Adjust to what? Every ref is supposed to show up to a game with a clean slate. Sure we hear and read things, but we try not to let it cloud our judgment. I have reffed so many games that involved coaches that I really don't care for or players with a disreputable history. I ref the game as fresh and new. It takes maturity, professionalism, and character to let bygones be bygones. I know it is human nature to have prejudicial thoughts, but I would wager my house that Hilario Grajeda went to Chicago with a clean slate and reffed the game to the best of his ability. MLS refs are so scrutinized as they go through the ranks, do you really think they are going to hire refs with grudges? If they did that, they will turn the MLS into the NBA.
Beats me, I'm a Grade 8. But I understand that refs for professional games do research for their next game and a team out for blood against the officials seems like the kind of thing they'd be interested in. Maybe make a mental note to stamp out dissent early in the game?
I hate to say it, but the TV announcer was exactly right. Silly "challenge" done by an out of position attacker. If you look at his expression after the whistle, he knows it was his fault. He put the FCD player in a position where a dive was easy and sellable, and he knew it right away.
I kinda disagree with this - you have an AR taking crap for your screwup, because Hartmann doesn't understand who is watching what he gets a free pass to yell at the AR? I don't care if it's a screwup (and in this case, it is), IMO anyone traveling 40 yards to yell at an AR shouldn't leave empty-handed. If you're not going to give a caution, at least have the stones to head over there and protect your AR. I tend not to like what seems to me is a passive-aggressive approach to Hartmann's dissent.
As soon as you start the game he's sprinting back to the goal area...no problems. Although it would be nice if he got scored on while complaining.
I understand, and it's not a hill I'd be willing to die on - just leaves a bit of a bad taste with me, I suppose.
I, for the life or me, don't get the "you'll have a hard time selling..." reason for not making a particular judgement and decision. We make unpopular decisions all the time, and the game goes on. Players surround the referee, coaches go ballistic...the game goes on. The video shows up on the evening news that a goal was scored and not awarded, or vice versa, but the game went on. You take your lumps, but the game doesn't stop.
Even though it wasn't a foul, this post reminds of that high school boys' goal celebration in which they all (11 players, yes all) ran near to the touchline by their bench that was on their half of the field and did the baby cradle celebration. Ref signals for restart and the opposing team scores unaided. Reps to those who can find that video.
This isn't an issue of selling a call. This is an issue of being proven factually wrong by television replays. Fans are complaining that one encroachment was missed. But if only the Fire player got called, an assessor would be asking why you recognized one and not the other.
Nerd out. In pure math terms, if there is an X% chance of making a penalty over an infiate sample. Subtract one from the sample it's still an X% chance of making the penalty. On the first penalty, it looked like the Dallas striker trailed his leg to make sure that it would get cleared out. Would they have probably gotten it anyway? Yes. I count the Fire lucky to get 3 points.
"But I still don't think that erases the fact that contact was going to occur." I don't believe contact was going to occur. I am not convinced there even was any contact. If there was contact, it should have been deemed trifling. And even if there was contact and it was considered "non-trifling", the fact that Guarda deliberately held his right leg back -- preventing any continuance of his run -- solely in hopes of drawing/simulating contact and drawing a foul, should be considered. "The Chicago player never pulls up and was making a silly challenge." I don't believe the challenge was a meritless as you claim, but he certainly did "pull up" in that he deliberately ran behind Guarda, and not into him. "I have no idea what a 'post-match yellow card' is." I was being facetious. It makes little sense to me for a player to be given a red card post-game for what he could only be given a yellow card for in-game. However, IMO, Guarda certainly deserves a yellow card for his dive.
To be fair, I think the on-field call that's most sellable is the IFK coming out. But replays would prove it incorrect.
I think you're being harsh with that "incorrect." I think the most sellable call to the players is the retake. But I'm in the IFK camp, since ITOOthisR the encroachment by the defender was trifling. Of course, no idea what I would have done in the moment....probably retake because I would have been too surprised to have the awareness to do anything else.
Aww yes but we are considering a FINITE sample of 2 (at least I hope we would be)... I was a history major that originally wanted to be an engineer. Unfortunately I failed college algebra twice!
Not the way to look at it. Let's say for argument that 80% of penalty kicks are converted. That means the chance of missing the first kick is 20%. The chance of missing the retake is also 20%. The chance of missing both kicks is 4% (20% x 20%). A retaken penalty will be converted 96% of the time (it's important that a retaken kick can be scored on either kick as the retake exists but is ignored when the goal is scored on the original kick). Ergo, in pure math terms, your chance goes up.
No, no, no! By your numbers, the chance of making the first kick was 80%. The chance of making the second kick is 80%k. Same thing. The chance of missing two kics in a row may only be 4%, but that is before the first kick is missed. Once the first kick has already been missed, all we're looking at is one kick and there is an 80% chance it will be made. (Your analysis is the same fallacy that argues that if a coin lands heads it is less likely to land heads on the next flip because there is only a 25% of two heads in a row; once the first flip is heads, the odds of the second one being heads is 50%.) (All of this, of course, assumes any PK is the same an purely random event, which is obviously not quite correct.)
I know this is mathematically correct. But I think this is why I decided to forget most of my statistical knowledge. If we know, statistically, that the chances of missing two kicks in a row is 4%, why can't we use that knowledge after the first kick is taken? (and yes, that's a rhetorical question as I understand there are very good mathematical reasons why not) Again, I know mathematically they are independent events, so you're right that there's still a 20% chance of a miss on the second kick. But, to me, that always made it sort of pointless to figure things out like "what are the chances he misses two in a row?" You only want to know what those chances are, typically, after a first one is missed.
Well, if your team has a one goal lead with two kicks left KFTPM, you might be interested in the idea that there is only a 4% chance they will both miss, which is the only way you can lose before extra kicks . . . or you might not want to know as you may just be depressed if it happens . . . (Hopelessly off topic tangent on KFTPM . . . had a great kicks from the mark moment with the boys I coach last season, as we fell behind 2-0 after the first two rounds (and yes, our two best kickers had gone); my son stopped three straight PKs and we scored three straight to win . . . )
I understand what you're saying because the underlined part is correct, but as a math major, the bolded part just makes me laugh.
+1 to Dayton Ref & everyone below Eastshire's last post. I had this entirely long, boring, perfect statistical lesson regarding why there is a 96% chance of converting 1 out of 2, but not only the 2nd one specifically, but by the time I was done typing in between phone calls, everyone had piled on with my reasons. I had a nice fishbowl example with 2 fishbowls and ping pong balls, but it's all just a waste... Ironically this year in MLS, there seems to be a 20% chance of calling for a retake when it should be necessary and an 80% chance of just letting it go...
Yes, because we don't care if he makes or misses just the second one. We care whether he makes one of the two. Given an 80% chance of converting a single penalty kick, what is the chance of scoring a goal if a defender infringes on the first kick? 96%. Yes, the chance of him scoring on the second kick is still 80% but I don't care. The equivalent coin question is the chance of getting a heads in two tosses. Which is of course 75%.