2014 MLS Referee Assignments and Discussion [Rs]

Only one first half caution appearing on the recap page. I specifically remember the commentators referencing two cautions, but I only saw the card shown for one. Were there for sure two yellows and if so to whom?

 

Sorry for the delayed response.....I'm sure you were waiting. After watching the Borg penalty-red card report (the guy misuses the term "endangering the safety of your opponent" as often as possible)....there's a close up of the yellow to Amarikwa for the supposed simulation. The closer view reaffirms my initial claim that it was either a penalty or a no-call and anything but a card for simulation. Amarikwa beats Barnes and Barnes leaves his back leg out and as a result there's clear contact. Thus, it might be embellishment, but not a clear dive. I think this is the wrong play for the anti-diving crusade to fight their battle on.

In general I thought Stoica did ok...got the DOGSO-H right, 2nd card on Amarikwa was legit, time-wasting card at the end of the 1st half on Barnes was weird and unnecessary (but it seems that may be a directive from above)...but in general there was no flow to the game (35 fouls) and he was nitpicky on throw-in spots to the point of over-annoying the players. I just find something odd about his game in general, but he may continue to improve as he gets more chances.

 

While that is true, and in the ATR, it applies when the challenge otherwise would have been legal. That is not the case here. My position, which Lucky disagrees with (and that's fine), is the "challenge" here is clearly a foul, it's late, very late, so that right there makes it a foul, and into missconduct. The debate is the color of card.

I am taking a "big picture" view rather than "that challenge" view. The contact in and of itself in a vacuum, leaves the referee in a great world of options. You can sell red, you can sell yellow, heck it appeared he was ready to sell no call. So factor in the rest of the variables:
- the instigator: he had not been an issue, actually it sounds like he just entered the field, so he's full of energy
- the game itself: appeared it was not getting out of control, not getting physical, no management issues
- time in the game: late in the game, you can take a risk in a calm game that this will not blow up on you

Any of those three gives the referee the option of not going red card here. NOTE that's an option, which as games/players get more competitive through the progression from youth, the referee also gets more experience and discovers the options available for that game at that moment.

So, I'd PERSONALLY have trouble pulling red there, I'd have no trouble giving yellow and a PAC, because of the game conditions listed above. Change those conditions you very well may remove some of the options.

 

Understood. My citation was abstract and no doubt inapt with reference to the play in question, which I have not seen.

 

http://www.proreferees.com/news-article.php?item=1

Very clear message about DOGSO from PRO.

 

This has been the knock on Stoica from his first game until now (what is that 3 seasons now?). He is certainly not what the players expect or seem to want. I think over-annoying is a good description. The fact that he has not changed in 3 years leads me to believe he's not going to.

 

Stunningly clear -- interesting to see effect on Guzman's next assignments . . . it's hard to be sure, but it sounds like the AR may have opined that it should be DOGSO and he declined to go that way. Would love to have been a bug on the wall for the post game discussion on how they missed that -- so often we can watch and say "yup, a miss, but maybe it was because . . . " and learn from how the ref team missed it. But I can't for the life of my figure out how they could possibly have missed that -- I would love to hear what he saw/thought, becasue I can't come up with anything remotely plausible.

 

PRO is certainly not afraid to pull punches this season when it comes to calling out their referees.

They are not only saying that hemissed the call, but they are practically blasting him.

 

Paul Rejer: “I do not intend to look for reasons why referee Juan Guzman only issued a yellow card for this clear DOGSO offense - he is responsible and all of the post-match talk is about him."

Without defending Guzman's decision in any way, I feel like this comment from Rejer steps over a line. It seems to imply that he doesn't feel any personal responsibility for the decisions that get made. Now, in this case, it may be entirely appropriate to throw Guzman under the bus, but as PRO's Training and Development Manager, Rejer should certainly be seeking to resolve and explain what went wrong and why, and to look for ways to avoid repetition of the error.

 

How does this cross the line? Should Rejer find reasons to support an incorrect decision? I think that is not a good idea and in the process Guzman would be further thrown under the bus. I'm not sure what he means be "post-match talk" but Rejer is completely correct by stating Guzman is responsible. He is the referee, as we all know, a referee is judge, jury and executioner on the field. No one but Guzman is ultimately responsible for the decisions made on the field. Although Rejer does state later that the team bears some group responsibility.

 

There were two yellows shown at the game in the first half. One early to a E-Quakes player and one later to Atiba Harris. Looking back at the Twitter feed:

But it was Harris who was also cared in the 25th minute. So either the ref waved off the card or there was confusion as to who got the cards when. But there were two yellow cards announced in-stadium in the first half.

 

I am sure they asked what he was thinking, remember these games are all assessed. I am sure PRO made it clear to him he screwed up, and I'm sure that included "what were you thinking?"

My take on the statement is that he isn't going to look for a way to explain it to us.

 

It is about time. It might take a few more of these before the traditional MLS viewpoint
on DOGSO, which was always to try to find a way, (any way) out of pulling the red, is changed.
Some people have been pointing this oddity out for many years.

PH

 

Yellow cards in the 16th minute to Görlitz, 25th to Harris.

 

I think Rejer is being as kind as he can be to Guzman. You can't defend the indefensible sometime.

 

I'm sure you're right, but I still think you want your training and development manager to say something that conveys his involvement in the team, not just spitballing from the sidelines (e.g., "I've already spoken with him about the play ...").

Guzman is still a very young referee, after all.

 

No, he isn't. I don't know that I would go so far as to say he crossed a line, but IMHO this piece could have been written in an equally compelling (and perhaps even more effective) way without some of the tone (the one sentence in particular). I applaud the fact that he is explicit about what is epxected and doesn't defend the error, but I don't know that the public tone is the best way to empower referees to be effective on the field.

 

Thanks!

 

I think you mean that they aren't afraid to "throw punches." "Pulling punches" is to hold back your criticism like a boxer would hold back the full force of his punch. (Sorry, can't help myself!) But on to the real point...

You're totally right. They have been very straightforward. But even if they weren't being up front like that this year, there was simply no mitigating this one or explaining it away. It was flat out a 100% wrong call, and there are very few of those that we look at on this thread.

That play is the sort of video you would use to train a new referee on what DOGSO looks like.

 

Parts of it sound like rants, instead of intelligent, cohesive statements. There was no reason to mention that "all of the post-match talk is about him". We already know that...no need to make it personal. Just state the facts why he was wrong.

"Guzman consulted with AR Mark Cahen but still failed to take the correct action". I don't think Rejer could be more clearer than that.

In classes of all levels, we are told the AR's job is to assist and not insist. We know Guzman was wrong, but for reasons we'll never know, he elected not to go with his advice (which was his right). The way the statement comes across is that the whole crew failed on the play, based on the comment about not applying the laws of the game. It's not as if Guzman called for a penalty shot on a pass back to the keeper and the entire crew just stood there like mutes.

 

I hope those who were talking about Villareal's Houston time wasting red card (@Westside Cosmo )watch how Borg explained it. Brilliant: http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2014...jose-dynamo-chicago-end-10-men-instant-replay
at the 6:30 mark.

 

Borg is sometimes overzealous and obviously doesn't understand all the ins and outs and nuances of officiating at the professional level, but he's always very rational in the way he approaches things, which is why I enjoy his piece every week even though I don't always agree with his interpretation. He's absolutely spot on with the Sarkodie second yellow, and I love the way he illustrated just how blatantly the restart was being delayed. The one thing he lacked, although he's only got so much time to spend, is a good explanation of why the card was necessary. Late in the game, visiting team, protecting a tie, etc.

Anyway, I updated the 2014 stats to include that second yellow card from the COL-SJ match. Everything should be as accurate as I can get it at the moment. I have not had time to update the team by team folders, but no one really uses that (as far as I know) so I'm not too concerned right now. Unless there's an open network around, I'll be losing internet after tonight. Hopefully not for too long, but I don't know for sure. You'll still see me around because I can post from my phone, but I won't be able to keep the stats dropbox up to date for a little while. I promise I'll get it updated as soon as I can.

 

http://www.proreferees.com/mls-assignments-04-26-14-04-27-14.php

Guzman a 4th this week, that much was to be expected. The real question will be for next week, imo.

Kelly has NE x SKC.

One thing I guess I hadn't noticed until now is Foerster isn't on the PRO referee page (or, at least, its not loading on my browser which, at work, could very well be the issue!). I know he wasn't very highly rated here, just hadn't noticed his removal before. I also like how Marrufo is the only one not in the white polo for the pictures, haha.

 

Yes, I posted a link about him and his "journey" in the FIFA Brazil WC referee thread...as this is where MassRef wants to have it.