UEFA Champions League: FC Barcelona vs Chelsea London

FC Barcelona 2-2 Chelsea FC


Referee
Yellow Cards
2nd Yellow C
Red Cards
Penaltys
 C. Cakir
8 (2-6) 
 1 (1-0)
1 (1-0) 


UEFA Champions League 2011/2012
Semifinals, 2nd leg
Referee Observation Report

(ESP) FC Barcelona
2:2
Chelsea London (ENG)

MATCH FACTS 24 April 2012 • 20:45 local time • Camp Nou, Barcelona, Spain • Attendance: 95.845

Function
 Full Name
Origin
Final Mark*
Referee
Cüneyt Çakır
TUR
88,8
Assistant Referee 1
Bahattin Duran
TUR
85,0
Assistant Referee 2
Tarik Ongun
TUR
80,0
Fourth Official
Fırat Aydınus
TUR
80,0
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Hüseyin Göçek
TUR
90,0
Additional Assistant Referee 2
Bülent Yıldırım
TUR
90,0
UEFA Delegate
Dennis Cruise
IRL

UEFA Referee Observer
Bertrand Layec
FRA

BLOG Referee Observers
Philipp S., Niclas E.
GER

* Remark: The final marks presented in this ROR have been awarded by the respective BLOG Referee Observer and do not pose an official UEFA evaluation of the respective match official’s performance. THE FINAL MARKS OF THE REFEREE CANNOT BE COMPARED TO THE OTHER OFFICIALS’ ONES, AS THEY ARE RESULTING FROM DIFFERENT EVALUATION SCALES!

Evaluation scale (just giving a short impression of how the officials’ performances were):

Mark
Description
85-100
Excellent performance
77-84
Very good performance
70-76
Good performance
64-69
Still a solid performance
55-63
Error-phone performance
45-54
Defective performance
10-44
Inacceptable


Description of the match (including field conditions, weather conditions, match background and importance and difficulty):
Pitch and weather conditions excellent. Especially from the 30th minute to the end, it was an intense match with many match influencing decisions to solve.
The parameter match difficulty has been evaluated with the mark: (50 is minimum: easy, 60: easy match with some difficult situations, 70 intense match with several situations to solve, 80 difficult match with many situations to solve, 90-100 very difficult, heavy work!, all this is based on the perception of the observer)
100

Referee

1. Control

Evaluation scale (only full or half points can be given (e.g. 80 or 75):
Description
Marks
The match was under the referee’s full control all the time, a) even though it unfolded many situations which have been difficult to solve (e.g. upcoming riots…) or b) as the referee’s style and personality led to an easy-going match without bigger problems for the referee.
90-100
The match was under the referee’s full control and did not exhibit so many difficult situations to solve
80-85
The match was difficult and for this reason, there was – every now and then – a small but visible lack of control (e.g. that he sometimes allowed too many protests on his decisions or that he concentrated slightly too much on issueing cards to gain control.)
65-75
The referee a) showed many weaknesses in the area of controlling the match (e.g. often allowed too many protests on his decisions and only hid behind his cards to have control) which [the match] did not challenge the referee too much or b) did not have any control at all in an extremely difficult match.
50-60
The referee did not have control at all in an easy match. He perhaps even made it more difficult than it would have been possible.
10-45

Comment in words (optional):
The Referee kept the match under control by making very fast and good decisions. He did not offer room or time for complaints, however, he could have avoided upcoming troubles by deploying more communication.

In the parameter “Control”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
90

Remarkable situations one may focus on (optional):
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the referee’s behaviour
52
small riot between Lampard and Fábregas, more intense communication would have been adequate


Referee

2. Calls

Evaluation scale (all the criteria is subject to the observer’s feeling + perception, the following measures can be taken into consideration, but there is no need to apply them, simply mark the evaluation areas with X):
Description
Evaluation
Measures
+ +
+
o
-
- -
Foul Detection (also dives etc) (++ all the (non-)fouls have been recognized correctly, + most of the (non-)fouls have been recognized, only minor mistakes in this area, o decent foul detection, the referees has missed several of (non-)fouls, - inconsistent foul detection with many missed (non-)fouls that influenced the match, whistled either by far too many or by far too less fouls, - - inacceptable)
of course all the calls in this field have to be weighn up in order to come to a final evaluation!
X




Disciplinary Management, note: all the cards have to be listed in the last grid (++ the disciplinary management has been excellent, the referees found the right balance between card and no-card, he booked players if necessary with regard to the laws of the game, + overall, the disciplinary management has been good, most of the (non-)given cards were adequate, the referee perhaps missed a yellow card or gave a wrong one, o there is a lot of room for improvement concerning this field, the referee revealed a lack of consistency in his card policy, missed more than one yellow or gave more than one that was wrong or unnecessary, - poor disciplinary management, no consistency, the faulty card policy potentially led to difficulties, the referee perhaps missed a clear red card so that the card policy did not correspond at that moment to the laws of the game, - - inacceptable) = of course all the calls in this field have to be weighn up in order to come to a final evaluation!

X



Match Influencing Decisions (penalties, decisions immediately before a goal has been scored…) note: MIDs have to be listed in the Comment and the last grid (optional, if no MID had to be taken, this parameter may remain empty)
X




Advantage Rule (++ if possible, the referee applied the advantage rule in a very adequate way so that the play could flow [optional: and booked (a) player(s) for the original foul afterwards], + if possible, he applied it, sometimes a free kick or an advantage would have been better, o a) no advantages to be applied or b) only a decent advantage rule applying, - did not pay much attention to the advantage rule and potentially even stopped promising goal attempts, - - unacceptable, potentially even avoided goals by not paying attention to the advantage rule)
X




Additional Time adequate?
X






Comment on the application of the Laws of the Game
His application of the Laws of the Game was nearly perfect. He correctly detected the violent conduct of Terry and the penalty offence. Both decisions were taken upon consultation with the A(A)R1 and A(A)R2. All the cards were correct, with one exception, Lampard should have been sent off with a straight red card for a rude foul.

Remarkable situations and important calls one may focus on (necessary) like all the cards, crucial fouls or overseen fouls, match influencing decisions like penalties :
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the referee’s behaviour
6
first rude foul committed by Ivanovic, intense admonition, correct
16
Valdés inset against Drogba and Piqué, no foul of course, allowed quick medical treatment
32
YC to Mikel for a tactical foul, correct
34
Cech wasting time, referee urges him, good
36
preceding the red card, he applied a good advantage for Barcelona
37
RC to Terry upon consultation with AR1 and/or AAR1 for a violent conduct, spot on decision. Good that he issued the sending-off very fast.
43
YC to Ramires, probably for claiming an offside position in the 2-0 afterwards, no room for evaluation
48
correct penalty kick decision to Barcelona after a foul of Drogba. Again upon consultation with AR2 and/or AAR2.
49
YC to Ivanovic for complaining, again no room for evaluation
49
Messi missed the penalty, however, it could have been repeated as a minimum of 4 Chelsea players entered the box too early.
50
YC to Iniesta for a tactical foul, correct
52
riots between many players, beginning with Fábregas and Lampard. Both should have been urged more seriously, perhaps even booked
59
YC to Cech for wasting time, correct and good
63
replays show that Kalou hit Puyol’s face with his arm, probably not his intention, but should have been penalized with a free kick
71
YC to Messi for a tactical foul, correct
72
YC to Lampard for a rude foul from behind. It was a clear foul solely aimed at hurting the opponent, from behind, ball was away, it should have been a red card
84
good free kick decision against Busquets, even though it seemed to be the other way round first, correct
89
YC to Meireles for a tactical foul, correct
90+1
no penalty kick for an alleged handball to Barcelona preceding the 2-2, correct


In the parameter “Calls”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
90


Referee

3. Physical aspects and style

Comment on the tactical approach of the referee, his personality in the pitch and also physical aspects. Might also contain general circumstances the observer has come across with.
Great fitness and movement throughout the whole 97 minutes. Positioning was good, his approach pretty passive. He merely reacted on the incidents and did not really lead the match. This way was successful. Communication can be improved.

Overview

Description
Evaluation
Positioning, movement and physical condition
+
Expected level
-
Good positioning, always close to the play, follows play at all times and does not interfere with play and enters the penalty area when necessary
X


Flexible diagonal system (movement in the pitch)

X

Able to anticipate situations and the action

X

Efficient positioning (at set pieces or dead ball e.g.)

X

Physical Condition
X



Description
Evaluation
Tactical approach (style) and personality in the pitch
+
Expected level
-
The referee has a style that fits to the match and its background, is able to adapt the style during the match and shows a consistent line which can be understood by the players.
X


His style is moving within the borderlines the Laws of the Game set.
X


Communication

X

Clear and respectful gestures
X


Shows respect towards the players in general, the referee is on the same level like the players
X



In the parameter “Physical aspects and style”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
85


Referee

4. Neutrality

Description
Evaluation
Neutrality
+
Expected level
-
The referee is in general neutral.

X

The referee does not tend to prefer teams with bigger names or a higher reputation.

X

The referee makes decisions independent from previous ones and does not make them due to compensative reasons.

X

No match influencing mistake wronged a certain team (it need not necessarily be the referee’s intention)
X



In the parameter “Neutrality”, the referee has been evaluated with the mark:
80


Referee

5. Final Mark

Parameter
Percentage
Mark
Control
25 %
90
Calls
30 %
90
Physical aspects and style
25 %
85
Neutrality
10 %
80
Match difficulty (page 1)
10 %
100

Final mark
88,8




Assistant Referee 1

Brief comment on the degree of occupation and difficulty the assistant referee 1 had to cope with. Remarkable situations should be mentioned with reference to the minute [in brackets].
Good involvement in the sending-off decision. Had many good onside calls, only one offside call. Good performance.

Overview

Description
Evaluation
Positioning and technical aspects
+
Expected level
-
Good positioning and movement

X

Adequate alertness, psychological concentration as well as awareness and good cooperation with the referee as long as situations appeared in the AR1’s area of responsibility (reaction to incidents within his vicinity)
X


Efficient positioning and control in difficult circumstances (dead ball, no-look-passes e.g.)

X

Holds and moves his flag in an adequate way and in accordance with the Laws of the Game (Law 11, FIFA Laws of the Game p. 90/91)

X

Physical Condition
X



Description
Evaluation
Offside and foul detection
+
Expected level
-
Correct offside decisions and good application of the “wait and see” technique (+ should be only awarded if the offsides have been very difficult – contrary movements e.g. – or if there has been a large amount of offsides or if certain (one) offside decision(s) has been of great importance for the outcome of the match)

X

Supports the referee with a good foul detection in his area of responsibility
X



Remarkable decisions
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the assistant referee’s behaviour
6
good onside decision
37
good involvement in the sending-off incident. Either he, or the AAR1 or both advised the referee to send off Terry which was the only correct decision.
44
good onside decision preceding the 2-0
69
offside position


Evaluation scale (only full or half points can be given (e.g. 80 or 75), the observer can take the scale as measure, there is however no need to do so:

Mark
Description
85-100
The assistant referee showed an excellent performance in all the criteria in a match which challenged him a lot.
75-80
The assistant referee a) showed an excellent performance in a match that revealed several challenges for the assistant referee or b) made excellent decisions in a not so easy match but showed some room of improvement in technical areas.
65-70
The assistant referee a) showed an excellent performance but made one remarkable mistake (mostly in the field of offside) or b) revealed some smaller weaknesses in different criteria or c) struggled in difficult situations he had to solve.
50-60
The assistant referee made a) – in the opinion of the observer – too many mistakes or b) made a match decisive or influencing mistake.
10-45
The assistant referee does not only unfold technical weaknesses but also made a lot of mistakes. His performance was inacceptable.

The assistant referee 1 has been therefore evaluated with the mark:
85,0


Assistant Referee 2

Brief comment on the degree of occupation and difficulty the assistant referee 2 had to cope with. Remarkable situations should be mentioned with reference to the minute [in brackets].
Less to do than AR1. Correctly disallowed a Barca goal due to offside, seemed to have doubts in the penalty kick situation.


Overview

Description
Evaluation
Positioning and technical aspects
+
Expected level
-
Good positioning and movement

X

Adequate alertness, psychological concentration as well as awareness and good cooperation with the referee as long as situations appeared in the AR2’s area of responsibility (reaction to incidents within his vicinity)

X

Efficient positioning and control in difficult circumstances (dead ball, no-look-passes e.g.)

X

Holds and moves his flag in an adequate way and in accordance with the Laws of the Game (Law 11, FIFA Laws of the Game p. 90/91)

X

Physical Condition
X



Description
Evaluation
Offside and foul detection
+
Expected level
-
Correct offside decisions and good application of the “wait and see” technique (+ should be only awarded if the offsides have been very difficult – contrary movements e.g. – or if there has been a large amount of offsides or if certain (one) offside decision(s) has been of great importance for the outcome of the match)
X


Supports the referee with a good foul detection in his area of responsibility

X


Remarkable decisions
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the assistant referee’s behaviour
48
seemed to be unsure about the penalty kick, did not really react which is a sign of incertitude. Furthermore, he started the movement to signal a goal kick. Probably, he had not the best position to evaluate that.
82
good offside decision (would have been a goal for Barcelona)



Evaluation scale (only full or half points can be given (e.g. 80 or 75), the observer can take the scale as measure, there is however no need to do so:

Mark
Description
85-100
The assistant referee showed an excellent performance in all the criteria in a match which challenged him a lot.
75-80
The assistant referee a) showed an excellent performance in a match that revealed several challenges for the assistant referee or b) made excellent decisions in a not so easy match but showed some room of improvement in technical areas.
65-70
The assistant referee a) showed an excellent performance but made one remarkable mistake (mostly in the field of offside) or b) revealed some smaller weaknesses in different criteria or c) struggled in difficult situations he had to solve.
50-60
The assistant referee made a) – in the opinion of the observer – too many mistakes or b) made a match decisive or influencing mistake.
10-45
The assistant referee does not only unfold technical weaknesses but also made a lot of mistakes. His performance was inacceptable.

The assistant referee 2 has been therefore evaluated with the mark:
80,0


Additional Assistant Referee 1

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
Good involvement in the sending-off decision.


Overview
Description
Evaluation

+
Expected level
-
Good positioning and movement

X

Adequate alertness, psychological concentration as well as awareness and good cooperation with the referee

X

Involvement in the match (did the AAR1 show concentration and the courage to advise the referee concerning situations that appeared in his area of responsibility?)
X


Quality of the calls he made or which were influenced by his message
X



The additional assistant referee 1 has been therefore evaluated with the mark (the scale for the assistant referees can be taken as measure):
90,0


Additional Assistant Referee 2

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
Good teamwork with the referee in minute 48, correctly awarded penalty kick.


Overview
Description
Evaluation

+
Expected level
-
Good positioning and movement

X

Adequate alertness, psychological concentration as well as awareness and good cooperation with the referee

X

Involvement in the match (did the AAR2 show concentration and the courage to advise the referee concerning situations that appeared in his area of responsibility?)
X


Quality of the calls he made or which were influenced by his message
X



The additional assistant referee 2 has been therefore evaluated with the mark (the scale for the assistant referees can be taken as measure):
90,0


Fourth Official

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
In minute 10, he signaled a change, however, Chelsea then rejected the substitution. Probably not his fault. Showed a calm dealing with the Chelsea responsibles when Terry was sent off.

Description
Evaluation

+
Expected level
-
Concentration and potential involvement in situations

X

Communication and respectful dealing with coaches and substitutes

X

Quick and concentrated execution of substitutions and providing of the additional time

X


The Fourth Official has been therefore evaluated with the mark (the scale for the assistant referees can be taken as measure, expected level should be 8,0):
80,0


Observed by Philipp S. (GER), Niclas E. (GER)
Date, Location 26 April 2012, Germany

0 other reports: