47 ROUTUN Lennie
Romania got the point they needed in order to finish top of Group G and avoid (another :)) second round match with Argentina, but only after a pretty epic game with Tunisia, who led for over an hour, and were amongst the most unlucky teams of all World Cup 1998. A quiet evening this was not!
My conclusion was pretty unequivocal after Edward Lennie's first performance (ITACMR), and as an Englishman having not watched this one way back when, expectations were not terribly high. How wrong I was!
An unlikely man in the middle of quite genuine World Cup tension, the Australian referee was up to the task in challenging surroundings, and never made a big refereeing mistake in the high number of crucial scenes. Well, what changed in nine days, you ask! Surprisingly, there might be an easy, material answer.
Big Decisions
Below is a compilation of all the big decisions which Lennie had to face in this game - they total nine(!).
My views:
4' - correct play on decision, defender plays the ball in a fair manner
4' - correct play on decision, defender plays the ball in a fair manner
6' - should be an attacking freekick + yellow card (SPA) from what we can make out
10' - hmmm, Lennie should have run more rightwards earlier and got a better insight angle, the holding was light and the attacker falls of his own accord; to be supported in the end, play on would be better
27' - reckless kick, correct yellow card (no SFP)
35' - clear violent conduct by Marius Lăcătuș, a red card offence; it came from nowhere, and as a consequence Lennie didn't closely chase down the long ball; no clear match error for that reason, plus the well-disguised nature of the strike gives some tiny arguments for reckless only
42' - should be an indirect freekick + yellow card (simulation), but moreso Lennie does well to see through the dive, and a knowing smile is a satisfactory solution
52' - this follow-through foul forced the Tunisia player off, just bad luck or a reckless (more?) foul on the attacker? Well, the movements of the eventually injured man are a little unorthodox, so I would tend to say just a very painful accident
74' - tricky scene, the goalkeeper is late but to me it seems clear that the attacker won't reach the ball and the contact is careless, so I agree with the ref that the preferable choice is to play on
+92' - too trifling, correct to let the game go on
-> Lennie did pretty well in this regard I'd say! The biggest problem is with the penalty given, as I'm pretty sure if the referee had the proper insight angle, he almost definitely would have played on. However, that incident included, the wider picture is pretty positive in my view.
How did Lennie improve so much - his performance in his first inset was simply a refereeing disaster - in literally just over a week? It really was like a totally different referee had taken charge of Italy - Cameroon (ITACMR) than Romania - Tunisia.
Answer: his whistle set up. In his first match, Lennie had his mouth in mouth pretty much the-whole-time, owing to having his Fox40 on a neck lanyard. There is a reason why that has become archaic in football officiating, though it was common for some time in Scotland; Lennie being a Scots-born Aussie.
I have only ever seen one referee use this 'style' effectively. Otherwise, it just seems to turn the referee who operate in such a way into 'ghosts' (sorry, I can't describe it better), with foul detection that is totally off, presence that is non-existent.
Lennie decided to change that for this game, and it changed everything! His foul detection went from awful to sound, his presence from nothing to decent, and disciplinary control (admittedly this game was easier than ITACMR on that front) improved a lot too.
9' was a borderline incident, but acceptable to give a freekick only, 27' was a clear caution, and the decision at 57' - the highlight of this performance - was simply great refereeing in my book. Such a marked improvement was very satisfying to observe!
52' - this follow-through foul forced the Tunisia player off, just bad luck or a reckless (more?) foul on the attacker? Well, the movements of the eventually injured man are a little unorthodox, so I would tend to say just a very painful accident
74' - tricky scene, the goalkeeper is late but to me it seems clear that the attacker won't reach the ball and the contact is careless, so I agree with the ref that the preferable choice is to play on
+92' - too trifling, correct to let the game go on
-> Lennie did pretty well in this regard I'd say! The biggest problem is with the penalty given, as I'm pretty sure if the referee had the proper insight angle, he almost definitely would have played on. However, that incident included, the wider picture is pretty positive in my view.
Managing the Game
In general, Edward Lennie did a good job in this game, holding it together in a very dynamic and pretty edgy match, to crown himself as a pretty unlikely winner of the evening.How did Lennie improve so much - his performance in his first inset was simply a refereeing disaster - in literally just over a week? It really was like a totally different referee had taken charge of Italy - Cameroon (ITACMR) than Romania - Tunisia.
Answer: his whistle set up. In his first match, Lennie had his mouth in mouth pretty much the-whole-time, owing to having his Fox40 on a neck lanyard. There is a reason why that has become archaic in football officiating, though it was common for some time in Scotland; Lennie being a Scots-born Aussie.
I have only ever seen one referee use this 'style' effectively. Otherwise, it just seems to turn the referee who operate in such a way into 'ghosts' (sorry, I can't describe it better), with foul detection that is totally off, presence that is non-existent.
Lennie decided to change that for this game, and it changed everything! His foul detection went from awful to sound, his presence from nothing to decent, and disciplinary control (admittedly this game was easier than ITACMR on that front) improved a lot too.
9' was a borderline incident, but acceptable to give a freekick only, 27' was a clear caution, and the decision at 57' - the highlight of this performance - was simply great refereeing in my book. Such a marked improvement was very satisfying to observe!
This performance was not without fault, mind:
- the series of play on calls early at 12' gave a too chaotic impression, as did no caution at 13'; in the latter scene it wasn't enough to run over just to see keeping control in the basic sense!
- I understand that refs were under pressure to keep / get the game(s) going, but the way Lennie dealt with them was quite irritating honestly, especially the goalkeeper scene at 65' - first just give the foul, second don't usher him up when Romania might well have kicked into an open goal!
- Aussie ref was in a bit of trouble at the end, he genuinely did well to step in at 84' but some kind of formal warning(s) had to be issued, the freekick scene at 90' was just genuinely chaotic (wall encroachment, contretemps in the box), even if he did survive it
One can credit Lennie from riding his luck a bit, but I would argue it was luck he earned with a convincing performances in the ninety-plus minutes as a whole.
Assistant Referees
Particularly in the first half, this was the most challenging of the games so far for assistants Jacek Pocięgiel and, especially, Juryj Dupanaŭ. The Belarusian had twelve (!) important offside judgements to make, unfortunately we can't make an assessment of them all given the lack of widescreen / replays in many scenes.
However, my feeling was that he dealt with crossover scenes pretty well on the whole, in a performance on the stronger side of 8,3 to 8,5 in the UEFA system. Jacek Pocięgiel was a bit quieter than that, clearly correct to give an important goalkick at 90', but mistaken to flag at 14'. Still, not a bad performance by the Pole either.
However, my feeling was that he dealt with crossover scenes pretty well on the whole, in a performance on the stronger side of 8,3 to 8,5 in the UEFA system. Jacek Pocięgiel was a bit quieter than that, clearly correct to give an important goalkick at 90', but mistaken to flag at 14'. Still, not a bad performance by the Pole either.
Balance
Edward Lennie pulled it off - a remarkable improvement in his performance-level from his first game ensured that the Aussie ref was up to task in this weird and testing match. He had the courage to change his whistle set-up and hence his whole style during the World Cup finals, which deserves great credit, and it came off for him.
Sure, this performance was not a candidature for a knockout stage game, in answer to a question that wasn't being asked, but without doubt, Lennie did himself proud in this match, and should look back at it with great satisfaction.
Sure, this performance was not a candidature for a knockout stage game, in answer to a question that wasn't being asked, but without doubt, Lennie did himself proud in this match, and should look back at it with great satisfaction.
| Edward Lennie - 7 Jacek Pocięgiel - 6 Juryj Dupanaŭ - 7 Ramesh Ramdhan AUS, POL, BLR | Romania 1-1 Tunisia Group Stage 26 June |
 Baya (27') - Challenge Souayah (57') - SPA (Challenge) |
Wow, lots of penalty area situations to judge for Lennie!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the whistle set up, I agree that having a lanyard around the neck is not ideal, but it is a bit hard to believe that changing the whistle set up can change the way you actually referee in less than two weeks...
I was in the stadium for this match!
ReplyDeleteI agree largely with your analysis, but have (major?) quibbles over 10', 35', and 74'.
On 10', why would you prefer play-on? While the attacker might fall somewhat easily, the first arm from the Romanian defenders feels almost enough to warrant a penalty. When you add in that second, deliberate grab once the ball is gone... I don't see how anything other than a penalty should be the result. He's grabbed him--admittedly sequentially, but still--on both shoulders with both arms. I don't see a reason to excuse that.
At 35', I actually wonder if you're too lenient on Lennie and the lead AR. It's a deliberate strike to the face. If he can't see that because he didn't run, that's his fault! And a strong AR would help there. I don't think there is any argument for reckless. He swung and punched his opponent in the face off-the-ball. I'm interested to know more as to why you'd view that as not a CME.
Finally, I think 74' has to be given. True, the attacker is unlikely to get the ball. But it doesn't seem like the goalkeeper knew that when he committed the foul! I think this is one of those situations where we, as referees, find a reason to excuse inexecusale player behavior because we almost can't believe it. There is NO reason for the goalkeeper to do what he did. The ball is gone. He can avoid contact. And there's no real scoring opportunity. But he appears to go out of his way to ensure he makes contact with the upper body and head of his opponent. It looks almost deliberate in nature. Because of the overall context, we tend to believe plays like this shouldn't result in penalties. But goalkeepers know the consequences of such behavior--they are just banking on us not following through and punishing. For me, this is a clear penalty. Nothing other than "tradition" argues against calling it. Maybe that's enough here, but I don't think so. I tend to believe, in the modern era, VAR would have too intervene.
I share usaref's view on those 3 situations
Delete10'
DeletePGMOL teach, and I agree with them on this, that if a player can go on and chooses to fall of his own accord, then play on is the correct call. Agree that defender can hardly complain though, and penalty is perhaps the call which most (non-refereeing?) people expect.
My actual problem more than the decision is the lack of data Lennie had to make this call. He was too deep and leftwards to actually make an accurate decision, and seeing the nature of the fall properly, I really wonder if he'd have played on.
I don't compare the two situations but see here for an interesting analysis:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140707103322if_/http://footballrefereeing.blogspot.de/2014/06/why-nishimura-was-unable-to-take.html#.U7p3iJP7S3I
35'
Totally surreal situation... the two players shook hands as 'friends' a couple of minutes later, to add to that. I genuinely can't blame Lennie for not following play so closely here, with the defender clearly ahead of the attacker, 99.999% of the time, that would be wasted energy. Do agree though, Pocięgiel had a decent chance to see it from the wide view he had as AR, even it would have been really above and beyond if he alerted the ref to it and reported a VC RC.
CME - it's tricky but everything points to a random missed incident about which nobody really cared about, even if the theoretical (clear RC) and contextual (Romania would have been down to ten players, a goal down, with an hour left) considerations argue in it's favour.
74'
The more I watch this situation, the funnier it becomes! :D. I really think the attacker tries to win a penalty by colliding himself with the goalkeeper at the legs, only to actually be impeded in the upper body!
Without a doubt, a penalty would be everything but wrong, however given the nature of the attacker's fall, his intentions, and lack of chance (intent to) to reach the ball, I actually like Lennie's solution personally.
I do agree with your first point about 74'. When I watched it live, I thought it was a leg incident and the attacker was making a lot of it. But then, with the replay... I saw what I described above.
DeleteOn 10', I guess I just don't agree with that PGMOL philosophy. It's a license for defenders to hold and grab and grapple. We are STILL trying to get a handle on defensive holding on corner kicks and, honestly, we're starting to see some penalties that I never thought I'd see given before simply because they occur at set pieces. As we move in that direction, I don't think it philosophically makes sense to condone blatant and persistent holding so long as it's not, shall we say "too rough?" He's restricting his opponent's movements. He's doing so because he's beat. I think when you start getting into excusing such behavior because it doesn't make the attacker fall naturally... well, you're just creating an incentive structure for better diving!
35', I understand your points. Would you agree that in the VAR era is it a mandatory OFR and red card?
35' - yes, for sure.
DeleteAnd when I wrote "leftwards", I actually meant "rightwards" :)