Thursday, 14 June - Gdansk - 2:45 EST Spain : Republic of Ireland Referee: Pedro PROENCA (POR) Assistant Referees: Bertino Miranda (POR) , Ricardo Santos (POR) Additional Assistant Referees: Manuel De Sousa (POR) , Duarte Gomes (POR) Fourth official: Marcin Borski (POL) Reserve official: Marcin Borkowski (POL) UEFA Delegate: Christian Schmöelzer (AUT) UEFA Referee observer: David R. Elleray (ENG) This thread is for all pre-, play-by-play, and post-match discussion of the referee and other officials on the match. Only news and analysis or other facts/information related to the referees and the officiating should be posted here. This is not a team or rivalry thread and will be heavily moderated to ensure it remains that way. Please read the stickied thread at the top of this forum if you have further questions. Thank you.
This year's UCL Final referee is the last official to make his debut this tournament. Proenca has risen very quickly, like several others attending this summer's event. He actually overtook his countrymate, Benquerenca, who had gone to EURO 2008 as a 4th and did a WC QF in South Africa. Hard to understate Proenca's rise and it's appeared quite deserved. His big matches of late: UCL: Bayern v Chelsea (Final), Inter v Marseille (R16), Villarreal v Man City, Lille v Trabzonspor, Olympiacos v Marseille EL: Schalke v Athletic Bilbao (QF), Anderlecht v AZ (R32) EURO 2012 Qualifiers: Croatia v Turkey, France v Romania, Serbia v Italy, Republic of Ireland v Slovakia
10th minute - interesting handling call. I believe that should have gone against the Irish. The AAR didn't see it though. It looks like the Irish player threw the ball at the Spaniards hands.
Seemed to just be unsighted on the blatant handling by the Irish player--got the second handling by the Spaniard (retaliatory handling?!). Don't think it was in the penalty area, but would have been a very dangerous free kick.
I think there's a fine line between A) not seeing it and B) seeing it but not taking the call away from the referee. It's a more philosophical discussion and has to do with how they are specifically instructed, but the minute an AAR inserts himself into a handling call outside the area that's 20 yards from him (and less than 10 from the referee), the can of worms is open and it becomes almost a refereeing by committee. The AAR probably couldn't even communicate what he saw until Proenca has already blown the whistle and pointed the other direction. Even at this level, you've got to pick your battles.
I see what you are saying. I do believe that the CR and the AR had blocked views of the original handling.
Suppose the AAR sees it. Its not like he has a flag or something that he uses to communicate to the R, so the only interaction is the AAR somehow telling the R there was handling. I don't think this is necessarily inserting himself into the match. I get your argument about the R being closer, but I don't get the argument about refereeing by committee. Aren't we supposed to be working as a team?
Picture you're the referee. You just called a handball coming out, which you are obviously very confident about. It's only 10 minutes into the match. Just after you whistle and point and start dealing with the dissent, the AAR whispers in your ear "actually, they're right, free kick coming in." Now what do you do? Do you give the free kick coming in, changing your decision? If you do, you got to cite something, so you're going to be citing the AAR to the players. You've just undermined yourself for the next 80 minutes and told everyone that each one of your calls--even a simple free kick--is up for debate if they can get one of the other four on-field officials to weigh-in. And if you don't do anything, it's useless information. And when you reject the suggestion or information, is it going to make the AAR less likely to involve himself later, when a call might be critical? Yes, we are supposed to be working as a team. But part of being that team is taking the long view for the match. This wasn't a horrendous, awful, must-be-reversed miss. Other fouls will get missed this game and you can't correct all of them. If you insert yourself this early and cause a public reversal of one of the first foul calls, it doesn't help the team for the overall 90 minutes--even if it might get this specific call correct. And, by the way, all of this is assuming that the AAR saw it cleanly, of which we can't be certain.
Ireland is a split second late with all of their possessions. It's almost as if Spain knows exactly what the Irish are going to do. But, it is only 1-0. Again, we have now gone through nearly two rounds of games with NO referee controversies. This is amazing. At the WC, we would have been talking about several incidents by now. These refs truly are the best in the world.
That didn't appear to be a reckless tackle by Alonso. I thought it was a simple foul that the Irish player made a meal of it.
57th minute - hard to tell if the AR got that call correctly. Looking at the marking on the field, I think Torres might have been onside. Camera angle doesn't really help.
Major controversies at WC2010 included Lannoy (who is here at Euro2012), Rossetti (one of best in world), Larrionda and team (one of best in world), and a never-ending debate over the contribution of Webb (who is here at Euro2012) to the events that unfolded in the final. The two YC and subsequent RC in the first match of this tournament was a refereeing controversy. I can't see how your position has much merit.
81:45 - Does anyone else feel that the two attackers in front of Given could have been considered interfering with an opponent? They looked to block the keeper's view, even though he made the save. The corner right after led to the Fabregas goal.
True, and a point I was going to make if the implication is that European refereeing is inherently mistake-free. Maybe. But not to the extent that some of the stuff at the WC was and likely only because it was the opener. If a soft two-yellow decision ends up being the single major controversy of this tournament, then Rufusbac and others would be perfectly correct in putting that forth as a major accomplishment for the refereeing corps. The implication about European refereeing overall might not, but the officiating has been relatively mistake-free thus far, which is always a good thing. Also, familiarity helps--these referees see these same players pretty regularly in UEFA competitions. When you get to the World Cup, it can get a lot different. That said, if you compared the number of games to that of the World Cup, some teams would have still not played yet. Also, we can't ignore the fact that referees really haven't been tested sharply with major, major decisions. The only universally controversial penalty not awarded was in Netherlands-Denmark. Aside from that, you have the Irish claim in their first match and then several half-hearted claims in other matches. As far as possible red cards since the first match...? None, really. I raised one tackle in the Italy v Spain game, but that wasn't clear-cut. Some debate here about possible DOGSO but it certainly wasn't a controversy as I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere. There's really been nothing else. When there aren't major challenging decisions to make, it's hard to screw up. The refereeing has been very good. But let's see what happens after tomorrow when advancement is on the line.
Are you seriously saying that you would not correct a mistake you made because it would lead to more dissent? I'm not a referee, but I find the idea that you would not deliberately go with the wrong call just to avoid angering players appalling. Obviously if the free kick has been taken you couldn't reverse it, but before that? What if you called a foul and the AR told you it was a dive - would you not reverse your call then either?
Don't think I said that, no. Be appalled all you want, but managing a match is more than about getting every single call perfectly correct. There is a bigger picture to consider. You get to see the replay here and know what the appropriate call is. No one on the field does. You reverse a run-of-the-mill foul call and it's hugely problematic the rest of the way. Also, it's not deliberately going with the wrong call. It's going with the call as I saw it and not taking the time to debate it with my assistant. Remember, Proenca is nearly 100% sure he's right when he makes the call; it's not like he's suddenly going to be nearly 100% convinced he was wrong in the span of 4-5 seconds. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective) the AAR would sow seeds of doubt which might be strong enough for him to reverse his decision. No, probably not. But my larger point is the AAR shouldn't--and likely didn't--say anything in the first place. The referee is less than 10 yards away. The AAR is about 20. It's not a reversal that you can sell. And if you can't sell it and it's not match-critical, then it's not a hill worth sacrificing your credibility on 10 minutes into the match. I would reverse my call if I was convinced he had a better view. And this is where my nuance got lost. You need to save your credibility to be able to sell major match-critical decisions like reversing a penalty call. You can't be going around all game, though, opening up all your calls to being reversed because one of the four assistants might have had a better angle. There's another assumption you're making that you only get to make because you see the replay--and that is that the referee shouldn't be certain of what he saw, while the AAR should be. What if it's the other way around? Or if both of them are "certain?" Why should the referee defer to the AAR? How can he be sure the AAR saw it better than him? The AAR knows this, too, and it's why (again, assuming he did see the Irish handling) he opted not to insert himself in the match.