February 21, 2017

Collum in charge of Leverkusen-Atlético, Mateu Lahoz to referee ManCity-Monaco

UEFA's Referee Officers have appointed Scotland's William Collum to oversee Bayer Leverkusen's reencounter with Atlético Madrid on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Antonio Mateu Lahoz from Spain will be in charge of Manchester City vs AS Monaco.




21 February 2017, 20:45 CET (BayArena)
Bayer Leverkusen - Atlético Madrid
Referee: William Collum (SCO)
Assistant Referee 1: Francis Connor (SCO)
Assistant Referee 2: David McGeachie (SCO)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Robert Madden (SCO)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: John Beaton (SCO)
4th Official: Alan Mulvanny (SCO)
UEFA Referee Observer: Bertrand Layec (FRA)
UEFA Delegate: Aleš Zavrl (SVN)

21 February 2017, 20:45 CET (Etihad Stadium)
Manchester City - AS Monaco
Referee: Antonio Mateu Lahoz (ESP)
Assistant Referee 1: Pau Cebrián Devis (ESP)
Assistant Referee 2: Javier Aguilar Rodríguez (ESP)
Additional Assistant Referee 1: Jesús Gil Manzano (ESP)
Additional Assistant Referee 2: Carlos Clos Gómez (ESP)
4th Official: Teodoro Sobrino Magán (ESP)
UEFA Referee Observer: Markus Nobs (SUI)
UEFA Delegate: Danilo Filacchione (ITA)

129 Comments:

  1. Both are very good appointments in my opinion!! Now I expect someone like Hategan/Turpin for Sevilla v Leicester and Felix Brych might be the favourite for Porto v Juventus?? That would leave some big names likes Çakir, Kuipers, Kassai, Eriksson for leg 2!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With Jokic and Brummeier as observers on Wednesday, I don't expect a "big name". I guess Aytekin and Hategan for the two matches.

      Delete
    2. I also predicted Aytekin for Porto, but Turpin for Sevilla.

      Delete
    3. Brummeier could indicate a "big" name. IIRC he had Proenca on Milan - Atletico on R16 a few seasons back.

      Delete
    4. Brummeier also at Chelsea - Paris SG with the (disaster) performance of Kuipers

      Delete
    5. Possibly the only really bad night Kuipers had in his career but really wonderful how the man has worked on it and made a nice comeback and still gets some very good appointments!!

      Aytekin for Porto v Juventus seems unlikely for me as he did a Juventus game in group stage!! Similarly the only games Brych has the highest probability of taking charge is Juventus v Porto as 3 other games involve German teams and Brych already took charge of PSG, Monaco, Napoli and Leicester City matches in group stage and playoffs!! So either Brych goes to Porto on Wednesday or he will head to Turin during 2nd leg that's what I feel is most likely!!

      Viktor Kassai at this moment is nursing a thigh injury so he surely won't be appearing before 2nd leg!! Çakir will be my choice for Dortmund v Benfica 2nd leg and likewise Kuipers for Napoli v Real Madrid!!

      Delete
    6. It would be very nice to see Kuipers in Napoli - Real Madrid :)

      Delete
    7. First of all, I should have entered the contest as my predictions for Tuesday's clashes were spot on :-)

      As for Wednesday, Aytekin or Hategan in Porto? Guys, seriously?? It's the most eye-catching fixture of this week, I expect a rousing atmosphere in Porto with two teams who've already lifted the UCL trophy twice. Note that Collina is not assigning referees to matches involving teams they had in the group stage, so I'd go for Kassai or Brych in Porto. Sevilla-Leicester should be challenging as well but here I think we can have someone like Hategan, Karasev or Sidiropoulos.

      Delete
    8. Kassai currently has an injury in his thigh so he most probably won't be available this week!! He might be involved 2nd leg onwards!! Hategan/Brych in Porto and Turpin in Seville will be my predictions!!

      Delete
    9. @Steve Smith you could be right about Porto - Juventus, at first glance I had this impression as well, but now I think that this game, at least in occasion of the first leg, can be a very good test for a name like Hategan / Aytekin / Turpin, and for some of them it would be also deserved.
      But in case of big name, I see Cakir there: he would meet again Juventus after 2015 CL final.

      Delete
    10. Is that injury confirmed? If so, I can only see Brych in Porto. Hategan or Turpin or Karasev in such a high-profile match like Porto-Juve would be really odd and difficult to explain. I guess Collina won't take risks. I'm not saying it is impossible but it is at Collina's peril that he picks Hategan for that match.

      Delete
    11. @Chefren, Çakir refereed Leicester-Porto in the group stage. Of course, Collina can always contravene the rule he seems to be following but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

      Delete
    12. You are right, so Brych would be the only option among experienced Elite officials, given the fact that Kuipers got already Juventus in group stage.

      Delete
    13. @Steve, yes Kassai's injury is confirmed and due to that he is out of his domestic league NB1 as well!!

      @Chefren, I've a feeling that Brych will be going either to Porto or Turin in Round of 16... If Collina decides not to appoint referees to teams they've already met before in this season, Juventus v Porto is the only game for which Brych is possible... In all other games either one German team is involved or Brych has already met one of the teams in group stage or playoffs this season!!
      And you're spot on..Kuipers had both Porto and Juventus in playoffs and group stage so he is not likely for this clash!! As I said earlier for me Kuipers perfectly fits for Napoli v Real Madrid considering all 1st leg results.. Will be interesting to find out how Collina makes the appointments!! 🙂

      Delete
    14. @ Steve: I don't know where you take the wisdom from that Collina would not appoint an official for a R16 match of a team he already oversaw in the group stage.

      Last season:
      Eriksson in Bayern-Olympiacos on MD5, Bayern-Juventus in Round of 16.

      Cakir in Barca-Roma on MD5, Arsenal-Barca in R16.

      Clattenburg handled Atlético 3 times within the CL group stage
      Velasco took charge of 2 PSG games
      Cakir handled Dortmund 2 times in UEL last season

      (just to mention a few examples, probably there are more).

      Moreover, of course Brych is the more logical option for Porto-Juventus. He is 80% sure I think. But a nice alternative could be indeed Aytekin whose estimation by UEFA definitely increased over the last months. For sure this game is no playground for Turpin, Hategan or alike.

      Delete
    15. @Niclas: Who says Collina is not going to repeat referees? I just said, based on what we've seen thus far for R16 appointments, he's not likely to assign referees to matches featuring teams they encountered in the group stage simply because he's not doing it, as, I believe, you've already made out. So, before going off topic, just take some time (you seem to need it) to correctly interpret what people say.

      By the way, you say Brych is 80% sure? So why did you predict Aytekin? Well, make no mistake, Aytekin might be Collina's choice, even though he would never be mine. In my view, Aytekin has neither the experience nor the capacity to handle this particular match. Too much for him. I do not hold Brych is a particularly sound referee but at least he's got the experience to be in charge of Porto-Juve. If this gets under your skin, I couldn´t care less. Learn how to live with other people's opinions.

      Delete
    16. I don't know where we had different opinions. I only thought you erred in terms of what you called a "rule", namely that UEFA would definitely not appoint someone again for the same team. If being corrected is off-topic for you, then this shows a lot.

      So apparently this got under your skin and you try to raise your self-esteem by challenging me now. Nice strategy, but no helpful one.

      Delete
    17. I don't know whether this is a question of language (lost in translation??) but you just have to reread my comments. Yeah, Collina SEEMS to be following a rule for this season's R16 appointments so far: no referee is having any team he had in group stage. I've never said that won't happen again. Does this mean "would definitely not appoint (...)"?? Oh, man, how bad was that from you? Rub up on your English and interpretation skills.

      What can I say about someone who says Brych is 80% sure and predicts Aytekin? :)

      You simply don't accept the fact that your predictions were totally off, as usual, which is quite telling. Aytekin in Porto-Juve? Only in your very particular world. Get over that frustration.

      Delete
    18. @Steve Smith
      'at usual' was way too far and completely wrong honestly. To my knowledge Niclas speaks fluently four languages, if you're English I can assure you that's three more than you ;-)
      Seriously though I thought maybe Niclas went too far with his first response - you proved him very right.
      And by the way Aytekin is a really promising referee and I wouldn't also be too surprised to see him in UCL again (after ARL - MON, 14/15). Why are you not convinced by him, and Brych I suppose also?

      Delete
    19. * Niclas' last response ^^

      Delete
    20. Well, your comment is especially confusing, to say the least, and really has no point. Let's see if you guys understand. I do not take any pleasure in badmouthing Aytekin and I'm not doing so. I just think he does not have what it takes for that match. It might even turn out to be a one-sided duel but, on paper, it does call for a safe pair of hands and, by the way, Collina fully holds with my view. It's a matter of knowing how things work.

      Delete
    21. I really won't go down to your level.

      As you are significantly lacking principles of respect, your comments will be deleted from now on. Share them somewhere else, please.

      Delete
    22. @ Mikael: I agree, maybe he could be also a candidate for Barca-PSG (given the 1st leg result..).

      Delete
  2. Deserved for Collum after a good group stage. You remember, one year ago the Scottish had only one game in Europa League KO stage if I'm not wrong.
    Mateu Lahoz in Manchester: there weren't too many alternatives for him, as we already pointed out.
    Now I expect Hategan and Turpin for Wednesday: both can go in both games, my idea is the French in Sevilla and the Romanian in Porto.
    Aytekin would be another possible name but I can't find room for him, perhaps he will appear in second leg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chefren, can we submit a 2nd set of predictions for the guess the referee game for tomorrow's matches?? 😛😝

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, everything is already submitted and decided, of course :D

      Delete
    3. Will have to target a high score in the leg 2!! 😛😛

      Delete
  3. OT:
    Felix Zwayer (Referee) and Tobias Stieler (VAR) will become the first German testing the VAR-system on the international stage. They will handle France-Spain in the end of March.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carlos Clos Gómez is again appointed as AAR after Legia-Ajax. I wish him all the best, but he will be under high pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. According to 'the Sun' Michael Oliver could leave the Premier League as well. It seems there is an offert from the American MLS.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/2892965/premier-league-faces-refereeing-crisis-with-michael-oliver-set-follow-mark-clattenburg-out-amid-interest-from-mls/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunFootball-_-20170218-_-813624006

    ReplyDelete
  6. First yc shown by Collum in 15.min., elbow to the head, correct decision

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good performance by Mateu Lahoz and his team so far (19'): a correct YC and some offside calls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree chefren but now i think tigh offside prior to 1-0 for city...

      Delete
  8. For me no offside as replays showed. Just perfectly level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't Sterling offside?!? 😕

      Delete
    2. Hello niclas. I correct myself. Sonorous call by ar1. Great call. Congrats to Cebrian Devis! :)

      Delete
    3. Correct call indeed... The replay with the markers clears it up for me as well!!

      Delete
    4. And now, very difficult decision to attribuate YC for simulation to Aguero...There is amplification to fall but Subasic is going to foul him...what do you think guys ?

      Delete
    5. World class decision. He falls before the contact and tries to fool Lahoz. But Lahoz could first point indirect free kick so everyone could see he didn't blow for a penalty.

      Delete
    6. Good point. It was not entirely clear immediately what he decided there.

      Delete
  9. No offside, all calls were excellent. The last one a few seconds ago for Monaco 1-1.

    ReplyDelete
  10. BRILLIANT decision by Mateu Lahoz. Aguero started to fall before the contact. Respect..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with you Niclas but there is clearly a lack of communication with these situations.

      Delete
    2. Must agree with you. Live it seemed a clear penalty (maybe also red card since he used his legs). But after the replay it's clear how he started falling much before the contact

      Delete
  11. Now we will have a big discussion with this YC for simulation.
    My first impression is that Aguero was already falling down when he was touched by keeper, and he looked for the contact. However, at the same time, it is difficult to explain this decision to fans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my post Chefren : in french, we say : " high spirits are meeting" ;) !

      Delete
    2. CLEAR PENALTY!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    3. I would back the referee on this... Clear simulation by Aguero as far as I'm concerned!!

      Delete
    4. Just to let you know, former Italian ref Cesari on tv said it was a clear penalty. I definitely don't agree with him

      Delete
    5. The only small opportunity to support Cesari's view is, for me, that the goalkeeper did challenge Aguero and lifted his leg out. So the question is whether we can expect from attackers to jump over risky and potentially unfair challenges by opponents and goalkeepers in particular. It is not my opinion in this concrete situation, but I could understand if others put this argument forward.

      Delete
  12. I agree with everyone!! Mateu Lahoz is having an excellent game at Manchester till now... Really impressive performance by the entire team UpTo now!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfect match for spanish crew! I admit i m not Mateu Lahoz fan but here his team is doing wonderful job ! 8,9 ? ^^

      Delete
    2. We will reach a more clear opinion about his performance after the 2nd half... But yes I'm not a Mateu Lahoz either but we all know that you can never really be sure of what you are about to get from Mateu!! Some days he is excellent whereas on other days he is dreadful... Really happy that it's the former till now tonight!!

      Delete
  13. 45': Elbow from Gabi against Chicharito in the penalty area. Not intentional, but still...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe Collum missed a penalty + YC for reckless elbow one minute before half time. I think that AAR2 Beaton could have seen the incident as well. For sure, a situation to be rewatched, as I have not seen a clear replay by now.

    Apart from that, solid refereeing by the scottish team. No crucial decisions, except the one i mentioned. Good communication and management. Collum was accepted from all the players. 1 YC for reckless elbow, correct in my view.

    ReplyDelete
  15. /m.vk.com/video-76470207_456254094
    YC to MNC#10, simulation

    Honestly fantastic decision imo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look at Aguero's upper body: It becomes stiff, the arms are slightly raised like a dying swan shortly before the contact. He sought the contact. But on the other hand the goalkeeper also caused it. Still, the elements of a dive weigh this out, IMO.

      Delete
    2. You can justify the try to avoid a contact if the tackle is reckless. It was not in my opinion, so play-on or YC for simulation would be correct calls.

      Delete
    3. In theory yes, I just think in this concrete case a decision has to be taken. You cannot waive play-on there, for me (doing nothing is almost impossible to sell in terms of decision communication).

      Delete
    4. I hate it, but this time I have to disagree with you guys. For me it is a PK and no card (no DOGSO since defender to attackers left hand side would probablz get the ball, but SPA with goalkeeper's ability to play the ball in the penalty area). The attacker is one who dribbles with small/short steps. He suddenly changed direction of movement and shortened his step unconsciously, without intention, as an automatic reaction of not stepping on oponent's leg. I agree with theory of "reading body language in cases of possible simulation" but can not accept it this time due to described above ;)

      Delete
  16. YC to Aranguiz (LEV) missed (50'). Kick from behind while not fighting for the ball. Only verbal warning... It's the second incident of this type in this game. No card issued.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Now penalty called by Gil Manzano. I think correct decision as well!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think nobody would have really cared if he let play flow. But the decision looks correct. DOGSO-YC?

      Delete
    2. It seemed like Matheu gave the corner thinking that the defender touched the ball. Good call by Gil Manzano and good teamwork

      Delete
    3. absolutely! big decisions going against City and pressure on the Ref Team is increasing but so far they have been very good.

      Delete
    4. I think it could have been RC for DOGSO but I'm indeed not totally sure about the chance to control the ball. I would back the referee.

      Delete
    5. Absolutely perfect vision of the situation for AAR2 Gil Manzano.

      Delete
    6. I rewatched the inciden, well Niclas, ball was really there, I changed my opinion. For me RC, I think attacker would have easily reached the ball.
      Challenge by defender was not a genuine attempt of course, so RC.

      Delete
    7. I'm with Chefren on this one... Possibly that should have been a red card for Otamendi!!

      Delete
    8. But to my mind of is clearly not the aim of MNC#30 to hit the attacker, rather surely to block/hit the ball. Not saying it justifies a decision, but control would have been very hard in case of a RC there, IMO anyway

      Delete
    9. I think that if het gave a RC on that position, he would have probably ended up like Cakir in Manchester with the Nani situation. I'm so happy for him that he gave a YC. I can live with that and I think a lot of people can too.

      Delete
  18. Excellent, really excellent performance by both assistant referees in Manchester, a few ago a top class offside flag by AR1.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Penalty for Atletico, but to me it was outside the box.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On watching a replay footage, I agree... Possibly a crucial mistake by Collum and his AAR2!!

      Delete
    2. The incidents and contacts inside the box weren't enough to whistle a penalty IMO!!

      Delete
  20. 57'Leverkusen.Atletico penalty inside or outside?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the holding continued inside, so penalty.

      Delete
  21. 58' - Clear Dragović' foul but difficult to say whether it was inside or outside the box. Whole scene in front of AAR2. My feeling is that the deciding contact occurred outside the box, but it was pulling, so surely the referee(s) has to be backed for that penalty call.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have seen it again. I think I have to change my view: Agreed, the decisive contact happened outside. Inside, the Atlético player even seemed to pull the Leverkusen defender, but not vice versa. AAR2 was maybe too close to judge it correctly (?). I think this could bring them a crucial mistake.

      Delete
    2. I don't think UEFA referee observer / referees committee will be so strict. They usually back referees in such incidents.

      Delete
    3. If the holding is unclear and maybe goes to the penalty area line, then yes. But I fear in this case it clearly (!) ends several cms outside. To be rewatched at any rate.

      Where I cannot defend Collum is not doing anything against Aranguiz. At least reckless, but rather violent kick into the legs. Would prefer a red card. (around 67')

      Delete
  22. Good YC:SPA at 55' but I would be careful of the impression laughing would give considering the two crucial decisions (basically correctly) taken

    ReplyDelete
  23. One thing I would suggest is that Mateu Lahoz makes his advantage signal a bit clearer. Rizzoli has a clear one arm advantage, but I feel Lahoz uses too similar a signal for play on and advantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Generally I am always quite amused when watching Mateu's gestures during fluent play - sometimes he is suddenly pointing to heaven or the stadium's roof or whatever..

      Delete
  24. Penalty appeal by Manchester City correctly rejected by Mateu Lahoz, challenge by defender was on the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Commentators on air are still cringing about that Aguero booking and still blaming Mateu Lahoz that he missed a penalty for Man City... I honestly feel that was at least a decision that can be backed and there is no real point in cringing so much about it!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Again very reckless foul from Aranguiz, this time Collum didn't even whistle for a foul, but few sevonds later he showed Aranguiz yc.Foul to me was borderline,very orange card.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What a miss by Collum... Only AR or 4OF informed him about Aranguiz' foul. YC was given, close to SFP... Big confusion regarding allowing fouled player to stay on the pitch although the medical treatment lasted around one minute...

    ReplyDelete
  28. 10 bookings in Manchester, Lahoz has been busy tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His mental toughness and emotional stability / confidence are sensational. The situation with Zabaleta (YC for dissent) is a perfect example of that.

      Delete
  29. Great onside decisions by AR2, probably with help from AAR2 in the end. Muy muy bien. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Atlético players deliberately eliminate themselves from the 2nd leg by earning stupid yellow cards...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's their stuff and that was expected, Collum can't show them direct rc for that :)

      Delete
    2. I'm not watching this game but it looks quite suspicious that before the fourth goal, Atletico had committed only 5 or 6 fouls without any card.
      Then, after the 4-2, three yellow cards in a row: 88', 89', 90'... players will miss next match, well. In my opinion UEFA should pay attention to such behavior.

      Delete
    3. Mourinho and Real Madrid did the exact same thing in 2011 and they were punished financialy.

      Delete
  31. The match in Manchester will surely be remembered as one of the best football matches ever. I think that this is also thanks to Matheu and his team that imho got all decisions right even if it was really hard. I hope that UEFA will back him against all polemics that will surely grow after the match

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lahoz has Atletico-Barca match over the weekend.It will be interesting to see can he continue with his good performance in that match too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Commentators on air are still cringing about that Aguero booking and still blaming Mateu Lahoz that he missed a penalty for Man City... I honestly feel that was at least a decision that can be backed and there is no real point in cringing so much about it!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lahoz was so amazing tonight and his assistants. Amazing decisions that were difficult and correct and 10 yellow cards, all correct. Even for protest which was great to see. Just amazing and a very brave performance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All 11 YC correct? Definitely not!

      Delete
    2. Explain which yellow was incorrect then

      Delete
  36. I have never been a fan of Lahoz. But toninght? My friend, where were you all this time :) Great performance in an incredible game

    ReplyDelete
  37. I watched now the penalty called by Collum and AAR2. Well, the holding starts outside the box but then has its effect inside. For me correct to assign a penalty, AAR2 was more than close to the incident, we must trust him.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Well I watched Bayer-Atletico game,and to me Collum was very good,nothing special,but no big mistakes.My only problem with him was that he didn't book Aranguiz earlier and he didn't whistled his foul which was very close to red card .

    ReplyDelete
  39. MAN. CITY - MONACO (Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz)

    35' - YC for simulation to Agüero
    https://streamable.com/0y1h7

    48' - Monaco's penalty, SPA vs DOGSO, if DOGSO - genuine attempt to play the ball or not...
    https://streamable.com/j9ulp

    69' - MC's penalty-appeal
    https://streamable.com/ra2zl

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding 48' - I think one can defend Mateu Lahoz for qualifying it as DOGSO by genuine attempt to play the ball. One can state, there was a try to clear the ball by leg from the defender. In case of SPA, there should be no card, as the offence was not pulling/pushing/holding. Another question is possible offside. Indeed, Mateu Lahoz raised his arm to signal an IDFK... What was first - foul or offside offence?

      http://pasteboard.co/Baxs8hy4Y.png

      Delete
    2. About 48': in my opinion it was impossible for the defender to reach the ball by that challenge, however we can't exclude that he had in mind to do that.
      Is this enough in order to assess the incident as a genuine attempt to play the ball? For me the answer is negative, ball is still too far away from defender's tackle and it is definitely impossible to reach it. The opponent is impeded in reaching it, so it should be a RC in my opinion.
      However, for the mentioned reasons, I think one can discuss, perhaps not a 100% clear RC and YC could be even backed by observer.
      I add a thing: very difficult to detect, no suitable replays in order to assess that, but it is possible that the player from Monaco fouled, on the pass by his teammate, was in extremely tight offside position. However, I wouldn't blame too much AR1, in case, this would be the only small mistake of the evening for him. We can't confirm that.

      35' is for me an excellent decision, as said, and 69' a correct one as well.

      Delete
    3. Mateu Lahoz raised his hand to signal an IDFK, so the offside (position) was most likely signalled by AR1. In such case, didn't the offside offence take place before the foul?

      Delete
    4. Is it possible that Mateu Lahoz was signaling corner kick with raised leg?

      Delete
    5. Well, and in case of offside, can you issue a card for the foul, given the fact that the attacker wont be able to get the ball (offside should be then called in that case)?.

      Delete
    6. I talked about this situation with someone from inside and if there was offside flagged by AR1, only the referee will get the 7,9 (AR signals offside, AAR says there was a foul and only the referee should know what happened at first - offside offence or foul).

      Delete
    7. First of all it is a genuine attempt to play the ball for me. I know that the written letters of the laws leave another interpretation open, but as far as I have understood UEFA's interpretation, challenges that clearly and genuinely aim at getting / playing the ball are enough for a YC in case of DOGSO-inside. In this situation, it was not the defender's intention to foul the opponent. It was no opponent-aimed foul. Instead, his sliding leg was targeted at clearing the ball, reaching it first before the attacker does. It was mistimed, but still rather ball-targeted in my view.

      On a separate note, one could deem it as challenging an opponent for the ball. But I am not so sure whether this was offside at all. We don't have a replay for that, stopping the live frames at the moment of the pass suggests "level" for me. But I agree: Mateu raised his hand for offside.

      Delete
    8. Regarding offside:
      Do we have an official solution for the Soares Dias / Lewandowski situation from last November? The same should apply here and I hope that at least the Spanish officials know the correct solution there. Personally, I would prefer offside instead of foul in such situations.

      Regarding card colour:
      For me it was reckless, an attempt to play the ball and borderline between SPA and DOGSO, so the YC is clearly correct IMO.

      Delete
    9. 35' - I have mentioned it somewhere above - PK and no card

      48' - PK and DOGSO with genuine attempt to play the ball

      69' - No PK, great call

      PK or offside - PK. Yes, the attacker was in an offside position but he should not be penalized for that. He should be penalized for challenging the opponent for the ball which happened and is considered as an act of interfering with an oponent. The interfering with an opponent (offside) took place at the same time as the illegal tackle, so we have two offences taking place at the same time. In such situations the referee should penalize more serious offence and in this case it is a PK (section 5, question 6 at http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/214/IFAB_LoG_FAQ_v4.0.pdf).
      Btw my impression of Lahoz's signaling was the corner kick... If he signaled offside, than he should have raised his arm and turn towards the Monaco's goal... Obviously, his signaling should be much clearer :)

      Delete
    10. I agree with Philipp when he says that in such situations he prefers offside. It is indeed something against the spirit of football if you whistle a penalty and you even issue YC / RC to a defender for a foul on a player who was in offside. Indeed, without the foul, the player wouldn't have been able to make anything. Can we penalize so much a defender? Offside in such situations should be always whistled, and I think all players should accept that. Otherwise, being in offside becomes an advantage and it is impossible to accept something like that. This would also make things clear for every situation, please try to explain to fans "referee must penalize the more serious offense".

      Delete
    11. UEFA Decision regarding Soares Dias' game in November: offside.

      Delete
    12. @Chefren - I am trying to read the instructions and put them in practice, sometimes I manage to do that and sometimes not:)
      Ability of assistant referees to differentiate offside position from gaining advantage from it, especially in terms of interfering with an opponent and interfering with play is what places them into good and better referee categories. In concrete case, the defender was not forced to commit illegal tackle, it was his choice and possibly, his intention. In case he made no tackle, there should have been an offside called. For your consideration, if the tackle was SFP, how could offside be explained to fans?
      The fact is that decisions should be called upon facts, and in both cases obvious facts are illegal tackle and offside position, but in one scenario the tackle is not that serious so offside seems fair decision, while in another one the tackle is blatant so the fair decision seems to be the PK. But, there has to be only one decision. Reading through the LOTG I found the section that explains the situation, or at least that is how I got it.
      @RayHD I was also told UEFA said the Soares Dias case was offside, but would like to read the explanation (maybe new UEFA RAP will give an answer). Until then, this will be my standpoint.

      At the end thanks for the patience of both of you and the rest of the blog readers.

      Delete
    13. The instructions are for the case, that both offences happen at the same time. Then the decision is indeed clear.
      But you can surely argue, that the offside happens first and then the foul becomes irrelevant.
      If you see it like this: The attacker prevents the defender from playing the ball and therefore the defender then fouls him - then the offside would be the first offence.

      Nevertheless I am not sure, what is right here. But if UEFA has made a decision on the Soares Dias situation, Mateu should have known that...

      Delete
    14. @ Philipp S - that is exactly what bothers me since Soares Dias case... Last night the offside offence indeed took place half a second prior to the tackle so chronologically it was the first offence that took place. But can we expect assistant referees to be that precise? This case (less than a second between two offences) is "at the same time" for me.
      In addition, if Mateu was told Soares Dias case was offside, than he has made a mistake. But Mateu was so concentrated last night that I doubt he would have gone wrong there. At the end, UEFA could give instructions for the time being, but IFAB will have to make the final call. And I just can not wait :)

      Delete
    15. @Shearer Absolutely no problem, don't worry. Of course, it was nothing against you but just my opinion. I must say you are right in everything you said, it is true that a defender is not forced to commit a foul, but of course he can't know whether the opponent is in offside or not.
      That is something I can hardly accept...
      However, in this specific case, if AR1 reported offside and Mateu Lahoz changed idea after that, according to RayHD source, he did a mistake, because this is a 100% similar case to Rostov - Bayern.

      Delete
    16. Sure, I do not take it personal, I really enjoy exchange of opinions and respect displayed by majority of bloggers here.

      Delete
    17. I like the discussion, but just a "marginal" question: Was there an offside at all? I am still very sceptical.

      Additionally, after having rewatched Mateu's hand signal from the replay behind the goal, I am quite sure that this was just another of his "I raise my arm, point to the roof and shake the hand"-play-on-gestures. No offside gesture, but "play-on".

      Delete
  40. LEVERKUSEN - ATLÉTICO (William Collum - SCO)

    15' - YC for reckless use of arms
    https://streamable.com/0fmhi

    31', 56', 69' - throw-in issues
    https://streamable.com/wl7ml

    32', 41', 42' - three Bellarabi's fouls, second being (close to) reckless, third being (close to) SPA
    https://streamable.com/wkfg3

    44' - LEV's penalty-appeal (illegal use of arms)
    https://streamable.com/flumh

    50' - Aránguiz' foul; well played advantage, but no card
    https://streamable.com/yv4r1

    58' - PK for holding; in- or outside the box
    https://streamable.com/2rnga

    64' - YC for studs-tackle
    https://streamable.com/sko1d

    73' - reckless or SFP? the referee misses the tackle even though he had a clear view
    https://streamable.com/ptg6o

    77' - LEV's penalty-appeal (handball)
    https://streamable.com/jqx7y

    88', 89', 90' - YCs to ATL players (the club should be punished for that)
    https://streamable.com/fc5ta

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @RayHD Thanks for videos (again)

      15' – Correct YC for reckless use of arms

      31', 56', 69' – the first was difficult to detect; the AR was far away, the referee was not in position to properly see it , the ball was on the edge of the line… from my point of view, the ball was in the field of play in both cases.

      32' - the first one is ordinary foul – no disciplinary measure; 41' - YC for reckless; 42' – YC for SPA

      44' – in order to maintain the same criteria, if the incident in 15’ was YC, than this one was YC and PK

      50' – great advantage, but YC was mandatory when the play was stopped.

      58' – it seems the holding ended when the attacker was on the line, so PK and YC for holding. The AAR should have better perceived the incident, he was one step too far from the incident and was not focused on pulling. Also, if he was one step further from the touch line, he would have seen the incident much better.

      64' – correct YC

      73' – wow, SFP. Intensity, straight leg, studs up, no control over the body… Although the ref received info from the team it was wrong with regard to disciplinary measure.

      77' – No PC, but Bay player 44 must have been cautioned for continuous dissent. This case was one of many we had seen during the match…

      88', 89', 90' – ATL no. 4 should be RC for violent conduct

      Delete
  41. OT:
    German referee Tobias Stieler has been selected to officiate at U21- European Championship in Poland. His assistant referees will be Rafael Foltyn and Jan Seidel; Benjamin Brand and Daniel Siebert will work as AARs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much, the confirmation that we will have referees from the same nation of the teams involved. So, we can expect in my opinion Kruzliak as a quite sure name, among others.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  42. Official names for EURO UNDER 21 2017 (post will follow soon):
    Ivan Kružliak (SVK), Harald Lechner (AUT), Jesús Gil Manzano (ESP), Benoit Bastien (FRA), Tobias Stieler (GER), Gediminas Mažeika (LTU), Serdar Gözübüyük (NED), Bobby Madden (SCO, Slavko Vinčič (SVN).

    ReplyDelete

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