Again?

[MassachusettsRef]

Ok, I never fully bought the argument that Mourinho's behavior was what caused the incidents surrounding Frisk's retirement (Did it help fuel the fire? Certainly. But was it the direct and only cause? I severely doubt it and believe Chelsea fans may have done what they did without Mourinho's prompting).

Still, that's beside the point. I would have figured that, after that incident and the reaction from UEFA, Mourinho would have known better than to go after the AR from last night's game like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200505/s1359569.htm

[Claymore]

But of course! Chelsea lost because of the referee. It had nothing to do with the fact that they couldn't score against Liverpool. :rolleyes: :D

[blech]

the other part that borders on ridiculous is that he's also forgetting to mention that if that is not ruled a goal, liverpool is in all likelihood being awarded a pk and chelsea is playing the last 86 minutes down a man after cech (chelsea's goalie) is sent off for DOGSO. maybe i'm wrong and the ref wasn't going to call anything, but i think he was waiting to see what happened and relieved to be able to call the goal. (and, frankly, i think it would be good if that message could be officially disseminated). if you want to be cynical, he called a goal even if it wasn't in order to avoid the alternative of pk and red, but chelsea can't seriously complain about that....

they were eliminated for a simple reason. they didn't score a goal in 2 games.

[DerbyRam54]

they were eliminated for a simple reason. they didn't score a goal in 2 games.
Mourinho knows that and he knows that as soon as Chelsea score that Liverpool goal is irrelevant, 0-1 or 1-1 is the same outcome. He's just upset at losing and looking for a scapegoat in the time-honoured fashion. But as this thread has stated, you'd think he'd know better after his previous frisky comments.

[MidwestRef]

A few thoughts.

1) The only thing I'd like to see is a replay of where the AR was when the ball was at/over the line. If he was right on the line, then it's very tough to argue the call. However, the TV feed never did show a good shot of the AR's position.

2) When will UEFA/FIFA suspend Mourinho for repeated comments about the officiating? If he was coaching in the Big Ten conference, for example, he would be suspended for at least a game every time he criticizes the officiating.

3) As soon as Mourinho can tell us why his team couldn't score one goal in three hours of soccer, then he can start blaming the officiating.

The senior referee in our association is from London and a huge Chelsea fan. I'll be interested to see what he has to say about Mourinho's continued criticism of match officials.

[blech]

A few thoughts.

1) The only thing I'd like to see is a replay of where the AR was when the ball was at/over the line. If he was right on the line, then it's very tough to argue the call. However, the TV feed never did show a good shot of the AR's position.

***

well, he says he was in the right position:

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N148735050504-1651.htm

Slovakian linesman Roman Slysko has today stood by his decision to award Luis Garcia's goal against Chelsea on Tuesday night.

TV cameras failed to prove whether or not the ball had crossed the line, but Slysko insists his position at the time of the incident was good enough to see a goal had been scored.

He said: "I believe that my decision was correct. My first feeling and which I remain convinced of is that it was a goal.

"I am 100 percent convinced that it was a goal. It was a very hard situation and in that kind of situation a person only has a few hundredths of a second to react.

"I saw it clearly. In my view I was adequately positioned for that situation."

[superdave]

the other part that borders on ridiculous is that he's also forgetting to mention that if that is not ruled a goal, liverpool is in all likelihood being awarded a pk and chelsea is playing the last 86 minutes down a man after cech (chelsea's goalie) is sent off for DOGSO. maybe i'm wrong and the ref wasn't going to call anything, but i think he was waiting to see what happened and relieved to be able to call the goal.
I asked a hypothetical question about a slight modification to a play that happened earlier this year, that I think is relevant, and casts some blame on the CR for Jose bashing the AR.

In an Arsenal game, Cole was on the post on a corner. A ball was headed in. After (IMO; it was close, but I'm 99% sure the ball was in) it crossed the line, Cole very, very clearly handled it, but didn't stop it; it went on past his arm and hit the net.

My question was, what if Cole had hit the ball BEFORE it crossed the line, but he only deflected it, and it went in. The answer from y'all, I think unanimously, was that you play advantage and give the goal, but give Cole a yellow. (USB?)

Does the fact that the CR didn't card Cech mean he wouldn't have given a PK and red if Garcia had not scored? If so, that's bad judgment or lack of courage on his part. Or, did he err in not giving Cech a yellow, which allows Jose the fantasy that his team was screwed. In either case I think the CR is partly to blame for the controversy.

Or is there some subtle difference between the Cole hypothetical and the Cech play I need to be educated on, that justifies Cech not getting carded?

[MassachusettsRef]

I haven't been able to see the play yet, but it seems like everything comes down to two (and possibly one additional) issues.

The first is that, in the US, we've been specifically instructed that, even if a goal is scored off of an advantage, a DOGSO still has to be punished as such and the red card needs to be shown to Cech. I know of no such instruction outside the US and, in fact, I think some of our foreign colleagues on these boards have--rightly, in my opinion--argued that such an instruction is preposterous. That's the first main point: to my knowledge, outside the US, if a goal is scored, there cannot be DOGSO (seems logical enough, doesn't it?). So he can't go back to red card Cech unless the foul was with excessive force.

As to going back and giving the yellow card. To me, and I think to most, this would come down to an issue of the physical severity of the foul. If the foul was indeed reckless, sure, you book Cech immediately after the goal to show both him and Liverpool that you won't tolerate that kind of play and you're going to protect the players. However, if the foul was tactical, common sense and game management purposes would make me keep the card in the pocket. A goal was scored--honestly, how successful was his tactical foul? Someone reffing strictly by the book would certainly be in their rights to caution Cech for a tactical foul. However, a referee that has made his way to the top of the UEFA ranks would probably be sensical enough to never even consider it, as it would only add insult to injury and no one would be looking for the call.

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.

Finally, along the lines of my second point above here, I wouldn't caution Joe Cole in your Arsenal example, so there goes any unanimity. Would I be within my rights by the laws? Absolutely. But again, what purpose would it serve? At the highest levels it's just overofficating, and at the lowest levels a quiet word with the kid about the possible ramifications will do a lot more and benefit everyone. Issuing a caution is foolish, in my opinion.

[ref47]

mass - i think you are incorrect about the red card for dgh/f or dogso. if you apply advantage and the goal is scored, nothing was denied. you can still go yc for ub, but not a rc. i have not seen any instruction saying give the red.

[chrisrun]

The first is that, in the US, we've been specifically instructed that, even if a goal is scored off of an advantage, a DOGSO still has to be punished as such and the red card needs to be shown to Cech.

I'm not sure where this comes from. The ATR 12.39 says:

"If a goal is scored directly despite the attempted intervention by a defender handling the ball, fouling an opponent, or committing misconduct, the offender cannot be sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but he can still be cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play if the foul involved excessive force."

Did I miss a subsequent memo that trumps the ATR?

[MassachusettsRef]

mass - i think you are incorrect about the red card for dgh/f or dogso. if you apply advantage and the goal is scored, nothing was denied. you can still go yc for ub, but not a rc. i have not seen any instruction saying give the red.From the ATR [emphasis mine]:

12.39 APPLYING THE ADVANTAGE
Even if the referee makes use of the advantage clause during an obvious goalscoring opportunity, he can still punish the offender after the fact. If a goal is scored directly despite the attempted intervention by a defender handling the ball, fouling an opponent, or committing misconduct, the offender cannot be sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but he can still be cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play if the foul involved excessive force. However, if in these circumstances the goal was scored following a second or immediately subsequent play of the ball, the offender must nevertheless be sent off because his action prevented a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity during the first play when the infringement occurred.

Notice that the language isn't "second or immediately subsequent play" but rather, "second or immediately subsequent play of the ball". The ATR makes it very clear that if one player is denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the ball doesn't go directly into the net anyway, you are supposed to send off the defender--even if a second attacker finishes the larger opportunity. Again, I know of no such instruction outside the US and I think it's one of the few ATR instructions that are one very flimsly grounds.

[MassachusettsRef]

Did I miss a subsequent memo that trumps the ATR?No, you just didn't read and/or quote the next sentence.

[colins1993]

I'm not sure where this comes from. The ATR 12.39 says:

"If a goal is scored directly despite the attempted intervention by a defender handling the ball, fouling an opponent, or committing misconduct, the offender cannot be sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but he can still be cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play if the foul involved excessive force."

Did I miss a subsequent memo that trumps the ATR?

Well the same thing happened to me in a girl's HS game the ther day.
Headed ball goalward off a CK, keeper beaten and ball was going in for sure.
Def on post quickly put her hand out but quickly pulled it back, but still made contact slightly with the ball. It was almost like she was thinking "Ooops, I can't do that" judging by the look on her face.

The ball ended up in the net and I awarded a goal and did not issue a caution.

Did I screw up by not issueing a yellow?

The USSF ATR states (and it may be that the HS rules read differently) "may be issued a caution". "May" is different than "Must" right?

Remembering these two sets of rules is driving me nuts quite frankly.

[chrisrun]

The first is that, in the US, we've been specifically instructed that, even if a goal is scored off of an advantage, a DOGSO still has to be punished as such and the red card needs to be shown to Cech.

I haven't seen the play, and was confused by the absoluteness of the statement. In the US, if I am taken down by the keeper but am still able to get a foot on the ball and have it roll in the net, the keeper does not have to be shown the red card for DOGSO, as the goal was scored off my advantage and the opportunity wasn't really denied.

I agree that if the ball rolls to a team mate and they then put it in, the ATR then says to show the red card. My opportunity to score was denied, but advantage let a new opportunity materialize.

[MassachusettsRef]

Sorry for any confusion from my first statement.


I agree that if the ball rolls to a team mate and they then put it in, the ATR then says to show the red card. My opportunity to score was denied, but advantage let a new opportunity materialize.This is correct, according to the ATR. It follows the handling scenario: If a player deliberate handles a shot but it goes in anyway, no red card (but possibly yellow); however, if a player handles to stop a goal and a player scores on the rebound, according to the ATR you're still supposed to give the red.

That being said, I want to reiterate that although I'm citing the ATR because of superdave's question, I completely disagree with the interpretation and think it's not only wrong, but contrary to the spirit of the game. Advantage is a team--not an individual--concept; I can't fathom how this interpretation came to be and truly believe it's one of the few instances where the ATR is completely wrong.

[blech]

I haven't been able to see the play yet, but it seems like everything comes down to two (and possibly one additional) issues.

***

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.

***

i just watched it again to see if there was something i wasn't remembering correctly. baros was through on a breakaway at least 2-3 yards ahead of everyone else. cech came out, but was two yards late, and from about 11 yards out baros popped it over cech who was probably 9 yards off his line. cech then crashed into baros taking him down. baros continues forward as he falls and ends up on the ground about 6-7 yards from the goal.

if you get to see it, there truly can't be any dispute that he was going directly to goal. they actually showed a reply on the espn feed that was from a camera behind the goal (so you're watching through the net). his fall takes him straight toward the net. meanwhile, the ball is also going straight toward the goal, and almost lands on baros when it bounces. garcia then comes running on from the right side to shoot it toward goal.

had garcia not been there to put the shot on goal, the failure to award the pk and show red would have been horrendous as this was a classic example of DOGSO. as it was, the foul was definitely more tactical than dirty. as baros hopped up uninjured, the decision not to show a card at all seemed sensible enough to me. (however, i hadn't thought about it in the context of the ATR, and may need to reconsider how i would handle a similar situation in one of my games as my initial inclination was to do what happened in this game, award goal and give no card).

[Chubbywubby]

That being said, I want to reiterate that although I'm citing the ATR because of superdave's question, I completely disagree with the interpretation and think it's not only wrong, but contrary to the spirit of the game. Advantage is a team--not an individual--concept; I can't fathom how this interpretation came to be and truly believe it's one of the few instances where the ATR is completely wrong.
I'm sure you've heard the same line of reasoning that I have for this position: that DGH is such an egregious offense against the spirit of how the game is supposed to be played, that it must result in the most severe sanction. Whether one agrees with this is a personal choice, but in the US our instructions are clear on how this should be handled. (Pun intended. ;) )

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm sure you've heard the same line of reasoning that I have for this position: that DGH is such an egregious offense against the spirit of how the game is supposed to be played, that it must result in the most severe sanction. Whether one agrees with this is a personal choice, but in the US our instructions are clear on how this should be handled. (Pun intended. ;) )I've heard this argument, but don't agree. The problem I have is that DOGSO can come into play for even a simple careless foul; you do not need to have a so-called "cynical, professional" foul to have a DOGSO. For example, in this instance, it sounds like Cech was just late to the ball. Did he foul him? Yes. Should it be a red card if the ball doesn't go in? Absolutely, because intentional or not, he prevented an almost sure goal.

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?

If intent was a factor in determining DOGSO, I'd be in complete agreement with the ATR. As it is, intent is (correctly) not a factor, so I think the ATR is extremely and unnecessarily harsh in this instance.

[Chubbywubby]

I don't have a problem with your position on this, but now we're talking about two different things. Would you have a problem with sending off for DGH (as opposed to a simple, careless DGF foul), even if a subsequent play put the ball in the back of the net?

[MassachusettsRef]

Would you have a problem with sending off for DGH (as opposed to a simple, careless DGF foul), even if a subsequent play put the ball in the back of the net?Good point, of which I hadn't thought (and I didn't notice you limited your above comment to DGH). Anyway, I can think of two answers.

The first is that, I think I can honestly say that I'd never apply advantage on DGH (I'm already reluctant to do it on DGF, but as the UCL example shows, there are certainly proper times to do so), with the only possible exception being DGH by a goalkeeper outside the area (if the ball lands with an attacker who has an open net, that's an advantage as opposed to a DFK). Unlike DGF, which can leave an open net for an attacker, DGH in the area will almost always result with the goalkeeper still being between any attacker and the goal. To me, the penalty and the red card would be advantageous when compared to any other opportunity. Further, if the DGH occurred right on the line, I think the gut instinct for all of us would be to whistle immediately. I don't think it's even possible (or, if it is, advisable) to see if a rebound can be put into the net. Blow the whistle, give the red and the penalty, and make things simple.

My second answer, which assumes for some reason that I actually apply advantage on a DGH scenario (let's say, for example, the hypothetical of a keeper outside his area), is that I'd still keep the red in my pocket for "spirit of the game" purposes. While all handling is inherently deliberate, that doesn't mean it's always intentionally tactical or cynical. The goalkeeper in my hypothetical, for instance, might have simply misjudged where he was on the field. A foolish mistake, for which he has to be sent off if the goal is prevented. But, if an attacker puts the loose ball into the empty net, in my mind the keeper gets lucky and deserves to stay on the field. At conflict with the ATR? Absolutely, but I still think it's justice.

I'd be interested to know what some of our English, Canadian and Australian colleagues on these boards think about it, since I don't believe they have the same instruction that we have.