ita isr u21 hategan

7/28/2019 Ita Isr u21 Hategan

1/8

Unofficial Referee Observers Report The Third Team (footballrefereeing.blogspot.com)

UEFA Under-21 European Championship 2013

(ITA) Italy 4:0 Israel (ISR)

08 June 2013, 20:30 CET Bloomfield, Tel Aviv, Israel

Match Officials Name Origin Mark1 Mark2 Difficulty3

Referee Ovidiu Alin Haegan ROU 8.2 --- Challenging

Assistant Referee 1 Johann Gudmundsson ISL 8.3 --- Normal

Assistant Referee 2 Alan Mulvanny SCO 8.4 --- Challenging

Additional AR 1 Kristo Tohver EST 7.9 --- Challenging

Additional AR 2 Ilias Spathas GRE 8.0 --- Normal

Fourth Official Vencel Tth HUN 8.0 --- Normal

UEFA Delegate Jean Paul Mievis BEL

UEFA Referee Observer Hugh Dallas SCO

Blog Referee Observer Niclas E. GER

1 Final mark according to evaluation scale. Expected level for AARs and fourth official is 8.0, crucial mistake 7.7!2 Mark if the final mark had not been influenced by a crucial mistake (only in case of a crucial mistake, to be held empty if no crucial mistake

occurred).3 Difficulty has to be integrated into the final mark. Levels of difficulty are: normal, challenging and very challenging.4 Blog-Referee Observer =Inofficial referee observer appointed by the blog administrator.

Evaluation scale(for referee and assistant referees

only)

Description of the Marks

9.0 10.0 Excellent.

8.5 8.9 Very good. Important decision(s) correctly taken.

8.3 8.4 Good. Expected level.

8.2 Satisfactory with small areas for improvement.

8.0 8.1 Satisfactory with important areas for improvement.

7.9 One clear and important mistake, otherwise 8.3 or above.

7.8 One clear and important mistake, otherwise 8.0 8.2.

7.5 7.7Below expectation, poor control, significant point(s) for

improvement.

7.0 7.4

Disappointing. Below expectation with one and clear important

mistake

or a performance with two or more clear and important mistakes.

6.0 6.9 Unacceptable.



2/8


1) Description of the match:

Second matchday in Group A at these Under-21 championship finals. After the previous win

by the Norwegian side over England, it was clear that Italy could qualify for the semifinals by

defeating Israel, the hosting team. They managed that with a clear and never threatened 4:0,

specially after the red card issued by referee Haegan, Israel gave up their hope.

All the players behaved in an overall fair and good manner to each other. The benches were

also no real challenge for the fourth official.

The field and weather conditions were on the whole good with smaller exceptions in

Bloomfield Stadium. Additionally, the supporters naturally favoured their home team Israel

and vociferated their grievances about some decisions, nonetheless one can call the

atmosphere still sporting.

Referee

2) Knowledge, Application and Interpretation of the Laws of the Game, Disciplinary

Control and Technical Management of the game with special reference to the situations

and the minutes when they occurred.

(Crucial decisions, if available, have to be explicitly mentioned in the grid and

highlighted).

Comments:

The referee had a good and predictable line in his application and interpretation of the Laws

of the Game. He stopped play only when necessary and tried to give some room to theplayers. The first foul occurred after only seven seconds, a tactical foul by holding and pulling

(Israels Kriaf was the offender). Good to verbally warn the player and to avoid a too early

yellow card.

This leniency in the disciplinary management radically changed in the 37th minute of play

when he issued a red card to Israel s midfield player Golasa, who took on Saponara with both

feet up. Serious foul play and a very brave call. In the 2nd half, there was a correct caution for

Italys Verratti for deliberate handball impeding a counterattack. Another yellow card was

missing for Israels Barouch who intentionally punched his opponent with his elbow. It was

no dramatical or very targeted (violent) conduct, but must be yellow-carded. The referee

totally missed this scene and thus failed to protect the Italian players (which also becameobvious in a situation before).

Another controversial situation happened in the 52nd minute, some moments prior to Italys

3:0 goal. Israels Vahaba blocked a promising shot by Italy s Biraghi with his hand. The arm

was widely spread out thus enlarging the players body volume. The short distance as well as

the high pace of the shot are no excuse here. This should have been a penalty, but is with

regard to the circumstances of the match not evaluated as a crucial mistake.

Apart from that he showed a good technical management of the match, re-starting the

match in a correct manner was no problem. Good to repeatedly advise the players who

executed free-kicks or created walls to wait for his whistle, to maintain the 9.15 m distance

and to mind their hands. He also reminded the players to impede pushing and holding aftercorner-kicks. Good prevention.


3/8


Minute Description of the situation

37

Red Card to Israels Golasa for serious foul play on Verratti. Surprising decision

at the first glance, but great and brave call on the second one. Even though it

was the first card of the match and had a big impact on the further course of

events, this sending-off was absolutely justified.

52

The referee should have awarded a penalty to Italy for handball. The defender

enlarged his body volume and thus prevented the shot on goal to reach its aim.

Small distance though.

87

The referee missed an elbow conduct requiring a yellow card. Barouch was

lucky that he totally missed this situation. When Italian players protested that

he had deployed his elbow in this duel, the referee negated that. An error of

perception.

3) Tactical approach and its Degree of Consistency, Personality, Match Control and

Management of the Teams and Players with special reference to the situations and theminutes when they occurred.

Comments:

As indicated in 2), the referee generally chose a lenient line in terms of disciplinary control

but was totally consistent when punishing serious foul play with a red card. Apart from that,

he had a predictable line in his foul detection and avoided unnecessary stoppages. He

sensibly applied the advantage rule here and there. In some moments, such as in the first

minute of the game or during the protests after the sending-off, he should more

empathically respond to the players and communicate a bit more. This however does not

mean that his match control lacked that was guaranteed throughout the whole 90 minutes

plus stoppage time.

Summary of 2) and 3):

Positive Points 1.

Courage to take unpopular decisions issuing a surprising

but totally correct red card in the first half against the

hosting team is brave.

2. Understandable line in his decisions.

3.

Good preventive work. He repeatedly reminded the players

on avoiding pushing and holding after corners as well as

warning them about handballs in walls after free-kicks.

Not meeting require-

ments, points that

need improvement

1.

Criteria for deliberate handball in the penalty area should be

revised. Body volume enlargement was more relevant in this

specific scene than the distance.

2.More protection for the players, more alertness for hidden

elbow conducts and comparable things.

3.

More empathy for the players. When players (kindly) ask him

something, like Italys Insigne in minute 1, he should either

listen to them or making clear he does not want to hear suchstuff. But ignoring them is no solution.


4/8


4) Physical Shape, Stamina, Positioning, Movement as well as Mental Awareness, if

needed, with reference to the minutes when they occurred, always in case of a -.

Physical Condition (very good, good, average, poor): Very Good

Further Aspects:+ Expected -

XAlways close to play, follows play at all times with a flexible

diagonal system and impedes interference with play

X

Efficient positioning (at set pieces e.g.) and movement to be

ready to take a (crucial) decision (specially in the box; be

able to enter the box in some cases when it is necessary)

X Shows awareness and is able to anticipate the action


full timeVery athletic impression and flexible diagonal system. These factors helped the

referee to be always close to the action while never interfering with play.

5) Teamwork (co-operation with (A)ARs and fourth official with reference, if needed, to

special situations and the minutes when they occurred)

Comments:

Thats a point which could need slight improvement as well. While the communication with

the assistant referees was very smooth, there were two situations expressing a lack of

teamwork with the first additional assistant referee.

In minute 24, there was a close decision to take for AAR1, either goalkick or corner kick. Ittook them about five seconds to decide in favour of a goal kick to Italy. This created irritation,

even though it was the correct decision. Quicker communication or eye-contact could have

been adequate. Also in the missed penalty, AAR1 actually had a free line of sight and could

have advised the referee to award it. Not a point of negative co-operation, but just an error

made by both of them.

6) If needed: General comments or advices for improvement; explanation of the chosen

mark; further matters (can be let empty).

Comments:

Actually a good performance which could be rewarded with 8.4 or even 8.5, as the red card

surely was a brave and match relevant call. However, the missing penalty (even though totally

irrelevant in its outcome) and the missed elbow at the end lower the mark on 8.2.


5/8


Assistant Referee 1

7) Assistant Referee 1s performance (please mention some important decisions either by

integrating them into a coherent comment or mentioning them in the grid below; mandatory

if a - (negative point) is selected)

Relevant Aspects:

+ Expected -

X

Correct offside decisions by means of a good application of

the

wait and see-technique

X Good positioning and movement

XMental alertness and reaction to incidents in his area of

vicinity

X

Reasonable degree of co-operation with referee (not

flagging too much / too little; being able to support referee

in crucial decisions)

X Efficient control at set pieces

Comments:

The first assistant referee had no challenging situations to solve. There were no controversial

situations in his area of responsibility so that it was a quiet evening for him. Only one correct

offside decision to report. Good member of the team, 8.3.



6/8


Assistant Referee 2

8) Assistant Referee 2s performance (please mention some important decisions either by

integrating them into a coherent comment or mentioning them in the grid below; mandatory

if a - (negative point) is selected)

Relevant Aspects:

+ Expected -

X

Correct offside decisions by means of a good application of

the

wait and see-technique


XMental alertness and reaction to incidents in his area of

vicinity

X

Reasonable degree of co-operation with referee (not

flagging too much / too little; being able to support referee

in crucial decisions)


Comments:

AR2 was involved in more situations: he took some tight but always correct offside decisions,

such as in minute 51, 78 or 90+1. The most relevant decision was to disallow a goal scored by

Israel due to offside. Clear decision. Apart from that he was not involved in decision taking

either. 8.4.



7/8


Additional Assistant Referee 1

9) Additional Assistant Referee 1s performance (please mention some important decisions

either by integrating them into a coherent comment or mentioning them in the grid below;

mandatoryif a - (negative point) is selected)

Relevant Aspects:

+ Expected -


X

Mental alertness and reaction to incidents in his area of

vicinity based on a reasonable degree of co-operation with

referee


Comments:

Ambivalent performance. He has proven that he is ready to take decisions on the goalline he

was controlling. On the other hand, it took the team way too long to then also communicate

the decision to each other (24th minute). Furthermore, he should have advised the referee to

point to the spot for a penalty after Vahaba had clearly handled the ball and thus prevented a

goal attempt. Small areas for improvement for this reason, 7.9.


Additional Assistant Referee 2

10) Additional Assistant Referees performance (please mention some important decisions

either by integrating them into a coherent comment or mentioning them in the grid below;

mandatoryif a - (negative point) is selected)

Relevant Aspects:

+ Expected -


X

Mental alertness and reaction to incidents in his area of

vicinity based on a reasonable degree of co-operation with

referee


Comments:

The second additional assistant referee was only challenged once and took a wrong call

there. He did not recognize that a defender had touched the ball last, which was also difficult

to see, but nonetheless avoided a corner kick to Italy (35 th minute). Just one error of


8/8


perception and therefore absolutely expected level, 8.0. Made a focused impression apart

from this incident.


Fourth Official

11) Fourth Officials performance (reference to technical management like substitutions or

signalling of additional time, dealing with benches in case of conflicts)

Comments:

Normal match for him. Just once there were slight problems with the board in a substitution.

No problems with the benches.

ita isr u21 hategan

Documents