December 09, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 9: Throwing a second ball at the main ball

- 2 Comments
Door 9 contains another video example that illustrates the need to always expect the unexpected as a referee on the one hand and which curious and slapstick-like situations might happen even in your games!



One of those situations happened in the Turkish 1st league some seasons ago:



How would you decide in a) this concrete situation and b) if this specific type of offence was not made by a defending player, but the defending team's goalkeeper?

Continue Reading...

December 08, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 8: FIFA International Referees, Assistant Referees & UEFA Referee Categories for 2017

- 33 Comments
Surprise surprise: In their today's meeting, UEFA's Referee Committee have decided against significant changes to the Referee Categories. No promotions or demotions until June! 

However, the new international match officials are ready to be released. Congratulations to all officials involved and all the best to those who have left the international panel!


It seems as if UEFA will only change the categories once a year from now on - in June.

> FIFA International Referees and Assistant Referees for 2017 (UEFA zone) &
UEFA Referee Categories 

Continue Reading...

Europa League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments - Matchday 6

- 28 Comments
These are the choices made by UEFA Referees Committee for the last matchday of 2016-17 Europa League's group stage. 



Continue Reading...

December 07, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 7: Data indicate many UEFA Referee Category Changes

- 3 Comments
Tomorrow, we will very likely get to know the updated UEFA Referee Categories. After analyzing some data, we come to the conclusion that we can expect numerous changes - particularly from Second to First Group.



Continue Reading...

December 06, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 6: DOGSO and Offside (Solved: Penalty Kick & Yellow or No Card)

- 3 Comments
Door 6 does not have a visualized match incident, but a Laws of the Game question for you. How would you answer if you were asked this in a test?


"You are refereeing an intense derby. Everything has been under your full control so far. Due to some goals and injuries, you award three minutes of additional time. The score is 1:2 for the away team. The home players try everything to score the late equalizer. The seconds are running down and you will surely get a good assessment. Already at 90+2:40. A last attempt for the home side. One of their midfielders precisely passes the ball into the penalty area. Another attacker is about to reach the ball 5 metres in front of the goalkeeper and only has to deflect the ball with his shoe in order to score the relatively sure goal. A defender seems to believe he has no other choice except pushing the attacker to ground to thus deny the obvious goal-scoring opportunity with the ball having only been 2 metres away at the moment of the foul.

You immediately blow your whistle, point to the spot and raise the red card for the defender when you suddenly notice your assistant referee is making some steps onto the field and wants to talk with you.

Having gone out to him, you ask: 'What's up?' He replies: 'He was offside. The attacker, I mean. He was offside.'"

What do you do?

Solution

First of all: You theoretically can change your decision until play has been re-started. Good referees put the correct decision above having been correct in the first place themselves. So: Never hesitate to change a decision based on new facts.

The attacker was denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by pushing. Pushing is an offence which still warrants a red card if a clear goal-scoring opportunity has been denied by that (be reminded on this graphic). Pushing is an offence punished by a direct free-kick.

However, the attacker was in an offside position at the moment of the pass into the penalty area. As he is going for the ball and the ball is rather close (2m can still be deemed as playing distance), let's assume that his offside position is punishable. Offside is an offence punished by an indirect free-kick.

Law 5 clearly prescribes that if two offences occur, the more serious one has to be sanctioned in terms of re-start and match sanction. This is the pushing here.

The IFAB's technical director David Elleray has written us upon our enquiry:

"The guidelines in the Laws of the Game give a clear list of priorities to decide if one offence is more serious than another. The first of these is the sanction which is disciplinary action and restart. Clearly an offence which is punished by a direct FK (e.g. holding/ handball) is more serious than one punished by an indirect FK (e.g. offside). 

Conclusion 1: We don't have to change the re-start. It still has to be a penalty kick.

In terms of the disciplinary sanction, a red card cannot be given: Law 18 suggests it already. If you, as an attacker, are in an offside position, you cannot have a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Hence, the defender's pushing did not deny a clear and obvious goal-scoring opportunity. If the foul had not happened, the attacker would have been flagged for offside most likely assumed that he would be deemed as interfering with play or an opponent. So: Actually the obvious goal-scoring opportunity never existed due to the offside position. 

Conclusion 2: We cannot give a red card here.

We recommend to issue a yellow card for unsporting behaviour though, especially for tactical and decision-selling reasons. Issuing no card is much harder to sell than giving at least a yellow card. But, from our point of view no card would be equally justified if the pushing is minimal and did not have a clearly unsporting character.

That's why we accept both solutions which are highlighted as green bars in the following diagram.

 
> Participants

Only 15% of you answered correctly. For those who wanted to give offside there: Be careful. The new laws demand something else. Violating the laws of the game is almost the worst case that can happen for a referee - so let's better avoid it.

Related Article: Holding and Offside Offence at the same time

Continue Reading...

December 05, 2016

Committee Members in action? Empirical Study on the Influence of Referee Committee Members on the Referee Categories in UEFA

- 25 Comments
Referee Advent Calendar - Door 5: On next Thursday, UEFA's Referee Committee are going to define the new Referee Categories for the 2nd half of the 2016/17 season. In former times, the category allocation (promotions and demotions) were partly criticized for being politically motivated or at least influenced by the members of the Referee Committee - by us as independent observers, by you as our readers and commentators, and by some international referees who frequently express their displeasure about that topic when talking to them ("Some of us are more equal than the others - it depends on whether you have a committee member behind you" is only one quote).


Is that true? We analyzed objective data to investigate the relationship between a federation's representation in the UEFA Referee Committee and the same nation's representation in the UEFA Referee Categories. A study based on a scientific and statistical approach tends to support the intuitive feeling some officials have. How we proceeded and how the results look like:


Method

Data Basis and Calculation

As the data basis, we used the current UEFA Referee Categories (version 2016-17, 1st half). Each nation was awarded points that varied across the different categories following an intuitive scheme:

Elite Group: 4 points; First Group: 3 points; Second Group: 2 points; Third Group: 1 point.

On the basis of that, three values were calculated:

1) The respective nation's number of FIFA Referees included in the Category list ("Refs in total").

2) The respective nation's number of weighted Category Points following the scheme above.

3) A category-height-ratio for each nation by dividing the two previous variables (Category Points divided by Refs in total). We call that "Category Ratio". This tells us how highly the referees of a certain nation are located in the categories on average.

An example: Italy

1) 4 referees in Elite + 2 referees in First Group + 4 referees in Second Group = 10 referees

2) 4*4 + 2*3 + 4*2 + 0*1 = 30

3) 30 Category Points / 10 Refs in Total = 3.0 

Compare it with Ireland:

1) 0 referees in Elite + 0 referees in First Group + 2 referees in Second Group + 2 referees in Third Group

2) 0*4 + 0*3 + 2*2 + 2*1 = 6

3) 6 Category Points / 4 Refs in total = 1.5

So Italy is clearly higher represented in the categories than Ireland - their officials reach higher referee categories on average!


Nations

In a second step, we identified those nations represented by a Refereeing Officer or Chairman (Italy, France, Scotland and Spain), those with other members of the UEFA Referee Committee (Czech Republic, England, Germany, Netherlands, Romania*, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden) and those without a Committee member (the other 42 UEFA member nations except Gibraltar, Kosovo and Liechtenstein).

*We counted Kyros Vassaras as representant of the Romanian FA, for which he primarily works.


Variables and Statistical Analysis Methods

First of all: We want to investigate a possible effect of a certain input variable ("independent variable") on a certain output variable ("dependent variable"). In this case, our independent variable is a nation's belonging to one of the three groups ("Officer group", "Committee member group" and "No Committee member group"). Our dependent variable consists of the nations' Category Ratio we calculated in steps ) above.

What we could now do is simply calculating means and having a look for differences between the mean category ratios of the nations in the three groups. If the suspected political influences exist, the means should be significantly higher for those nations who have a Committee member or even a Referee Officer inside UEFA.

However, this would stay speculation. There would be no limit at which we could say "Yes, there is an influence" or "No, there is no influence". That's why statisticians have developed statistical tests to test such assumptions reliably. The aim of such tests is to check whether there are statistically significant differences, e.g. between mean scores of two or more different groups in a certain variable.

The statistical significance is usually mentioned as a p-value. If the p-value is p < .05 (or p < 5%), this means that a potential difference between two or more groups is unlikely to be random: The likelihood, that such an effect is mere coincidence and a random result, would be smaller than 5%. Such significance levels can even be smaller, e.g. 1%, 0,1% or even 0,01%. The smaller the significance level is, the better - because we can say that the effect we found is robust and not just coincidence. And as claims of political influences in refereeing are often speculation, it is important for me to conduct objective tests and not just have a short view on some rough data.


Alternative Explanations

Up to here, most of you will probably think "Well, these nations with committee members are widely from Europe's top football nations. In these nations, there are better or more experienced referees, used to bigger stadiums, faster football and of course they are therefore higher ranked in the Referee Categories!".

This is probably correct. That's why we conducted our analysis under consideration of a possible influence of the nations' football quality. The most objective data we found to operationalize that are the UEFA Association Coefficients (2012 - 2016).

If referees benefit from the good footballing level of the teams in their domestic division, then the last 3 or 4 seasons' coefficients should be a good parameter to measure that.

What we conducted is called "Analysis of Covariance" (ANCOVA). This ANCOVA does exactly what we want and need. It tests whether a possible difference between the three groups of nations (Officer, Committee member, No committee member) with regard to the Category Ratios is statistically significant and even considers the influence of the nations' UEFA coefficients. So if we find a significant effect, we would be able to say "The effect found is not only due to the different football quality in the committee member's nations, but also because of something else.".


Results

An overview with the raw scores of the nations can be found in the following table:

Nation Ratio
Nation Ratio
Nation Ratio
Nation Ratio
Spain** 3,00
Hungary 2,17
Montenegro 1,67
Bosnia&Herzeg. 1,33
Italy** 3,00
Israel 2,17
Portugal 1,67
Estonia 1,33
Netherlands* 3,00
Austria 2,14
Wales 1,67
Latvia 1,33
England* 2,88
Belgium 2,00
Croatia 1,60
Iceland 1,25
Scotland** 2,86
Belarus 2,00
Greece 1,57
Kazakhstan 1,25
Germany* 2,80
Macedonia 2,00
Switzerland 1,57
Northern Ireland 1,25
Slovenia* 2,75
Serbia 2,00
Albania 1,50
Andorra 1,00
Romania* 2,57
Norway 1,86
Bulgaria 1,50
Armenia 1,00
France** 2,50
Ukraine 1,86
Cyprus 1,50
Faroe Islands 1,00
Poland 2,43
Czech Rep.* 1,83
Ireland 1,50
Georgia 1,00
Sweden* 2,29
Finland 1,80
Denmark 1,43
Luxembourg 1,00
Turkey 2,29
Malta 1,75
Slovakia 1,40
Moldova 1,00
Russia* 2,22
Lithuania 1,67
Azerbaijan 1,33
San Marino 1,00

*nation with Committee member, **nation with Referee Officer or Chairman

The two diagrams below illustrate the main result: With regard to the Category Ratios, which point out how a nation's refereeing is relatively represented and how highly a nation's referees have got within the category system on average, the nations belonging to the Officer group scored highest (M = 2.84, SD = 0.24), followed by the Committee member group (M = 2.54, SD = 0.40) and the No Committee member group (M = 1.57, SD = 0.40).

*M = mean, SD = standard deviation



The ANCOVA yielded highly significant main effects (p < .001). This means that there is a certain significant difference between the means of the three groups, for which the likelihood of being random is smaller than 0,1%. This does not tell us between which exact groups the significant differences are, though.

Pairwise comparisons showed that there was no significant difference between the Officer and Committee member groups, but there were highly significant differences between the respective means of nations from the Officer group and the No Committee member group as well as between the Committee member group and the No Committee member group. These significance levels are illustrated by the green stars in the diagram!

To measure how much variance or, in other words, how much of a nation's representation in the categories can be explained by whether this nation is or is not represented by an officer or member in the UEFA Referee Committee, the so-called Partial Eta² was calculated.

For the Category Ratios, it was Partial Eta² = .35. This means that 35% of how highly a nation's referees are located in the category system on average can be explained by having or not having a committee member or referee officer from the same nation. In contrast, only 13% could be explained by the quality of football mirrored by the UEFA association coefficients.


Discussion

What do these findings mean? And how to interpret them?

Nations represented by an Officer or a Committee member inside UEFA are more represented in the higher Referee Categories than nations without a Committee member or Officer. The mean differences between the two groups with committee representation and the group without a Committee member are both significant. The chance, that these differences and results are just based on coincidence, have been found to be smaller than 0,1% and 1% respectively.

35% (Partial Eta² = .35) of a nation's relative representation in the UEFA Category System were found to be explained by the presence or absence of a Referee Committee member or Officer from the same nation.

We have therefore found robust evidence for an effect of whether a nation is represented in the UEFA Referee Committee on how highly this nation is represented in the UEFA Referee Categories.

We used objective data to minimize subjective sentiments and to avoid speculation.

We have included the possibility that Referee Committee members are usually from the bigger footballing nations with an equally good level of refereeing. By intergrating the UEFA association coefficients into the statistical model, we can say that the effect of the Committee presence still exists. The nations' football level operationalized by the association coefficients obviously has an effect on the categories, but only a smaller one.


Implications and Limitations

Of course you can question whether the distribution of points to the categories (4, 3, 2 and 1) is reasonable. You can equally question whether someone like Mark Clattenburg really needed David Elleray to become a world-class referee. Most likely, the real meaningful effects depicted in the results of our calculation are rather located in the lower area of the Elite Group and particularly in the two or three lower categories.

A criticism on the procedure might be that some nations such as England, France, Italy, Germany and Spain are de facto not able to have a referee in Third Group as their officials usually start in Second Group as soon as they become international officials. It is however unprobable that this majorly influenced the effect found.

In addition it might be that those nations with a committee member are generally characterized by a higher level of refereeing and referee education which maybe even enabled certain people to enter the UEFA committee.

What we did not consider in our study are the roles some Referee Committee members fulfill in foreign referee departments (e.g. Marc Batta in Belgium, Pierluigi Collina in the Ukraine, Hugh Dallas in Israel, Jaap Uilenberg in Turkey until 2016 etc.). Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to consider this as an additional variable. But the ranking posted above partly suggests that some of the mentioned nations are not that badly represented in the categories.

UEFA can nonetheless use these findings to critically reflect themselves in terms of whether they (un)consciously favour referees from certain nations - and in this concrete case, from the commitee members' nations.

More focus should be shifted on officials from countries that are not represented in the committee. UEFA has the chance to do that on Thursday. Szymon Marciniak from Poland or Milorad Mažić from Serbia are good examples that this might pay off in the long run. UEFA's focus on referees from "smaller" nations like Azerbaijan (Aliyar Aghayev), Lithuania (Gediminas Mazeika) or Latvia (Andris Treimanis) is a good first sign, but rather the exception.

It should not be doubted that those referees who reached the highest referee categories mostly are excellent officials and widely deserved to get to where they are! However, it can be assumed that there are numerous match officials from other nations who are underrepresented in both the referee committee and - maybe even for this reason - are equally underrepresented in the category system and would never get sufficient chances to develop and climb the career ladder.

In a future article, we are going to focus on a similar question taking into account influences on referee appointments as another dependent variable.

Continue Reading...

Champions League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments for Matchday 6 (Wednesday)

- 79 Comments
UEFA has chosen the following officials to take charge of next Wednesday's Champions League matches. Lithuania's Gediminas Mazeika will make his Champions League bow in Leverkusen.

Continue Reading...

December 04, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 4: Removing jersey for message of solidarity

- 9 Comments
The worldwide football community corporately are still mourning the victims of last week's plane crash in Colombia involving huge parts of the Brazilian football team AF Chapecoense. Two football players active in European clubs have shown their solidarity on the field - in a way which is not in accordance with the Laws of the Game. Our rather sad Door no.4.



During the French Ligue 1 match between PSG and Angers, Paris striker Edinson Cavani scored from a penalty kick and removed his jersey unveiling a message in memory of the Brazilian team (video). Referee Frank Schneider cautioned him with a yellow card - which is prescribed by the Laws of the Game if a player removes his jersey or pulls it over his head. In the post match interview, Cavani said the following:



Something similar happened in the Dutch division match between Vitesse and Zwolle: Vitesse attacker Nathan who removed his shirt while celebrating a goal, giving a tribute to Chapecoense and two of his friends who died in the plane crash. Referee Jochem Kamphuis - in contrary to his French colleague - did not caution Nathan for that.

The Dutch football association KNVB has now officially praised Kamphuis for that. Gijs de Jong, operating director of the KNVB, said that "of course there are rules, but for us this is an exception to the rule". Furthermore, he highlighted that referees are "humans of flesh and blood" and added that Kamphuis' reaction to the incident "felt perfect".

Since July 2016, Law 5 supports the KNVB's point of view:

"Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."

But the laws also say:

"Equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans,  statements or images. Players must not reveal undergarments that show  political, religious, personal slogans, statements or images, or advertising other  than the manufacturer`s logo. For any infringement the player and/or the team  will be sanctioned by the competition organiser, national football association or to be justified by FIFA."

So - apart from removing the jersey while celebrating a goal - it is doubtful whether such messages can be tolerated or even praised in general. I personally believe that common sense and humanity both support refraining from issuing a card here. The question is: Where to draw the line? What is still in line with "humanity" and what is not? In a conversation with our user Hagi the latter asked me what decision should be taken if someone e.g. mourns the death of the Pope. Or Nelson Mandela. Or Fidel Castro. Where to draw the line?

However of course, match officials are used to both consider each match incident separately but equally put them into a wider context. So it is not ultimately necessary to draw a line, you might argue.

You could also say that as long as the match official shows the card with modesty and empathic explanations - what Schneider seems to have done - then a yellow card is fully accepted by everyone. Media reports from Germany proof that this is not the case though where Schneider was partly criticized for a lack of game feeling.

But you might also argue that as soon as comparable actions happen within the same league - imagine: even on the same matchday and in the additional time of two matches with the same kick-off-time - two different reactions to such incidents, i.e. one referee issuing yellow and the other referee not giving any card, will become a problem.

Although I highly appreciate and like the KNVB's and Kamphuis' behavior during and after the game, I consider it as rather problematic for the reasons mentioned above. Anyway, such events luckily do not happen that often so that the KNVB well used Kamphuis' decision to send a signal of humanity and maybe also to enhance the image of referees in the football community.

What do you think? Discuss and vote!

How to react to players removing their shirt to show a message of solidarity / humanity / sorrow?

Yellow Card.
No Yellow Card.
Continue Reading...

Champions League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments for Matchday 6 (Tuesday)

- 102 Comments
UEFA has chosen the following officials to take charge of next Tuesday's Champions League matches. Among others, Antonio Mateu Lahoz of Spain has been appointed to control the decisive Group B tie between Benfica and Napoli, while Clément Turpin of France has been assigned to Bayern vs Atlético. Slovenian Slavko Vinčić will make his Champions League debut in Manchester - congrats for that.

Continue Reading...

December 03, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 3: Penalty Kicks - What is and what is not permitted

- 4 Comments
Door 3 concentrates on penalty kicks. It is relatively robust trend that there is 1 penalty in every 4th match on UEFA level (~ 24-27% at EURO 2016 and the last three UCL seasons). As the IFAB modified Law 14, it might be worth to focus on what is and on what is not permitted since then.



Continue Reading...

Guess The Referee - Predict & Win the Referees for UCL Matchday 6

- 20 Comments
Your chance to guess the referees who will take charge of the last group stage matchday of UEFA Champions League - and to win a small prize sponsored by our partners Refsworld UK.


Continue Reading...

December 02, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 2: Information on UEFA Refereeing on Matchday 6

- 29 Comments
Door 2 is opened - below you find all relevant information on next week's UEFA club competitions including referee observers and delegates for Champions and Europa League as well as the match officials for Youth League.


> Observers and Delegates for UCL & UEL

> Youth League Appointments

Continue Reading...

UEFA Youth League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments for Matchday 6

- 1 Comments
These officials will be in charge of next week's Youth League Matchday 6. 



Continue Reading...

December 01, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 1: Physio with Goalkeeper Qualities

- 16 Comments
The first door of The3rdTeam Referee Advent Calendar is open. And there is a video clip in it!



The situation as written text:

An attacking player is having an obvious goal-scoring opportunity: Having already left all other defenders behind him, he is only facing the goalkeeper and decides to shoot. The goalkeeper is unable to save the shot, so that the ball is about to go into the goal.

A physio - listed on the match report as belonging to the defending team - is following the attack from the goalline already for a while. When he recognizes that the goalkeeper is beaten, the physio enters the field of play and clears the ball that would otherwise certainly result in a goal. Several frustrated players chase the fleeing physio - one of them, "Attacker A", even attempts to kick him to ground with a kungfu tackle.

Continue Reading...

November 30, 2016

The3rdTeam Referee Advent Calendar

- 0 Comments
When the weather gets colder, the days get dark earlier and gloves as well as floodlights appear on the agenda in your games as a referee, you know that Christmas cannot be far anymore. Time to take out your Advent Calendar. We also have one - a Referee Advent Calendar.


Continue Reading...

November 24, 2016

Holding and Offside Offence at the same time - Discussion of a situation from Champions League (Voting)

- 29 Comments
++ You will have noticed that the article's headline has changed. While we deemed this situation as a clear violation of the Laws of the Game, we have noticed that apparently this seems to be more up to interpretation than we thought. ++

++ We base(d) the solution "penalty kick" on a solution the IFAB submitted to the DFB at the end of July 2016, i.e. after the revision of the laws, for exactly this kind of scenario. As UEFA's and FIFA's guidelines for comparable situations seem to be in conflict with that, we have contacted the IFAB and hope for clarification from their side. ++

++ It all depends on one aspect: When does the offside offence start? ++

++ When we have evidence for either decision - penalty kick or offside - we inform you as soon as possible. ++



Continue Reading...

November 21, 2016

Europa League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments - Matchday 5

- 76 Comments
The following officials will be in charge of 2016-17 UEFA Europa League Group Stage Matchday 5 games. 



Continue Reading...

Champions League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments for Matchday 5 (Wednesday)

- 122 Comments
UEFA has chosen the following officials to take charge of next Tuesday's Champions League matches. Among others, Antonio Mateu Lahoz of Spain has been appointed to control the decisive Group B tie between Benfica and Napoli.

Continue Reading...

November 20, 2016

Champions League 2016/17 - Referee Appointments for Matchday 5 (Tuesday)

- 109 Comments
UEFA has chosen the following eight referee teams to take charge of next Tuesday's Champions League ties in Groups E - H. 




Continue Reading...

November 18, 2016

Guess The Referee - Predict and Win the Referees for Matchday 5

- 11 Comments
Your chance to guess the referees who will take charge of the fifth matchday of UEFA Champions League - and to win a small prize sponsored by our partners Refsworld UK.

Please stay patient until Saturday to find the updated lists and rankings (for matchday 4 check the last post).



Continue Reading...
Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger