Isn't that the AR's call, or did the center ref over rule the assistant ref? Not every call the ref made went in SJ's favor. He also called a goal kick on what should have been a corner for SJ.
About the same but maybe a little worse because Dawkins got away with a red card foul before Espy's red. So, if SJ goes down to 10 men do you think Espy still commits the foul? BUT when you're already down a guy then YES going down 2 guys seems worse than going down 1 particularly had the ref simply made the correct call on Dawkins and Olave... Worst case RSL would have been playing 10v10... Maybe even up a guy. Instead they got to play 30 min of 11v9.
If it was the goal I think it was then it WAS NOT offside. Using "the spirit of the Law" as a reason does not fly when refs are instructed by the USSF to call it that way. Especially when the USSF stance was in response to a FIFA memo. The concept of a player freezing a 'keeper being a reason for punishing an offside-positioned player was officially on shaky ground when I first started as a referee in the late '90s. I was not 100% comfortable with it then and I am not comfortable with the tighter instructions today. But I still called the game as instructed.
I think the Dawkins case is the one that bothers me rather than the Olave red. I don't think Lenhart behaved particularly egregiously on the play - he didn't try to sell it, that's for sure, even if he cleverly forced Olave to make contact - and I can understand what the ref "saw." Dawkins, now - two chances to send him packing in what seemed like expulsion-worthy circumstances, especially given how the game was called, and none transpired. The winning goal just rubs salt in the wound. What a point this would have been had we held out!
Only the calls that mattered. What!? A blown corner after a free pass to Dawkins, soft red on Espy, and total blown call on Olave that will affect us in the next game as well... If you can't beat RSL playing 12v9 you shouldn't be allowed to play soccer anymore. Pobrecito.
I challenge somebody to actually go count the time it took Olave to get off the pitch. It took awhile, but I seriously doubt it took upwards of 4 minutes as SJ fans claim. They got their goal in the second minute, so it makes it a moot point, but still SJ fans feel the need to argue it.
I can tell you why the ref gave Olave the red: 1. Olave was trailing the play when it started. 2. Both guys went down. 3. The crowd reacted like somebody had shot their mother. A ref who has a bad angle and lacks confidence in his ability is going to whistle it every time. Doesn't make it right, though. More concerning, though, are these other decisions: 1. How is Dawkins still in that game at the end? 2. Where is the call against Lenhart for setting a pick on Schuler on the game-winning goal? I find it funny that that would have been called an illegal screen in the NBA where picks are legal. We used to have this rule in soccer called obstruction...
I haven't been over on the SJ boards after this game but I have seen their posts in other venues and here on our side and from what I have seen they are tempting fate. You would think they would know better after the lamentations that came after from them after the game at the RioT last year. I look forward to Karma being reintroduced to SJ in the very near future. They will have brought it upon themselves. As DrownedElf pointed out, and I agree, the antics of Lenhart pulling down Schuler to keep him from getting to the ball on Dawkins goal at least for me was the pivotal play in the game after all of the other shenanigans. If the ref makes the call RSL may get the point it earned instead wheels up, goals in. Lenhart needs special treatment when SJ comes to town.
I *might* disagree, i didnt see the play he's describing... But as he described it, he's offside when he attempts to play the ball as it went by him... OR I should get about 20 goals back taken from my teams over the past 2 years alone. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for US refs no matter how hard the flip through the rule books. He attempted to participate in the play thus he is not passive any more and he attempted to play the ball. Here's the thing. I watch a lot of soccer games every week, both as a fan on TV (euro leagues, MLS), I coach a lot of soccer year round, and I've played soccer for 34 years now... I rarely see a call that I disagree with on TV except in almost every MLS game there is often 1-2 that I think "what the hell was that?". I'm not talking about games where I am a fan of the team, just random games. It's a little telling when no USSF refs get World Cup games. Here's the thing though, I've had refs do the same bullcrap you're doing calling it the OTHER way. When it's inconsistent, abitrary, and all of them can convince me is how the rules really mean what they say it does... Ok, so what is the PURPOSE of the offsides rule? If refs don't understand it properly then they can't apply it correctly when it is borderline. You also need to understand how/why rules have evolved over time because they are trying to solve certain problem WHILE maintaining the integrity/spirit of the game. For example there is no rule to stop when an opponent goes down but they do it because the spirit of the game is not to get an unfair advantage while your opponent is hurt. It's about what's fair and sporting. VERY different from the black and white world so many fans/refs want to apply in the US. I've watched games and seen refs use great RESTRAINT on even World / Continental competitions because while someone could argue a technicality it was not fair/appropriate in the game (like a questionable handball that will decide the game). U.S. refs would be explaining how that is TECHNICALLY wrong because they don't understand the origin/purpose of the rules and the spirit of the laws AND game. In soccer we don't try to saw the baby in half just because of the rules say we can.
One of the guys in the Referee forum sat down and timed the stoppages in the 2nd half. He got to 7 minutes before he even finished the half (after the Olave red is when he quit I think).
Jason, we all know that stoppage time never equals the true time wasted. That's why players waste time - it actually works. If I could waste 5 minutes and only get 3 minutes of stoppage time added, why wouldn't I do it? This whole debate is exactly why soccer needs to get rid of stoppage time. Stoppage time is a relic of a time when technology wouldn't allow you to do otherwise. They should do a countdown clock controlled by the CR, just like in college.
There can be a middle way but I do like that they don't stop the game in the middle of a scoring opportunity... I actually think you'll see more time wasting when players know they can stop the clock to slow momentum if they are need a rest or whatever. This is a tough one for me because I see your point but I'm not convinced what you gain outweighs what you lose. Plus, it was not a technology issue. They had plenty of adequate timing devices even in the 1900's evidenced by plenty of other sports who use countdown clocks like that... The 110 years since has more to do with the nature of the game and how it developed as to why the clock is continuous and we have extra time. An example of this is out of bounds. The priority in soccer is continuous play as much as possible... Minimal subs, no timeouts, etc and the fact unless you can see/confirm the ball is out of bounds (green grass between the circumfirance of the ball and the outer edge of the line) you keep the game playing. I also think it adds a lot of drama with stoppage time and if the winning team keeps delaying... He can add more time.
Sure.. But again what moment do you stop the clock on each event. Just because the ball is dead does not mean that second the timer should start/stop. That's what I meant. It's easy to dramatically alter the results by when you choose to stop/start the clock and IF you choose to start/stop the clock. BTW, I'm not saying 6 min wasn't justified. I'm just take any "timing" of what should be stoppage time with a grain of salt... It's highly subjective and situational is what I'm pointing out. EDIT- obviously the fourth official disagreed with his method because he only came up with 6 min... And he wasn't trying to make a point either way.
I apologize if you were mistreated by some on the SJ boards. BTW, this thread was started .. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1938117
then I want to see this dipshit who counts in that fashion to do stoppage time for each game this coming week. I think s/he would be surprised how many games have similar numbers that he crunches despite only having 3 or 4 minutes added on (and nobody complaining about it)
That's not the point. The point is there needs to be a way so that everyone in the game knows how much time is left. I don't really care if the ref doesn't stop the clock exactly when the ball rolls out, etc. I would just like to know how much time is left. It always makes me laugh in basketball how the refs will take 5 minutes to review when the ball went out of bounds and add 0.1 seconds to the clock...but only at the end of the game. They could have been off by several seconds earlier in the game but they don't review that because nobody cares until the end. If guys are winded and need to delay the game to rest, they're going to do that no matter timing system is used. At least with the countdown system the delay doesn't affect how much time is left in the game. Soccer is the only sport in existence where the competitors themselves don't know exactly when it's over. Can you imagine baseball if nobody knew how many outs were left? How would a marathon be if the runners were told "just start running...somewhere out there is the finish line. We'll tell you when to stop running"? Sorry, but stoppage time is stupid and outdated and needs to be dragged out in the street and shot.