Chicago vs FC Dallas - DOGSO vs 2nd caution

[code1390]

2:55 mark in highlights

http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A//mfile.akamai.com/11504/wmv/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2009/open//mls/2009/05/31/mls_wtdgah_4814385_800K.wmv&w_id=1111662&catCode=mls_game_tv&type=v_free&gid=2009/05/31/fcdmls-chfmls-1&_mp=1

How is that not DOGSO? It ends up being a second yellow so its not a major difference, but I don't see what Moody saw that made it a yellow vs straight red.

What do you think?

EDIT: Forgot to add [R]

[ManiacalClown]

If that's judged to be a foul, I'm not sure how you can't call it DOGSO. Mark Geiger pulled a similar move with Jeff Curtin a few years ago that I think was called out as blatantly wrong.

It doesn't make a difference in terms of the immediate suspension, but it DOES matter for caution accumulation. If you get a second yellow in a match, you're assessed the red, and it's as if you never got that first one. Your count stays the same as it was going into the match. But if you get a yellow and then a straight red, that first yellow still counts towards your accumulation, which could trigger an additional match suspension.

[intechpc]

Yeah that call kinda ticked me off. It was a cop out by the referee in my opinion. I know I'm border line here as far as criticizing another referee but I think in this case he showed a lack of cajones to do the right thing which would have been a strait red for DOGSO. If I had to guess what's going through his mind it was that the yellow would be an easier sell and since it gets the same result for this match that's the way he went. However, as noted in this thread already, it does have a longer term effect as far as that player. I doubt we'll see it in the WiR, but it should be there.

[MassachusettsRef]

I doubt we'll see it in the WiR...Disagree. I suspect it will be in there.

And as easy as it may be to pick apart this one call on replay (and I agree, as I'm sure USSF will, with the criticism)... it shouldn't overshadow the fact that Moody had a pretty good game overall.

[ManiacalClown]

Disagree. I suspect it will be in there.

And as easy as it may be to pick apart this one call on replay (and I agree, as I'm sure USSF will, with the criticism)... it shouldn't overshadow the fact that Moody had a pretty good game overall.

I wasn't particularly pleased with the caution to Rolfe early on. It may have been the correct call, but he had to run in from about a mile away when he made it. Hard to sell your calls when you're way behind the play! He was fine, overall.

[HeyDude]

Disagree. I suspect it will be in there.

And as easy as it may be to pick apart this one call on replay (and I agree, as I'm sure USSF will, with the criticism)... it shouldn't overshadow the fact that Moody had a pretty good game overall.

US Soccer's new assessment program gives an automatic fail for missing a critical decision. The foul was called but the displayed decision was wrong. It was DOGSO ... but that is my opinion

[NHRef]

My guess on the yellow not red thought process was the distance from goal. He was out a good amount. Yes at this level further out is a good chance, but that's my guess, he decided he was to far out.

[intechpc]

My guess on the yellow not red thought process was the distance from goal. He was out a good amount. Yes at this level further out is a good chance, but that's my guess, he decided he was to far out.

The foul was just outside the 18, I wouldn't call that too much distance from goal. That might be his official story on why he went yellow instead of red, but I hope that wasn't the actual thought process in his mind.

Disagree. I suspect it will be in there.

And as easy as it may be to pick apart this one call on replay (and I agree, as I'm sure USSF will, with the criticism)... it shouldn't overshadow the fact that Moody had a pretty good game overall.

I do hope you're right about the WiR. I do agree overall I thought he had a good game. For the most part I thought he had good position on plays and he handled appropriately the time wasting crap that we've seen lead to a couple of mass confrontations in recent games. So other than this call, I agree he was good and deserves credit for that.

[oldmanreferee]

I wasn't particularly pleased with the caution to Rolfe early on. It may have been the correct call, but he had to run in from about a mile away when he made it. Hard to sell your calls when you're way behind the play! He was fine, overall.

Well I heard he did not pass the fitness test the first time so what did you expect.

[Bootsy Collins]

Yeah that call kinda ticked me off. It was a cop out by the referee in my opinion. I know I'm border line here as far as criticizing another referee but I think in this case he showed a lack of cajones to do the right thing which would have been a strait red for DOGSO.

Can you clarify what you mean by "I'm border line here as far as criticizing another referee"?

Thanks.

[nsa]

Can you clarify what you mean by "I'm border line here as far as criticizing another referee"?

Thanks.

Referee "Code of Ethics" - Thou shalt not criticize another referee. ;)

[intechpc]

Referee "Code of Ethics" - Thou shalt not criticize another referee. ;)

Exactly, that's what I meant. It's a fine line we walk on this board between using these televised events to learn from other referees' experiences and criticizing them. My post edges over to the point of criticism when not taken in the context it was meant.

[hradilv]

The foul was just outside the 18, I wouldn't call that too much distance from goal. That might be his official story on why he went yellow instead of red, but I hope that wasn't the actual thought process in his mind.

I'm not sure exactly where he placed the foul, but it is a fair distance from the goal:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3865/clipboard1.png (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard1.png)

[ColumbusSoccerRef]

The foul was just outside the 18, I wouldn't call that too much distance from goal. That might be his official story on why he went yellow instead of red, but I hope that wasn't the actual thought process in his mind.

Perhaps I was looking at a different play. When I viewed the play, I looked at the alternating colors of turf and put those 'bands' to each be about 5 yards wide. The foul happened two "turf bands" outside the 18. For me, that puts the foul somewhere between 28 and 30 yards from goal (about 10 yards outside the PA). Indeed, even after his momentum carried him forward the fouled player is still a full 5 yards outside the PA.

Perhaps I'm alone in having no problem with the caution instead of a send-off here. In my mind, at 30 yards away from goal the attacker has a very good goal-scoring opportunity. . .but I'm not totally sure he has an obvious goal scoring opportunity - since a lot can happen in 30 yards.

I'm hoping this does appear on the WiR. Perhaps they can provide some guidance as to how far from goal an opportunity goes from being "very good" to "obvious".

-- CSR

[Bootsy Collins]

Referee "Code of Ethics" - Thou shalt not criticize another referee. ;)

Exactly, that's what I meant. It's a fine line we walk on this board between using these televised events to learn from other referees' experiences and criticizing them. My post edges over to the point of criticism when not taken in the context it was meant.

Is that a generally accepted tenet of behavior in this forum?

Put more directly, does this mean that if someone who is *not* a referee comes to this forum to discuss what seems to them to be significant errors by a referee, they should not expect even-handed consideration of their arguments, because referees here consider themselves bound not to criticise another referee?

[IASocFan]

Is that a generally accepted tenet of behavior in this forum?

For the most part, YES. Because of the wide variety of backgrounds of posters here, you'll see a variety of responses.

Put more directly, does this mean that if someone who is *not* a referee comes to this forum to discuss what seems to them to be significant errors by a referee, they should not expect even-handed consideration of their arguments, because referees here consider themselves bound not to criticise another referee?

In general, we try to look at issues from the Point of View of the Referee. If someone comes with situation from a local game, we tend to try to determine what the referee may have been thinking. If there was obvious misapplication of the laws or spirit of the game (as reported), we may come down against the referee. Yes, referees do make mistakes and there are some bad referees, but there are a lot more fans, coaches and players that complain about correct calls.

In games we see on TV, I don't think any of us are at that level, so for the most part, we're trying to learn. For obvious mistakes - like calling a PK for a handball outside the box or a wrong offside call, we can agree that a mistake has been made. None of us have called a perfect game yet, but I came pretty close on that U11 girls game last week. :cool:

[Bootsy Collins]

In games we see on TV, I don't think any of us are at that level, so for the most part, we're trying to learn. For obvious mistakes - like calling a PK for a handball outside the box or a wrong offside call, we can agree that a mistake has been made. None of us have called a perfect game yet, but I came pretty close on that U11 girls game last week. :cool:
I understand. And I'm not trying to set anyone up by asking these questions. It's more that I'm trying to determine, as a non-referee, how to use this forum.

As one example, if I came here with a gripe about a call from a referee, and people felt honor-bound to argue with me not because they thought my claim was without merit but because of a need to stand up for fellow referees, then coming here to gripe isn't a sensible thing for me to do.

As another example, last year I participated in a thread here on whether the baseline quality of refereeing at the MLS level had improved over the existence of the league. If specific examples that support such a thesis aren't going to be taken seriously because of a desire to avoid criticizing a fellow ref, then participating in a thread like that one isn't an effective use of time.

Again, I'm not criticizing the philosophical point; I'm just trying to establish what role this forum can play for someone like me, and whether some discussions/debates are a waste of time (well, ignoring the degree to which participating in *any* online debate is a waste of time :) ).

[MassachusettsRef]

This debate probably comes up every 2-3 years on this board and there's really no consensus amongst posters so it's hard to give you a set answer on how to use this board as a resource. Some will never openly criticize and think the Code of Ethics dictate that position. Others seem comfortable hiding behind online anonymity and having at it. I would say most, though, take the sort of middle approach that IASocFan references.

If a referee in a high-level match has a poor game that just can't be defended, you'll probably either see admissions of the clear errors here or possibly utter silence (what's the point of critiquing/analyzing a performance that everyone knows is subpar?).

For the most part though, when controversy arises I think the posters here try to get to the bottom of what exactly happened. To start, aside from a select few here, everyone in MLS is at a higher level than we've reffed at, so understanding what occurred in a big match can be a learning tool. You'll see a lot of "what ifs?" (for a timely example, see my response in the DC/NE thread). At times, this may look like we are trying to explain away a poor call, when in reality we're just searching to figure out what the referee saw and why he did what he did in a given situation. Let's be frank: it's always a possibility that a referee just botches a call--we've all done it. But, from a referee analysis perspective, shouting that a referee definitely got something wrong doesn't really do anything for us. Another added dimension to this is that despite not being at that level, we've all had the perspective of seeing things from a referee's point of view on the field.

Your question is timely and there are honestly three good examples from this past week...

1) The last Vaughn penalty on Thursday... discussion has been centered around whether "he was wrong" or "it was a dive," but what the referee sees at that moment, whether we take game conditions into account in determining if it was trifling, etc.

2) The Moody red card. Critcism here is pretty direct in regards to the decision, but there is still a question by some of how a high-level referee quantifies "obvious."

3) The Grajeda/Belleau penalty decision. This actually hasn't come up yet in this forum, but if it did, I suspect that rather than a discussion of right v. wrong, you'd see talk about what Belleau (the AR) saw, how he communicated it, how Grajeda sold the call, how dissent was handled, etc.

The last example is probably the best. For the most part, not many people are interested here in chastising the officials for getting the call "wrong" (if they did). We're more interested in what high-level officials do in situations like that. In Bellau's case, it's a game-critical call that he feels needs to be made (he's not making it for the fun of getting berated). So, what did he see? How did he communicate it? How then, when an AR calls such a controversial penalty, does the CR sell the call and handle the inevitable dissent? There's a LOT for the referee to learn from cases like this, so when we probe on such issues, it's in that spirit. Concluding "right" v. "wrong" is not only not that interesting, but usually impossible without better replays.

One corollary to all this is that, with the Week in Reviews, I think people have become more willing to criticize openly than they have in the past.

[intechpc]

I'm not sure exactly where he placed the foul, but it is a fair distance from the goal:
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3865/clipboard1.png (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clipboard1.png)

That is farther out than I remembered it. However, considering that he's 1 on 1 with the keeper at the point he's fouled, this is an MLS match with professional players who've been scoring from 40 yards out and more as of late and the fact that it was a foul out of desperation to stop an obvious attack I don't see how it can be anything other than DOGSO.

I mean look at the situation, how many here don't think it was obvious that the attacker was going to take a shot at the goal if he didn't get fouled? He easily could have taken the shot right from where he was and had a fair chance of putting it in the net. That's a goal scoring opportunity in my book. Now I guess as a referee you could, and maybe this referee did, nitpick the 4 D's and say that from 28 yards out the Distance to Goal isn't there but I disagree, especially at a professional level with no defenders between the ball and the keeper.

[NHRef]

You have to understand, as MassRef said, most of us have never, nor will we ever, ref at that level. There's a few VERY experienced who may or may not have been there and a few younger rising stars that may some day. However most of us do youth, upper level youth and maybe adult, but nothing close to that level.

If you want an interpretation, ask away.
If you want an explanation, ask away.

If you want one of us "refs" to say "he screwed up". Probably not.

In my eyes, those guys are 100000000 times better than me, I' more interested in seeing if someone can explain why they did what they did after I watch it and go "huh?". Yes they make mistakes, but with the amount of assessments they get, they don't make many, if they do, they will disappear for a while.