Davies fought for the ball while expecting the ball from a high pass into the goal area. From the double header of Kane and Davies, the ball bounced towards the outstretched hand of the defender and made contact with it. Davies, who was going for a header and therefore made a player-natural, slight jumping movement, cannot really be blamed for the handball. His hand was not stiff, the ball unexpectedly came from a short distance and the arm was outstretched in a quite blatant manner - but for such a movement, having the hand there is simply natural and player-typical. I don't know how to hold balance otherwise. The most important thing: The ball was not in his visual field. In other words: He did not see the ball coming. All this happened in a tenth of a second. How can such a handball be deliberate then?

Correct decision by the referee, probably mainly taken by AAR1 Bastian Dankert. The problematic thing is, of course, that you can argue why the hand was outstretched that much. In my view, if you have played football at times the answer is the one I have given above. But even in our referee observer team and "experts" like Urs Meier deem it as a clearly deliberate handball. Handball is complicated, which explains these contrary opinions. Based on the current guidelines, I personally think that Team Brych have decided correctly.

3| No offside in the 1:1 goal

Perfect teamwork. AR2 was unable to decide himself who touched the ball last. The goal-scorer was in an offside position by several metres - everybody saw that. What AR2 could not see is whether the header came from the head of a defender or of an attacker and signalized that via micro (for sure) and via the standing still technique. Brych and AAR2 Fritz - either one of them or both - did see it though and putting all pieces of information together, the goal was correctly allowed. A massive call for the outcome of the game and surely one of the refereeing highlights of the tournament so far.




Positive Points:

1| Match Control and Acceptance: Handling a British derby with only 1 yellow card is strong. A small number of cards does not always mean that the referee did everything right. But in this case, Brych chose a suitable tactical approach (his line was pretty British in fact) and was fully accepted by the players. Full control over 90 minutes. That was the main goal the referee should pursue in such a game and the German succeeded in it.

2| Teamwork leading to accurate key decisions. At such a tournament, the big things are much more important than details. As one of our users pointed out, the referee of England-Wales will be remembered for good big decisions, not for small mistakes. UEFA can be happy.

3| Conflict Prevention. England-Wales sounds tough, and it could have become much tougher. But from the very beginning (conflict after some minutes at the upper sideline), Brych felt the character of the game and pro-actively managed conflicts and well communicated with the players. At any rate, a strong performance in the player management and control section.


Points for Improvement:

1| Teamwork in smaller situations. It does not make the best impression to overrule an assistant referee for an advantage 80m away from the opposite goal. Brych was all right to do that, but Lupp looked like a fool there. Of course, the assistant should be reminded on the wait-and-see-principle, but this was only one of two or three situations where I had the feeling that the decision-taking processes in the team could have gone a bit quicker or smoother.

2| Positioning. Sometimes he hindered play a bit - but never interfered with play. He could have moved a bit better to always ensure the best visual angles, too.

3| Accuracy in overall foul detection: Two mistakes - a free-kick given for England close to the penalty area was actually nothing, rather a dive by Alli than a foul. Not the clearest case of simulation, but never a free-kick for England. Brych standing 5m away should have seen that. And: A deliberate handball blocking a shot on goal was not deemed as such. IMO, it was deliberate, but also here one can have a different 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: Brych
8.46
8.4
8.4
n.a.
n.a.
8.4
n.a.
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
AR1: Borsch
8.40



8.4


8.4

AR2: Lupp
8.50



8.5

8.5

AAR1: Dankert
8.45



8.4


8.5

AAR2: Fritz
8.50



8.5

8.5
4OF: Jug
8.40



8.4

8.4











TEAM AVERAGE
8.46









 


Pavel Královec' Team in Ukraine vs Northern Ireland

The Czech Republican official did well in his first game, too. On paper, Ukraine vs Northern Ireland surely do not belong to the most valuable matches on a technical side. This was not helped by the heavy rain which caused a small suspension of the game as Královec and/or the delegate sent the teams to the tunnel for 2-3 minutes. On the whole, the match produced very few moments to shine for Královec. But nonetheless, there was one crucial situation to be solved.

VIDEO

Important Situation:

1| Deliberate Handball in the Penalty Area (8')?

Contrary to the handball in England vs Wales, this one did not really result from a completely unexpected ball. The shot could be expected. Nonetheless, there are other criteria that show that this decision is another "grey" one.

The arm neither was completely close to the body, but it did not go out too significantly either. He somehow made himself a bit bigger - in fact, he blocked a shot on goal which would not have been blocked by the rest of his body - but on the other hand, this enlargement of the body surface was not really significant.

Northern Ireland could not have complaint about a penalty kick, but I completely understand Královec' decision. If you are not sure - and this is no black-or-white situation for me - then better don't take a match influencing decision early in the game. I think 55:45 deliberate, but... an acceptable decision at least.



Positive Points:

1| Foul detection. Overall a really good level of identified fouls - clear line.

2| Consistent Management of the delaying the re-start. Consistent cautions for that, zero tolerance.

3| Positioning and Movement. Always producing good views and neither too close to nor too far away from play.


Points for Improvement:

1| Impression Management. There was one substitution which created some chaos. See yourself in the video (at the end). I won't start into going to investigate what happened there, but most probably, NIR #13 simply refused to leave the field of play. Simply chaotic, all this took 1-2 minutes and Královec' mimic and behaviour suggested that the referee team simply were not in full control of what was going on there (understandable though). Not the best impression - which he somehow rescued by his well-sold yellow card against NIR #14.

2| Conflict Management. In 38', UKR #17 and NIR #14 had a conflict at the sideline (see video). UKR #17 slightly punched his opponent - without much force so that we are far away from a violent conduct (in Copa America, you would be sent off for that). Královec saw the conflict and sprinted towards the centre of attention that made you think "What comes now?".. nothing came. A light word with the Northern Irish player, who did nothing wrong. The Ukrainian went away without any warning. Better take both players, give them a warning, let them shake hands and go on.


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
8.37
n.a.
n.a.
8.4
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
8.3
8.4
n.a.
n.a.
AR1: Slyško
8.45




8.4 8.5

AR2: Mokrusch
8.35





8.3
8.4

AAR1: Ardeleanu
8.40




8.4 8.4

AAR2: Patak
8.40





8.4
8.4

4OF: Sidiropoulos
8.25





8.3
8.2

TEAM AVERAGE
8.39



Björn Kuipers' Team in Germany vs Poland

VIDEO 1, VIDEO 2

The Dutch referee team were retained for Match No. 18 and therefore was the last officiating crew we had not seen in the tournament yet. On the one hand, Kuipers confirmed the good level of EURO 2016 refereeing. On the other hand, his tactical approach and line did not really go hand in hand with what we had previously seen from other referees.

His yellow card management was problematic for my taste. Khedira should have been cautioned after 40 seconds for a clearly reckless elbow offence. Of course, it is understandable that Kuipers did not want to give the probably planned stepwise approach after such a short time. Issuing a YC in minute 1 is not a dream of any referee. But in this case, it would have been a good signal and simply correct. A very strong warning would have been the minimum I could have lived with.

Two minutes later, he had no other choice. Again Khedira, this time making a clear tactical foul, quite blatantly stopping a promising attack in the midfield circle. Correct and determinedly communicated yellow. So far so good, the match stayed calm after that. What I then did not fully agree with was the yellow against Özil. A very light touch at the arm was enough to make a 90kg player down? Well.. furthermore, the action took place in Poland's own half, the foul - if you deem it as such - was somehow tactical, but the criteria for SPA were not clearly fulfilled. I think refraining from giving a card there would not have questioned his line, as the first SPA was much much clearer, and would have been the better decision for the rest of the game. Due to this soft yellow card, he had to give more yellows for offences which all were tactical, but in one case did not clearly stop a promising attack either.

However, his line was fully accepted and he was consistent in it. So: not a too big problem. It is also good that he is generally able to adapt his approach to incidents that were probably not predictable in his match plan. However, in the context of an actually very fair match and the whole tournament, this approach and line were not really suitable. But this is obviously a question of taste! For those, who agreed with his line, the performance surely was absolutely good.



Positive Points:

1| High level of control and authority. Before the match in the tunnel, on the field of play during the match and after the final whistle: Everybody respected Kuipers and his team. He kept one of the top matches of this EURO - at least this could have been expected - under good leadership and full control for the entire match time.

2| Empathic player management, good relation, full acceptance.

3| Positioning and Movement. Good backwards movement to adjust his visual angles while the ball was in play.


Points for Improvement:

1| Suitable line in disciplinary control. In my view, an exaggerated yellow card put him under pressure and resulted in a very low line in terms of SPA. A line which did not suit the character of the game and the impressions from 17 previous performances. It however suited to Kuipers' overall pedantic line in some foul situations such as fouls or contacts with defenders.

2| Identifying and punishing the reckless use of arms accordingly (1').

3| Advantage Rule: Only apply it when there is a clear team benefit (game advantage) - having ball possession is no advantage in itself (54', 60').


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: Kuipers
8.33
8.3
8.3
8.4
n.a.
8.4
n.a.
8.3
8.3
n.a.
n.a.
AR1: van Roekel
8.35
8.4 8.3




AR2: Zeinstra
8.35
8.4 8.3




AAR1: van Boekel
8.40
8.4 8.4




AAR2: Liesveld
8.40
8.4 8.4




4OF: Sidiropoulos
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.

8 Comments:

  1. Predictions for the last day:

    ITA-ITR: Hategan
    SWE-BEL: Brych
    ICE-AUT: Atkinson/Marciniak
    HUN-POR: Atkinson/Marciniak

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember there were discussions about Brych's performance in Barcelona-Atletico. Also I remember 3rd team gave Brych 8,5 justifying all his decisions in that match. Very harsh second YC, missed VC from Suarez (stud up) and unsportsmanlike behavior from him later on was reported. It seems that PLC had different opinion and that Brych got low mark because we didn't see him later in semis or finals. Again we have here two very problematic decisions from him about penalties. I don't think Collina will support both his decisions. Foul was obvious and I believe Karasev, for example, would give PK because he did that in two different situations but the fouls were softer than this one (and his decisions were justified here). Handball - no deliberate of course, but neither Vida's was (CRO diffender), and in both situations the arm was not in natural position at all. Yes, there were totally different occasions, but I believe most of refs would give PK there. We cannot know what will be Collina's opinion, but 8.46 mark is not reachable, I believe. About Vardy's goal - just watch where Brych and AAR2 was and watch how Brych immediately shoved on centaur when the goal was scored. He saw everything by himself, he was fully aware that it wasn't offside and AAR2 couldn't help him (and no need to), because Brych was much better positioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herbert Fandel told the German press that, without unveiling too much in his function as UEFA ref com member, the performance was widely seen as faultless. So...even though I do not want to comment on a mark average of 7 independent observers, maybe it is not that excessive.

      I don't see your point to be honest. Maybe Karasev would have given it. Karasev also gave a very soft if not incorrect one in Iceland-Hungary. So, where is the argument?

      Delete
    2. Teo, you can't really disagree with the referee's mark if you deem the 16' situation as an acceptable call and the handball incident as AAR1 area of responsibility. So actually the only mark which could be discussed is this of AAR1.

      Delete
    3. Of course, everyone has its opinion. Maybe observes are "influenced' by comments here on the blog and most of you comment here (I fully support that and would like to read opinions from all 3rd team observers, not only their marks - that would be precious for all). I just think there were mistakes and doubt such a big mark from UEFA observer. I didn't understand whether Fandel talked about CL match or this match in EURO, but if it was about Barca-Atletico's I wonder why we haven't seen Brych in last 10 matches because he is one of the biggest names, and we saw Cakir, Skomina and Clattenburg twice each. About Karasev - it is written above that you strongly doubt that any of the 18 EURO officials would give penalty there, and that it's not the case in this level, even though you admit that this can't be an argument. So, I just said that I believe that Karasev would whistle PK there (as one of those 18) because he gave two softer penalties. That was my point. I agree with you that penalty for Iceland was very soft and for me more mistake because attacker used contact to dive.

      Delete
    4. Actually, it's very difficult to assess whether the push happened outside or inside the penalty area. I tend to think that it was outside.

      Delete
    5. Brych wasn't possible because he is from munich and did already have whistled the final in euro-league

      Delete
  3. My predections fot Wednesday
    ISL-AUT Martin Atkinson (ENG) FO: Tasos Sidiropoulos (GRE)
    HUN-POR Szymon Marciniak (POL) FO: Svein-Erik Edvartsen (NOR)
    BEL-SWE Felix Brych (GER) FO: Tamás Bognár (HUN)
    ITA-IRL Ovidiou Alin Hategan (ROU) FO: Aleksei Kulbakov (BLR)

    ReplyDelete

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