UEFA EURO Analysis: Day Three (ENGCRO, AUTMKD, NEDUKR)
13 June ought to be remembered as the day that EURO 2020 'came alive' - at least from our (refereeing) perspective. Easily the best game so far for football fans, and the most interesting for us happened in this trio of matches. UEFA can still be pleased with the wider perception of their officials, however it also contained the first weaker performance thus far. Dissected in this post.
We will start with the most challenging game so far on this occasion.
Andreas Ekberg's team in Austria - North Macedonia
Big Decisions
Incidents:
28' - Fair challenge before the 1-1* goal?
52' - Potential red card to North Macedonia no.8 (SFP)
81' - Potential second yellow card to North Macedonia no.8 (striking)
---
There actually isn't really any conclusive angle, but the decision to allow the goal at 28' seems quite correct - Ekberg has the incident in his visual control (impossible to get the ideal position further leftwards), and perhaps the key signal is the instantaneous reaction of the Austria goalkeeper; he doesn't expect a whistle.
It seems as though the keeper is still making a saving action when there is fair collision between him and Aleksandar Trajkovski, causing the ball to spin away. Untidy, but no foul. In my experience, such 'random' unexpected incidents are very challenging, and the Swedish ref did well not to panic and instantly blow up.
I don't think at any era in refereeing history (maybe WC 2006 (?), but I don't think so anyway) would the tackle at 52' be considered worthy of a red card. Not least because Alioski is pushed, but that he is in control of his body, and there is no dangerous contact at all. Correct yellow card.
I didn't see any comments about this situation in the discussion page, but the theoretical evidence is rather clear - that's a reckless striking offence by already-booked Alioski who, by the book, should have been ejected.
28' - Fair challenge before the 1-1* goal?
52' - Potential red card to North Macedonia no.8 (SFP)
81' - Potential second yellow card to North Macedonia no.8 (striking)
---
There actually isn't really any conclusive angle, but the decision to allow the goal at 28' seems quite correct - Ekberg has the incident in his visual control (impossible to get the ideal position further leftwards), and perhaps the key signal is the instantaneous reaction of the Austria goalkeeper; he doesn't expect a whistle.
It seems as though the keeper is still making a saving action when there is fair collision between him and Aleksandar Trajkovski, causing the ball to spin away. Untidy, but no foul. In my experience, such 'random' unexpected incidents are very challenging, and the Swedish ref did well not to panic and instantly blow up.
I don't think at any era in refereeing history (maybe WC 2006 (?), but I don't think so anyway) would the tackle at 52' be considered worthy of a red card. Not least because Alioski is pushed, but that he is in control of his body, and there is no dangerous contact at all. Correct yellow card.
I didn't see any comments about this situation in the discussion page, but the theoretical evidence is rather clear - that's a reckless striking offence by already-booked Alioski who, by the book, should have been ejected.
Of course, in the bigger picture, it was wise to turn a blind eye to it - though to be honest my feeling is that Ekberg just missed it on a perception level - nobody wanted this red card, the first of the EURO, and so on, but at least for 'us', a scene of note at least.
Summary
Andreas Ekberg's performance was not convincing. It wouldn't be wrong to say that he "didn't lose" in this game, especially in the bigger picture, but most certainly in my eyes he was not a winner of the evening too.
The Swede chose the wrong approach for this game, or at any rate decided that he couldn't execute a more appropriate one. North Macedonia offer a different challenge to other nations at this EURO, it is naïve to officiate their games as referee trying to do the same things as for other clashes.
The Swede chose the wrong approach for this game, or at any rate decided that he couldn't execute a more appropriate one. North Macedonia offer a different challenge to other nations at this EURO, it is naïve to officiate their games as referee trying to do the same things as for other clashes.
Ekberg could never guide the players towards fair play and shared purpose in this tie. In key first half incidents he failed:
- at 10', he spotted the aggressive behaviour push, no clear warning (signal to the players, audience that this kind of unsporting action would be tolerated).
- his management of the 16' dissent was to look tough, but ultimately end up the loser; despite the aggressive gesture, the referee didn't confront this play (and he ran at the referee, by the way), and just walked away.
- the public warning at 17' gave the impression of a referee over his head, and one anonymous user summed up perfectly the nature of this warning, pro forma; he didn't even have the Austria player near him for this warning, given not because Ekberg wanted to try and mould the players' actions, but because he knew UEFA mandated it.
- key player Alioski and Saša Kalajdžić have a small contretemps, full in the view of assistant Mehmet Culum, who either chose not to inform his boss, or between them they decided to let it go (24')
- key player Alioski and Saša Kalajdžić have a small contretemps, full in the view of assistant Mehmet Culum, who either chose not to inform his boss, or between them they decided to let it go (24')
- after a deliberate foul by his teammate at 38', Enis Bardi boots the ball away in a manner which clearly challenges the referee's leadership of the match, but again no reaction from the Swedish ref
This tolerating of dissent (eg. 67', 73') continued in the second half. Indeed, Ekberg ensured that he would not 'lose' this encounter, but most certainly he was very far away from winning it. He synthesised this distant, aggressive manner with a lenient disciplinary control.
This tolerating of dissent (eg. 67', 73') continued in the second half. Indeed, Ekberg ensured that he would not 'lose' this encounter, but most certainly he was very far away from winning it. He synthesised this distant, aggressive manner with a lenient disciplinary control.
Sure you can defend no yellow card at 19' (opponent put his leg across), 51' (nobody really cared), 66' (late and still careless), but there was really no harm in 'making a point' in this game. He was visibly not in control of scenes when cautions were issued at 52', 85'.
When you add to this a lower-level foul detection, which only inflamed everybody a little bit more, then unfortunately we have to reflect on the first subpar performance in the infancy of this EURO. With the level displayed by other refs so far (albeit in less challenging games), Andreas Ekberg might be in trouble regarding a second appointment.
Felix Brych's team in Netherlands - Ukraine
Big Decisions
Incidents:
6' - Potential penalty to Netherlands (handling)
6' - Potential penalty to Netherlands (handling)
25' - Off-the-ball striking incident
28' - Potential penalty to Ukraine (tripping)
58' - Goal call (*2-0) supported after VAR check
---
28' - Potential penalty to Ukraine (tripping)
58' - Goal call (*2-0) supported after VAR check
---
My thoughts:
6' - arm close to the body, not extended (à la the penalty given by Melissa Borjas in NEDJPN at the last WWC, still assessed as correct), correct play on
25' - hard to make out exactly what happens but never a violent conduct
28' - correct play on by Brych.
ITV, as the clip shows, had access to some further angles used in this halftime analysis, makes for interesting viewing. Van Aanholt did not play the ball as I first thought - I wonder if Brych thought the same - but the decision to give the go on was correct regardless.
58' - if the officials spotted the offside offence, and Lupp communicated to Brych that the attacker in question was onside: excellent. If they didn't and it was just confirmed by VAR: something of a bad miss, but the result would have been correct regardless. This is where Vítor Melo Pereira has a significant advantage on me - a debrief!
---
I liked this performance by Brych a lot. He let the game go on and saw through easy falls (eg. 11', 20', 24', 58'), only making one mistake in foul detection, which was 58'. The key scene of the match in terms of sanctions was 61' - the German ref sensed this too, and jumped in with a verbal warning, perfect.
The only negative point really is the missed delayed flag by Stefan Lupp, no replay, at 56'. A convincing show by the German officials, perhaps the most positive performance thus far (together with Anthony Taylor in DENFIN).
6' - arm close to the body, not extended (à la the penalty given by Melissa Borjas in NEDJPN at the last WWC, still assessed as correct), correct play on
25' - hard to make out exactly what happens but never a violent conduct
28' - correct play on by Brych.
ITV, as the clip shows, had access to some further angles used in this halftime analysis, makes for interesting viewing. Van Aanholt did not play the ball as I first thought - I wonder if Brych thought the same - but the decision to give the go on was correct regardless.
58' - if the officials spotted the offside offence, and Lupp communicated to Brych that the attacker in question was onside: excellent. If they didn't and it was just confirmed by VAR: something of a bad miss, but the result would have been correct regardless. This is where Vítor Melo Pereira has a significant advantage on me - a debrief!
---
I liked this performance by Brych a lot. He let the game go on and saw through easy falls (eg. 11', 20', 24', 58'), only making one mistake in foul detection, which was 58'. The key scene of the match in terms of sanctions was 61' - the German ref sensed this too, and jumped in with a verbal warning, perfect.
The only negative point really is the missed delayed flag by Stefan Lupp, no replay, at 56'. A convincing show by the German officials, perhaps the most positive performance thus far (together with Anthony Taylor in DENFIN).
Daniele Orsato's team in England - Croatia
Rather little to say about this expected level performance - some small pointers I would highlight:
- common-sensical dropped ball at 5', though positioning was a partly noticeable problem in this match (especially early on)
- common-sensical dropped ball at 5', though positioning was a partly noticeable problem in this match (especially early on)
- missed freekick to Croatia followed by soft freekick to England at 16' led to a very minor mobbing by Croatia players
- everyone accepted the 66' SPA card but my feeling is that the attacker fell of his own accord
- very good freekick call at 85', calmed the Croatia players down
- Orsato should have jumped in at the potential aggressive behaviour scene at 86'
Alessandro Giallatini had one of the more challenging matches for an assistant so far, all good decisions (8', 17', 39') besides a wrong flag at (47'). Still 8,3 in the UEFA system [7 in mine] performance.
No problems for Daniele Orsato's trio, a similar top appointment should constitute his next assignment.
No problems for Daniele Orsato's trio, a similar top appointment should constitute his next assignment.
Balance
Another good day for UEFA refereeing - Daniele Orsato and Felix Brych performed well, and Andreas Ekberg's below expected-level performance is not the kind that arouses wide media attention. Roberto Rosetti and his team must hope this strong impression continues!
){kind=link}
Posting Komentar untuk "UEFA EURO Analysis: Day Three (ENGCRO, AUTMKD, NEDUKR)"