Well said. I'd say it's a foul on Lenhart coming out, but there is contact there, so it's hard for me to argue simulation.
It's not bionic anything. The same way it only takes a hand on a guy's shoulder to prevent him from jumping, or a slight nudge in the back as a guy DOES jump to throw him off, it doesn't take a lot of force to put a guy who's on a dead sprint off-balance. You honestly can't see how being pulled by your shorts could throw someone off-balance who's already unstable?
Folks, we should keep in mind that the referee crew did the best they could with an impossible situation. SJ's defender chest trapped that ball and then hit it on a full volley 40 yards. Bazakos had utterly no chance to be on top of this play. And whether Olave hit the shoulder or the back, or it happened because Lenhart pulled himself into it, it's unlikely the AR could tell from the line which it was. That crew decided they smelled a foul and called it. It's a bugger of a situation. All of this arguing about whether it was a foul or not boils down to one thing: did Lenhart create the contact and go to ground, drawing a call for something that was not a foul? If so, then it is simulation, and this falls under the DC's jurisdiction to suspend Lenhart and cancel Olave's suspension. Based on the mixed response here, my guess is that the DC will not reach a consensus. But trying to figure out how the referee crew can avoid this situation? It's not possible in the DSC.
Agree. Yes. I am really struggling with this idea. Players do stuff all the time where they initiate the contact and end up on the ground. So that can't be the trigger for simulation. Right? And the player has no control over what the ref does, so the fact that a foul was called can't be the trigger either. Right? FWIW, for those who argue simulation, I see lots of evidence in the way Lenhart moves his legs. I could see that qualifying as an "attempt to deceive." This really is one of those places where we are asked to be mind readers, right? One more thought. Maybe this is trivial but Lenhart pops right up and shoots. That would be the typical reaction of a player who fouled going for the ball and was trying to get away with it. Not so much the reaction of a player trying to draw a call.
I agree with this as well. There are a lot of people who are just leaping to the automatic conclusion that this "foul" = "simulation". I just don't buy it. As much as I've been arguing that it doesn't take much to throw a big guy running at full speed into unstability, it's also presuming a lot that Lenhart, in that split-second, was thinking "Let me grab this guy's balls and pull him into my back so I can get a foul and a red card instead of trying to get off a shot." That's pretty paranoid. I'm not saying it's out of the realm, but the reality is probably a lot less interesting. Steven Lenhart was probably just trying to gain any kind of advantage he could by trying to hold Olave off and get him off-balance. Hell, it's more likely that he was trying to pull Olave to ground and make it look like he fell, so he could be in clear on goal. But I highly doubt that Lenhart pre-planned it so that the defender would fall ON him. It's just not simulation. It's a holding foul.
Agreed. Both players were trying to position themselves. However, Lenhart, IMO, was the first to run afoul of the LotG with the grab. Foul going out.
Was wondering if anyone would make this point (the first sentence). Didn't think it'd get coupled with the subsequent sentences, but that's potentially a good point, too (though I think there's another explanation for that, which I'll suggest below). As for the first sentence. Try this crazy analysis... the goal-scoring opportunity was never taken away, advantage could have been applied (presuming the CR and AR never saw the holding foul on Lenhart) and the shooting opportunity that was available was actually preferable to a DFK (remember, this was not a penalty kick/advantage situation). Watching the replay again, I still can't tell when the whistle goes. I think that goes a long way toward... A) Why the AR kept running B) Why Lenhart got up and shot, because he wasn't certain he got the foul call. In this situation, even if he's looking for the call by simulating, he's got to try to score if he doesn't think the whistle has blown (and this would negate your point, oldreferee... but I admit you might be right, I just think it's impossible to tell) Anyway, because I can't tell when the whistle goes, I can't tell if Bazakos did take the "wait and see" approach or if the subsequent shot was irrelevant. All in all, there is a ton going on in this incident. Could be a teaching tool in a number of ways, though it's probably correct to say that there's no way of being sure you get this call 100% right with the DSC. Of course... since we are moving toward AARs in major competitions, would an AAR feel confident enough or empowered enough to tell the referee not to call this as a foul on the defender?
I think I have a unique perspective on the Olave send off. Make Olave the attacker and Lenhart the defender and you are almost looking at one of my signature moves. I was a defender and I was slow so I had to rely on my positioning to be effective. When that failed and I found myself in a footrace and about to be passed I would cut in front of the attacker so he would plough into my back, drawing a foul with a DFK going out. There was a difference too. I would press my arm tightly across my chest so if I was late with my move the ref could clearly see that I was charging with my shoulder. Lenhart was guilty of holding and it should have been a DFK out. As to blaming the ref: I ALWAYS knew where the ref was and what he could see. If he was in a bad position I didn't try it. If I knew what the ref could see and used that knowledge to decide what not to do, I have no problem believing that a player could do the same to decide what he could get away with. The blame and criticism for Olave's red card rests 100% with Lenhart. The ref and the AR were screened and could not have seen the hold. They could see the collision and absent the hold it would have been on Olave. Without seeing when the hold started it could look like Lenhart grabbed Olave's shorts as he fell.
1st Red: Absolutely. The tackle endangers the safety of the opponent. 2nd Red: I don't get why the referee didn't allow play to continue for a clearly doubtful action. Looking at the video in full time there is no obvious infraction for MLS level of play. Both the defender's contact and the attacker's hold are quite normal run of play for this level of play, IMO. I don't beleive it is simulation. The attacker pops up just as fast as he fell down. I think this is one of those decisions where the referee's anticipation/expectation for what was about to occur fooled him in to misinterpretting what actually happend.
From the RSL Media Relations notes on the game: http://www.rslsoapbox.com/2012/4/23...h-notes-and-quotes-after-3-1-loss-at-san-jose What a poorly-phrased, arrogant, dumb thing to say. Really.
Maybe the guy should do a better job "teaching" his players not to let the other team's attackers get in behind them, and "teaching" them not to charge towards guys on breakaways and put themselves in bad spots, and "teaching" them not to get red cards for two-footed lunges in the upcoming week.
Let me preface my comments by saying I really like Elias Bazakos. I also understand the second red. Nonetheless, I've seen the replay numerous times...and after each time I was convinced to say....PLAY ON! Maybe I'm alone on this but there certainly isn't enough there for me to call a foul on or caution Lenhart and there certainly isn't enough (IMO) to call a foul on Olave which would result in a necessary send off. The only alternative is to wave my fingers upwards palm up and tell them both to get on with it.
BS. Lenhart wasn't shielding anything. He didn't even have control of the ball. Olave didn't run into the back of Lenhart. Lenhart reached across Olave and because of that Olave's shoulder came in contact with Lenhart's shoulder. Imagine yourself standing next to someone shoulder to shoulder. You reach across, in order to do that, you have to lean forward and over a bit in order to grab the person's shorts on the outside of their opposite leg. Who makes the contact? Lenhart does and he isn't in a position to shield Olave. And besides, what caused Lenhart to fall was Lenhart kicking the back of Olave's leg(looked like Lenhart did that intentionally to me). That would seem to imply that Olave had position wouldn't it?
Lenhart grabs a players shorts, continues to pull them for three strides, continues to pull them as they go to ground -- how is that not a foul?
Because there are some things you just don't call at certain levels of play...hence the concept of trifling foul. If you called every tug of a shirt or short in a pro game, you wouldn't have a game.
While stipulating again that this was an almost impossible incident to call and that any number of outcomes were legitimate... if you don't think it's a foul on Olave or simulation on Lenhart, I agree with Sport Billy. I don't know how you can argue that the hold by Lenhart is trifling. He still has his shorts stretched out while they both hit the ground, to the point where he's pretty strenuously testing the fabric (pause the MLS replay at 0:45 to see what I mean); he's grabbed the left leg of the short and pulled it all the way across to the right side of the body. This was not a "grab and let go" type of incident. Not to get too crude, either, but I would never consider one man grabbing at another in that general area "trifling." It didn't come to fruition here, because of the goal-scoring opportunity and the result, but this is the type of short hold that can prompt a VC retaliation in other cases.
Good point Mass Ref, you see all sorts of SHIRT pulling, but very rarely do you see SHORTS pulling. I can only imagine trying to give a red card to a shortless defender in this situation
MassRef, BOTH Olave and Lenhart go down to the ground....neither is going to play the ball as it rolls towards the keeper. You might be creating more of a problem calling a foul here than just letting the ball roll towards the keeper. Unfortunately, when I posted I didn't realize Raimondi was stuck on his line and that Lenhart quickly jumped back up to play the ball, and in fact DID play the ball...I cut off the video after the players went down. So I can see your point on calling a foul on Lenhart.
Fair enough and now that you write it, I can see your point about possibly not calling something if the ball does goes straight to the keeper and the attacker doesn't react. However, I would reiterate the potential for retaliation with short holds like this. They are rare to begin with, but we need to be cognizant of the reaction they can prompt, particularly when the holding is in the front of the body. All things being equal, if I see the hold I think I'm inclined to call it just to make the point to everyone that I did see it. Not calling it seems to send the signal that you missed it or don't care about it, and the attacker is free to try it again.
Not to take away from everything, but none of this debate really matters because none of these subtle details, however important they may be, are going to be spotted in real time. I don't think there's a referee on this board who would've made a different decision in Bazakos' shoes.
Maybe... I'm certainly not putting myself in this ref's league. Nevertheless, I've found the discussion to be both fascinating AND practical for 2 reasons. 1) Suppose I have the perfect view of a play like this. As I've said, my instinct is to call the foul on the attacker. But now I'm gonna think long and hard about adding a yellow for simulation. (I even acknowledge the possibility of just telling them both to put their big-boy pants on and keep playing if the game context allows that, too. Not likely in one of my games.) 2) When caught behind a breakaway and witnessing a collision, I already (try to) beat myself up to be 100% sure if I'm gonna call a DOGSO. This example does more than merely re-enforce that. A slow whistle here would allow you to see the partially disrobed defender and the attacker getting a shot off. Is that enough to overrule the part of my brain that saw a foul? Maybe. (Especially if you detect any sniff of the unnatural movement on the part of the attacker.) If your post was to emphasize that we cannot use such an incident to criticize this ref, I agree. What's great about this board is that we can (most times) dissect situations like this without vivisecting the ref. I find that very helpful.
After reading this, what stands out, is that this isn't a zero sum decision. It's the attacker risking a yellow for simulation vs. a red for the defender due to DOGSO. This suggests that an attacker in this situation is always better off trying to create a foul for the ref to call.
I'm not so sure... If I had been in Elias' shoes, I would have been begging my AR for input. I would not have made a game changing call from 45 yards off the ball unless I was 100% certain that a foul occurred, and considering the amount of bickering about this decision in this thread, I think it's hard to say Olave 100% committed a foul. I don't know what happened here. Maybe Elias just went with what looked like a charge to the back from his less-than-ideal vantage point. Maybe his AR was RefTalking his ear off "Foul, PK, DOGSO." If the latter was the case, I would not question my AR, I'd go with his decision, because I think it really has to be his call. I know his angle is lousy too, but he's a good 20 yards closer than I am. If neither of us was sure, I would have a difficult time calling a foul that would bring RSL down to 9 men.
Yep. That's always the case with the last defender. A similar arguement (pk v yellow) can be made for any foul in the penalty area. That's why attackers continue to chose to dive. It's worth it. It's also what motivates Disciplinary Committees to step in. They hope post-game sanctions will level the field a bit.