San Jose : Salt Lake [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Apr 22, 2012.

  1. georg

    georg Member+

    May 25, 2009
    Parowan, Utah
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    O.K. Official gives two straight Red cards, first card was reasonable, second was bad, and I believe Lenhart should see a suspension.

    My real issue here is how in gods name does this official see it fit to grant 6 minutes of stoppage time? Their we're no lenghthy stoppages for injuries, only one yellow earlier in the second half for time wasting, but really? Their can be no explanation of 6 minutes. Even San Jose's commentators were surprised.
     
  2. SimpleGame6

    SimpleGame6 Member

    Apr 16, 2012
    Club:
    Aberdeen FC
    ...it begins.

    But a reasonable question for any referee with a watch and time to go through the second half.
     
  3. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    100% agree

    Hmmm....
    I'm having trouble with this part.
    Sure he's a turd. I agree he is looking for the foul. Heck, I even think he commits one. So, I 100% agree he is trying to force the ref into a corner.
    But is that really "simulation"? There is plenty of contact.

    If this happens with a covering defender (removing DOGSO), I think the conversation is more along the lines of "he should have called the first one", "just a tangle of big boys going for the ball, keep going." I don't think this is ever called diving in the middle of the field.

    Are we applying a higher standard to the attacker simply because he has an OGSO? That seems bass ackwards.

    Or am I just completely off the rails here? :eek:

    (Full disclosure, with the help of replay and multiple angles, I think the "correct" call is foul going out. But once the CR has said he sees a foul on the defender, I don't see how ANY of these replays invalidate that.)
     
  4. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, Olave initiated the contact. A clean play would have involved Olave growing a pair and conceding that he was beat rather than initiating a shoulder charge from behind.

    The second red was not "clearly the wrong call." It's debatable. Both individuals are extremely physical and often "dirty" players that often get way too much leeway from the referees. Lenhart does stick his leg out, but he was going down well before that leg to leg contact occurred. What caused Lenhart's fall was the initial shoulder charge to the back.

    Overall, the referee did a pretty solid job in this match. His decisions certainly effected the outcome of the match, but you can't say for sure they were bad decisions. To a certain extent, Olave and Espindola put themselves in venerable situations. They have no one to blame but them selves.
     
  5. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    Two goals, 30 seconds apiece, 1 minute. (Not listed as a reason to add time, but almost every pro league does it.)

    Six substitutions, 30 seconds apiece, 3 minutes.

    3 cautions, 30 seconds apiece, 1:30.

    1 send-off, 30 seconds (it took longer because Olave did not leave the field in a timely manner).

    Add it up... 1 + 3 + 1.5 + 0.5 = 6 minutes.
     
  6. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    I guess that's not what I'm clear on.
    I'm not certain that the shoulder caused Lenhart to go down.

    Lenhart grabs the far side of Olave shorts long before any shoulder contact.
    [​IMG]

    (notice how far they are from the PA when the hold occurs)

    Lenhart pulls Olave towards Lenhart
    When the far side of your shorts are being pulled, bodies are going to come together.

    He continues to hold until they go to ground inside the PA.
    [​IMG]

    The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced Lenhart only goes down because he is forcing Olave into him.
     
  7. lurking

    lurking Member+

    Feb 9, 2002
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    2 subs occurred simultaneously, and only Beckerman's goal occurred before added time, but Opara was also down for a bit on the field.
     
  8. oneref

    oneref Member

    Oct 18, 2005
    How about that it took Olave almost 3 minutes to leave the field after he was sent off, Morales took almost a minute to leave when he was subbed, plus the other subs, and general time wasting on every restart?
     
  9. Battler

    Battler Member

    Aug 30, 2007
    I guess I'm alone on this, but I thought the first red was the wrong call. I see why it was given, but I thought it was incorrect.

    The field was slick. Watch the 10 minutes leading up to the foul, there had to be at least a half dozen players losing their footing. That's what this looks like to me. Espindola tries to stop, can't, slips, looks like a two footed tackle only because he was trying to plant both of his feet. The cleats don't make any contact with Cronin, they go right over him. Cronin gets up, gets mad, and forces the referee into the wrong decision (okay, he probably would have given red anyways). I just don't see a red. This isn't violent contact. The only contact is Espindola's butt on Cronin's cleats.

    My other issue with the first red was the mechanics of the card show. It looks like he is giving a card to Cronin. Confusing and didn't help diffuse the situation at all.

    The second red, was definitely simulation and possibly a foul on Lenhart. But Olave should know better than to make any contact in a play like that. Positioning doesn't really let you call that one any other way. No problem with how that foul was called.
     
  10. SimpleGame6

    SimpleGame6 Member

    Apr 16, 2012
    Club:
    Aberdeen FC
    I think you will be quite alone. There doesn't need to be much if any contact for me to call that a red card. He may be slipping but his legs don't collapse like he's slipping, they go straight out. If I'm playing I would hope the referee can tell this isn't a slip this was deliberate, I don't want to be touched by that sort of challenge. This is why he was deservedly sent off.
     
  11. Battler

    Battler Member

    Aug 30, 2007
    I'm comfortable being alone. Could you explain to me what you mean by the bolded part though? When I slip, my legs don't fold under me, they fly out in front of me. Neither of his legs go straight out, they both are bent at the knee. Also, the cleats themselves are pointing at the grass until just as he reaches and passes Cronin's leg. This indicates to me a careless slip, not violent conduct. But I'd love to know what it is you are looking for that indicates it isn't a slip.

    The other thing from the game I thought was interesting were all the calls that automatically went against Lenhart. It seems his reputation was responsible for more calls than he was tonight. Bazakos was watching him like a hawk from the moment he came into the match.
     
  12. DPRoberts

    DPRoberts Member

    Feb 26, 2012
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    I agree that Espindola was flying through the air feet first.

    I disagree that Espindola's studs were "locked and loaded".

    I thought it was a harsh call.

    Farfan's challenge was significantly worse.
     
  13. georg

    georg Member+

    May 25, 2009
    Parowan, Utah
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Problem as stated earlier two of the subs were simultaneous, and RSL' third substitution came after 90 minutes. While RSL was not rushing to complete its subs, San Jose was not taking any time in getting their subs in. Call me a homer but it really looked like this official did all he could do to get RSL to 9 men and when that was not working he went to his watch.
     
  14. La Rikardo

    La Rikardo Moderator

    May 9, 2011
    nj
    I'm a referee and RSL season ticket holder and I didn't have a problem with either red. I did think six minutes of added time was a stretch. But to imply like this that the referee was deliberately trying to work against RSL is simply out of line. Completely inappropriate in a referee forum. If you're going to post in this forum, keep your comments objective and civil.
     
  15. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    Arguing about time added on is about as bone headed as it gets, folks.

    1) At the pro level, the 4th official is often the one who tracks lost time. Not always, but often.

    2) The first goal in added time came in the 92nd minute. To be exact, 91:08. So if there had been only 2 minutes added on, you know what? RSL still would have lost. Shocking, I know.

    Here, if you really want to know...

    52:29: Beckerman's goal; subsequent kickoff (thanks to RSL's celebration) at 53:23. That's 54 seconds, rounded up to 1 minute.

    58:55: RSL sub Gil for Steele, restart at 59:17. 22 seconds, subs generally have 30 seconds added on.

    59:53: SJ sub Lenhart for Cronin, restart whistle at 60:25. That's 30 seconds.

    60:45: Opara injured, restart is at 61:15, 1 minute 30 seconds added.

    67:10: Lenhart booked for dissent (match report says foul, it's for screaming at Bazakos), restart is 67:45, 30 seconds added.

    67:55: Olave send-off. Olave doesn't start walking off the field until 69:10. Instead of going to the touchline and being escorted off by the match delegate, he slowly walks through the field to the locker room. Whistle for the restart at 70:54. That's 3 minutes alone right there.

    I'm at 7 minutes of added time right now and we have two SJ subs and another RSL sub in regulation time to go. Do you want me to keep going? Can we drop this stupid argument and please move on?
     
  16. SimpleGame6

    SimpleGame6 Member

    Apr 16, 2012
    Club:
    Aberdeen FC
    I'm surprised that they fly out in front of you...they don't on me. They especially BOTH of them don't lock at the knee and go into anyone. I don't know what level you've been playing or reffing at but this is a red card at this level. He's a professional athlete and he knows what he's doing.
     
  17. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    People can deny it because it didn't happen.

    You can see Lenhart at around 47 seconds in the highlight of the incident look back at Olave.

    Olave is fast... very fast. Lenhart isn't.

    We see Lenhart take a peek back. Then looks back forward.

    You can then see him desperately throw his arm and shoulder in front and across Olave. He grabs the Olave's shorts on the outside of his left thigh... and pulls Olave close. We also see Lenhart kick his left leg out to catch the back of Olave's leg.

    I don't see Olave dip his shoulder into Lenhart at all. I see Lenhart lean into/across Olave though. There isn't much contact besides what Lenhart creates himself.

    He knows Olave isn't going to be pushed off the ball and he knows Olave is much faster than him and sees that Olave is about to run past him.

    The whole time Olave is maintaining the same line for the ball. Lenhart is the one who changes his approach and purposefully makes the contact with Olave at the last second before Olave is past him. I think Olave was actually even when Lenhart sticks his arm in front and grabs his shorts.
     
  18. La Rikardo

    La Rikardo Moderator

    May 9, 2011
    nj
    My perspective on the DOGSO as a referee/referee sympathizer/RSL season ticket holder:

    1. Steven Lenhart is a little $%*&@.
    2. Saborío pulled similar crap last year against San Jose to earn Bobby Burling a DOGSO-F send-off and himself a PK that gave RSL the first goal in what ended up a 4-0 win, so this is just karma biting us in the ass.
    3. Yes, the call was incorrect.
    4. Since spotting Lenhart's shenanigans would've been a very difficult thing to do, the call was not a bad call given the circumstances and Bazakos cannot be held liable in the slightest for getting it wrong.
     
  19. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    Agreed. Olave has an incredible combination of size and speed. Where I disagree is with the notion that all of Olave's physical power was somehow overwhelmed by Lenhart's bionic fingertips.

    Again, I see some truth in this, but it's always the guy with the ball who has the option of changing his approach, whereas the defender has to adjust. In this case, Lenhart's last-second adjustment shielded off Olave and drew the contact in his back. Because Olave had been sprinting in from behind without changing his line, it was an easy foul to call.
     
  20. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006

    Are you going to address the shorts pulling which forced the contact?
     
  21. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    Here's what I said earlier in this thread
    "As for the grab of the shorts, I'm not a fan of it, but it's commonplace at this level, and there's a good reason that referees often consider it trifling. After all, nobody's going to pull Jamison Olave around that way."

    Unless Lenhart really does have bionic fingertips, I'll stand by that.
     
  22. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    Hararea, I'm near your camp on this one, in that I think there is enough contact to call a foul. But even I don't think the bionic fingertips arguement is sound. Lenhart doesn't have to exert enough force to move Olave. All he has to do is move himself. Just exaggerate that contact enough to sell the foul, turn a brush into a bump.

    This is why I think the "correct" call (from my desk, with 3 replays from different angles) is a foul on Lenhart. But I have trouble calling it simulation. The bump was Lenhart's "fault". But there was a bump.
     
  23. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    He pulled him to ground, is that trifling?
     
  24. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    More of the bionic fingertips.

    Suffice it to say, there was plenty of additional contact before Olave went to ground.
     
  25. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Jan 21, 2005
    Yeah, I think that's a very good description of what Lenhart was trying to accomplish when he grabbed Olave's shorts. He did everything he could to maximize the contact, which is gamesmanship, not likeable, etc.

    But on a play where you can only call one foul, I still see it being on the defender who goes through the back of the player who's shielding.
     

Share This Page