How/why he doesn't give him a straight red bewilders me. Hopefully this won't affect the suspension length.
You gotta be kidding me. That was as easy a tactical foul call as you can get. It's not the severity of the foul, in case you didn't know. It was the tactical nature of it.
Whaaaaah! Go see Heath Pearce's YC for a similar 'professional foul' a few minutes earlier. Take PI out of the argument on whether the ref was right or wrong. He was spot on for both the tactical fouls (one by each team) on similar parts of the field.
Slightly off topic, but why are tactical fouls so hard for some referees (never mind fans) to spot? If the yellow Marruffo gave here isn't the epitome of a professioanl foul, I don't know what is.
Go watch the last 10 minutes of a few professional games from before the change and get back to us on that -- the delaying tactic of playing back to the GK to pick up was quite tedious . . . I think what we're seeing on these non-calls from a tackle is a belief amongst the referees (correct IMHO) that those plays are not what the rule was intended for. That said, this is an area I would like to see the I&G get more specific, but I don't think it is going to happen until there is a controversial call or no-call in a high profile international game.
I completely disagree. I thought that was 100% yellow for a tactical foul. The PK call was interesting...since it was missed there's been little discussion. I thought it was a good call because of how Lade pulled his arm down. He attacked the ball a bit, and that makes it "deliberate" to me. This is a great game to discuss because there were so many controversies. I thought Marrufo got them all right except one. If you look at the Hamid OG, a DC player sort of knocked the NYRB player into Hamid, so I think it would have been really bad to have called a foul on NYRB. The Najar incident we've been going over. I didn't think Pontius was fouled on the play late in the game. At first I thought he was but the replay, IMHO, supported Marrufo. IMO Marrufu and company had a pretty good game. But I think you have to go through some pretty hefty contortions to justify not calling that play in the 87th or so minute a backpass. To me, Helgusson had clear intent to knock it to the keeper, and Robles just had a brain cramp. It's unfortunate, but Robles should have suffered the consequences of that mistake.
I think my point was missed or mis-interpreted by some (including the one fellow who shall remain nameless because he has all the discussion etiquette of a 6 year old). Yes, it was a tactical foul which in and of itself was worthy of a yellow, but Marrufo's failure to call other tactical fouls at all earlier in the match (and there were several going both ways, some certainly committed by Najar) leads to a certain expectation by the players as to what actions will be called. So, when Najar makes a play that he and others have been making throughout the night without a whistle, why -shouldn't- he (or the team) be upset? Heck, there was an open field clear foul by Pajoy that Marrufo and AR1 missed, where he clearly pushed his marking defender to win a long ball. On the "handball" by Saragosa which led to the free kick, it was clearly a chest trap he directed to his right, but from a bad angle 30 yards away, Marrufo calls it. And he misses blatant stuff? What's worse is that call directly led to the corner on which RBNY scored the equalizer...which given the bump on Hamid could also be up for question. I'm not saying Marrufo cost United the game, I'm saying he's got some areas on which to work, particularly in foul recognition.
I understand they had a problem to solve. They screwed up the solution. There were many more options available that would not have added another problem.
Lol. A FIFA ref needs to work on foul recognition according to a homeristically biased fan, who probably hasn't been certified to referee an actual game.
No, it wasn't missed or misinterpreted. You have just reinforced your bias and complete lack of knowledge of the game. Again, congratulations and props for the ignorance you display.
I could tell from my seat in 207 that Saragosa handball was legit. Both of his hands were out, and on the same side of his body.
Watching live and then rewinding a few times, I don't think the PK was given for handball on Lade. In the follow up, a DCU player gets the ball, touches by another RB defender, and gets tripped. At that point, the ref blows his whistle and points to the spot. IMHO, if he were calling Lade for handball, then there is a distinct chance of a caution (his second) and send-off. If anyone has the game, take a look and let me know if you agree/disagree.
disagree. It was clearly called on Lade. There was zero indication or discussion that it was anything else.
Good point: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-11-03-DC-v-NY/highlights?videoID=205115 I think the handling should have been called, though. Maybe just one of those cases where you're coming on from 90 degrees as the referee and it's hard to see where the actual contact with the ball by the defender is.
No post game write up. I watched the match. With the DVR running. To me it appears that he waited until he reached to box in the proximity of the handling and then pointed to the spot.
Ok, let me get this straight....you want Marrufo to issue a tactical caution for a foul committed by an ATTACKER? My goodness gracious, you have to be 1) blinder than a bat, and/or 2) completely delusional, to not see the handling offense here. Furthermore, Marrufo was no more than 7 0r 8 yards outside the pa when the handling offense occurred somewhere between the 6 and penalty spot (maybe 7 or 8 yards from the goal line). In other words, at MOST 17 or 18 yards away...but with a PERFECT angle.
Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, so thank you for being a complete ass about it. Or maybe you just got your jockeys in a knot and get all apoplectic over someone daring to question the skills of a ref, as is this forum's wont. Whatever. In my experience, the latter is true more often than not. With regards to the handling offenses to which I was referring, there were two. One RBNY handball in the penalty box which he rightly called, and one against Saragosa outside the 18. which was debatable at best, and the award of which led to the corner on which NY scored. Unlike the handling offense in the box, Marrufo was 30 yards to Saragosa's left, and his hands (unlike those of the RBNY defender) were not positioned to make himself bigger, and the ball clearly played the hand. Now, whether to card someone for deliberately handling in the box depends on how you elect to define a goalscoring opportunity. Bosko and his intended pass recipient, Pajoy, were both heading goal-ward. The hand of the defender deliberately played the ball, and was in an unnatural position away from the body, causing the defender to effectively be made bigger. Is that goal scoring opportunity? I'm saying, Marrufo's foul recognition is for crap. I'm saying he didn't call clear fouls committed by Pajoy (as an example of a clear foul he didn't call, despite the fouler gaining advantage, NOT a tactical foul, since I have to spell it all out for you) NOR did he call OTHER tactical fouls (jersey grabs, arm bars, bear hugs and tugs far more blatant and equally tactical in nature (if not moreso)) than the card for which he assessed Najar a yellow. Or is an attacker getting bear-hugged and pulled down in the box while trying to go up for a header OK in the new rule book? It's so hard to keep up with the rule changes. The back pass fiasco, which I actually find myself being a bit more lenient towards Marrufo than others on, because his positioning is often suspect, I could see him not calling, even though it's clearly an intentional play on the ball by the defender and played knowingly in the direction of the keeper. I'm even willing to give him a nod on Hamid getting bumped by a RBNY player while going for the ball, causing the own goal, even though I've seen that called plenty. If that's not clear enough for you, maybe I could borrow some crayons and use my "Talking to little kids" voice. Or you could stop tossing around words like "delusional" and instead ask for clarification rather than assuming the absurd.
Dude. As I already said in this thread, that Saragosa handball was not debatable. It was a clear handball.
Stop before you make more of an a@#$% of yourself than you already have...and I'm being kind. Many others on this thread will not be as benevolent.
I'm sorry, I don't believe I was the one who started obliquely insulting other people and mischaracterizing what others have written. I say "Marrufo has these failings" and you say "Nuh-uh, you're dumb!" Very effective. Oh, look, you're ignored now.