January 28, 2017

AFCON 2017 - Referee Appointments for Quarterfinals

These are the officials appointed by CAF for AFCON 2017 quarterfinals. 



M25
28/01/2017, 17:00 CET, Libreville
Burkina Faso - Tunisia
Referee: BENNETT Daniel Frazer (South Africa)
Assistant Referee 1: SIWELA Zakhele Thusi (South Africa)
Assistant Referee 2: DOUMBOUYA Aboubacar (Guinea)
4th Official: BONDO Joshua (Botswana)

M26
28/01/2017, 20:00 CET, Franceville
Senegal - Cameroon
Referee: SIKAZWE Janny (Zambia)
Assistant Referee 1: DOS SANTOS Jerson Emiliano (Angola)
Assistant Referee 2: RANGE Aden Marwa (Kenya)
4th Official: NAMPIANDRAZA Hamada El Moussa (Madagascar)

M27
29/01/2017, 17:00 CET, Oyem
DR Congo - Ghana
Referee: CAMILLE Bernard (Seychelles)
Assistant Referee 1: ETCHIALI Abdelhak (Algeria)
Assistant Referee 2: IBRAHIM Abdallah (Sudan)
4th Official: MEHDI Abid Charef (Algeria)

M28
29/01/2017, 20:00 CET, Port-Gentil
Egypt - Morocco 
Referee: OTOGO-CASTANE Eric (Gabon)
Assistant Referee 1: BIRUMUSHAHU Jean-Claude (Burundi)
Assistant Referee 2: VINGA Teophile (Gabon)
4th Official: TESSEMA WEYESA Bamlak (Ethiopia)

22 Comments:

  1. Abel Baba (NGA) appointed, he had a two-crucial-mistakes performance in group stage...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no logic in the appointments, neither of referees nor assistant referees, made by CAF.

      Delete
    2. You were heard: Etchiali replaces Baba.
      Otogo's assistants are Birumushashu and Vinga.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Philipp, but are we sure that the original appointment was with Baba? Now one could say it was just a wrong info...

      Delete
  2. BURKINA FASO - TUNISIA (Daniel Frazer Bennett - South Africa)
    http://streamable.com/album/r3j8f

    Key Match Incidents:
    31', 33' - small TUN's penalty-appeals waved away by the referee; both holding and jumping at an opponent were not enough to give a penalty, IMO
    32' - possible YC for reckless kick to #18 BFA
    33' - YC for unsporting behaviour to #20 TUN; wasn't it a retaliation to the BFA GK's violent conduct? could it have been spotted by the referee team?
    37' - BFA's goal disallowed by AR1 due to offside; correct call
    53' - another foul of #2 TUN who has been already booked for PI, most likely an advantage was played, then a small penalty-appeal, imo rightly waved away by the referee
    79' - possible 2nd YC for handball to #2 TUN; BFA team and coach were demanding a 2nd yellow card, Tunisian players protested it was not a handball; IMO, no clear promising attack were denied, so good choice to not issue a second YC

    Other issues:
    02' - advantage use
    12', 28' - management of holding inside the box
    15' - was it really a foul on GK?
    19', 21' - good YCs for studs-tackles
    38' - YC for persistent infringing the LoTG, wasn't it too harsh?
    49' - possible YC for reckless tackle
    88', 90+1' - comic confusion with substitution, Bondo was really angry :)
    90+4' - tactical whistle? the referee doesn't like such play? ;)

    All in all, a very good performance, high level of control, very alert, firm and calm appearance. Daniel Bennett has become a big candidate to handle the final.

    My prediction is:
    BFA-CMR (Gassama)
    2nd semi (Diedhiou)
    3rd place (Nampiandraza)
    final (Bennett, Camille or Sikazwe) - one of two first being my wish

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2' I agree with him that there was no team benefit in the end
      12' & 28': good management, 28' is really like comedy. Maybe a YC would have sent an even clearer signal, but I guess his body language and warning words had a similar effect
      15' for me, yes, foul.
      19' & 21' well seen, and of course a better balance within 2 min. is hardly possible..
      31' of course difficult to see without replay. But tbh my first feeling after watching your slow-motion is rather a catching-like holding offence
      32' careless, empathic decision to leave him alive
      33' holding: nothing
      33' mass c.: much theatre, for me it is no clear retaliation but rather an action to keep the opponent away. The GK made a lot out of it, too. Orange, maybe, but no clear violent conduct IMO.
      37' correct and clear
      38' as I guess he warned him earlier while the replay was played (probably he whistled to order him back), deeming it as PI is ok for me. Otherwise the warning (assumed he gave it) loses its sense
      49' rather reckless and maybe even more SPA
      53' play-on is OK for me
      66' clear YC
      79' if he deems it as deliberate handball, he should also issue a 2nd YC I believe (rather SPA for my taste, dynamic attack)
      82' maybe #7 was level with the goalkeeper, otherwise missed offside (behind the goalkeeper)
      90+4': no reason for the whistle IMO

      All in all from the clips you nicely cut and provided my feeling is that Bennett's management abilities, authority and communication are belonging to the best you can find among the current African top referees (even though I dare to say they are still only "solid"). His decision-making was quite good as well, even though I think the handball wants a 2nd YC even with the new LotG (on the other hand I think it is no black-and-white case). But I agree: Considering the possible constellations in the final, Bennett might make most sense in terms of geographical politics - and apart from that, his performances and experience level justify it.

      Delete
    2. 31': difficult to assess, we must back referee, in addition such execution of free kick (not directly in penalty area, which was expected by many players and perhaps even Bennett) didn't help in order to assure a visual control by officials in that area, in my opinion.
      33': Definitely nothing. Correct decision to play on.
      32': We are really close to reckless but I think careless is still a supportable choice, given the kind of challenge, it was honest with the only intent to hit the ball, opponent was not expected to be there when he was hit.
      33': not a clear violent conduct, I agree with Niclas there, in such cases I think YC can be enough, and yes... all the players involved made it more than it really was, however I want to praise Bennett, he looked always calm and in control in a potentially hot moment of the game.
      37': correct offside call.
      53': ok decision to give advantage, and I don't see the need of YC there, then I would also back the referee regarding the small penalty appeal, I think good call to play on, no penalty.
      79': I think in case of deliberate handball there, YC should follow for having stopped a promising attack. Without the touch, the player who was attacking would have regained the possession of the ball and then leading a promising attack in penalty area. But the replay shows that the touch occurred by chest...

      Delete
    3. 33' - I agree that TUN player behaviour merited only a YC but what do you think about BFA GK's who (deliberately) stamped on the opponent's leg?

      Delete
    4. I'm not 100% sure he did that deliberately, in this case even a small doubt is enough to back the referee. If you watch carefully his behavior, after the stamping he immediately reacts fairly, at least that's what I get.

      Delete
    5. 79 it comes off his chest and even it it was handball it was absolutely not punishable since the body was tucked in. And if the ref blowes the whistle there it is an obvious SPA.

      Delete
  3. SF predictions
    BFA-EGY: Camille, Ali, Ibrahim, Gassama
    CMR-GHA: Diedhiou, Camara, Samba, Charef

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mine:
      BFA-EGY: Nampiandraza (MAD), Range (KEN), Ahmed Ali (SUD)
      CMR-GHA: Gassama (GAM), Birumushahu (BDI), Etchiali (ALG)

      Delete
  4. SENEGAL - CAMEROON (Janny Sikazwe - Zambia)
    http://streamable.com/album/x8e4x

    Key Match Incidents:
    13' - YC for studs-tackle to #9 SEN; RC for SFP possible
    27' - possible 2nd YC to #9 SEN for a studs-tackle on the GK
    30' - possible 2nd YC to #6 CMR for a challenge near the benches
    45' - SEN's penalty-appeal (holding) waved away by the referee
    51' - SEN's penalty-appeal (tripping) waved away by the referee
    51' - SEN's penalty-appeal (GK's intervention) waved away by the referee
    68' - SEN's penalty-appeal (handball) waved away by the referee
    80' - CMR's penalty-appeal (jumping at an opponent) waved away by the referee
    90' - possible 2nd YC to #19 CMR for a foul that advantage was played for

    Other issues:
    01' - positioning
    04' - first YC in the game possible for studs-tackle
    41' - good management, the referee whistles a deliberate handball, because the player wanted to win a free kick by catching the ball
    45+1' - really late whistle that makes CMR players upset; most likely advice
    52', 102' - illegal use of arms
    57' - very good advantage
    62' - missed mandatory YC for reckless kick in the head
    108' - confusion with substitution, not the first time at this tournament
    112' - possible YC for SPA, the referee is helpless to the injury treatment SEN team want to make on the pitch

    Both teams played in a very fair manner, no malice, no cynical fouls, it was really nice to watch that game. The referee had full control and the only clear and important mistake was the non-given penalty to SEN in the 51st minut, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13': given the point of impact not a mandatory RC for SFP, however looking only at the potential of this tackle, I must say the player was very lucky to get only YC. So, I would say: RC possible but not 100% mandatory and referee can be backed.
      27': By book, second YC was mandatory there, but you know, when you have such situations on the pitch and nobody protests, I think you can apply common sense, sorry to say that, but it is the only explanation. Indeed, the action was clearly reckless. Would be a crucial mistake but difficult to think an observer can assign it.
      30': In this case, careless is an acceptable reading, no need of YC.
      45': The holding is very borderline to have a real effect but I still think one can say "not enough", however, very dangerous action by defender, a few more and a penalty could have been whistled.
      51' (tripping): Clear penalty, a crucial mistake by referee. The contact was with opponent's leg, ball away.
      51' (GK): ok decision to play on, for me definitely not enough for a penalty.
      68': No deliberate handball, arm is close to body, the ball touches at first the chest, correct decision.
      80': Nobody would whistle such penalty and I agree with referee.
      90': Advantage was a good choice, then I think the foul by itself could have been assessed as reckless, however the opponent jumped, under a certain aspect the full contact was avoided, and for some reasons one could back the referee, but I must say I would have liked to see YC.

      So, all in all I agree with you, the missed penalty in 51' was the only clear mistake, about the other situations we can always discuss and let's remember that the concept of crucial mistake, applied to a possible second YC missed is always something very particular, it must be 100% clear.

      Delete
  5. Official designations:

    1 February 2017 at Stade de l'Amitié, Libreville (Gabon)
    Egypt vs. Burkina Faso
    Referee: Malang Diedhiou (Senegal)
    Assistant Referee: Djibril Camara (Senegal)
    Assistant Referee: El Hadji Malick Samba (Senegal)
    4th official: Hamada Nampiandraza (Madagascar)
    --------------
    2 February 2017 at Stade de Franceville, Franceville (Gabon)
    Cameroon vs. Ghana
    Referee: Bakary Papa Gassama (Gambia)
    Assistant Referee: Jean-Claude Birumushasu (Burundi)
    Assistant Referee: Walied Ahmed Ali (Sudan)
    4th official: Joshua Bondo (Botswana)

    ReplyDelete
  6. DR CONGO - GHANA (Bernard Camille - Seychelles)
    http://streamable.com/album/hds28

    Key Match Incidents:
    36' - COD's penalty-appeal waved away by the referee; mutual foul in the box?
    51' - GHA's penalty-appeal waved away by the referee
    67' - quick free kick allowed prior to the equalizer
    70' - COD's penalty-appeal waved away by the referee
    74' - possible straight RC for SFP to #18 GHA
    77' - GHA's penalty-kick, possible 2nd YC for SPA to #13 COD

    Other issues:
    20', 47', 58', 69' - persistent infringing the LoTG by #11 GHA
    90+2'-90+5' - time-wasting, management
    05' - handball deemed as deliberate by AR2 (imagine a penalty whistled for that)
    07' - foul and SPA missed?
    90+1' - AR2's help in managing the wall
    89' - missed mandatory YC for reckless tackle?
    27', 47', 49', 76', 77' - possible YCs for SPA not given

    One clear and important mistake made by the referee in the 51st minute of the game, in my opinion. Ghana should have had a penalty for that careless kick. The rest was at least acceptable, but I would prefer a RC for SPA in the 74th minute and would expect a better management regarding time-wasting of GHA at the end of the game. Good that he allowed that quick free kick leading to the COD's equalizer. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5': I disagree with AR, not a deliberate handball.
      7': It is in my opinion a foul, outside penalty area. Free kick and YC for SPA missed by referee and AR2.
      15': YC for SPA is acceptable, however for me not mandatory.
      20' - 47' - 58' - 69': first foul is borderline to reckless, perhaps YC would have been already justified there. Player was lucky to get the card only in the case of the third foul.
      27': no YC is ok, no SPA, free kick execution is regular as well, I don't see faults in DR Congo's player.
      36': both players have their arm on opponent's body, and it looks like they made the same thing, so OK to play on, even though one could say that player from Ghana made something more but still, considering the behavior of the opponent, it is convenient to play on.
      49': not a mandatory YC for SPA, but if we compare this situation to the one in first half (15') one could say referee was not so much consistent, however still not a clear mistake for me.
      51': it is in my opinion a penalty, contact on the opponent is clear, crucial mistake by referee, the position in which the foul occurred was however not the best one in order to assess correctly the incident.
      51': no foul for me, we can't have a clear evidence there, best solution is play on.
      59': correct decision by referee, this time I would add there is also something reckless in this foul, apart from the possible SPA.
      61': correct, given the quick counterattack and again, the challenge was also reckless.
      67': good management by referee in allowing a quick execution of this free kick.
      70': agree with referee, no penalty.
      74': surely reckless and mandatory (at least) YC, SFP possible (excessive force, tackle from behind), but referee can be still backed. Nevertheless, I would have liked a RC.
      76': possible YC, perhaps a few meters more and referee would have issued it.
      77': Penalty is justified, however I would have liked YC for SPA, it was clearly a promising attack inside the box, this would mean another crucial mistake (missing second YC). The overall management of cards regarding SPA, now I can say that, was not 100% convincing, even though one could back the referee in several situations, as explained.
      89': careless is a supportable choice.
      90'+1: Good cooperation by AR2.
      90'+2, 90'+5: Camille could have spent some warnings there, but at the end I don't see a big problem. We see even worse scenes in most of the games... however DR Congo didn't complain so much, this is quite strange, in my opinion.

      Overall assessment: one crucial mistake, 51' penalty (agree with you) and the need of finding more consistency in issuing YC for SPA. Referee can be backed in many situations, but a more reasonable management of cards, regarding promising attacks, would have contributed to a better performance. If this was the last game of his tournament, I think that Camille can be satisfied.

      Delete
  7. How did Otogo-Castane perform in the Egypt v Morocco game?? Can someone please provide an update on that?? 🙂

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Videos will be shared later today :)
      Very whistle-happy like in his first game. However, it was not so challenging game as many expected to be.

      Delete
    2. I personally felt that there were more deserving names for a quarter final rather than Otogo-Castane but CAF surely thought otherwise... I'm really disappointed with Nampiandraza missing out on a knockout stage game... He was really impressive in one game of his that I know and had a decent season overall as well... Unlucky to miss out!!

      Delete
  8. EGYPT - MOROCCO (Éric Arnaud Otogo Castane - Gabon)
    http://streamable.com/album/tv77p

    Key Match Incidents:
    10' - YC to #8 EGY for reckless tackle; possible RC for SFP?
    55' - EGY's penalty-appeal waved away by the referee

    Other issues:
    Foul selection - many strange whistles, really low acceptance of physical contact
    24' - missed mandatory YC for reckless foul?
    40', 70' - missed corner kicks
    55' - dangerous play, did the referee play an advantage? would he have been right to do that? of course, the shot was superb ;)
    63' - illegal use of arms - careless vs reckless?
    80' - missed YC for kicking the ball away after the referee's whistle?
    90+5' - is the wall set 9.15 m from the ball?

    An okayish performance, 8.2 or more likely 8.3 due to rightly rejected penalty-appeal should be the mark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Foul selection: good clip, even the players noticed this approach by referee and they were disturbed, in my opinion there should be a limit, some whistles were only mistakes, it is not possible to punish every small contact, so in case of incidents in penalty areas, everything should be a penalty... well.. especially the early 20 minutes were definitely poor managed by Otogo-Castane!
      10': Difficult situation, the challenge involves both players, they suffer a mutual injury. However, I agree with referee in assigning responsibility to #8 EGY and I can also agree with YC. Criteria for SFP are not 100% fulfilled and the challenge, as said, was quite mutual.
      24': Agree with you, reckless. YC was missing there.
      40' - 70': Yes, missed corner kicks. Mistakes by assistant referees.
      55': At the end advantage was a good choice, because the team suffering the foul was still in possession of the ball and there was this excellent shot, but honestly it was perhaps better to whistle the foul.
      55' (penalty appeal): nothing, I agree with referee, correct decision to Play on. But of course... not consistent with the foul detection in the rest of the game and under this point of view a crucial mistake, so? :)
      63': for me borderline but more reckless, however not a clear mistake in assessing it as only careless.
      74': Correct decision by referee. Reckless.
      80': of course a missed YC according to LotG, but very often we see referees being lenient with that.
      90'+5: Difficult to answer to your question, my feeling is NO.

      So, all in all I think we have two missed YC but, first of all, a foul detection that needs definitely to be improved, it is not possible to whistle every soft contact. I agree with Castane about the rejected penalty appeal, but if I compare that to the calls made in the early 20 minutes, I don't find something consistent.
      Mark could stay 8.2 I think.

      Delete

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