Again?

[ref47]

mass - i agree with what you are saying. i also think the advantage clause being applied should negate the card unless excessive force is the call on the foul.

given the atr, what if, in the opinion of the ref, the ball would have gone in without the aid of the second attacker? should we modify our card decision?

[superdave]

A third possible point, which I ask since I haven't seen the play, is whether or not it definitely would have been a red card, because there seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity regarding that from reading the match and news reports. My biggest question is whether or not the first attacker was going directly to goal, because some reports make it sound like he touched the ball sideways, was brought down, and then a second attacker ran onto the loose ball. If he was going away from goal or even only partially towards it, it can't be a red card.
If Cech had not made contact with Baros, IMO Baros would have been taking a shot from just inside the left post, from 3-4 yards away. Baros was coming down the middle, so his sideways touch, IMO, didn't take the ball outside the post.

[Garkbit]

Here's an interesting thought regarding denying a goal by handball. Quite a few referees I know have awarded goals in the past when players standing on or behind the line have handled deliberately, and have successfully defused protests by reminding the conceding team that if the offending player did indeed stop a goal, he would have to be sent off and a penalty awarded.

Regarding the issue you're asking for comment on: my reading of this would be that the player attempted but failed to deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity and should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and that the USSF interpretation is (no offence) a great big illogical steaming pile of bison manure. The LOAF does not say "attempts to deny..." . As far as I can see, the interpretation does not square with what the LOAF says.

Interestingly, I've just looked through 'Advice on the Application...' for some contrast, and the section on DOGSO says nothing about this: it's left to the individual referee's judgement.

[JohnR]

But if a second player runs onto the ball and puts it into the net, do we really want to be sending off a keeper for what amounts to an otherwise careless foul?

I'm surprised that you guys are debating what action the CR should have taken. I guess it's the U.S. vs. England thing. My knowledge of soccer officiating is based almost entirely on watching EPL games, and really there's no debate at all from that viewpoint. The goal was scored, so justice was served. Why ruin the game by carding Cech? He didn't hurt anybody. He didn't affect the play (since the goal was scored). What purpose would a card serve?

[blech]

I'm surprised that you guys are debating what action the CR should have taken. I guess it's the U.S. vs. England thing. My knowledge of soccer officiating is based almost entirely on watching EPL games, and really there's no debate at all from that viewpoint. The goal was scored, so justice was served. Why ruin the game by carding Cech? He didn't hurt anybody. He didn't affect the play (since the goal was scored). What purpose would a card serve?

i've changed my mind on this a few times now, and still haven't fully resolved it in my mind. however, for what it's worth, given the closeness of the call on the goal, a card would have served a game management purpose in terms of removing any doubt that any players (or fans) might have had about how lucky chelsea was that the play was ruled a goal. the closeness of the play at the goalline might make this decision different from if the ball had been unequivocally blasted into the back of the net.

as it is, i know that at least some Chelsea supporters are of the view that there was no foul, and thus there would have been no pk (or red card), which in turn fuels their outrage over the dispute about whether the ball crossed over the line or not. i'm frankly not sure what game they were watching, as it seems obvious to me that it was a foul (and obvious that it was DOGSO), but they are pointing to the fact that no card issued as evidence that no foul would have been called.

their current position seems somewhat ungrateful, as the CR in my opinion really did chelsea a favor, and certainly the fan reaction isn't anything that needs to be considered in determining whether to issue the card. but, given the closeness of the call on the goal (the virtual reenactments that i've seen suggest that the ball did not cross the line), it at least occurs to me that a yellow card might not have been a bad idea.

of course, for all we know, the CR shared that sentiment with the players verbally after the play and believed that the verbal message was sufficient:
Chelsea player: "Hey ref. It wasn't over the line you **** **** ****."
Ref: "I respect your opinion but saw it differently, and I've really done you a favor as I would otherwise be giving a pk and sending Cech to the shower."
Chelsea player: "You're still a blimey **** **** ****, but thank you."

[JohnR]

i know that at least some Chelsea supporters are of the view that there was no foul

Fortunately, most of 'em are more reasonable than that. Not Mourinho, but let's face it, he was going to whine about the better team losing no matter what the occasion. He could have lost 8-0 and he would still have been the better manager, with better players.

[blech]

*** He could have lost 8-0 and he would still have been the better manager, with better players.

:)

[MassachusettsRef]

however, for what it's worth, given the closeness of the call on the goal, a card would have served a game management purpose in terms of removing any doubt that any players (or fans) might have had about how lucky chelsea was that the play was ruled a goal. the closeness of the play at the goalline might make this decision different from if the ball had been unequivocally blasted into the back of the net. Even though I understand your logic in a theoretical sense, practically I see this in the exact opposite light that you do. Trying to calm a heated team by carding their goalkeeper after you've just awarded a controversial goal against them simply won't work.

JohnR, I agree completely with your first post in this thread, and it's the argument I'm trying to make. The only reason I think this is worth discussing is because I think the ATR is so off-base here.

[MidwestRef]

In the case above, if it were played under high school rules, Cech would have been automatically sent off regardless of whether the goal was scored or not.

High school rules explicitly state that a send-off is the penalty for a foul in an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. It doesn't matter whether the goal is scored immediately or off of a second play. The rule is clear, and IMHO it is wrong. I would much rather follow USSF rulings in this case, even if the ATR is flawed as MassachusettsRef states.

Yet another example of a bad rule in the high school game. Of course, I might be a little jaded as I had a game on a 55-yard-wide field tonight. It just wasn't much fun to see so many wide balls go out of bounds.

[Deimos]

Here's a video of the Liverpool goal.

Pool (http://www.chaseenv.com/Pool1.avi)

[MassachusettsRef]

Here's a video of the Liverpool goal.

Pool (http://www.chaseenv.com/Pool1.avi)Wow. So much going on here and totally not like I had pictured.

First, the funniest thing of the entire incident is the Chelsea defender (#6) reflexively raising his hand to appeal to the referee after the keeper collision. Did he want a foul on the attacker? Was he instinctlively begging for a phantom offside? I'd love to know what was going through his head.

Second, based on a review of all the replays (judging how fast the ball was moving and where it was at certain times from certain angles), I do think the ball crossed the line. But it took me four different slow-motion angles just to decide that I think it happened; since the Chelsea defender was between the ball and the AR, I have no idea how he could be certain that it was a goal, even if he was in perfect position. This should serve as an advertisement for that microchip technology (but not for instant replay).

Third, as I insisted without even seeing the play, once the goal was scored I'd never go back and card Cech for his foul. It was a careless foul--though you can't see Cech's eyes, it appears that he is focused on the ball the entire time and just got beat to it. Once the goal is in, there's no reason to go back and issue a card.

Fourth, I am shocked that Michel attempted this advantage call. And he definitely applied advantage; on the last angle in the above video clip, you see that he immediately brings his whistle to his mouth after the collision, but then hesitates and sprints in to see what develops. A great decision in this instance, but I don't know many referees that would even attempt it with three Chelsea players surrounding the one Liverpool player going for the ball.

Fifth, and this may be the most controversial thing I say, but, although I personally would have given the red card, there is an argument that this is not a case of DOGSO. The touch to play the ball past Cech put the ball about 10 feet above the head of the attacher (16 feet in the air, or so) and at a trajectory that would have made the attacker stop almost on a dime in order to collect it while still facing goal. All I'm saying is that with the three Chelsea players rushing back to defend at full-speed, this was not going to be an easy finish even if Cech didn't commit the foul. A goal-scoring opportunity? Certainly. An obvious one? That's not as clear-cut and I could understand an argument against it.

[BC_Ref]

Yet another example of a bad rule in the high school game. Of course, I might be a little jaded as I had a game on a 55-yard-wide field tonight. It just wasn't much fun to see so many wide balls go out of bounds.

Try a 100 x 50 field for U17 (one game where we had to switch to the "back-up" gravel field due to the grass one being closed) :eek: . Ugly game in terms of the soccer.

[colins1993]

Yet another view and opinion.

Andy Gray of Sky Sports feels Baros fouled Cech with a high boot first.

http://www.argyrou.com/cheat.wmv

[MidwestRef]

Fifth, and this may be the most controversial thing I say, but, although I personally would have given the red card, there is an argument that this is not a case of DOGSO. The touch to play the ball past Cech put the ball about 10 feet above the head of the attacher (16 feet in the air, or so) and at a trajectory that would have made the attacker stop almost on a dime in order to collect it while still facing goal. All I'm saying is that with the three Chelsea players rushing back to defend at full-speed, this was not going to be an easy finish even if Cech didn't commit the foul. A goal-scoring opportunity? Certainly. An obvious one? That's not as clear-cut and I could understand an argument against it.

I had a very similar situation in a State Cup game yesterday. Offensive player pushes the ball by the keeper by 4-5 yards and would have to round the keeper. As this is happening, a defensive player is coming in on the dead run and had a decent angle to the ball. The keeper fouls the player to keep the attacker from going around. I called the PK (which was successfully converted) and cautioned the keeper for a tactical foul. However, I did not call this an OBVIOUS GSO and kept the red card in my pocket.

DOGSO can be a tough, tough call. My game was 6-0 yesterday at the point of the caution, so maybe that unconsciously had something to do with my decision. However, I might have a slightly different interpretation of DOGSO than other officials.

[IASocFan]

Midwest Ref: as a fellow Iowa ref, your decision matches what I would have done. Both teams got something - the attacking team got their goal, and the defenders got to keep their keeper.

You must have been at Cownie yesterday, also. :)

[MidwestRef]

Midwest Ref: as a fellow Iowa ref, your decision matches what I would have done. Both teams got something - the attacking team got their goal, and the defenders got to keep their keeper.

You must have been at Cownie yesterday, also. :)

Yes, I was at Cownie yesterday. I think I won the unofficial Ironman award yesterday, as I ended up doing 2 1/2 centers. 2 were scheduled, and then I had to step into the middle in my last game at halftime when the center injured his knee. I don't think my legs were ever any heavier than they were at the end of that last game.