The refereeing organization at FFM
the analyses made and the reports received from the match controllers from
The past 26th round of the First League found the following irregularities and
arbitrators' assessments.
Struga
Trim Ljum – Pelister (4:1)
– Missed
to give a red card to the home player with number 27 (Krivanjeva), for
intentionally striking an opposing player with a raised leg into their body when they are
he has no opportunity to play with the ball, the main referee only awarded a yellow card for the start
cardboard.
– On
intervention of the fourth official wrongly (unnecessarily) awarded a second yellow card
of the guest player no. 70 (Filip Boskovski), which makes the guest team
The team played the second half with a player less. The player had
minimal shoulder contact with the home player, but that's far from it
characterized as an illegal start for which a yellow card would be awarded. Correct
The decision would have been to verbally warn both players who had previously had some
petty provocations.
CONCLUSION:
The head referee Aleksandar Grujovski made a mistake and was given a poor score, 7.9 for
the misses made in the 36th minute with the score 0:0. The same assessment was made by
awarded by the controller Goran Spirkoski and the fourth referee Marijan Stojanovski
for the second yellow card awarded in the 45+4th minute.
Anger –
Gostivar (2:1)
– Player
The home team is in full swing and has open space towards the away penalty area.
Immediately after entering the penalty area, he was fouled by a defender.
a player who tries to play the ball with a sliding start, but fails and loses it
The attacker stumbles when he has a clear chance to score. Correct decision by the referee.
a referee who awards a penalty kick without thinking, but makes a clear mistake,
because it sends off the player who commits the offense instead of cautioning him.
CONCLUSION:
The head referee Vlatko Ilijoski unjustifiably gave a red card to the away team.
team and therefore was given a poor grade, 7.9 by the controller Aleksandar
Stavrev. The controversial moment is in the 55th minute with the score 0:0.
Tikvesh –
Shkendija (0:1)
– The player
with the home team's No. 9 receiving a cross from his teammate, not
manages to keep control of the ball, reacts clumsily and falls. In the same
At that moment the ball reaches his teammate with No. 77. At the moment when the player with
No. 77 shoots at the opponent's goal, the referee stops the game,
awards an indirect free kick for simulating a foul, and the shot is
the home player with No. 77 at the same moment ends up in the opponent's goal. I appreciate
that the main referee made a wrong judgment, he should have allowed the game to continue
continued because it is not a matter of simulating an offense by the
the player with No. 9 of the home team, neither had such an intention, nor did he
with any gesture or look, he asked the head referee for a foul.
The chief judge should have remained consistent with the criterion as in previous ones.
two situations (2nd and 9th minute) and allow the game to continue. I note
that in this situation a wrong technical penalty was called and wrongly awarded
disciplinary measure.
– The player
with No. 15 of the home team is in possession and control of the ball and in penetration
centrally towards the opponent's goal, and in front of him is only the away team's defense
player with No. 85. The main referee is not in the most ideal position and proximity, but
in full sprint and has a clear view of the situation and therefore correctly recognizes it
the foul by the visiting defender with No. 85 and it was primarily
assesses as preventing a promising action and shows a yellow card to
the visiting player with No. 85, considering that the other visiting defender with
No. 2 is nearby and has the opportunity to reach and play the ball. Wrong! But,
After the yellow card was awarded, the communication and consultation between the
the main referee with the first assistant referee, after which the main referee changes
the initially assigned disciplinary measure (yellow card) into a straight red card after
the assistant's suggestion to prevent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The same goes for me.
was also confirmed in the post-match conversation. Correct! I appreciate that the main
The referee initially correctly recognizes the foul, but awards the wrong penalty.
disciplinary measure. The home striker is in a central attack towards the opponent's
a goal is prevented by an illegal foul by the away defender, and
the ball has already been played and is behind the back of the defender who has no
opportunity, nor intention to play the ball, but deliberately knocks down the attacker
who would have reached the ball first if the foul had not been committed, which in effect
an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is denied. Additionally, the other
defensive player with No. 2 at the time of the offense is at a distance from
at least 20 meters and has no possibility of influencing in any way the development of
the action unless the attacker was prevented by a foul. I note that in the end
The correct and courageous decision was made by the assistant referee to suggest a change of
the head referee's initial erroneous decision on the disciplinary measure.
I would like to point out that the player with number 85 on the away team was sent off with a protest.
left the playing field, with obscene and vulgar gestures towards
the domestic audience, provoking and holding the genitals. I advise
the chief referee in such situations when an offense has been committed that prevents
obvious chance to score a goal at three key moments: 1) not to rush
with the disciplinary measure, but to achieve quick and clear communication with
the assistant referee for the same; 2) at the same moment of the offense, there is
photographic memory of where and what the other players are positioned; 3) when
It is already becoming clear that additional consultations will be held between the judiciary
team, to think about the overall management of the situation, that is, the same would
should and could be faster, because from the moment of the offense to
the moment the game resumes, the match has been interrupted for almost 4 minutes
(from 62′:57” to 66′:48”)
– The guest
team starts an action deep in their half of the field. A long throw-in is added
ball to the away striker with no. 7. The home defender with no. 5
reaches the ball first and tries to kick it out, but at the moment of kicking it out
the ball ends up in the hand of the visiting striker, which means he actually
calms down and controls the ball in front of him, gaining an advantage in the phase
on the attack, he smoothly passes it to his teammate with No. 77, who
scores the first and only goal of the match. I appreciate that the assistant referee
is not in an ideal position and does not have a clear view to observe the game
with a handball by the visiting striker, but also the main referee is not in an ideal position
position and at a distance of about 25 meters and hence neither one nor the other
They didn't notice this moment. I should have and I expect such situations to be noticed.
primarily from the main referee in the attack phase. From this wrong refereeing
assessment the away team developed a promising action and scored a goal.
CONCLUSION: Jovan Kacevski does
a catastrophic mistake in the 45th minute which disallowed a goal for the home team
with the score 0:0. In the 64th minute, the away team was given a wrong card. After
assistance of the assistant and the fourth official, a direct red card was shown for
guest player Adili and the decision of the main referee who in
that situation only awarded a yellow card.
-The same referee in the 69th minute with
his assistants do not see any obvious handball by the visitors, which is
A developed action that resulted in the only goal.
CONCLUSION:
Controller Dejan Jakimovski gave a very poor score of 7.5 for the arbitration.
Jovan Kacheski for the three controversial moments to the detriment of FC Tikvesh.
