Our weekly analysis will focus especially on the paramount episode occurred in the dying seconds of Narva Trans – Levadia.
We will voluntarily neglect the others decisions taken by Eiko Saar (5 yellow cards, 4 shown to Trans and one to Levadia) as we deem this episode as being quite decisive over the referee’s overall performance. You can indeed direct very well for 90 minutes, however, if you miss to take a decision on the most important episode, it is quite hard to judge everything else as positive.
Narva Trans – Levadia 0-0
If it was Bondarenko two weeks earlier to complain about the referee, now the complaint token passes onto Marko Kristal’s hands.
‘Let’s leave him with his sense of guilt’ was the terse and meaningful comment made by the Levadia’s skipper at the end of the game.
It is indeed a big sense of guilt the one that should have pervaded Eiko Saar’s state of mind during the weekend looking at what he (did not) decide on the very last second of the tight game.
The footage from ETV is quite evident per se.
We cannot find any mitigating circumstance here.
Eiko Saar position was perfect to judge.
His vision field was completely clear.
He must have seen this episode better than anyone else on the pitch.
The replay is even clearer: in the attempt of kicking the ball, Tanel Tamberg kicks Rättel’s leg resulting in Levadia’s nr.9 falling in the box.
We would say…Kristal clear.
What is more baffling, it’s how Eiko Saar seems to decide…not to decide. Without even taking a second to replay the episode in his brain, he just rushes for the game to come to an end. A knot of Levadia’s players follow with Kristal joining the group to show his complaints to the adamant director.
Last year Eiko Saar's overlooked a Rimo Hunt's handball in a derby with Nõmme Kalju. What Saar gives, Saar takes.
Complains from HÜJK Emmaste at the Estonian Cup semifinal that marked the historical win by FC Santos. The latter have automatically got a pass to Europa League as the other finalists, FC Levadia, will play in the Champions League.
What are the Emmaste people complaining about?
A handball in the dying minutes of first half when Santos were leading 1-0.
We agree in principle that this rule could be made simpler, however this rule is to be interpreted according how the handball happened.
If the ball goes to the arm/hand, no penalty/free-kick should be granted.
Vice versa, if the arm/hand moves to the ball, then it's penalty/free-kick.
Another criteria, whether the arm is outstretched or not.
Coming to this case (picture on the right - click to enlarge) the arm is quite outstretched. Watching the episode several times, we don't believe the FC Santos Tartu player wanted to touch it. He was moving to change direction, however the arm is outstretched. Therefore it's a clear penalty and HÜJK Emmaste have reason to complain.
Quite curiously, two weeks ago Külljastinen assigned a penalty to Paide for handball committed by Simo Tenno.
The Tammeka player was running back to the box to support Tekko and the ball, quite accidentaly, hit his arm (very hard to run keeping your arms stuck to your body). He gave a penalty.
If that was penalty (and for us it wasn't) then, moreover, this had to be assigned too. Quite inconsistent behaviour from the same referee.