UEFA Champions League: Bayern München vs Real Madrid


FC Bayern München   2-1Real Madrid Club de Fútbol 

Referee
Yellow Cards
2nd Yellow C
Red Cards
Penaltys
 H. Webb
9 (3-6) 


Bayern München (GER)

2:1

Real Madrid  (ESP)

MATCH FACTS 17 April 2012 • 20:45 local time • Fußball Arena, München  • Attendance: 66.000

Function
 Full Name
Origin
Final Mark*
Referee
Howard Melton Webb
ENG
72
Assistant Referee 1
Michael Mullarkey
ENG
75
Assistant Referee 2
Stephen Child
ENG
50
Fourth Official
Mike Dean
ENG
80
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Martin Atkinson
ENG
60
Additional Assistant Referee 2
Mark Clattenburg
ENG
65
UEFA Delegate
Harry M. Been
NED

UEFA Referee Observer
Vitor Melo Pereira
POR

BLOG Referee Observer
Chefren
ITA

* 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):
Sold out In the  Fußball Arena, of München for the first leg match of the semifinals. It was played in a great atmosphere, the pitch was still good  in a cold evening. Anyway, not so bad conditions to play football.  Difficult and challenging match for the referees team.
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):
Referee tried to control the match in the best possible way, that is without cards from the beginning, and with many verbal warnings. This was a good thing, but not for the whole match. Towards the end, the players were still nervous, nevertheless  overall there were not so important riots and big tense moments, at least until the last minutes.

In the parameter “Control”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
70

Remarkable situations one may focus on (optional):
Minute
Description of the situation and evaluation of the referee’s behaviour
93’
This is  probably the best example: after Marcelo foul, that was a straight red card, all german players were turbulent, running and shouting against the opponent and the referee. A different approach from the beginning, maybe would have assured a different end.  








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)



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) =



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
About foul detection, we have to split an acceptable first half, from a poor second. In first half referee did a good job, whistling correctly most of the fouls, even though not giving the right card. In second half, there was a radical change. Some phantom fouls, a penalty missed, and not always the right choice with card color. The first match influencing decision was the 1-0 goal, that was offside, not seen by the second assistant. This scoring affected the rest of the match. Toward the ends, the referee showed to be too much lenient with some brutal fouls.  Additional time was adequate in both halves.


Remarkable situations and important calls one may focus on (necessary) like all the cards, crucial fouls or overseen fouls, match influencing decisions like penalties :

14’  Fabio Coentrao on Robben: this should have been the first card of the match, Webb preferred a verbal warning. Real Madrid player had not chances to catch the ball.

15’ Ribery fell down in the penalty area: it was just a hand  of Ramos on his  chest. The fall was not justified. Almost a simulation. Correct decision by Webb.

31’  Badstuber yellow card correct, also for the danger of the attack by Spanish team, but it clashes against the previous situation, in which a yellow card was mandatory.

37’ Robben yellow card for a raised leg on the opponent, correct decision by the referee

56’ Two cards in a row: Xabi Alonso and Coentrao were booked  in the same time, because after the first foul, referee tried to apply advantage rule. Correct.

60’ Di Maria waste of time, kicking away the ball, yellow card was correctly given.

64’ Lahm booked: he  blocked a counterattack after a corner kick with the clear intention to stop the player, not looking at ball, right card.

76’ Sergio Ramos brutal tackle from the back:  clear red card,. Referee chose yellow.

87’ Missed a penalty, two Real players in tackle on Mario Gomez: Sergio Ramos correctly caught the ball,  Coentrao the  only the opponent.  It appeared as a clear penalty.  No help from additional assistant referee.

92’ Higuain booked for complaints, probably he asked the referee a yellow card for the opponent.

93’ Marcelo another brutal tackle from the back: red card, but again referee showed yellow.






In the parameter “Calls”, the referee has been (therefore) evaluated with the mark:
55















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.
comment


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:
80





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 (normal: 80):
80


Referee

5. Final Mark

Parameter
Percentage
Mark
Control
25 %
70
Calls
30 %

55
Physical aspects and style
25 %
80
Neutrality
10 %
80
Match difficulty (page 1)
10 %
100

Final mark
72




Assistant Referee 1

Brief comment on the degree of occupation and difficulty the assistant referee 1 had to cope with.
There was just one offside flag in the whole match, and it was in first half (12’) when Mullarkey raised the flag against Ozil (Real Madrid). Even after the replay it’s hard to be sure, but maybe he was a bit in offside with the head. We have to trust the assistant decision.  In the rest of the match he was not so much challenged.




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
12’
Ozil offside, the only flag of the match appeared correct.


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:
75,0


Assistant Referee 2

Brief comment on the degree of occupation and difficulty the assistant referee 2 had to cope with.
He had not offside situations to solve all match long, and he never raised the flag, but the crucial and only decision of the match was wrong.  He had to report offside when Bayern scored the 1-0 goal, due to Luis Gustavo in a irregular position, influencing Casillas.

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
17’
Ribery goal to be annulled



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:
50,0


Additional Assistant Referee 1

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
He had to report the penalty for Bayern  in 87’. He appeared  too much helpless, without the will to be involved. Anyway maybe this is just  my wrong feeling.


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):
60,0


Additional Assistant Referee 2

Brief comment on remarkable situations or circumstances (optional):
Better than his collegue, but not faultess. Ok on the penalty not given in first half, but he could have seen Bayern player in offside, when 1-0 was scored. Apart from that, he helped Webb in several situations and he was ready  even to run in the field to calm down players during  riots. He was more cooperative than Atkinson, but still not excellent.

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):
65,0


Fourth Official



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 Chefren. (ITA)
Date, Location 18 April 2012, Italy

0 other reports: