Might as well start the thread. http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-23-chi-v-dal/highlights?videoID=186795 Chicago awarded a PK. Grazini's kick is saved by Hartman. Pappa who was at least 5 yards into the PA at the time of the kick follows up the rebound and scores. An egregious and inexplicable mistake by the referee. I have no idea how he could miss the guy entering the area right in front of him. Dallas had a player in early too though, so the result would have been re-take. A very bad miss though by the officials.
To be fair, since the penalty spot is six yards inside the 18, I'd say Pappas was maybe 2 yards inside (angle from 0:47 on that replay shows it best from behind the net) at the time it was struck. Still probably needs to come back, but I have been having a bit of a laugh at the exaggerations I've seen on this already. I must say, Grajeda's positioning for the penalty is very peculiar and likely contributes in some fashion to him not seeing this and ordering a re-take.
Also, Dallas was awarded a PK prior to the Chicago PK, which looked to be a clear dive on the replay. I wouldn't be surprised to see disciplinary action against the FCD player.
I'm asking, and not anything else...how is this a "probably?" Didn't it obviously have an effect on play?
he took the same position on the other PK as well. It is a very strange place to stand. Maybe 5 yards was a slight exaggeration, but he was only a step or two behind the kicker.
Well, if it was only one yard and he got there first, would you call it? A foot? Six inches? There has to reach a point where it's trifling and doesn't get called. But 2 yards and a head of steam? Yeah, it probably needs to be called. I'm just avoiding saying "definitely" because there is an element of referee opinion here. But again, looking at Grajeda throughout this, I think he missed it rather than determining that it didn't need to be called.
I was wondering whether to bring this issue up on its own but then the second PK happened. I watched this--the first PK call--multiple times. Yes, by a split second the Dallas player starts to go to ground before he's contacted. In that sense, it's a very sneaky and--if you're in the business of complimenting such acts--well-executed dive. But the truth is the Chicago player is running at him and will cut across him no matter what. The contact, in some regard, was going to occur. The Fire player made a terrible decision to "challenge" (I use the term loosely because there was no real chance of winning the ball from the way he came in) at that point and paid the price. In short, I hate the fact that the Dallas player needed to simulate to sell the call, but I also don't think you can call this a "clear" dive and I definitely don't think you'll see Disciplinary Committee action. If they weighed in on this penalty decision, then almost every penalty decision would have to be parsed and re-hashed; it would be the re-refereeing that everyone has said the committee won't delve into. By contrast, the simulation card that Grajeda did give was a clear dive. The Fire attacker realized he lost the ball, saw and felt the Dallas player on him as they pivoted and then simulated contact. The problem in this case was that the Dallas player pulled up and stopped to avoid any contact. To me, that's the key difference between this call and the first penalty decision.
I have to say that I'm in agreement with the post to which you replied: I don't see how "probably" applies. To me, this is just not remotely close to any grey area. This makes, I believe, the third match I've seen this season in which Hilario Grajeda has made a terrible decision that has immediately impacted the outcome of the match. I understand that in principle, poor assessments affect the frequency of MLS assignment; but this season, he's the example cited by a number of people who tell me they just don't believe that.
I am going to take issue, slightly, with the notion that this is a miss by the "officials." This one is on Chico. His positioning makes not sense, and it looks to me like he is looking exclusively at the keeper. The reply from behind the goal in the clip shows this most clearly. As a referee, you should be even with the penalty spot and wide enough that you can keep all the players outside the PK in your sight. You should watch the run up by the attacker taking the kick as well as the players on the outside of the penalty area for encroachment. You should not be watching the goalie. That is the responsibility of the AR. I have even seen referees go so far as to have their backs basically toward the goal, with their full attention on the kicker and what's happening outside the 18. Now presumably the other AR and the 4th could see everything, but it would be hard for them to see how far Pappa was inside the penalty area at the time the PK was taken given that they are 50-60 yards from the play. And the AR on the end line is going to be focusing exclusively on the keeper (to make sure he doesn't leave the end line early) and the ball once it is kicked (to see if it crosses the line). The "officials" missed it in the sense that the call was wrong and you go down as a team, but like I said, this one is really on Chico.
Most refs I work with don't even bother watching the GK. They watch the "garbage in the back" and allow the AR to GK judge and goal judge.
I thought rather than even with the spot now we were supposed to be closer to the 18...a la Geiger on the one he called back the other day. As far as I am concerned, if the guy who encroached scores on the rebound, then even an inch isn't trifling. It gave him an advantage he's not supposed to have.
Also, though I'm debating you on the hypothetical trifling point, Glenn, I must point out that you're the only person so far--I think--who has pointed out that this would have been a re-take, not an IFK coming out. So although it's a bad miss by Grajeda, the notion that it's a game-changing decision is a bit overdone if you go by penalty conversion statistics. It's not an excuse for the call but--it'd be ignoring reality to forget that this whole incident likely still results in a goal even if it's called correctly.
I'm to the point where I think the trail AR should position himself on the 18 for penalties and watch the encroachment. Let the CR keep an eye on the kicker and the lead AR on the keeper. Kevin Hartmann was dissenting heavily after the play. The teams were lined up for the kickoff and he was still standing next to the AR yelling at him. Grajeda decided the best way to end the dissent was to order the kickoff instead of giving a yellow. Don't mind not giving the yellow here, picking a spot where you screwed up is a bad place to draw the dissent line.
Just to be clear. I view the encroachment as one requiring a stoppage in play. As to the restart, since the goal was not scored on the initial penalty, but from a rebound, there is no goal. Once the keeper stopped the shot the referee should have whistled play dead and restarted with an indirect free kick for FC Dallas. Also, this is a big misapplication of the laws of the game. Technically, I could see the crew being sanctioned. The mistake in my view should result in a replay. That would be fair and right thing to do.
Every high level referee (National, FIFA) I've ever reffed with says to his ARs "I'll watch everything, you judge the goal or no goal and that's it." I think the AR would have to be Usain Bolt to make it back to position on a fast break.
I didn't see a misapplication of the Laws of the Game. I saw a referee not make a call, which happens a lot. If it was a misapplication he would've had to call it and give an indirect free kick for the offense instead of the defense or something right? The referee believing that Pappa was not far enough into the penalty area for it to be called isn't really a misapplication because it's his opinion.
But Alberto, two players were in the area early--one per each team. If the Fire player being 2 yards in early isn't trifling, how do we parse it to say that the Dallas player being about a yard in is? Glenn was right in his post that started this thread (well, not about the 5 yards!)... if this gets called, it is a re-take. As for misapplication of the law... how? It's an opinion call. Obviously, from replay, a poor opinion. But it's not a situation where a call was made and then there was an unlawful restart. I'm very surprised you're arguing for something as extreme as a replay based on a missed encroachment call.
This call gets you to that point? I think this is a huge overreaction. Grajeda missed it, partly--or mostly--because he took up a position far too deep. That's all this is. What, exactly, should the referee be looking for with the focus on the kicker? Other than a stop-and-go routine? Also, it's not like the encroachment gets watched in a vacuum... in order to know if/when someone has encroached, you have to be watching the ball, too. Your suggest isn't just an overreaction, it also confuses me. You'd have the lead AR watching the goal line and goalie. You'd have the trail AR (out of position by 37 yards) and watching the encroachment line and the ball. So the referee would become almost irrelevant. I don't see the point. It's a missed call. One that likely didn't affect the result as the vast majority of time the retaken penalty gets scored. And one that will probably be sourced to Grajeda's positioning, so it will be assessed and corrected through those channels. I think everyone should take a deep breath.
On further viewing yes, it a retake of the penalty since both players encroached. It was a game changing decision even if the penalty has to be retaken. I wonder what percentage of retakes are converted.
I've watched the replay multiple times and at the point when the kick is taken, the referee is turning his head from the PK-taker to the goalkeeper, and he's standing about four yards from the endline on the side of the 6-yard box. Very odd positioning. If you freeze the video the instant after the ball leaves Grazzini's foot, the Grajeda is clearly watching the goalkeeper. The assistant was appropriately watching the goalkeeper, which left nobody watching the top of the box. I thought the Dallas PK was a pretty clear dive on the replay, but it was a tough one to call live.
What does he gain from this position? He can watch the goalkeeper? Doesn't he trust his AR? What about the other 20 players?