Marciniak had a good match. His assistant had a decision in the 2nd half where it looked like Erikson was a yard onside... but the replay wasn't very good. With maybe 1 tough KMI involving an AAR and contact in the penalty area in the first half. Nothing else really to write home on.
Mazic's team appears to have sanctioned an offside goal as the winner in Monaco: https://streamable.com/dpsy5 When you're under consideration to do the Final, this is the sort of thing that puts you in a hole against your competition.
I would argue Mazic missed a DOGSO, too: https://streamable.com/hbbvp I wonder if the Confed Cup rattled him and his team at all. Doesn't seem to be performing at the level he was last season.
The rule change is old news now, but the Real Madrid penalty was a great example of the DOGSO yellow working very well. The Spurs player made a fair last-ditch attempt to make a tackle and it didn't work.
I think that touch pushes the ball maybe a strides length away for him to control. Leaving him an out for the caution. But yeah I can see how you can argue dogso-f.
Definitely disagree. At the moment Pepe first makes contact, the ball is less than 3 yards in front of the attacker. By the time he fully hits the turf, it's 4-5 yards. You can tell this because the cuts of the grass are in 6-yard increments. This isn't a ball he played 10 yards in front of him. It's slightly heavier in order to complement the burst of speed past the defender, but it's not a situation where he made a mistake and gave up control of the ball. Things start to look deceiving once the foul contact occurs and starts to slow the attacker down. If you look at this frame-by-frame, I don't think there's any doubt he would have controlled the ball.
I agree with MR. Note that the GK never appears close--he had plenty of time to reach that ball. (And we are past the argument that the ball was heading toward the goal line not the goal.)
Considering the the law still says "likelihood of keeping or gaining control" I don't see how your argument holds any relevance tbh. Without the foul the attacker was pretty much certain to be both first to the ball and in a position to have a shot on goal. Had the keeper come rushing out to challenge for the ball then that might have changed it but as SoCal say, that never happened.
That's a good question. I agree with you. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the attacker who actually received the ball was also in an OSP. So even if the referee was correct in making his hero call (let's pretend for a moment he could have been), you then have a second player who either the AR couldn't communicate immediately was in an OSP or didn't realize, because he had locked in his focus on the first player. Oh, and then play goes toward goal and there is a third player who receives the ball--luckily in an onside position, barely--when the AR is now in no position to make a judgment. Good thing this ball didn't end up in the net. But this is a lesson to not get too cute as a CR with offside. Yes, it's a joint decision-making process with the AR nowadays, but overruling should only occur when it's obviously the wrong decision in point of fact to make an offside determination. There would have been very few protests here if the CR just accepted the AR's flag, and it would have prevented some huge potential headaches.
While I agree that he should have gone with the ARs flag there as that would have been the path of least resistance, I do think he was right though. It all goes back to "what football expects" concept that is now in the Laws. I don't see how that is interfering with an opponent. The attacker who let the ball run through his legs didn't impede or prevent the defender from playing the ball. He didn't physically make contact with that defender. You can make the case that it was an attempt to play the ball and, thus, flag should go up. But I don't see it that way. I don't see how this is any different than when a through ball goes to an attacker in an offside position and he let's it go to an attacker who is running onto it from an onside position. Should the flag go because, simply, ball went through his legs. Another note. This is a type of call you would see made in the US, but almost never made in Europe. I don't recall the last time I've seen an AR being waived down in Europe. Has anyone seen the "defender played the ball" call that Stott and others have made in MLS at all in a match in Europe? Very rare to see ARs overruled in Europe. I just don't think the jigsaw concept is really that emphasized in Europe as much as it is here. I still think they go by the "ARs have offside, referees have everything else" concept. Anyone recall a referee and AR having a conversation about interfering with a goal keeper in a match in Europe. In MLS it happens all the time.
Without trying to start a good old-fashioned offside debate, I see it as the attacker slowed down and deliberately put himself into a position for the ball to go through his legs. This was done in an attempt to pull the defender towards him. IMO, this checks off "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball".
Correct. If he had stood still, shown no interest, and just stepped over the ball, that's one thing. But he moved toward the ball and then let it go between his legs. He even checked over his shoulder to see where his teammate was and where the tracking defender was before opting to take that action (it's probably worth noting here that for the attacker to have done the "I'm not offside move," he would have had to have been sure he was offside--which, in this case and given the fact he was offside by about six inches, he almost certainly wasn't... in other words, he chose to step over the ball because it was tactically smart from an attacking standpoint, not because he didn't want to be flagged for offside).
What we will never know is what would have happened if the goal had been scored. Would R and AR have conferred to reach a decision? If R thinks AR flagged because the player touched the ball, it makes sense for R (who knows that didn't happen) to wave down--the whistle can't be unblown, but it's possible (albeit ugly) to go back. (This would also be an interesting VAR case study if the goal had scored . . .)
Matchday 4 Group A Basel - CSKA Moscow: MAZIC (SRB) Man United - Benfica: MAZEIKA (LTU) Group B PSG - Anderlecht: FERNANDEZ BORBALAN (ESP) Celtic - Bayern Munich: MAKKELIE (NED) Group C Atletico Madrid - Qarabag: AYTEKIN (GER) Roma - Chelsea: ERIKSSON (SWE) Group D Sporting Lisbon - Juventus: TURPIN (FRA) Olympiacos - Barcelona: TAYLOR (ENG) Big match for Eriksson, nice appointment for Turpin. Fernandez Borbalan and Makkelie with relatively unimportant matches.
Group E Sevilla - Spartak Moscow: SOARES DIAS (POR) Liverpool - Maribor: IVAN KRUZLIAK (SVK) Group F Napoli - Man City: BRYCH (GER) Shakhtar - Feyenoord: SIDIROPOULOS (GRE) Group G Besiktas - Monaco: TAGLIAVENTO (ITA) Porto - RB Leipzig: HATEGAN (ROU) Group H Dortmund - APOEL: JUG (SVN) Tottenham - Real Madrid: CAKIR (TUR) Marquee assignment for Cakir, crucial matches for Hategan and Soares Dias.
Is this a UCL debut for MAZEIKA? And for a Lithuanian referee in general? Also, that's a big match for Brych. If Napoli has any real hope of advancing, they need a result at home against City. I'd put it in the same category as Hategan's and Soares Dias', though, of course, this kind of appointment is more expected for Brych.
He did have Leverkusen - Monaco in Matchday 6 last year, although it was a completely meaningless match (Leverkusen was already second and Monaco first in the group.) Also worth noting that Mazeika did the UEL R16 match at Old Trafford (vs Rostov).
Cakir I thought had a decent match. His assistant had a rough break on the first Tottenham goal which Trippier looked a step offside!
International Friendly, 14 November Germany - France: CAKIR (TUR) Last week, Cakir's assistant Ongun was thrown objects at during the Istanbul derby: https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...tant-referee-missiles-intercontinental-derby/
I was a little surprised Dembele didn't see red at the end of the match for his wild challenge on Ramos at the end of the 2nd half, particularly after their confrontation a few minutes prior.