2014 MLS Referee Assignments and Discussion [Rs]

Huh...Looking at the replays for both, I kinda thought the first was embellished and the second the player trips over his own feet. I mean, no doubt if I were a Union fan I'd think it was a PK, but the RSL player comes from the back left, low cleat, pokes the ball away cleanly, and then the PU player stumbles over him and falls in a way that doesn't much look like it's entirely the result of that contact. I don't recall where the CR is on the play, but I'd imagine he reached the same conclusion.

If you go frame by frame on the second one, the PU player -clearly- trips over himself.

 

1000 times yes. The funny thing was, in both the yellow card incident and this one, he actually committed two fouls in like 2 seconds each time.

The CR is gonna want to have this one back after the assessment.

 

On the first one he was definitely fouled. The defender's right foot got the attacker's right Achilles. It was a weak poke with the left toe, so Fernandes could have recovered easily without the second foot catching him. I also don't think he embellished, he's not the type of player and he's a second year player staring at a clear shot on goal he's not going to dive, but I don't think that really matters anyway. If you're fouled, you're fouled and unfortunately referees won't often blow the whistle if you don't go down. If you want to talk positioning, Kelly was closer to both of these plays than he was the PK he gave.

If you want to read the referee's mind, I can do that too. He's given two soft PKs in back to back games and as a PRO instructor with a great deal of hype and a whole lot of additional baggage at this point in his MLS career, he was a reluctant to go to the whistle again in the area.

 

"Those who say don't know. Those who know won't say."

 

I have always thought that "clearly" is the most misused word on this forum.
"Punch" and "shocking" are now contenders.

 

Yeah, I just see bad dancing.

And, no, I don't think this is a battle that needs to be fought. Now, if someone pulls out a Sharpie...

 

I think most of what we're here for is to try and read the referees mind. As a disinterested party, I'm just saying at speed the first one Fernandes falls in such a way that it doesn't look conducive to the means of contact. As someone mentioned moments before, he may have (intentionally or otherwise) exaggerated his motion in hopes of drawing a PK, but in doing so oversold it to the CR. In the heat of the moment, at game speed, were I the CR I probably would have gone with him on this decision based on the attacker's motions, too.

Could it be called a PK? I've certainly seen refs call one on less. I've also seen them ignore far more egregious ones. YMMV.

And, actually, I disagree with your assessment of what happened when you say the defender's right foot got Fernandes' right Achilles, again going to a frame-by frame of the referenced GIF. The defender's right foot passed below Fernandes' right foot as the ball is poked away, and if there is any contact, the bottom of his cleat MAY have contacted the defender's foot as he went to strike the ball which was now rolling away from him, out of playing distance. If the CR was in sufficient spot to see that, and you imply that he was, then I'm fine with the lack of call.

Now, in this forum it has been particularly difficult to get other refs to parse reasoning behind game management over the entirety of a match. So, I've taken that to mean they're hesitant to pass judgment over whether one call was just or deserved using prior calls in the match as the baseline, because they weren't the ones actually in the center at the time, and trying to do so would most certainly be attempting to read the CR's mind (or lack thereof ).

 

The fact that it was, as you say, "shoulder-to-shoulder" is completely irrelevant in this case. The shoulder-to-shoulder rule was implemented to allow two players to equally vie for possession of a ball. Slamming into an unwitting opponent away from the ball, regardless of body parts involved, is at least a foul and potentially a cautionable offense.

This is a classic case of a cheap shot, frankly, and for the purpose of managing the game (I realize this was very late, but nonetheless...) I think it deserves a caution. And if it is whistled and cautioned, the ensuing escalation never happens.

My guess, though, is that none of the officials saw it.

 

This is EXACTLY what I thought. The one time someone actually naturally falls with flailing arms, they get punished for all of the simulations that have used that technique.

On replay, the foul is obvious, but in real time, and depending on positioning (we can't see where Kelly is), it might very well have looked like a dive.

 

I think you are right. Would this be something for the trail AR to catch given that it is behind the CR and probably not in the view of the 4O?

 

If it was the call that I recall, I thought it went out as a corner. It was the case of the announcer getting the flag signal from the AR wrong.

Overall, Chapman had a very good match. I really kike what I saw from him in the match. Only a couple of foul calls that made me scratch my head and none that was game changing.

 

Surprised no one's brought this up yet.

http://vine.co/v/MJvpADrgAd7

 

On the 1st one it looks like the defender clearly (lol) pokes the ball away and the attacker embellishes what little contact there is to try and sell a penalty. It would've been one thing if the defender was sliding in with force but he goes to ground from almost a standstill position so there's a minimal amount of force in what little contact there is with the attacker...which is why to me it would be a weird penalty to give.

The 2nd one I could definitely see giving...however it looks to be outside the box.

 

Off the ball cheap shot from the blindside with force on the other team's best player....for me it's VC, and in champs league I don't think there's much question this is a send off. Now I know this is the wild west MLS so maybe it's only a yellow, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a suspension.

 

So, I just saw the Allston foul for the first time about an hour ago and my first thought was, "Man, if that guy's leg is planted, that's Mullan on Zakuani all over again." He might not have come in with the intent that Mullan did, but it's that kind of challenge.

http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...olution-vs-houston-dynamo/details/video/43600

Now I see that Borg has it in his weekly scream-fest and makes the same comparison.

That foul is SFP every time, in my book.

 

I would say that this is a case of being too close to play to have a good perspective. Just another reason not to run right on top of the line.

 

I know Borg's Instant Replay takes a lot of plays out of context of the game, but I don't understand how Lamar Nagle did not receive a second caution on the play that Borg high lighted?

If he isn't on a yellow it's an easy caution.

I understand if there is some gray area that you lean towards not giving it at the pro level, but these were so obvious.

Same thing with Roy Miller in the DC United game. Text book tactical foul. What is PRO teaching? 3 strikes and you're out?

 

The lack of 2nd yellows for tactical fouls is disturbing to me. We even saw it in last year's final. It seems to be a pretty automatic card in Europe no matter what.

 

I didn't want to bring that up, given I'm, with all due respect to MassachusettsRef, clearly biased.

 

I suspect you're right about why the card wasn't given, but I also think Neagle's challenge wasn't nearly as bad as it looks out of context.

Yes, I'm sure I'll be in the minority, but to explain my view ... The ball had been loose after Diaz had tackled it away, but then he recovered surprisingly quickly and got there a split second before Neagle, sticking his foot across Neagle's path to force the contact and win the foul. I don't see anything about Neagle's approach to the loose ball that was reckless.

 

Yep, which is a point I attempted to make (and was repeatedly shouted down as a Mullan apologist) during the Mullan incident. Its not enough just to hand down heavy punishments when the worst case scenarios happen, they need to be handed down when the action could have resulted in a worst-case scenario. An actual Zakuani injury happens so infrequently that there's no disincentive to making those type of tackles if you know you're going to get away with it most of the time, or maybe face a 1-match suspension. If 10 games is the penalty for making that tackle and getting a worst-case result, then 3-5 games needs to be the penalty for making that tackle and not getting a worst-case result.

Assuming, that is, that MLS really does want to end those type of tackles as they claim.

 

I actually know of a case where the referee was accused of being bias in favor of "our" team. First or second game of the high school season. The referee's son had graduated from the home school three months before the game. (Yeah, I know. bad assigning.) The game was 0-0 at half, against the expectations of the teams, and he has not called a foul against the home team. He told the clock operator that he would have the official time for the second half. Visiting team scores, so it's 1-0. One foul by the home team is so blatantly obvious and in front of the home bench that he says to the coach, "Coach, I gotta call that one against you." We get to 40 minutes after the second half kicked off and there's no sign that he's thinking about blowing the final whistle. At least eight minutes into 'time added on,' the home team scores to tie the match. He immediately blew for full time. The home team contacted the state high school association the next day, saying that they were embarrassed by this clearly bias referee. The visiting team came in shortly thereafter. The referee's schedule was yanked and he hasn't done a game since.

The only remaining problem was, "no protests allowed, period." So what could we do? We finally decided that, since the league tells us (the state high school association) which of their teams have which seed from their league, we wouldn't look behind the curtain about how they got to the seedings they would report six weeks later. I never did go back and see if it made a difference.

 

I certainly agree with the principle you've stated (punishing the action rather than its outcome), but I just went back and watched the Mullan tackle again. For my money, Alston's foul wasn't even on the same planet.

 

Noted without comment (mainly because I don't have time to write anything right now):

Clint Irwin — How should games be refereed?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20140415/clint-irwin-mls-referees/