Euro 2012 Referees

So much for Atkinson over Webb. No major surprises though.

 

So Webb beat Atkinson and Stark beat Brych. Those can't be major surprises, as they could have gone either way, though I admit that I had recently thought the English choice was trending toward Atkinson.

Big surprise is Moen. Not only does he lose to Eriksson (which seemed a 50/50 bet), but he loses out on a fourth official spot to his countrymen, Hagen. Moen is Elite; Hagen is not. Moen did the U17WC Final; Hagen just started doing UCL matches. Moen is also younger, though by admittedly just a year. Seems very strange to pick Hagen over Moen.

A Ukrainian and a Polish 4th are a bit of surprise because no one could come up with two names that deserved to go. The politics are understandable, but these guys have no experience and an injury with one of them coming on would be quite interesting.

Kralovec is really the only experienced 4th. There were plenty of other guys who just started getting UCL matches that could have joined him, but UEFA opted to go a different route.

The full quintets, as they will be, are supposed to be announced in the coming days. Will be interested to see if Atkinson and Brych are involved.

As for the Final... frankly, I don't think you can discount anyone, except maybe Lannoy and possibly Eriksson. Kuipers, in particular, has been given some big matches and has performed very well the last two seasons--I'd put him in the mix from the start. And I wouldn't put it past UEFA to push someone like Cakir if he has a good first round, either.

 

Collina on the selections and tournament prep: http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/refereeing/news/newsid=1737289.html

Very interesting point from him that 11 of 12 are EURO rookies. That is a lot of turnover. And only 4 (Webb, Lannoy, Kassai, Stark) have WC experience. So for 8 of these guys, it's their first tournament experience at the top-level.

Poland v Greece is the opener. Safe to say that Webb won't be on it, but any other predictions? I think Rizzoli is a good bet if he doesn't get the UCL Final. Kassai or Proenca as the other options in my book.

 

Yeah but when you compare it to guys throughout Europe who have done UCL matches and are above him on the depth chart, he looks like an amateur. You've got young guys like Kelly (IRL), Schorgenhofer (AUT), Studer (SUI), Rasmussen (DEN), etc. who make a lot more sense.

That is the big question. Politically, if it's necessary, it's understandable. But I sort of wonder if these political problems get created in people's minds. Does having a 4th official at their home tournament really fill a void that either the Polish or Ukrainian federation has? I honestly don't know, but I tend to think when you are hosting the second biggest soccer tournament in the world and your team is competing in it, then having a 4th official (one who is likely NEVER going anywhere in international soccer) do 2 or 3 games is irrelevant. Would be much smarter, in my opinion, to bring officials who just entered the UCL and are rising fast.

 

It's been reported that Moen has said none of the Elite Referees were considered for a 4th official spot. That actually makes sense. So for Moen it was #12 or nothing (and I have NO doubt that he was #13).

Still doesn't make a ton of sense to have Hagen go, in my opinion. If you're giving Poland and Ukraine a slot, you're left with two spaces. Kralovec is probably the best non-Elite referee available, so he makes sense. Is Hagen really the other one? And why send a guy who is #2 in his country, when there were other options? In the end, no big deal, but it is a weird choice and not sure what signal it sends.

 

The AARs have been referees throughout the experiment. And they've been from the same country as the referee and ARs, too. Nothing is changing.

Only question is whether the AARs are "lower-level" FIFAs who have done it a lot (think Marriner and Probert in England) or if they take the next-ranking referees (Atkinson and Clattenburg) who are considered better officials but who have only been behind the nets a couple times, if at all.

In the case of England, Dean might be a compromise candidate, likely with Clattenburg, if Atkinson doesn't go. But the larger issue is whether the referees that just missed out (Atkinson, Brych, Undiano Mallenco, etc.) would be put behind the nets since they are so experienced and useful, or if that would be seen as too embarrassing.

 

Reports from England that the FA has confirmed it's full team to support Webb:

ARs: Kirkup and Mullarkey
AARs: Clattenburg and Atkinson
Reserve AR: Child

The public naming of a Reserve AR makes it seem that a full group of 6 will be sent from each country. If that's the case, the fourth official would be the true odd man out on each crew. It does make sense... you wouldn't force an active AR from another country to travel to a stadium just to sit there as a reserve.

Anyway, this clearly answers the question if the "next" referees will go and stand behind the goals--at least for England. I think, honestly, it's the right call. But that's going to be a lot of referee "firepower" on the field at once for some of these crews.

As an aside, interesting that Darren Cann has seemed to fall out of favor.

 

That's what I thought would happen and what has happened before. But in those situations, the reserve ARs weren't publicly announced. This seems to be announced as a team. But perhaps it's just the FA saying this is nominated and UEFA will then confirm only 5, rather than 6. Not sure why they'd put Child's name out there, though.

Sending the reserve AR to the tournament really does make sense, though. Logistically, in a tournament where you have dedicated fourth officials for about half the assignments, if you didn't bring dedicated reserve ARs it would mean for half the games you'd have a single AR breaking away from his team to go sit with a crew of 5 that he's not going to work with at all and hasn't before. In the disaster situation where a reserve AR is actually needed, wouldn't it be better for him to be familiar to the team members? And it just adds to the cohesiveness of the teams by not breaking them up at all.

Two other things just dawned on me...

1) I wonder what the procedures are going to be for replacing the CR. Let's take an theoretical example. Webb's team of six works a game with the Ukranian fourth official. Webb goes down injured. Does the Ukrainian step into the middle of that crew, or would Atkinson or Clattenburg take the whistle? The Ukranian, who has never worked even a UCL game and never worked with this crew? Or one of the English Elite Referees? One option makes a lot more sense than the other, of course.

2) Will they make the CRs, like Webb and Stark and Rizzoli, serve as 4th officials on their off-days? Or will they give Atkinson, Clattenburg and the other Elite- or Premier-level AARs the chance to serve in that role? Again, one makes way more sense than the other.

 

Good, though not sure why that would take IFAB approval. Competition authorities and federations are free to dictate who takes over. In fact, when you think about it, the IFAB doesn't even distinguish among personnel insofar as who serves in what role; they just define the roles. Registration and categorization is on FIFA and the federations on down.

 

Good point and find. My mind was thinking that since competition authorities were free to decide between the fourth and SAR, they were free to add the SAAR into the mix. Had totally forgotten that such power was spelled out in the Laws by the IFAB, so now I see why DudsBro was right. Thanks.

 

Yes, I guess Child must be a reserve who is only there for a failure of a fitness test. Still seems strange that the FA would announce him then. And the "reserve AR" position at the matches is going to be a weird assignment now--at least when one of the dedicated fourth officials is used.

So some different approaches, for sure, with these selections/nominations.

England and Italy, straight-out, go for their highest ranked referees. All three referees are Elite referees in those quintets.

Slovenia, Sweden, Hungary and Scotland appear to go the same route, though their AARs are a lot less well-known than Atkinson, Tagliavento, etc.

Spain and Portugal go a similar route, each taking one other relatively top-tier referee as an AAR, but they leave home their elder, Elite referee (Undiano Mallenco and Benquerenca) who have each had their time in the sun and were passed over for the tournament.

France and Netherlands take an entirely different approach and both put very inexperienced officials--internationally--at the AAR position when they each had other officials who whistle UCL and EL matches (Blom, Nijhuis, Chapron, Duhamel, Gautier and Turpin). Turkey seems to be a little bit like this, but to be fair, their other referees available aren't that experienced in their own right.

Germany is its own case. The other top referees that could have gone, Brych and Grafe, were passed over. Apparently there is speculation that Brych will go to the Olympics and they didn't want to waste an AAR assignment on him here. Meyer makes sense, as an Elite referee who is pushing the retirement age. But I have no idea who Aytekin is and why he'd leapfrog a lot of other more experienced officials.

Overall, England and Italy quite clearly put the strongest crews forward, at least on paper.

 

Good find.

Now that the "standby ARs" are on an official document, it does make me wonder again if they are standing by at the tournament or this just means they are standing by through the next two months as the potential replacement.

The use of designated reserve ARs is new, but sensible (and it seems to indicate the standby ARs might not travel to the tournament). I get why they chose a Polish and Ukrainian, but I have no idea how they went about picking the other two. With everyone's future tied to the trios (or quintets) they are in, I wonder how much good it does a Slovakian or Irish AR to attend this tournament by themselves.