EURO 2012: Ukraine vs Sweden


Year
2012
Ukraine

Sweden 
Date
11-Jun
City
Kiev (UKR)
Competition
Euro 2012
Stage
Group Stage
Reported by
Philipp


Ukraine

2-1 

Sweden






Referee
Yellow
Card(s)
2nd Yellow
Card(s)
Direct
Red Card(s)
Penaltys
Cüneyt Cakir (TUR)
2 (0-2)
0
0
0





GOALS
0-1       Zlatan IBRAHIMOVIC (SWE, 52’)
1-1       Andriy SHEVCHENKO (UKR, 55’)
2-1       Andriy SHEVCHENKO (UKR, 62’)

YELLOW CARDS
Kim KÄLLSTRÖM (SWE, 11’), Rasmus ELM (SWE, 83’)

SENDING OFFS

MATCH OFFICIALS
Function
Full Name
Origin

Final Mark
Referee
Cüneyt Çakır
TUR
83,3
Assistant Referee 1
Bahattin Duran

TUR
81,2
Assistant Referee 2
Tarik Ongun

TUR
75,0
Additional Assistant Referee 1
Hüseyin Göçek

TUR
75,0
Additional Assistant Referee 2
Bülent Yıldırım

TUR
75,0
Fourth Official
Marcin Borski
POL
75,0
Reserve Assistant Referee
Marcin Borkowski

POL
75,0
UEFA Delegate
Janis Mežeckis
LVA

UEFA Referee Observer
Herbert Fandel
GER

Blog Referee Observer(s)
Philipp S

GER


Remarks concerning the final marks
The final marks that have been awarded by the Blog Referee Observer(s) for every official are aimed at expressing a general assessment on the respective official’s performance.
They comply with certain and different evaluation scales that are exposed and explained in the Referee Observation Checklist (a separate document).



The Referee

I. MATCH
·       Background
In this match, the last two teams started in the tournament, including the co-hosts Ukraine, it was played in their capital Kyiv. The first half was quite boring, but in the second half, the Swedish team started better and scored. The hosts answered quickly and could reverse the result by two goals scored by veteran Shevchenko. The 2-1 win was deserved, surprisingly the Ukrainians were the better team, but the other two teams in the group stay the favourites.
The match was in general fair, but nevertheless there were not few duels. The referee team had no match influencing decisions to make, but the result was open till the end, so overall the difficulty of this match was on average level.

·       Parameter Mark 1: Degree of Difficulty and Importance
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
75,0


II. CONTROL
·       Comment
There was no real lack of control visible, only few protests by the players, no riots, no hard fouls, nearly no time wasting. Cakir made that by whistling strictly for small offences, but he did not need many cards. Upcoming protests were managed with short talks or stern facial expressions. 

·       Exemplary situations that strengthen the general impression
Minute
Situation and Assessment
10
stopped Mellberg’s protest with a stern facial expression.
65
immediately at the place after a hard duel to calm down everyone.

·       Parameter Mark 2: Control
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
95,0


III. DECISIONS
·       Application of the Laws of the Game – Comment (advice: always refer to aspects like card management, infringement detection, the application of the advantage rule, holding in the penalty area after set pieces, simulation and lay extra ordinary high emphasis on match influencing or even decisive decisions)
Unlike many of his colleagues at the tournament, Cakir was quite strict with small fouls like kicking or pushing from the back, but did not whistle every time, when a player fell to the ground. So he probably detected nearly all the fouls, but a few of his free kick decisions were debatable. He awarded much more free kicks to Ukraine, but that was completely justified. The first yellow card was ok, but not necessary, the second one correct. One more yellow card was missing. There were not many signalized advantages, but on the other hand, he did not miss such an opportunity. There were not any match influencing decisions. The extra time was standard (1 and 3 minutes), in the second half correctly extended due to injury and substitutions.

·       Important Decisions ((non)given cards should be mentioned, other important decisions in the opinion of the observer)
Minute
Situation and Assessment
11
YC to Källström for a foul, was ok, a verbal warning would have been sufficient
33
free kick to Sweden, took Ukraine a chance, ok
65
another foul by Källström, 2nd yellow card possible, but not necessary
72
foul committed by Mellberg, correct, but YC missing (ellbow offence)
82
YC to Elm, tactical foul, correct
90+4
correct no free kick to Sweden close to the box, no dive either.

·       Parameter Mark 3: Decisions
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
80,0


IV. STYLE
·       Physical and Technical Aspects
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Always close to the play, follows play at all times, and does not interfere with play
X


Flexible Diagonal System

X

Able to anticipate the action

X

Enters the penalty area when necessary

X

Appropiate, efficient and economic Positioning also at set pieces

X

Physical Condition in general

X

Adequate behaviour in dealing with injuries (awareness of serious injuries, possible advantages applied,
card-timing etc.)

X

Comment
Very good positioning, he was near to the play, but did never interfere. At the Swedish goal and another Swedish chance, an injured Ukrainian was on the ground, but not stopping the game was acceptable in both situations.
Minute
Situation and Assessment








·       Parameter Mark 4.1: Physical and Technical Aspects
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
80,0


·       Tactical Approach
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
The referee has a certain tactical approach, which is moving in the measures the Laws of the Game define, which is understood and consistent
X


The referee’s tactical approach is active, he is able to predict situations and to avoid conflicts by that

X

Personality and authority on the pitch

X

Adequate communication

X

Shows determination and courage in his decisions and has also tools to gain authority (adequate and clear gestures, using his whistle as kind of language) 
X


Shows respect

X

Comment
His tactical approach was to be strict from the beginning, it surely helped him to gain and keep the control of the match, but it was a bit too much, especially compared to the general line at the tournament. However, he was invisible in some parts of the match (30’-45’, 50’-65’), so he is able to recognize, when he can let the game flow. Although he is not a great personality on the pitch, Cakir’s decisions were accepted by the players, there was respect in both directions. He still does not talk much during the game, but communication was improved contrary to e.g. his CL semifinal.
Minute
Situation and Assessment








·       Parameter Mark 4.2: Tactical Approach
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
85,0

·       Summary of both sections (if necessary, give the minutes)
Positive Points
1.
Positioning

2.
Not in the center of action

3.
Is accepted by the players

Points for improvement
1.
A bit more leniency would be great

2.
Can develop his personality on the pitch (he is still young)

·       Comment on the cooperation within the referee team
Not really visible, but obviously, it worked well

·       Parameter Mark 4: Style (factorized (50%) sum of both partial sections)
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
82,5


FACTORIZED SUM (FINAL MARK) – REFEREE
Parameter
Percentage
Mark
MATCH DIFFICULTY / IMPORTANCE
10 %
75,0
CONTROL
20 %
95,0
DECISIONS
40 %
80,0
STYLE
30 %
82,5

Final mark
83,3




Assistant Referee 1

I. MATCH
·       Comment
Two offsides, one of them before a goal

·       Parameter Mark 1: Degree of Difficulty (only aspects concerning the AR1)
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
70,0

II. DECISIONS
·       Application of the Laws of the Game – Comment
Both offside decisions correct

·       Overview
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
(Non-)Offside detection (evaluated independently (!) from the difficulty of the (non-)offside situations)
X


Quality of other decisions with regard to the
application of the Laws of the Game

X


·       Important Decisions (of course heavy attention to be paid on (non-)offside decisions)
Minute
Situation and Assessment
23
Correct offside against Ukraine, close
52
no offside before the Swedish goal, correct

·       Parameter Mark 2: Decisions
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
87,0

III. STYLE
·       Physical and Technical Aspects
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Physical Condition

X

Positioning and movement

X

Adequate alertness, mental awareness and concentration (e.g. decisions on situations happening in his area of vicinity)

X

Holds and moves his flag in accordance with the
Laws of the Game

X


·       Parameter Mark 3: Style
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
75,0


FACTORIZED SUM (FINAL MARK) – AR1
Parameter
Percentage
Mark
MATCH DIFFICULTY
20 %
70,0
DECISIONS
60 %
87,0
STYLE
20 %
75,0

Final mark
81,2



Assistant Referee 2

I. MATCH
·       Comment
No remarkable situations, maybe assisting the referee in foul decisions, but nothing obvious

·       Parameter Mark 1: Degree of Difficulty (only aspects concerning the AR2)
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
60,0

II. DECISIONS
·       Application of the Laws of the Game – Comment
no challenges

·       Overview
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
(Non-)Offside detection (evaluated independently (!) from the difficulty of the (non-)offside situations)

X

Quality of other decisions with regard to the
application of the Laws of the Game

X


·       Important Decisions (of course heavy attention to be paid on (non-)offside decisions)
Minute
Situation and Assessment



·       Parameter Mark 2: Decisions
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
80,0

III. STYLE
·       Physical and Technical Aspects
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Physical Condition



Positioning and movement



Adequate alertness, mental awareness and concentration (e.g. decisions on situations happening in his area of vicinity)



Holds and moves his flag in accordance with the
Laws of the Game




·       Parameter Mark 3: Style
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
75,0


FACTORIZED SUM (FINAL MARK) – AR2
Parameter
Percentage
Mark
MATCH DIFFICULTY
20 %
60,0
DECISIONS
60 %
80,0
STYLE
20 %
75,0

Final mark
75,0



Additional Assistant Referee 1

I. MATCH
·       Comment
No visible participation

·       Parameter Mark 1: Degree of Difficulty (only aspects concerning the AAR1)
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
60,0

II. DECISIONS
·       Application of the Laws of the Game, Involvement – Comment
text possible !

·       Overview
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Important decisions in the penalty area (e.g. fouls like holding after set pieces, goal-decisions etc.)



Quality of other decisions with regard to the
application of the Laws of the Game




·       Important Decisions
Minute
Situation and Assessment



·       Parameter Mark 2: Decisions
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
80,0

III. STYLE
·       Physical and Technical Aspects
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Positioning and movement



Active involvement, adequate alertness, mental awareness and concentration (e.g. decisions on situations happening in his area of vicinity)




·       Parameter Mark 3: Style
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
75,0


FACTORIZED SUM (FINAL MARK) – AAR1
Parameter
Percentage
Mark
MATCH DIFFICULTY
20 %
60,0
DECISIONS
60 %
80,0
STYLE
20 %
75,0

Final mark
75,0


Additional Assistant Referee 2

I. MATCH
·       Comment
no visible involvement

·       Parameter Mark 1: Degree of Difficulty (only aspects concerning the AAR2)
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
60,0

II. DECISIONS
·       Application of the Laws of the Game, Involvement – Comment
No real challenges

·       Overview
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Important decisions in the penalty area (e.g. fouls like holding after set pieces, goal-decisions etc.)

X

Quality of other decisions with regard to the
application of the Laws of the Game

X


·       Important Decisions
Minute
Situation and Assessment



·       Parameter Mark 2: Decisions
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
80,0

III. STYLE
·       Physical and Technical Aspects
Criteria
+
Expected level
-
Positioning and movement

X

Active involvement, adequate alertness, mental awareness and concentration (e.g. decisions on situations happening in his area of vicinity)

X


·       Parameter Mark 3: Style
AWARDED MARK FOR THIS PARAMETER
75,0


FACTORIZED SUM (FINAL MARK) – AAR2
Parameter
Percentage
Mark
MATCH DIFFICULTY
20 %
60,0
DECISIONS
60 %
80,0
STYLE
20 %
75,0

Final mark
75,0


Fourth Official
·       Comment
nothing remarkable

·       Final mark
FINAL MARK
75,0


Reserve Assistant Referee
·       Comment
nothing remarkable

·       Final mark
FINAL MARK
75,0


0 other reports: