Revolution / DCU PKs

[Scott Zawadzki]

There is a great deal of discussion on the REVOLUTION and UNITED boards as to a percieved poor performance by Mark Geiger who worked the middle of last evenings New England/DC MLS match. I'd like to give my impression and invite comment. I have never seen Mr. Geiger work before. As a REVOLUTION fan, he irritated me. As a referee, I admire what I saw.

It takes a great lack of courage to ignore fouls just because they happen in the penalty area.

PK1 - Twellman of New England was held/pushed in a successful effort to keep him from making a play on the ball - FOUL

PK2 - Riley(?) of New England had double studs up an a tackle - FOUL (surprised there wasn't a caution as well.)

PK3 - IMO the weakest of the 3 BUT as pointed out by Greg Lalas on the broadcast feed from New England, at this level you have to control the position of your arms. If a DCU attacker made the same accidental play of the ball in the REV penalty area and scored, everybody would be bitching and moaning as to why there was no handling call. It has to get called the same whether the player is attacking or defending.

With that all being said, I'd like to point out the the center referee had no real complaints outside the penalty areas. All said and done, he made the calls the way they are supposed to have been made. He just looked bad on the PK calls because we are used to seeing officials ignore clear fouls in the penalty area.

comments?

[dadman]

I would agree with your assessment of all three calls being sellable, but would not necessarily classify them as "clear fouls," as there are some penal fouls that occur that even all but the most extreme fanatico would fail to agree with, and as you point out, there was a lot of second-guessing from the non-certified last night. Of course, it was Mr. Geiger's duty to call those three if they were fouls in his eyes, and his eyes are the only ones that matter. (That said, your analogy on the third PK is a very good one. And like you, I also scratch my head at the lack of card for the two-footed tackle...)

However, there was a lot of rough stuff that wasn't called. Most could be put down to the sloppy field conditions (the game certainly wasn't as chippy as the Galaxy/Chivas game Brian Hall--I think it was Hall--was centering), but specifically the forearm by Twellman (NE F) to the back of Stokes (DC CB) that put Stokes into the keeper and left him concussed should have been called...

And to be fair to Geiger, that foul chould have been flagged by the bench-side AR. The same AR signaled an offside Geiger could have waved down: on the pass to the attacking left when Guppy pulled up lame, the visual check to the AR would have shown the NE left back five yards deep of the flag. The far-side AR did a better job catching rough play in front of him, but on the offside calls, not so much. I think the diagonal bias to the grass-cutting was somethng it takes a while to adjust to and could have played a part in both ARs judgements of offside.

Hmm. So actually, all-in-all I have to agree that he did OK given the conditions, the rivalry, the rather vocal fans AND the fact that this was his first MLS center. (Unsure on that last, but I've not seen him at RFK before. :)) His game management was pretty good, and he certainly didn't hesitate or back down on his calls, but I also think that he needs to get some more time/games at this level and with this ref team. Can anyone comment on how familiar he was/is with the rest of last night's ref team?

Soooo... Good experience in the early days of the season, with room for improvement. And that's from a UNITED Fan. Even with such a passionate game, he actually had an easier time that either Hall or the CR of last night's Pumas/Monarchs match (who had to deal with 20 field players--eventually 18, all of whom were either on roller skates or packing swim fins and snorkles... ;) )

[willydonc]

I commented on Geiger's officiating already on the MLS: N&A board. (I%20commented%20on%20Geiger%27s%20officiating%20already%20on%20the%20MLS:%20N&A%20board.) It's about time we had a center ref make the calls that should be made. It's too bad the last one, Rich Grady was all but blackballed for handing out cards that needed to be handed out.

[pasoccerdave]

I commented on Geiger's officiating already on the MLS: N&A board. (I%20commented%20on%20Geiger%27s%20officiating%20already%20on%20the%20MLS:%20N&A%20board.)

Do you have a proper URL?

"I%20commented%20on%20Geiger%27s%20officiating%20already%20on%20the%20MLS:%20N&A%20board." isn't linking for me.

[willydonc]

Try this:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192389

[Statesman]

Geiger is now a regular official in the MLS and I believe this is his second or third season. This was most certainly not his first MLS center.

[mutinywxgirl]

Per the MLS game notes, this was his 4th game as a CR in MLS. He's been doing other level professional games for two years.

Last year he was 4th official at DCU on June 12; he was in the center at DCU on July 14th (Nottingham Forest) and Sept. 18th.

[superdave]

And like you, I also scratch my head at the lack of card for the two-footed tackle...)

I think Riley was carrying a yellow, and we all remember the leaked memo from 3 years ago about how the league office discourages refs from giving 2nd yellows.

In this time of the year, when you're used to watching the Premiership and the CL, and there are all these MLS games, certain things stand out in stark relief. One of them, perhaps the leading one, is the reluctance of MLS referees to issue 2nd cautions.

[MassachusettsRef]

I think Riley was carrying a yellow, and we all remember the leaked memo from 3 years ago about how the league office discourages refs from giving 2nd yellows.Anyone who has sat through one of the professional clinics taught by Angelo Bratsis or Paul Tamberino over the past two years knows that referees are no longer being discouraged from issuing warranted second cautions. In fact, this was a major point of emphasis in 2004 (after a review of the 2003 season showed many instances where referees failed to award appropriate second cautions).

Whether referees are following this instruction, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. I haven't seen the Riley incident in question, but I have seen Valenzuela and Hall already give second cautions this season.

[dadman]

Per the MLS game notes, this was his 4th game as a CR in MLS. He's been doing other level professional games for two years.

Last year he was 4th official at DCU on June 12; he was in the center at DCU on July 14th (Nottingham Forest) and Sept. 18th.Thank you for the additional information, ma'am. I stand corrected (orthopedic adidas Predators ;) )
Whether referees are following this instruction, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. I haven't seen the Riley incident in question, but I have seen Valenzuela and Hall already give second cautions this season.To both you and superdave, the point I was observing was if it was a two-footed tackle resulting in a PK, wouldn't it also be deserving of a YC, no matter 1st or 2nd?

I didn't think the challenge was that harsh, but he was consistant in the level of contact that Boswell initiated for the first PK. If Geiger adjudged the tackle as a reckless two-footed tackle, then a card should have been forthcoming, no? However, if he adjudged it as merely a reckless tackle, no card need be shown.

Again, I think he did an OK job in his fourth MLS start, and my only complaints are minor regarding the referee unit mechanics. A soaked field, crowd noise, heavy rain, temperature falling into the 50s and gusts of 30 mph do a lot to hamper communication.

Though Steve Guppy should have felt right at home. ;)

[JohnR]

Hmmm, I watched the first PK repeatedly in slow-motion, and I saw a standard shoulder charge.

The second PK, well OK I guess because it was two feet up. On the other hand, it didn't affect the play, I don't believe Riley touched the shooter, and it's always tough on a team to make a PK call that the next referee wouldn't. Borderline, but I can live with it.

The third was 100% "gotcha," akin to whistling for a free kick because the goalkeeper was a foot over the line when punting a ball.

[superdave]

The second PK, well OK I guess because it was two feet up. On the other hand, it didn't affect the play, I don't believe Riley touched the shooter, and it's always tough on a team to make a PK call that the next referee wouldn't. Borderline, but I can live with it.

Only because the shooter went airborne, presumably to keep his ankles fully intact.

You don't have to make contact to commit a foul.

[MassachusettsRef]

I didn't think the challenge was that harsh, but he was consistant in the level of contact that Boswell initiated for the first PK. If Geiger adjudged the tackle as a reckless two-footed tackle, then a card should have been forthcoming, no? However, if he adjudged it as merely a reckless tackle, no card need be shown. If "careless" then no card, if "reckless"--two footed or not--then a caution.

I've since seen the play (and the other PKs and cards) on MLSnet. I think Geiger did very well, at least with all the controversial decisions. Regarding the Riley call, I think he did what was right for match control. That's a PK and should always be a PK, but as some have alluded to here, too often it's not called because it didn't have an effect on the play. Too bad, you go into a stupid challenge like that in the box with no chance to get the ball and you deserve a PK against you. That being said, and to the question of recklessness/carelessness: it's true, you can make a strong argument that that's a yellow in most other cases. However, like it or not, for match control purposes, there's no way Geiger could or should give a card (be it a first or second yellow) in that case. He's given an unorthodox penalty at the end of the half and he knows it. Plus, you have no DC players begging for a second yellow. This is one of those cases where, by deeming the foul merely careless, and giving solely the penalty, you do what's best for the game. Will some fans and even some refs hate the inconsistency? Yes, but tough. In that case, from the player's perspective, the PK is seen as enough justice. Giving a second yellow in that instance would have sent the game straight down the drain.

Hmmm, I watched the first PK repeatedly in slow-motion, and I saw a standard shoulder charge.I saw a pretty clear shirt grab/hold. This is another instance of the type of foul that a lot of fans complain about yet, paradoxically, many complain when it is actually called.

The third was 100% "gotcha," akin to whistling for a free kick because the goalkeeper was a foot over the line when punting a ball.I object strongly to this line of thinking. If we want players and fans to accept the very controversial no-calls when there's accidental handballs, then we have to make it very clear that we're willing to call the deliberate handling, no matter how "gotcha-like" it may seem. The Revs player stupidly leaned his arm out to trap a ball that was no danger to his team. But, just like we can't call non-deliberate handballs because they stop goal-scoring opportunities, we can't ignore deliberate handling just because no such opportunity was stopped. It was the proper call.

Overall, from watching the flashpoints and some other parts of the game, I think Geiger did well. I think his biggest problem is that he's yet to establish a relationship with the players, which is understandable since he's so new and he's making some calls that other refs have been unwilling to make in the past. If he stays consistent, though, and MLS doesn't pull the rug out from under him (like they did, as someone else noted, with Rich Grady), I think he will be one of MLS's better officials in 2-3 years time.

[JohnR]

Well, it's a viewpoint, and a well-informed one at that.

However, my definition of a good referee is one who goes 90 minutes without surprising me. That strikes me as a pretty decent institutional definition, too.

[colins1993]

Only because the shooter went airborne, presumably to keep his ankles fully intact.

You don't have to make contact to commit a foul.

In my view the shooter went airborne as a result of his natural follow-through/ momentum of striking a ball with maximum leg motion. Not sure the shooter was even aware that he was being two-footed tackled until after he got the shot off. His head was down and totally focused on the ball.

I thought it was a bad call watching it on the tube Saturday night initially and still do after watching it on MLS.net. IMO the slide tackle was ALMOST a different sequence of action after the shot had already occurred. Did you notice the reaction of the NE players? They could not believe it either.

[MassachusettsRef]

IMO the slide tackle was ALMOST a different sequence of action after the shot had already occurred. Wouldn't that make it even worse?

[colins1993]

Wouldn't that make it even worse?

Obviously we see it differently.
So did the players.
So did the the TV announcers.

[MassachusettsRef]

True, we obviously see it differently, but I'm just trying to understand your line of thinking.

If you consider Riley's slide tackle a subsequent play, meaning it occurred after the shot when he had no chance to get the ball, how do you deal with it? If not a PK, do you have a talk with Riley about diving in late? Or is it not even worth a chat? And if you do talk to him without giving the PK, how do you deal with DC grievances?

I'm just wondering how you would handle a situation like that--where DC players were obviously upset about the challenge--without awarding the PK.

[Alberto]

True, we obviously see it differently, but I'm just trying to understand your line of thinking.

If you consider Riley's slide tackle a subsequent play, meaning it occurred after the shot when he had no chance to get the ball, how do you deal with it? If not a PK, do you have a talk with Riley about diving in late? Or is it not even worth a chat? And if you do talk to him without giving the PK, how do you deal with DC grievances?

I'm just wondering how you would handle a situation like that--where DC players were obviously upset about the challenge--without awarding the PK.

To play devil's advocate and defend this line of thinking How about this scenario or viewpoint.

Didn't see the play in question, but if the DC player gets a shot on goal and the tackle was not brutal then I believe speaking to the player is the best course of action. If you were to caution the defender it would make the DC players think that somehow the defender got away with something. Which he clearly did. ;) You could try and speak to DC's captain that because their player got off the shot that allowed advantage on the play. Interesting question. Get play restarted quickly to minimize discord. If you follow this line of thinking.

[MassachusettsRef]

Didn't see the play in question,It's on MLSnet under the video section. It happens in the 49th minute of the 1st half. If you get a chance it's worth taking a look, because I really think it's worth a discussion here--especially if a lot of people do believe the PK was improper (which I'm obviously surprised by).

but if the DC player gets a shot on goal and the tackle was not brutal then I believe speaking to the player is the best course of action. If you were to caution the defender it would make the DC players think that somehow the defender got away with something.You'll have to see it to judge the level of "brutality" yourself, but let's just say I don't suspect that anyone here would suggest that it wasn't a foul if it occurred at midfield. You're right though, a yellow card would be impossible to sell, and more importantly, contrary to the laws, as the tackle occurred while the ball was in play (replay clearly shows this) so if there was misconduct present, there was also a foul.

You could try and speak to DC's captain that because their player got off the shot that allowed advantage on the play.I'm assuming this would be the type of approach most would take if they didn't go with the PK. It would be a terribly difficult--and I believe improper--sell, however, because any foul occurred after the shot; it's not as if they player played through the foul. Plus, the advantage call says we allow play to continue if calling the foul would benefit the team that fouled. An advantage call would have resulted in a goal kick rather than a penalty kick--somehow that doesn't seem like an "advantage" to me.

Get play restarted quickly to minimize discord. If you follow this line of thinking.Always a good point, and one to think about especially in this situation. You had a shot that was cleared high into the stands, meaning the ball would be out of bounds for awhile. Plus you were 4 minutes into added time and seconds away from half time--just another factor that made the situation particularly difficult to handle.