© The Third Team –footballrefereeing.blogspot.

com

UEFA Champions League 2013/14

Qualification

(SUI) Grasshoppers Zürich 0:1 Olympique Lyon (FRA)

06/08/2013, 21:00 CET – Stadion Letzigrund, Zürich (Switzerland)

Goals scored: 0:1 Grenier (82‘)

Match Officials Name NAT Mark Mark* Difficulty

Referee Antonio Mateu Lahoz ESP 7.1 0.0 Quite Challenging
Assistant Referee 1 Pau Cebrián Devis ESP 8.3 0.0 Normal
Assistant Referee 2 Jon Núnez Fernández ESP 8.4 0.0 Normal
Fourth Official José Luis González González ESP 7.9 0.0 Quite Challenging
UEFA Referee Observer Horst Brummeier AUT
UEFA Delegate Christian Kofoed DEN
Blog Observer Niclas E. GER * mark without crucial mistake (7.8/7.9)

Evaluation Scale Level of Difficulty

9.0 – 10.0 Excellent. Normal: Normal match for the officials, few
8.5 – 8.9 Very good. Important decision(s) correctly taken. challenging situations

8.3 – 8.4 Good. Expected level. Quite Challenging: Difficult match with some
8.2 Satisfactory with small areas for improvement. difficult decisions for the officials

8.0 – 8.1 Satisfactory with important areas for improvement. Very Challenging: Very difficult match with
7.9 One clear and important mistake, otherwise 8.3 or above. many difficult situations for the officials

7.8 One clear and important mistake, otherwise 8.0 – 8.2.

Below expectation, poor control, significant point(s) for Additional Time
7.5 – 7.7
improvement.
Disappointing. Below expectation with one and clear important First half 2 Second half 3
7.0 – 7.4 mistake or a performance with two or more clear and important
mistakes. *For fourth official and AARs:
8.0 expected level, 7.7 crucial mistake
6.0 – 6.9 Unacceptable.

Disciplinary Home Team Disciplinary Away Team

Minute Card Player Misconduct Classification Minute Card Player Misconduct Classification
19‘ YC 14 Unsporting behaviour (UB) 13’ YC 13 Unsporting behaviour (UB)
21‘ YC 28 Unsporting behaviour (UB) 31‘ YC 7 Unsporting behaviour (UB)
58‘ YC 4 Unsporting behaviour (UB)
69‘ YC 20 Unsporting behaviour (UB)

Description of the match:

rd
Return leg of the tie between Grasshoppers Zürich and Olympique Lyon as part of the 3 round of the Champions League
qualifiers. Lyon reaped a tight 1:0 win in the first leg and faced an ambitious Suisse side that had more of the game for
most of the time but did not manage to create decisive goal attempts that could have led to an equalizer on aggregate.
nd
Lyon decided the match with a goal scored by Grenier in the 82 minute.
A heated atmosphere in the stadium and partly also on the pitch made the match difficult to handle for the match official.
On the other hand the outer conditions were good to play football, including weather and pitch.
 © The Third Team –footballrefereeing.blogspot.com

REFEREE

1 Application and interpretation of the Laws of the Game / match control, tactical approach and management of the
game with the special situation(s) of the minute(s):

Comments:
While applying basic Laws of the Game was fulfilled in a still good way (foul detection), the referee had some problems in
this match related to their practical interpretation: he missed a penalty kick to Lyon in minute 55 when their forward #10
was clearly fouled by Grasshoppers #4 just inside the penalty area. His leg carted out and caused a clear contact. Even
though not easy to detect, that was a crucial mistake as it could have had a decisive impact on the result of the match.
The referee basically chose a quite lenient approach from the first minute. He correctly resisted a penalty appeal by the
home team in minute 5, Lyon’s #4 had blocked #14 but the referee was right when evaluating it as not enough for a
whistle. After that the match became quite intense and in one riot in minute 21 the referee was at the borderline to a lack of
control. Here, there is an important area to reflect: Did the tactical approach suit to the requirements of the match? He
should be more flexible and less tolerant in some moments.
Stoppages, re-starting the match, additional time and the advantage rule were no problems.

Minute Description of the situation

Lyon #10 entered the penalty area and was fouled by defender #4, who slightly carted out his leg to prevent the
55 striker to pass him, in a clumsy way. The referee let the play flow, which was the wrong decision.
Crucial mistake, even if this error had no impact on the final result.

2 Disciplinary control, management of players and team officials (bench) with the special situation(s) of the
minute(s):

Comments:
The referee’s way to control the game in the disciplinary area did not meet the requirements of this match and the level
one could have expected. This part of the performance was fulfilled in a disappointing way.
th
In the 13 minute, Lyon #13 was very lucky to stay on the field of play after having lunged at his opponent at the inside left,
with both feet coming from the side but without studs-up. The force and intensity of this challenge were both high. The
referee only issued a yellow card. There is some room for interpretation, so that this decision can be still accepted. I would
have preferred a red card nonetheless. This decision was a certain signal and obviously did not have the wished effect.
In 19’, the referee cautioned GRA #14, who executed a scissors foul from behind with high intensity and no chance to play
the ball in the midfield. Having checked the replays several times from different angles, it became clear that this definitely
should have been a red card. Crucial mistake. Later on, #14 again committed a (tactical) foul and was lucky to stay on the
pitch once again (24’).
Based on these two calls, the referee’s control suffered a lot. Other yellow cards were issued in the minutes after that,
overall correct. Following a yellow card against GRA #28, there were some smaller riots. The referee had difficulties in
keeping the disciplinary control high in those moments, the management of players and specially team officials must be
improved: he did not allow quick medical treatment for the player who had been fouled, then made an irritating gesture
towards one of the doctors to come onto the field of play but then sent him back. The doctor was irritated, as his reaction,
gestures and body language unveiled (21’).
nd
Finally, he missed a mandatory 2 yellow card: he correctly detected a dive committed by GRA #14, who had already
been cautioned before. Instead of punishing that, the referee decided play-on and verbally warned the player when the ball
left the field of play the next time. If he is sure of a simulation, which it definitely was, then he must have the consistency
and specially courage to issue a sending-off. Many areas to improve and compared to Montpellier – Schalke, where I
observed him for the first time, there has not been a visible improvement with regard to these aspects.

Minute Description of the situation

The referee cautioned GRA #14, who executed a scissors foul from behind with high intensity and no chance to
19’ play the ball in the midfield. Having checked the replays several times from different angles, it became clear that
this definitely should have been a red card. Crucial mistake
21’/22’ Weak management of players and team officials in the conflicts. Communication problems and missing clarity.
nd
The referee nor had the consistency nor the courage to issue a 2 yellow card to a player who was already
69’
booked and whom he caught diving. A verbal warning at the next stoppage cannot be enough here.
 © The Third Team –footballrefereeing.blogspot.com

3 Physical Condition:

Good

Positioning and Movement:

+ Expected -

--- X --- 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 --- Efficient positioning at set pieces / dead ball (e.g. corner-kick, free-kick, goal-kick)

Please describe any special situation(s) with indication of the minute(s) – mandatory if you tick “-“ (negative point) in one of
the above boxes:
Minute Description of the situation
No problems with regards to stamina or positioning. That was one of his strengths, even though one may ask
Full time whether a less central positioning could have helped him in detecting the foul that should have entailed a
penalty kick in 55’.

4 Co-operation with assistant referees, additional assistant referees (where applicable) and fourth official:

Teamwork was overall good. The assistant referees sometimes helped the referee with free kick decisions, even though
this happened quite rarely, since there were not many situations to solve in their vicinity. In the conflicts in minutes 21 and
22, the fourth official and specially the first assistant referee swiftly supported the referee to control the players.

5 Personality:

The referee lacked in one of the most essential parts of a sovereign performance: savouring the respect of the players and
keeping a high level of authority. The reason could lie in the yellow cards following the two hard fouls mentioned in 2. The
referee did not manage to compensate these heated moments with self-confidence and determination. In his dealing with
the team doctor it became obvious some players and team officials were irritated by his style, gestures and body
language. Another reason could be that he was too lenient and did not feel the moment when it was time to become
stricter in things like facial expressions etc. He smiled here and there, but in a heated match that is not always the best
solution.

6 General comments, advice on performance and personality:

The referee definitely showed his skills in some, but too little moments. He has many important areas to improve. He
should definitely think about his dealing with teams and players and courage to take brave, unpopular decisions which
could also be very important for the match. The main criticism one can expose is that he failed to react properly on the
game that became partly even unfair.

7 Points discussed in the report:

Positive points: 1) Physical aspects like stamina and positioning.

Despite a lack of control in the first half, the second half became much better and
2)
he managed to (re-)gain some authority that was missing in half 1.
3) Teamwork. His team-mates were there when he needed their support.
 © The Third Team –footballrefereeing.blogspot.com

Points for improvement:
He must eradicate the obvious lack of match control resulting from an adverse
1)
authority and respect he earned from the players.
Management of injuries, medical treatment and team officials in general. He must
2)
find a clearer way of communication.
3) Interpretation of the Laws of the Game in crucial situations.
4) Misplaced tactical approach. It did not meet the requirements of the match.
5) Having the consistency and specially the courage to take unpopular decisions.

ASSISTANT REFEREE 1

8 Assistant referee’s performance (please mention some important decisions with reference to the minute):

Positioning and Movement:

+ Expected -

--- X --- Correct offside decisions and good application of the “wait and see” technique
--- X --- Good positioning and movement
X --- --- Adequate alertness and good co-operation with the referee
--- --- X Reaction to incidents within his vicinity
--- X --- Efficient control at set pieces / dead ball (e.g. corner-kick, free-kick, goal-kick)

Comments:
The first assistant referee showed a performance on expected level. He did not have to deal with challenging offside or
onside decisions. Those he had to take were however taken correctly. He has proven his mental alertness when he swiftly
supported the referee in the smaller riots close to his position (21’). In one situation, he and the fourth official however took
a throw-in decision in a blatantly wrong manner. But that was just one error without any importance.
Please describe any special situation(s) with indication of the minute(s) – mandatory if you tick “-“ (negative point) in one of
the above boxes:
Minute Description of the situation
Wrong throw-in decision in favour of the home side. It was pretty obvious actually, so that a deficient reaction to
80’
this incident in his vicinity became visible.
 © The Third Team –footballrefereeing.blogspot.com

ASSISTANT REFEREE 2

9 Assistant referee’s performance (please mention some important decisions with reference to the minute):

Positioning and Movement:

+ Expected -

--- X --- Correct offside decisions and good application of the “wait and see” technique
--- X --- Good positioning and movement
--- X --- Adequate alertness and good co-operation with the referee
--- X --- Reaction to incidents within his vicinity
--- X --- Efficient control at set pieces / dead ball (e.g. corner-kick, free-kick, goal-kick)

Comments:
st
The second assistant referee never was really challenged in this easy-going game. He correctly raised his flag in the 31
minute as LYO #7’s foul sanctioned with a yellow card occurred directly in front of him, so that it is likely that he advised
the referee to issue a caution for that. Normal performance apart from that.
Please describe any special situation(s) with indication of the minute(s) – mandatory if you tick “-“ (negative point) in one of
the above boxes:
Minute Description of the situation

FOURTH OFFICIAL

12 Comment on the fourth official:

The fourth official had no problems with the technical procedures such as signalizing the additional time at the appropiate
time or executing substitutions. However, he revealed weaknesses twice: at first, he was no real help when the referee
st
dealt with the team doctor following the foul leading to the riots in the 21 minute. It would have actually been his task to
manage these team responsibles in this particular situation. Furthermore, he missed the right throw-in decision around
minute 80 happening 2 metres away from his position having a perfect view on the situation.