What is the evidence that MLS approved the Red Bulls free kick procedure?

[macheath]

I've seen it asserted on a half-dozen BS boards that MLS ok'ed the passive offside procedure that the Red Bulls used against DC United last week. There have been references to a meeting in South Carolina, other discussions, and some claims that Hall and his crew approved it before the match. But does anyone have specific evidence that MLS ok'ed this? Or is it just some sort of urban legend? If MLS ok'ed it, then Hall was following instructions. But what's the direct source, and citing other BS posters doesn't count.:rolleyes:

Never mind. Finally found out--it was asserted during the FSNY broadcast by Shep Messing that it had been ok'ed. Still don't know if that's true or not, but that's the source.

from another post:

Also, this isn't really an issue about the Red Bulls for me. According to Shep Messing on the FSNY broadcast, this exact positioning is something they contacted the league office about. They were told it was OK. Shep then called a guy (who's name I've forgetten) from MLS officiating to ask about it. He was told it was OK a second time.

[USRef]

If that's true, then MLS and USSF have reversed their stance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040402041.html

[macheath]

If that's true, then MLS and USSF have reversed their stance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040402041.html

I know about today's story. I was trying to find out if the prior approval was in fact true, or an urban legend. If it was true, then Hall was following instructions, and that should have been stated by MLS--"although we said it was ok, we've changed our minds." It's especially bad to say Hall was wrong, IF MLS had ok'ed this earlier. But Messing's claim on the broadcast seems to be the source of that.

[NHRef]

Could also be a case of "in theory" it sounded ok, but when we actually saw it in action, well it just looks wrong.

[bluedevils]

One place it is NOT mentioned is the MLS Referee Conference Call Notes - 3/28/2006 that are on the USSF Professional Division ref site.

[macheath]

One place it is NOT mentioned is the MLS Referee Conference Call Notes - 3/28/2006 that are on the USSF Professional Division ref site.

Memo from USSF is up on another thread, at the end:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334252&page=7

[Wreave]

At best, I could imagine the conversation going like this:

RB: We have new set piece where we will intentionally place one or two attackers well behind the wall in an offside position. Is that OK?

Hall: They can't move.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't distract the keeper my moving or talking.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't play a rebound off the keeper or the goal.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't block the keeper's view of the ball.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't gain any kind of advantage from being in that position.

RB: OK.

Hall: Why are you doing this again?

RB: We thrive on controversy.

Hall: OK.

[Statesman]

RB: We thrive on controversy.

New team name, new ownership, trying to promote a brand.

Try "Publicity Stunt" - Red Bull just got a whole ton of press.

[KCbus]

At best, I could imagine the conversation going like this:

RB: We have new set piece where we will intentionally place one or two attackers well behind the wall in an offside position. Is that OK?

Hall: They can't move.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't distract the keeper my moving or talking.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't play a rebound off the keeper or the goal.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't block the keeper's view of the ball.

RB: OK.

Hall: They can't gain any kind of advantage from being in that position.

RB: OK.

Hall: Why are you doing this again?

RB: We thrive on controversy.

Hall: OK.
This is the part I just can't believe.

They expect us to believe that the referee actually OK'ed this pre-game? Hell, if I'm the referee, even if I think it's technically legal when asked -- I'm going to lie and say it's not, just to discourage it.

[bluedevils]

Is it fair to the other team for this sort of discussion to occur between referee and team? It almost seems to me that the referee should inform the opposing team of such a discussion.

The question I really wonder about is, if the referee really did discuss this with the team before the match, did he think he should inform USSF about it or ask USSF for their interpretation of it?

[IASocFan]

Is it fair to the other team for this sort of discussion to occur between referee and team? It almost seems to me that the referee should inform the opposing team of such a discussion.

The question I really wonder about is, if the referee really did discuss this with the team before the match, did he think he should inform USSF about it or ask USSF for their interpretation of it?

I've never done games at any higher level that high school or U19, but during pregame player checkins at any age you get a myriad of questions about strategies, plays, foul recognition, etc. It has never occurred to me to review the questions and their answers with the other team - nor should it have.

[bluedevils]

I've never done games at any higher level that high school or U19, but during pregame player checkins at any age you get a myriad of questions about strategies, plays, foul recognition, etc. It has never occurred to me to review the questions and their answers with the other team - nor should it have.

At those levels, I completely agree with you. Personally, I've never reviewed info like this with the other team. But for some reason, it seemed like it might be or should be different at the MLS level. I can't really explain why and I'm not even sure that I personally feel that way. Maybe it is because MLS has input into the behavior and selection of the officials who work its matches. Maybe it is because the stakes are higher for all involved. Maybe it is because the games are often on TV. I don't know.

[PhillyMLS]

Memo from MLS (http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060405&content_id=55439&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp)

It seems that the head of the referees told RBNY that it was his understanding that it didn't violate the offsides rule. However it was discussed by USSF and FIFA and determined that it indeed does violate the rule. Also it is important to note that it is the USSF and not MLS responsible for the officiating. So all the bad mouthing of MLS on this subject is off base cause it is out of their hands.

[USSF REF]

Memo from MLS (http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/news/mls_news.jsp?ymd=20060405&content_id=55439&vkey=news_mls&fext=.jsp)

It seems that the head of the referees told RBNY that it was his understanding that it didn't violate the offsides rule. However it was discussed by USSF and FIFA and determined that it indeed does violate the rule. Also it is important to note that it is the USSF and not MLS responsible for the officiating. So all the bad mouthing of MLS on this subject is off base cause it is out of their hands.

Then why would MLS have a league official give an interpertation to a team based on the laws, if they have no standing when it comes to the laws of the game? That is a suspect course of action.

Besides, MLS does have some control. They can just refuse to allow referee's to work matches who don't do what they say.