that's the whole point, who is to say that they screwed up? the letter of the law isnt black and white here and leaving something as important as a goal scoring opportunity up to the subjective opinion of a guy who should not be injecting himself into the match anyways is absolutely foolish. the rule does not state that upon a foul the ref must stop play, the ref must walk off ten yards, the ref must whistle the restart. this whole "ceremonial" restart thing is a load of rubbish. it should be the decision of the ones playing the actual game and they should be prepared at all times for any action. a team that is not defensively prepared to defend a restart at any point on the field and at any point in time should be punished for it. it's just another area of USSF refereeing that is wildly inconsistent and just another area that needs to be addressed, perhaps by this new referee oversight committee or whatever they hell they are.
lol. like i said, the refs should be there to ensure that the game follows the guidelines set forth, not to start making subjective influences into how the game is played. i guess it is unavoidable at times, such is being human, but in times/situations that are out of the ordinary they should do their damnedest to stay out of the game. like...goal scoring opportunities, especially off of free kicks. we're talking about things that encompass less than 10% of the total game, probably less than 1% of the total time the game is played. for a situation that is 1 out of more than 100 moments in the game, the ref injecting himself and so critically determining that situations outcome is unacceptable. 99% of the time refs, for the most part, do their job every single game. but for the 1% they do have a big effect, it better be in situations that are not critical to the outcome of the match...like goal scoring opportunities.
Thank you...that's what I've been saying for years! Of course, the only truly fair solution to this dilemma is to eliminate the quick restart option - every foul is a dead ball until the referee blows the whistle to restart. This is another way in which soccer is unique...the offended team gets to decide when play resumes. Basketball - Nope. When a foul is called, play immediately stops (unless the fouled player is in the act of shooting) and can't start again until the referee indicates. Football - Nope. The play continues through a foul, but the next play can't happen until the ref is done explaining it. Baseball - Do they have fouls in baseball? Hockey - Nope. Similar to football, play continues through a foul (until the offending team touches the puck), but play can't start again until the referee indicates.
Mr. Kadlecik was spotted earlier this morning walking around the Gateway looking for clues. Apparently he doesn't have one. The fact that almost every game he's ref'd with RSL has been controversial (disallowed goals, red cards, pks) is telling in its own right - I'm less concerned with the tactical details than the strategic view. As far as I'm concerned, dude parties with Okalaja and Marrufo. Players, fans, be ware. Him stepping on the pitch = wacky season. RSL still lacked passing/finishing quality in the final third and ultimately, that's why they didn't get a result.
I think we all agree with this. Nobody was really talking about this until MLS came out in support of the official, while not saying anything about other similar situations such as the NY vs Dallas game where the ref called the same play exactly opposite of how our ref did. Yes we need to be better on our finishing. We shouldn't have let it come down to the officiating. However, if we had one ref, he lets us play on we score and probably win, with another ref he calls it back and we lose. Meaning refs personal opinions are having too much of an impact on the game. Many may disagree with me but I hate when every team, including RSL, commit a foul then proceed to stand right in front of the ball without any punishment. If it were up to me (probably a good thing its not), I'd card ever player that didn't give the offended team at least 7 yards to begin with. They know what 10 yards looks like, they are delaying a restart. A lot of cards would be handed out but people would quickly realize they have to obey the laws of the game and this situation wouldn't really be a problem anymore.
You are all focusing on the wrong aspect RSL lost this game not beacuse of the ref (nobody is arguing this), not because of the physical play, not because of Kyle playing like shit, not even because of any other valuable reason... they lost because I started the game thread. I have avoided it like the plague and thought this would certainly be the game to get that monkey off my back. I'm terribly sorry all neg rep this direction Also, if we give up a quick restart goal to Portland this week I want Kreis and the rest of the squad bitching about there not being any ceremony prior to the kick
lol, jerk. and if there is a team in the league we would give up a quick restart goal to, it would be the timbers (cough*LASTSEASON*cough*NatBorchersdeflection*cough*). fast forward to 1:03: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2011-04-30-portland-timbers-vs-real-salt-lake/highlights uggghhhh. ******** mls refs.
I suggest everyone that thought MLS's response to the whole 10 yard, goal called back B.S. and the performance of Mark Kadlecik against RSL over the past year send a concerned email to Asher Mendelsohn who is the new director of the PRO(Professional Referee Organization) based in NY. This is the org that is using former Prem ref Peter Walton as their technical director to increase the level/quality of refereeing in the United States. I sent him an email suggesting that Kadlecik's decisions should be reviewed and his poor performance should be taken into consideration when making referee assignments this year. I for one feel that Kadlecik has destroyed three of our games over the past two seasons with his poor calls and poor control of the game. I simply think the guy isn't capable of refereeing a professional game, he has a hard time keeping up with the plays and making the rights calls. amendelsohn@ussoccer.org
a little of both he is recovering from an injury and probably could have played in this match. Schuler, his replacement that doesn't play like a replacement, has had a stellar start to the season and there is really no reason to rush Borchers back. I'd expect to see Borchers make a return to the lineup this weekend @ Portland in place of either of the two center backs. Schuler could be replaced as he is 3rd on the depth chart, or Olave could get a break as his knees and turf haven't had the best of relationships.
i fully expect olave to rest this game and borchers to start in his place with schuler beside him in the middle. we will see this rotation among the three for the whole season and its a really good situation since both olave and borchers will need periods of rest and olave will not be playing games at portland, seattle and new england. along with the CCL action and US Open cup action, having a 3 man rotation in the middle will be important. i expect schuler to get a lot of minutes this season and so far he has shown to be a perfectly capable starter (except when players climb up his back on crosses *cough*townsend*coughcough*). schuler has been groomed very well, i think we'll see him as a defender of the year nominee for several years in the future. him being able to learn from 2 DOTY finalists/winners (back to back years) has been a godsend for his career. and it shows in his abilities right now.
Actually, I have to disagree, and this is why... I brought my wife to the game... Let me explain, We have an (almost) 1 year old, so she hasn't been able to attend many games last year with being pregnant and having a little baby. But we figured the daughter was old enough to attend this game, so we all went. and RSL lost. The reason I am saying this is - Last season the games my wife attended were: vs. Monterrey (we lost, duh), vs. Seattle (we lost), vs. New england (3-3 tie), vs. Columbus (we lost), and vs. Chicago (we lost) These games + the chivas game last week are the only games she has ever been to, while I've been to most since 2008. scary statistics...
MLS's Instant Replay video covers the free kick this week. needless to say the posters here probably won't like it. http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2012/03/27/instant-replay-controversies-revisited-week-3
Borg focuses on the wrong aspect of the thing. Yeah, RSL should wait if all you see is the ref spraying the vanishing foam. The real issue (pun intended) is that the foam was never asked for nor required by the laws of the game (even if you bend it to the refs favor).
I know this will be an unpopular view, but if it was really 20 seconds AFTER the initial foam had been sprayed, that's too long to wait for a "quick" restart, and therefore the ball should not have been played until the whistle. Regardless of whether we asked for it or not. Also, the ref was bent over spraying more of the foam when we started play. He was nearly knocked over by the Chivas player's reaction to the ball being played.
No, that's a valid point, but as 15 to 32 points out - the real question is why he did that in the first place? Calling it back given the situation was the right call, but it appears he hosed the thing from the beginning. But oh well, it's spilled milk at this point, right? On to Portland.
Beg to differ: Law 13 says that th defenders must be 10 yards from the spot of the kick. Law 5 says that the referee enforces the Laws of the Game. This supports what the ref did. Law 5 also gives him the option of ignoring some violations of Law 13. This ALLOWS him, at HIS disgression, to NOT stop play to enforce the distance. There is no provision in the LOTG making the referee's decision to enforce Law 13 contingent on a player's request. Personally, I think it can be a good idea for a ref to put a stop to encroachment early in the game. It makes it less likely to be a problem late in the game and it makes it easier to caution if it does become a problem. This is not the first time we have seen the spray without a petition from the players, and it won't be the last. It is just memorable because we would have gone up a goal had the ref allowed our transgression to slide.
There are several big problems that I have with this. 1) First, if you watch the video there is no indication of hostility until after the kick. There is also no indication (nor was there when I watched it live) that Chivas did anything to delay the restart. You keep reiterating that the referee was "setting the tone". If you read the directive on free kicks and restarts it says: It doesn't say that you set the tone by manufacturing a CFK. You set the tone by responding to the situation on the field. Maybe there was a reason for this, but if so it wasn't outwardly visible. 2) The directive also states that a quick free kick: It then gives 4 specific reasons for a CFK, none of which we have specific information to support in this case (although maybe there's something we aren't aware of). 3) Ned Grabavoy told me that the referee told him the reason for the CFK was because it was in the attacking area. I believe him. I also don't believe that absent any of the other conditions that this should necessarily matter. If the foul occurs in the "danger zone", here is what the directive says: It doesn't appear that "wait for the whistle" was communicated
Quoting this from the Referee thread: So this might be why the ref felt he should step in (as he's allowed to) to make it a ceremonial free kick despite any request from Salt Lake players or any obvious blocking from Chivas. As to not making ti clear to wait for the whistle, yeah, that's badly handled. But when he's put spray down around the ball, walked off 10 yards, and is putting spray down for the Chivas wall does it really make sense to assume you don't have to wait for the whistle and can go ahead and play?
The part the videos don't really show though, is that he didn't wait 3-5 seconds before spraying at the spot of the foul. He went over there immediately when there was no indication verbally or by any gesture that that's what we wanted. Granted in the end we did wait too long imo to take the kick, but he never even gave an option of a quick restart. Not counting that, I don't think he called the game all that well either. There were far too many times he'd call a foul on something marginal, then less than a minute later, would allow something that should've been called, as a non call. The only real time I feel like he called it somewhat fairly, and more or less let the players play, was in the final 10 minutes of the game. By then the damage was already done.