UEFA 2016-2017 Referee Assignments & Discussions [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by London_ref, Jul 20, 2016.

  1. London_ref

    London_ref Member

    May 6, 2014
    London, England
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    To kick-off the new season, UEFA have today announced Milorad Mažić will take charge of the UEFA Super Cup on 9 August.
     
    balu, AremRed and IASocFan repped this.
  2. balu

    balu Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Who are the top candidates for the UCL final? Eriksson followed by Skomina and Mazic?
     
    London_ref repped this.
  3. London_ref

    London_ref Member

    May 6, 2014
    London, England
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    I'd say Brych is the leading candidate, but it of course all depends on how far Bayern (and Dortmund?) progress.

    If not Brych, I personally think it'll be Skomina.

    1) Brych
    2) Skomina
    3) Eriksson
    4) Mažić
     
    AremRed, IASocFan and balu repped this.
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The four referees above seem the most logical candidates with Marciniak and Atkinson having outside shots if one of them has an amazing season and the other four falter.

    We're at one of those junctures in the "cycle" of Elite referees, if you will, where you have several active referees (5, I think) who have already done the match and then many referees who are new to the list and just not ready to get that match. So options seem to be obviously limited in the way they weren't, say, from 2010-2014. The four listed above are the most logical options for the UCL Final. Whomever has the best season among those four probably gets the match unless that referee is Brych and Bayern advances, as pointed out.
     
    balu, AremRed and London_ref repped this.
  5. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Brych and Erikkson are 1A and 1B. If he does not have a controversial match and Bayern do not get in the Final, it is probably goes to Brych. Erikkson would be next in line, although I find it really weird that he was not used again after the match between Bayern and Juve. His performance must have not been deemed acceptable then.

    Then after that it is probably Skomina and Mazic. I would rate Skomina ahead of Mazic as he has more experience in the CL with having been on a semifinal.

    After that, all bets are off. I would go with maybe Atkinson and Rocchi as possibilities. I can not see Marcianak getting the game. I just do not think he has the experience yet for that game.

    Another possibility maybe that Collina might give it to someone that has done the game before? I know with Collina it seems like the "old rules" of assigning have been thrown out the window. See how Clattenburg did a UCL semi and Final and Cakir did two semi-finals last year. It has always been understood that you only do one CL Final.

    Unless a Spanish or Portuguese referee becomes a consistent performer within the next couple of years Collina could genuinely run out of options for the match.

    This is why the appointment of Kassai at such a young age to the Final between Barca and Man U in 2011 and not giving it to De Bleeckere might genuinely come back to bite Collina.
     
    AremRed repped this.
  6. balu

    balu Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    But Eriksson got the Europa League final. I guess he was in line for the UCL final and the decision to award it to Clattenburg was made at the last minute.
     
  7. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Good point. Completely forgot about that. My bad.
     
  8. London_ref

    London_ref Member

    May 6, 2014
    London, England
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Agreed. Baffling how FdB wasn't awarded with a final appointment after all those years in the top bracket of UEFA referees.

    Claus Bo Larsen was another who could count himself unlucky. IIRC, he was narrowly beaten out by Webb for the 2010 final.
     
  9. balu

    balu Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    UCL Playoffs 2nd leg
    Hapoel Beer Sheva - Celtic: NIJHUIS (NED)
    Viktoria Plzen - Ludogorets Razgrad: UNDIANO MALLENCO (ESP)
    Monaco - Villareal: ERIKSSON (SWE)
    Roma - Porto: MARCINIAK (POL)
    Legia Warsawa - Dundalk: MOEN (NOR)

    APOEL Nicosia - Kobenhavn: ROCCHI (ITA)
    Rostov - Ajax: MAZIC (SRB)
    Manchester City - Steaua Bucuresti: GIL (POL)
    Salzburg - Dinamo Zagreb: THOMSON (SCO)
    Moenchengladbach - Young Boys: MARRINER (ENG)

    Atkinson, Taylor, Kassai, Banti, Grafe, Zwayer, Stieler, and Borbalan in action in the EL 2nd leg on Thursday, among others. Wonder if we'll see more of Marriner in the UCL this season.
     
    London_ref repped this.
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm trying to wrap my head around this assignment. It is so strange.

    In the past several years, every single referee who did a UCL playoff match was an Elite referee or was about to become Elite. It seems like 2012 was the last time UEFA used referees for the Playoff round who were outside what would be considered the clear list of top 20 officials. And that makes some sense, because Olympic and EURO referees maybe got an extra rest or vacation in August (so we see that repeated now). But even stipulating that fact, Marriner's appointment is strange for three reasons.

    First, he's never done a UCL group stage match. Getting a playoff match before having a group stage match is very rare and, indeed, you have to go to 2012 to see an example (both Mazic and Borski did it then--interestingly, Mazic went on to have the career we're seeing now while Borski never did a UCL match again).

    Anyway, the lack of not even doing a single throwaway UCL group stage match is one thing. But the fact that he apparently jumped Anthony Taylor is quite another. Taylor did 2 UCL group stage matches last year and appeared to be England's newest "#3." The use of Marriner in a UCL playoff match definitely calls that into question.

    And a third issue is that he's 45. Yes, the mandatory retirement age is gone. But when England already has two top Elite referees, I'm not sure there is room for developing an older third one while also developing Taylor. Something has to give. If you elevate Marriner into the UCL rotation, you stunt Taylor's growth.
     
    London_ref repped this.
  11. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    @RedStar91 , you got your long-awaited UCL SFP red card--two in the same match, in fact! You can thank Marciniak (and AS Roma).
     
    RedStar91 repped this.
  12. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    It's likely to be a retirement present, therefore a one-off appointment. Looks like a fairly easy match
    with 'gladbach already having a 2 goal cushion. I doubt he is being "developed"!:)

    PH
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But a retirement present could be done with a UCL group stage match. And he will certainly have EL matches throughout the year. Plus it's a bit weird to suddenly pluck a non-UCL referee who is the fourth ranked referee in his own country and suddenly give him a retirement gift--what's the present for? It's not like Marriner has an illustrious UEFA career.

    No, I think this is about giving Marriner a chance to shine.
     
  14. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Both were correct and had to be given! Especially the second one! It was difficult to watch!
     
  15. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    You might be right, but a group stage match has consequences, this is a single match that does not
    effect other teams, so there is overall less riding on it. The present would be in appreciation for long service.
    We will see if he goes off the FA FIFA list in December.
    I guess as usual, time will tell.

    PH
     
  16. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    These playoff matches are arguably, from a financial standpoint, the most lucrative and important matches in the world. Whole clubs seasons are defined by them.

    Some of the clubs are so far better than the rest of their domestic competition that their domestic leagues are mere formalities. Their season is essential a two game season.

    You want the best referees for these games. There was a reason why Collina was on the Everton vs. Villarreal playoff match all those years ago...
     
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mazic gave a DOGSO red on a PK call that resulted from a "tackle" today in Russia. It was one of the first high-profile tests of the new Law change. The second clause about "not attempting to play the ball" or having "no possibility to play the ball" was what was in question. Will post video once it is available.
     
  18. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    http://www.espnfc.us/video/champions-league-highlights/149/video/2936812/highlights-rostov-4-1-ajax

    Highlights can be found here. PK and red is towards the end.

    Have to say a really brave and, correct, decision for me. Absolutely ridiculous challenge. One could also make the case that it is serious foul play as well.

    This example is exactly why I'm not a fan of the new law change. Many referees will not give a red for this. We will never know, but I doubt he attempts a ridiculous challenge like that under the old law.

    In the US, I'm sure many referees wouldn't give a red for this under the old law anyway as the "direction" was "away" from goal.
     
  19. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    #19 Pierre Head, Aug 24, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2016
    I understand all of this and have no argument with it, and I can see that if the overall result is still in
    question why a top referee would be on it. But it seemed the result in this 2nd leg match was not going
    to be in doubt and at 6-1 with an aggregate of 9-2, it was the largest margin this year.
    Like you, I cannot think of any other logical reason why he got the match. They could
    have given it to Oliver if they wanted to develop someone with more of a future, since he seems to be the
    successor to Clattenburg at least in England, judging by the games he gets.

    I wish you hadn't brought up that Everton/Villarreal match again but it was going to be a tight match. And I bet Collina wishes he hadn't been given the match!
    Anyway it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.:(

    PH
     
  20. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this is why I have no question with this being a red, even under the new Laws. The second leg, that hits the attacker in his left side, is completely unnecessary and ticks the SFP box for me. So if I see this challenge, he's gone no matter what.

    With that said...

    This also shows why I'm not a fan of the new law change. I think we've added another layer of subjectivity that makes consistency less likely, rather than more likely.

    Let's take this exact same challenge, but remove the second leg hitting the left side of the attacker. Once you get the obvious components of this situation out of the way, the relevant questions are whether or not:

    A) did the offending player attempt to play the ball?
    B) was there a possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball?

    If either one of those questions is answered with "no," then you have a red card. But if both are answered with "yes," then you have only a yellow card.

    I think it's pretty obvious that (again, ignoring the second leg), the defender attempted to play the ball. So you're left with question B. Could he have played the ball? How are we supposed to determine that? Technically speaking, of course he could have. He almost did, in fact. But he did so via a challenge that, regardless of whether he got the ball or not, it was always going to be a foul. So is the question actually whether or not he could challenge for the ball fairly or not? And if it is, why wasn't the Law written that way?

    And then, when you step back and look at this from the big picture, the point of the Law change was to ensure defenders were not getting sent off unless they were committing deliberate DOGSO in their penalty area (deliberate handling, holding, etc.). Rostov was up 5-1 on aggregate with no more than 10 minutes left in the match. Does anyone in their right mind think this defender deliberately committed DOGSO--thereby conceding the penalty and getting suspended from his club's first ever UCL match? No, of course not. He made a dumb, desperate tackle but it wasn't a cynical and deliberate move to stop a goal like handling or a shirt pull. Now, I know the pushback to that thought would be that we "aren't supposed to read minds." But go look at the two questions above because, under the new Law, we are in fact supposed to read minds in this case.

    If this tackle wasn't SFP in my mind, I'd have a very difficult time giving a red card for DOGSO under the new Law in these circumstances. And I don't think that's a good thing.

    I think you give players a little too much credit. Note the relative lack of protest here. I think he either expected to go if he didn't get the ball because that's what's supposed to happen and/or he just doesn't know the new Law and the point is moot.
     
    frankieboylampard repped this.
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    While I agree with you, I don't think there was anything in the change that was aimed at increasing consistency . . . it has always seemed to me that if they wanted to go down this road, it would have been more sense to base it on existing criteria: in the PA, simply make DOGSO an "upgrade"; if the foul itself warranted a caution, moves up to a send off and if the foul itself was "only" a foul, make it a caution. At least that way we would be using known concepts instead of making up new ones (like pulling!).
     
    tomek75 repped this.
  22. usaref

    usaref Member

    Jan 13, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Found the video. Starts at 12:55
     
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Tony Chapron sent off the wrong player, on the advice of his 4th/AR1, yesterday in the BATE v Astana EL match. This video will undoubtedly be pulled from YouTube, but the incident is availalbe at 5:11 below for anyone that wants to catch it quickly:

     
  24. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    Hey Pierre....should I let it go?
     
  25. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    Only if you want to be the first Evertonian to do so!:D


    PH
     

Share This Page