In successive days we have had two incidents of a player being sent off for two YCs. In the MU case (I know it is in a different thread) the sent-off player and the other MU players blamed the referee, but did not go after Hazard for embellishment. In Nasri's case, he was clearly much more angry with Vardy for his deliberate provocation than with the referee. This says a lot. I know at one time it was considered really unprofessional to behave like Vardy did and intentionally try (and succeed) to get a fellow professional player send off. In this situation I would have sent Vardy too, and been at peace with my decision, regardless of any repercussions. There are unwritten rules, for the good of the game, sometimes called "beneficial heresies." PH
Nice AR work on Monaco's first goal...crowded box on the cross, two attackers in an offside position, correctly realizes that goalscorer was onside through a lot of traffic.
In the 63/64 minute, Aguero gets a shot on goal, off the keeper, for a corner. On replay, it looked like after Aguero shoots, he is tackled late by the defender. Would you give a PK for that?
It's possible Vardy would have gotten no card if Nasri hadn't retaliated, and in that case I could see complaints that Vardy deserved a yellow. Regardless of what Nasri did or didn't do afterwards, I have no problem with Vardy getting a yellow. I just don't think Vardy deserved a straight red.
The U20 FIFA World Cup referee list was released this week, and it includes a lot of names because a full VAR test will be done. What's interesting for the purposes of this thread, however, is that the tournament runs May 20th through June 11th, while the UCL Final is June 3rd and the EL Final is May 24th. That means any UEFA referees at the U20 World Cup are ineligible for the UEFA Finals this year. In addition to people who have already done the UCL Final, some notable names will be at the U20s including Eriksson, Marciniak, Brych, and Collum. Unless I'm missing something obvious, the UCL Final seems to be a straight race between Skomina and Mazic now. Rocchi seems to have a good angle on the EL Final, but that one is always a bit trickier to predict.
Juventus-Barcelona - MARCINIAK (POL) Dortmund - Monaco - ORSATO (ITA) Bayern - Real Madrid - RIZZOLI (ITA) Atletico Madrid - Leicester - ERIKSSON (SWE) Pretty strong signal that UEFA liked how Orsato handled the Leicester-Sevilla incident. Orsato was certainly on the list of referees who didn't have to get a QF match; I never really expected to see him again in UCL this year.
Hard to say. Sometimes the UCL Final doesn't get a QF (2013, 2014, 2016) but sometimes they do (2011, 2012, 2015). I would guess Cakir and Brych are locks for UCL quarters. Then you have a bunch of names--including Clattenburg--that could fill the other two slots. In total, there are probably 10 serious contenders for the four return legs. Given the available options, I actually wouldn't be surprised if Skomina and Mazic were both held from the QFs, with one getting a SF and the other getting the Final. I also think Skomina is the favorite over Mazic for the Final.
He is still under contract in England, he did a EL match since the announcement and was at the WC seminar in Italy, so all bets appear to be off--at least for the remainder of this season. I went from thinking he was completely done to being surprised, at this point, if we don't see him at least one more time in Europe now.
EL appointments: Lyon - Besiktas: MATEU LAHOZ (ESP) Ajax - Schalke: KARASEV (RUS) Celta Vigo - Genk: TURPIN (FRA) Anderlecht - Man United: BRYCH (GER)
Well that eliminates two of the possible options (Brych and Mateu Lahoz) for UCL leg 2. Very surprised to see Brych here, as it could end up being impossible for him to work one of the last five in the UCL.
So at halftime of the Bayern - Real and Atletico - Leicester games, we can summarise that we've seen three penalties today, every one of which was wrong. Not the best day for Orsato, Eriksson and Rizzoli so far. Thought Orsato had a poor game overall. Very inconsistent with his cautions, and I really don't like that he shows them in such a rushed way. The missed offside on Monaco's first goal, while obviously not his fault, added to a poor performance from the team.
To be fair, it looked like Rizzoli's AAR advised him to call the penalty. Thought he's had a good game other than that.
Yes, Friedel just said "don't put the referee in a situation where he can give you a second yellow." Done and dusted. Tough decision for Rizzoli on handing. Arm was out, pulled back, and angle on playback showed off chest. AAR blocked also, and quite possibly fooled by arm movement, too.
Rizzoli was wrong, sure. Orsato, who is also not my personal cup of tea from what I've seen, gave a penalty for a defender putting two arms on an attacker from behind in the penalty area. You can easily argue about the level of force in the hold and whether it warranted a penalty, but I'm not sure you can say "wrong" given the actions of the defender and the risk he took. Eriksson... is there an angle that conclusively shows it was outside the penalty area? The angles I saw supported the decision in my eyes.
I agree that the Monaco penalty is the most supportable of the three, and maybe "wrong" is too strong, but having seen the replays I would not give that penalty. The replay angle that convinced me wasn't shown until halftime on the broadcast I was watching. I paused and took a photo of the screen at the point of contact. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make at full speed, and there were several replays which were inconclusive, so I don't blame Eriksson for going with the penalty. But based on the angle below, I'm convinced the foul occurred outside.
We're not actually in agreement, because I think the Atletico penalty is 100% correct. But we are on the same or a very similar page with the Monaco penalty. With the benefit of replay, maybe I don't give it. In real-time, though? Defender puts two arms on the attacker in the penalty area for one reason only--he's the one taking the risk. I wouldn't feel any regret about giving this penalty and I would hope an assessor would feel the same way. That's on the defender, not on Orsato. Sorry, I just don't find that to be convincing evidence. To start, that angle is the one that is most likely to make it look outside the penalty area (just as one from the opposite side would make it look in). Second, that appears to be the moment they start to come together. Griezmann was moving at significant pace and I would assert that the foul comes a moment or two later when the defender extends his arm, because the contact in that freeze frame is really trifling at that moment. I really think penalty was the right call here.
For reference, here is the Monaco penalty: https://streamable.com/album/e0mj0 I think the yellow card is really odd, by the way. It's not DOGSO. And FIFA/UEFA have said they don't want cautions for stopping a promising attack in the penalty area. Strikes me as unnecessary, regardless of what you think about the actual penalty decision.
Watch this clip. After being shown the yellow card, does Vidal throw the ball at and strike Rizzoli? I was pretty sure in real-time, watching, that he did. I'm still fairly certain. I just don't see where else the ball would have went. If I'm right, I absolutely cannot believe Rizzoli ignored this. The only thing that gives me some doubt is that Real Madrid players didn't react, but that might be a combination of everyone looking away at the key moment and them not expecting a star player to get sent off for that. https://vimeo.com/album/4532064/video/212996979
That's certainly a better angle to see the penalty area line, and when you couple it with the other photo, based on where the ball is, you know that contact has begun between the two players. But I still don't think you can say that's when the foul occurred with any degree of certainty. I'll admit this still gives me more doubt, but not enough to say the penalty decision was wrong.
That's in the new Laws (not yet in active use). The feel was that they didn't want it, but the 16-17 Laws still "require" it for cases that the referee feels that SPA has occurred.
It's coming into the new Laws (or at least the IFAB is making the recommendation/instruction--it's not quite clear if it's in the text itself, right?). But the IFAB is doing it because that's how it's been instructed at the top levels for awhile, now. So I'd classify it as lawful, but unnecessary--doubt it's the kind of card the powers that be want shown.
Based on the material IFAB has shared to date, it's in the new Law text. It also fits the consistency with DOGSO offences in the penalty area... the obvious goal scoring opportunity is being reinstated with the penalty kick. In this case, the promising attack is being reintsated with... a penalty kick. As such, the caution is not needed (so the logic goes). And yes, it does seem to be something that UEFA (especially) has been shying away from, and that's why I put the require in quotes above.