UEFA Europa League: Metalist vs Sporting CP

 vs



Metalist Kharkiv (UKR)

1:1
agg 2-3
Sporting Clube de Portugal

MATCH FACTS 5 april 2012 • 21.05 local time • Metalist Stadium, Kharkiv • Attendance: 35.000

Function
 Full Name
Origin
Final Mark*
Referee
William Collum
SCO
76.25
Assistant Referee 1
Derek Rose
SCO
90
Assistant Referee 2
Alisdair Ross
SCO
         90
Fourth Official
Robert Madden
SCO
75
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Euan Norris
SCO
         75
Additional Assistant Referee 2
Steven McLean
SCO
80
UEFA Delegate
Cristian Bivolaru
ROU

UEFA Referee Observer
Iouri Baskakov
RUS

BLOG Referee Observer
Sander
NED

* 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
85-10,0
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):
2nd match between Metalist and Sporting. After the 2-1 victory for Sporting in the first match this one became a game of chess with Metalist as the fallen king after 96 minutes. Sporting did not attacked to much and waited for the mistakes in the Metalist defence. Metalist was not able to create real pressure and some chances. Match was not to difficult but the second half, Sporting scored 0-1 1 minute before half time, became a bit more intense when Metalist leveled it all up. They started the offence and had a big chance when they got a penalty after a minor foul from Insua. Xavier missed it. Field, weather and stadium conditions were great. (As you may aspect from a EC stadium)      

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)
65

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):
Quite an easy night for Collum. Great foul detection and respectfull behavior against players. Typical Collum was that he showed 6 YC’s at the end of the game. His matches always seems to turn out in a (small or big) riot at the end but he managed it all very well. No comments after the penalty however it was a very minor foul. (Pushing)

In the parameter “Control”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
80

Remarkable situations one may focus on (optional):
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the referee’s behaviour

68

Showed a YC to Xandao for comment after the penalty but he did not argued in a inacceptable way. Card seemed a bit harsh.



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, 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
Collum had a great interpretation of the advantage rule but sometimes he waited too long too whistle. That does not make the call wrong but it is not wise to give a lot of advantage on the defenders half. It can create some irritations but Collum noticed well that the players could handle it well. The picked it up in a great way which made it a sportive game.

There were hardly big calls to make and the one he made did not created comments however the call was harsh. Insua pushed Taison a little bit and Collum decided to award a penalty kick. There could have been some contact between him and Derek Rose who had an open view. AAR 1 Euan Norris was not able to see it right because he looked up to the front of Taison. The YC for Xandao, who asked what Collum has seen, was to harsh.

Over the whole game a great foul detection and that, in combination with the advantage rule, made it a good game. 

Excellent performance from both of the assistant referees who had a few close calls to make. Both of the AAR’S had quite an easy evening.

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
16
Waited for advantage after a foul on Perreira. When it did not appeared he gave a free kick
24
Again he waited for advantage but this time a bit too long. Again he gave a free kick when there was no real advantage
40
Yellow Card to Berezovchuk, correct
47
Foul 1 meter outside the box straight for the goal. Collum gave advantage when the ball went to the side of the field which is against the standard. He should have given the free kick
54
Warning for Torres after a foul on Diego Capel. Solved it well
58
Yellow Card to Sosa, correct
62
Penalty after a foul from Insua, no yellow card which was not necessary
62
Yellow card to Xandao, to harsh
     68
Yellow card to Torres after a foul on Evaldo. Seconds before he did not gave a free kick when Taison felt to easy. Both decisions correct
81
Yellow card to Taison for protest, correct
83
No penalty after a duel between Xandao and Torres. Torres walked onto Xandao’s body. It all happened deliberately and it was correct to not award a penalty
88
Yellow card to Evaldo, correct
90+1
Yellow card to Obradovic, correct. He pushed the Sporting doctor out of the field when he was helping Van Wolfswinkel during an injury



In the parameter “Calls”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
80



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.
Not so good. Followed to much trough the middle and missed some small fouls due to that. Also some bad positioning during the game. Positioning was okay by dead play moments.


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 one the same level like the players

X


In the parameter “Physical aspects and style”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
75






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:
75


Referee

5. Final Mark

Parameter
Percentage
Mark
Control
25 %
80
Calls
30 %
80
Physical aspects and style
25 %
75
Neutrality
10 %
75
Match difficulty (page 1)
10 %
65

Final mark
     76.25












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].
Some close calls which all were well seen.

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 behavior
41
Correct offside call. Defender and Capel moved opposite and that made it a difficult call
44
Well seen that Van Wolfswinkel was onside when he score the 0-1
     56
Cristvaldo was onside when he scored the 1-1. Again a close call and well seen


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:
90


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].
More close calls than Derek Rose and also some situations which asked for supporting the referee. Great 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 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
11
Good offside call when Cristaldo was offside
37 + 68
Both situations with a ball crossed the line at the minimum. Both times well seen
90+1
He saw that Obradovic pushed the doctor from Sporting. YC was given on his, correct advice.



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:
90





Additional Assistant Referee 1

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
No important situations


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):
75


Additional Assistant Referee 2

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
Duel on the goalline in the 63th minute. 2 players lay down and there was a little riot but he was there on time to solve it well.


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):
80


Fourth Official

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
Some smooth talk with the bench from Sporting. They were very nervous but he solved it with a smile


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):
75,0


Observed by Sander (NED)
Date, Location 5 april 2012, Netherlands

0 other reports: