isr-nor-u21-gil

7/28/2019 ISR-NOR-U21-Gil

1/8

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

UEFA Under-21 European Championship 2013

(ISR) Israel 2:2 Norway (NOR)

05 June 2013, 18:00 CET Netanya Stadium, Netanya, Israel

Match Officials Name Origin Mark1 Mark2 Difficulty3

Referee Pawel Gil POL 7.9 8.3 Challenging

Assistant Referee 1 Vencel Tth HUN 8.3 --- Challenging

Assistant Referee 2 Ivo Kolev BUL 8.3 --- Normal

Additional AR 1 Miroslav Zelinka CZE 8.1 --- NormalAdditional AR 2 Ivan Kruliak SVK 8.1 --- Normal

Fourth Official Johann Gudmundsson ISL 8.0 --- Normal

UEFA Delegate Tervel Zlatev BUL

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 let 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:

Opening game of Under-21 European Championships final tournament on Israeli ground.

Due to the fact that it is the first official tournament ever played in Israel, the crowd

comprising approximately 10.000 supporters created a good and enthusiastic atmosphere

naturally favouring their home side but never showing a lack of respect or fairness towards

the Norwegian team.

Good football level and a lot of tension until stoppage time. Both teams aspired to win and

had many chances, although Norway clearly dominated this tie. They did not use many big

chances to score and Israel were lucky to take the lead twice.

A really challenging match for the referee team headed by Pawel Gil, whose decisions

influenced the match in some ways.

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 mentioned in the grid and highlighted).

Comments:

The referee revealed an expected level in terms of knowledge and application of the Laws of

the Game with a couple of exceptions though. After the correct but nonetheless hard red

card for dogso (correctly recognized that the other defender would have been unable tointervene; also very prudent to caution the fouled player for demanding a RC to his

opponent!) in 44, he lost the track a bit and became kind of unpredictable. Exaggerated

yellow card to ISR #14 before the half-time break for alleged diving. He should not take such

decisions to satisfy each side here and there. One got the impression he set this signal after

some Israeli players fell a bit easily. But in this case a YC was not needed. Borderline yellow

card to ISR #10 immediately after the start of the second half, his studs-up foul onto his

opponents shinbone could have been red-carded.

Crucial mistake though even before all those scenes mentioned above: wrong penalty kick

leading to Israels 1:0 goal in minute 16. NOR #6 allegedly fouled ISR #20 who immediately

fell and seemed to be hurt. There was however, as many replays unveil, no contact. Thereferee took the decision swiftly and probably without consultation of his AAR. The whole

scene should not have come into existence by the way wrong corner kick leading to this

scene awarded by the referee and specially AR1 (ISR #14 touched the ball last).

Good management apart from that. Advantage rule could be applied more often, specially

when goalkeepers are fouled in their area but are ready to play on and initiate a promising

counterattack.

Minute Description of the situation

16Penalty Kick to Israel. NOR #6 did not touch his opponent ISR #20, therefore a

wrong decision and a crucial mistake.

44Red Card for DOGSO against NOR #5, correct decision, even though the

forward waited for the contact. Criteria for DOGSO was totally fulfilled.


3/8


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 the

minutes when they occurred.

Comments:

The referee actually had a good and suitable tactical approach. He did not whistle everycontact but cannot be called lenient either. He worked with many verbal warnings on both

sides before cautioning the first player in 38. So the players got some room to behave in the

early minutes. Then he changed it radically and became more pedantic, whistled more

contacts and duels and cautioned more players as a reaction on some unfair behaviour. He

maintained the full match control from the start until the final whistle. Mutual respect

existed, the players mostly accepted his decisions without protests, also in the RC situation.

He could improve his communication with the players on the pitch and apply a bit more

personality despite merely executing the Laws of the Game.

Summary of 2) and 3):

Positive Points 1.Flexibility in adapting his line to the requirements of the

match.

2.Consistency in punishing misconduct, such as demanding a

RC to the opponent.

3.Courage to take brave decisions, even though some of them

went wrong and mostly favoured the hosting team.

Not meeting require-

ments, points thatneed improvement

1.He must stay more predictable in his card and decision

management during the full match time.

2.More personality and communication could lead to better

results and could avoid some cautions in a proactive fashion.

3.

Alertness was missing in the penalty scene. He overreacted

and took a wrong call. A more central positioning could have

helped perhaps.

4.

Advantage rule could be applied more often, specially when

goalkeepers are fouled in their area but are ready to play

on and initiate a promising counterattack.


10

ISR goalkeeper was fouled by a Norwegian forward but it was clear he was able

to play on. He was ready to initiate a good counterattack of his own team but

was stopped by the referees free kick call. The referee should wait a bit longer

to see whether there will be an advantage that is worth to allow.

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): Good


4/8


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 beready 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


16

His positioning was the one you expect from a referee in corner kicks. The

problem was that in this specific situation, it made it even more difficult to take

an adequate decision. Perhaps he could be more flexible in it, but it s no real

point of criticism as he followed the instructions.

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

special situations and the minutes when they occurred)

Comments:

At this tournament teamwork could turn out to be the biggest problem. Six match officials

from six different countries who mostly have never worked together before. At least a huge

challenge for all the involved officials. Also in this match there seemed to be some form of co-

operation, but leading to unsatisfying calls. Wrong suggestion by AR1 to award a corner kick

before the penalty incident. In the situation itself, AAR1 was probably not involved but should

have had a quite good angle to see it better than the referee. Good remarks though by AAR2

and later by AAR1 to not award other penalty kicks (5 and 28).

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

mark; further matters (can be let empty).

Comments:

The wrong penalty kick does not allow more than 7.9. On the other hand, there were many

things to improve but also several positive things in a challenging match. Apart from the

penalty error, the mark would have been still an 8.3.


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 -

XCorrect 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:

Overall a good performance by AR1. Excellent and very difficult decision to let the flag (no

offside) before the foul leading to the red card. High pace but perfectly detected. Also besides

that some normal onside situations to solve, all correct.

However, he wrongly suggested to give a corner kick in favour of Israel preceding the penalty

kick. No crucial mistake of course, but one which reduces his mark a bit (-0.1/0.2).



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 -

XCorrect 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:

Overall good performance also shown by AR2. Absolutely brilliant movement on the sideline,

always on level and ready to take a decision. A model behaviour by an AR.

Correct decisions in some moments regarding offside, but once he failed to apply the wait-

and-see-technique. Two forward players were able to receive the ball, one was offside and

one was legally positioned. Latter got the ball, the other player who had been offside did not

interfere with play or opponent.No offside in the 2:1 goal correct.


66Failed to apply the wait-and-see-technique, but no big error and no relevant

situation.


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:

The first additional assistant referee seemed alert on the goalline, was not involved in the

corner kick decision leading to the penalty kick and did not seem to have made the penalty

kick decision itself either. Correct decision to not advice the referee to give another one in 28.

Apart from that regular performance.


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:

Normal performance without many situations to solve. Correct decision, no penalty in minute

5. Regular movement on goalline and not so challenged in this match.



8/8


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 performance, nothing to report.

isr-nor-u21-gil

Documents