EURO 2024 Final - Spain V England

[Russell Jones]

A

I'm not going to cheat a team out of time they're entitled to to make my life easier.

And as the sole arbiter of time that is completely your prerogative .

That said 'entitled to' is extremely subjective. Referees typically don't add time when the ball goes out of play (off the pitch, foul committed etc). So at what point, in your opinion, does a delay become worthy of additional time when a player is mildly injured (such that they don't need treatment) in the course of a foul? 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 45 seconds??

 

[RefereeX]

A

And as the sole arbiter of time that is completely your prerogative .

That said 'entitled to' is extremely subjective. Referees typically don't add time when the ball goes out of play (off the pitch, foul committed etc). So at what point, in your opinion, does a delay become worthy of additional time when a player is mildly injured (such that they don't need treatment) in the course of a foul? 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 45 seconds??

And, just preempting the response, it’s not our job as a referee to decide whether or not a player is injured.

 

[one]

And, just preempting the response, it’s not our job as a referee to decide whether or not a player is injured.

Ahhhhhm. It is. Or at least it is to decide whether a player is serious injured. Is this what you were preempting?

 

[RefIADad]

Ahhhhhm. It is. Or at least it is to decide whether a player is serious injured. Is this what you were preempting?

Don't tell that to Mexico's Cesar Ramos. He was the center referee for the Colombia-Uruguay Copa America semi last week. There was a Colombia player down, and he ran 50 yards behind the play to check on him. He took one look, pretty much just said "eh, nothing to see here", and started the game with the guy still lying on the turf.

That was one of the two weirdest officiating moments from a tournament full of officiating "discussion points", with the other one being the referee in the US-Uruguay group stage game giving a US player a yellow at the same time as he played advantage. That one was, um, "creative" refereeing . . .

 

[RefereeX]

Ahhhhhm. It is. Or at least it is to decide whether a player is serious injured. Is this what you were preempting?

Ok, what I mean is, even if we don’t believe a player is hurt, we can’t be certain they aren’t so we have to take them at face value when they say they’re hurt.
I was preempting a response of ‘Cucurella wasn’t hurt by the saka foul’

 

[one]

Ok, what I mean is, even if we don’t believe a player is hurt, we can’t be certain they aren’t so we have to take them at face value when they say they’re hurt.
I was preempting a response of ‘Cucurella wasn’t hurt by the saka foul’

Agreed on taking it on face value with the condition of being smart about it. If we were to stop the game everytime a player claims they are seriously hurt there would hardly ever be any goals scored

 

[RefereeX]

Agreed on taking it on face value with the condition of being smart about it. If we were to stop the game everytime a player claims they are seriously hurt there would hardly ever be any goals scored

Absolutely. But I remember a game when I was on the line as a L4 and the ref was a very top end L3 at the time. Home team trying to wind the clock down at the end, ball runs through to goalkeeper who waits as long as he can to pick it up making striker chase it down. Striker leaves a tiny bit in on keeper as he does so. Foul but nothing more. Keeper throws himself to ground. Clear as day to the whole world he isn't hurt. Ref says to him 'you're not having treatment, you don't need it'. Player says 'you can't tell me whether or not I need treatment, I'm not getting up until I've had treatment'. Referee then had to say 'fair point, I suppose I can't, but I know what you're up to'.

Obviously in this scenario he can add the time on, but the point remains, even if we're 99.999999999% sure a player is having us on, we're in a very dodgy position to say they're not injured.

 

[GraemeS]

England were awful
I'm very surprised more hasn't been made of the fact Southgate reverted back to the pre-QF formation. The consequences of which had easily enough foresight to negate the need for today's hindsight

It's tactics rather than refereeing, but 4-4-2 have a really good video on YouTube about why they think it was a necessary change that I think I agree with. It's about the first quarter of this:

Essentially, 3 at the back against Spain's attack means you either put a CB 1-on-1 against each of the striker and the two wingers, which means the CBs are in wide positions they're not used to and you have no spare man if any one defender is beaten or if the #10 pushes up/the striker drops deep and the CB follows.
Or, you end up pulling the wing backs deep to stop their wide players, meaning you're actually playing 5-at-the-back, your 3 CBs are all essentially marking the same player, Saka is neutralised (and is being relied on for his defence more than we'd like) and Spain essentially have a 5 v 3 in midfield and can do what they want.

4 at the back means you have one spare man (which is a good amount of redundancy) and actual full backs defending against the wingers. Of course, that relies on Walker not being ****e and Kane actually providing a useful out-ball, but I do think the switch gets some credit for England not conceding by half time. But then Spain adapted and implemented their changed game plan better than England did.

 

[RustyRef]

A

And as the sole arbiter of time that is completely your prerogative .

That said 'entitled to' is extremely subjective. Referees typically don't add time when the ball goes out of play (off the pitch, foul committed etc). So at what point, in your opinion, does a delay become worthy of additional time when a player is mildly injured (such that they don't need treatment) in the course of a foul? 15 seconds, 30 seconds, 45 seconds??

The problem in this case is the ball was in play for little more than 1 minute of the 4 added. Whilst we know that the ball is generally only in play for 55 to 60% of the game, that is much higher than the 25% we had here. I know that the FIFA and PGMOL approach gets criticism as it leads to very long games, but it at least provides an incentive for players not to waste added time as it will just be added on. Whereas the UEFA approach is just an invitation for players to fall over then get up just before the referee calls the physio on, they know that the time won't be added on.

That said, I don't blame Letexier as he was following directives, and if I was in his position I would be blowing bang on the 4 minutes, we all know what happens when you play more than you need to. Plus England were never going to score anyway.

 

[DJIC]

Did you notice, players were not asked to leave the field, after extended treatment, a considerable time after a yellow card had been issued?

 

[JamesL]

Did you notice, players were not asked to leave the field, after extended treatment, a considerable time after a yellow card had been issued?

Yes on the odd occasion it happened. Likely due to a concurrent VAR check. The guidance is 20-25 secs from the point everyone is ready to restart, and that can't start ticking until the check is complete.