UEFA Competitions 2023-2024 Referee Discussions [Rs]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Jun 23, 2023.

  1. Brilliant Oranje

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Mar 4, 2023
    Amsterdam and Marbella
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Spot on

    And thats exactly why it wasnt called
     
  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, that doesn't explain how Italy missed out on qualifying for the last two WCs, but okay.

    More to the point, I actually think the expected real-time call here is simulation, so Ukraine might have got lucky in that regard. It just looks too opportunistic and dramatic. If I'm blowing the whistle in an amateur cup final or a similar match, I'm saying this is a dive, pointing out, giving the yellow, and hoping no one is filming (well) in 4K to prove me wrong (or right, for that matter--but I'd take right). So I think the idea that Gil Manzano is trying to help Italy--even subconciously--by making a no-call is wrong. He wants to make the no-call to get out of the decision (again, likely subconciously) and punt it to VAR. And then VAR only intervenes if this is obvious and always given as a penalty and the standards they have been instructed by make this, well, not obvious. It's all a self-fulfilling prophecy for plays like this.

    I do not expect you get this called as a penalty if it was in the other direction. This is a process issue and not a conspiracy one.
     
    El Rayo Californiano and RedStar91 repped this.
  3. El Rayo Californiano

    Feb 3, 2014
    He may not have been in the best position to see the contact.
     

    Attached Files:

  4. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    To put it into context, there were two plays about 5 minutes before this (not in the highlights package) where there was contact that could have been whistled as fouls from 25 yards out, but I believe were correctly deemed as a play-on. The guy had a high bar for a foul at the end and I think it created the need to embellish a PK that could have been called without the added flop.

    Also, every home teams announcers are going to be biased, but even RAI TV commentators stated that they were "lucky that the penalty was not awarded".
     
  5. Brilliant Oranje

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Mar 4, 2023
    Amsterdam and Marbella
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    I dont remember, but were there any controversial calls in Sweden and Macedonia game??
    I dont think there were

    In my 30+ years of watching football I've noticed these types of calls tend to go more favourably towards the bigger footballing nations.

    VAR was supposed to make things better, but I dont see a whole lot of improvement
     
  6. Mikael_Referee

    Mikael_Referee Member+

    Jun 16, 2019
    England
    Good question: were there any controversial calls in that Sweden game again? o_O
     
    StarTime and MassachusettsRef repped this.
  7. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
  8. ColoradoRef

    ColoradoRef Member

    Jul 10, 2011
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In my opinion, FWIW, none of those three is a penalty.
     
  9. mathguy ref

    mathguy ref Member+

    Nov 15, 2016
    TX
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I have no foul at all on the first one.

    The second for me is a foul and PK. I get the offensive player is playing for this. He holds up and gets barged into from behind and he knows this is coming. But the defender is ultimately responsible for not running into him. He was clumsy and was lucky not to get called for it.

    The last one I don’t like. I don’t see a great view that it’s anything extended or a push. It just looks like a shoulder. But maybe I’m missing something.
     
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    100%.

    I can't add too much to the analysis here. I would say that if the first one is given, it can't be overturned. It's right on that line between a fair challenge within playing distance and a careless foul challenge. And I think, historically, we just default to calling it fair there.

    At a big picture level, I just don't understand a referee who gives that third one against a team after he rejected the first two in favor of the team. Refereeing isn't black and white. All of these decisions are subjective and all are probably in the zone where VAR wouldn't intervene one way or the other (though I think in some competitions, like MLS, that second one IS prompting a VAR intervention if it isn't called). So to reject two relatively strong appeals and then give that third one, just because you see the extended arm... not good. It lacks a feel for the game and for player expectations.

    Not defending the FAW's online behavior. But looking at the three incidents, I would say they were hard done by here.
     
  11. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The first one is outside the PA, no?
     
  12. Mikael_Referee

    Mikael_Referee Member+

    Jun 16, 2019
    England
  13. Mikael_Referee

    Mikael_Referee Member+

    Jun 16, 2019
    England
    Another view of the penalty given to Turkey:
    https://www.streambug.io/cv/eefa5c

    I actually think you can back Jug up in all four penalty area incidents (the first was outside and only a missed freekick). Johnson plays for it in the first two (he really stops in the one at 30' and generates the collision... though of course I admit that the easily expected decision is foul).

    It is tricky but no angle gives a clear view of a stepping offence early in the second half. And Davies clearly plays the man in the penalty given to Turkey, though many refs would have turned a blind eye there.

    However I agree with what MassRef wrote above (who hadn't even seen the two 'extra' incidents!) about the whole body of these decisions not sitting well with each other.

    I like Jug generally speaking but his performance in this game wasn't good by any means. Any chance he had of returning to the CL roster at any point in his career is probably gone now.
     
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For what it's worth, I think 25' is a penalty. Turkish defender brings him down and then the attacker plays the ball as he's going down. Only then does the ball even touch the Turkish player. Maybe hard to see for Jug but it's a penalty. 53' is less obvious, as you point out. But taken as a whole? Wow. How do you give that penalty for Turkey? The ball isn't in the landing zone. There's no shirt grab. It's a dumb risk, but when your team could or should have had 2-4 penalties in their favor, you probably don't expect the dumb risk to matter there.

    I'd think so, too.

    At least Croatia won so this didn't matter for Wales. In fact, the actual consequence of these decisions actually relates to the tournament next summer. If Wales had won, Turkey would be in Pot 3 and Croatia in Pot 2 for the draw because UEFA is doing seedings completely based on qualifying finish. Something to remember when the draw comes out. Keeping Croatia out of Pot 2 probably prevents having a real "group of death," as they would have been almost certainly the most dangerous team in that pot.
     
  15. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
    AC Milan v Dortmund, Kovacs gives advantage in the 5' that leads a handball in the box. Beautiful.

    Another penalty in the 8' with Kovacs 3-4 feet away. Beautiful again.
     
    socal lurker repped this.
  16. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
    Big decisions for Kovacs and Marciniak in the 69'.

    Kovacs had his GLT/VAR indiciate that a goal indeed crossed the line after the keeper palmed it out.

    Marciniak waved off a potential penalty in the box after what seemed like a push but VAR confirmed that it was indeed nothing in it.

    Marciniak with another penalty appeal, 72nd min, (handball) for PSG and now PSG GK (Donnarumma) gets a yellow for protesting.
     
  17. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
    A much bigger shout for PSG handball in 90+5 and 5 PSG players instantly surround the referee and Marciniak instantly cautions the first yellow in his face.

    Handball given after ball hits lower rib and then elbow. Marciniak approves and PK given to PSG.
     
  18. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Of course a handball never sent down in England is what will stop Newcastle from a huge win and probably keep PSG in the CL.
     
    StarTime repped this.
  19. ShayG

    ShayG Member

    Celtic
    United States
    Aug 9, 2021
    I don’t understand this one. Or, to be fair, most other handling decisions.
     
  20. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
  21. soccerref69420

    soccerref69420 Member+

    President of the Antonio Miguel Mateu Lahoz fan cub
    Mar 14, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea DPR
    I am happy this happened in UCL because I have no idea what the rule is about this. They removed the “if the ball bounces off their body then hits the arm it’s not a penalty” a few years ago, but people still seem to use it when analyzing handballs. Is the rule now strictly just if the arm was unnatural positioned, no matter where it bounced off of? Is it different depending on what league in the world is calling it?
     
    Beau Dure repped this.
  22. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sometimes being a ref isn't fair. This call probably decides if Newcastle (Saudi Arabia) or PSG (Qatar) advance in the Champions League. I wouldn't want to be the ref or the VAR here.
     
  23. USSF REF

    USSF REF Guest

    It was never "bounces of the body"... it said,

    Screenshot_20231128_172310_Laws of the Game.jpg

    If he thought the arm was making the body unnaturally bigger then the exceptions at the bottom don't apply.

    Instead, the only exemption in this area applies if the arm is beyond or above the shoulder and the player plays it off their own arm. This was not a play... but if it does rebound unexpectedly, I've always wondered how that can truly be deliberate if you don't know where the ball will be...
     
    mfw13 and socal lurker repped this.
  24. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yep. It only applied when a player or their teammate deliberately played the ball into their arm.

    But this also doesn't "feel" like an offense to me. I can accept the arm creating a barrier on an expected shot or cross. But once it goes off the chest the advantage the defender gains stopping the cross is gone.
     
    mfw13 repped this.
  25. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    The less said about that decision the better....simply atrocious from both the VAR and Marciniak.

    Thankfully, however, Newcastle still control their own destiny....beat AC Milan at home and they finish 2nd unless PSG wins at Dortmund, which is unlikely given that PSG have lost both their away fixtures in the group and Dortmund have won three matches in a row.

    If PSG-Dortmund ends up as a draw, then Newcastle advances on tiebreakers by virtue of winning the head-to-head with PSG 4 points to 1 point.

    The difference is that had the Newcastle-PSG result held, Newcastle would have been able to advance with a draw against AC Milan instead of a win.
     

Share This Page