A post-script to USA-Ghana... [MLS R]

[Elninho]

From the Rapids-RSL quote sheet, John Ellinger talks about the play leading to the goal:


It's funny because a directive was sent out by the league just addressing the very fact that apparently in the Premiership there has been some incidents where players are faking injuries to stop counterattacks. So they are trying to address it internationally but our league is not going to do anything midseason to deal with it so nothing should have changed. I think some of our players did stop, thinking Colorado would just knock the ball out of bounds. All I can say is that we were naïve to think that's what was going to happen. We still have to play.


I haven't been watching the Premiership lately, but if Ellinger is correct, then what infamously happened in the second half of the USA-Ghana match isn't isolated but is more indicative of a trend... anyone know about the goings-on in FIFA, the EPL, and MLS concerning this particular brand of simulation? It's not something that happened much in the past, when simulation was mainly diving with intent to convince the referee to call a foul.

How are referees handling this, overall? It seems to me that this is a lot more difficult to call than simple diving, because the purpose of this sort of simulation is as a defensive tactic to break up the run of play.

[PVancouver]

Injuries - EPL wants no more "knocking the ball out of bounds" (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=396276)

Teams on a full-fledged counter-attack don't usually kick the ball out because of an opponent's injury. Teams with momentum, who are putting the opponent under signficant pressure, probably are duped from time to time by opponents who feign significant injury in order to give themselves or their defense a breather.

I don't think the problem is a signficant one in MLS. I can't speak for the EPL.

While it isn't fair to fake an injury, it isn't fair to play on with a man advantage while an opponent is seemingly unable to play, either. On several occasions play has not been stopped after in injury, as neither the referee nor the team with possession have stopped play, and I have thought this most unsatisfactory. Yet most of the posters in the above thread seem to think that most injuries are fakes and that play should be stopped as rarely as possible. Forcing "seriously" injured players to sit out for five minutes is ludricrous, IMO.

[DadOf6]

How are referees handling this, overall? It seems to me that this is a lot more difficult to call than simple diving, because the purpose of this sort of simulation is as a defensive tactic to break up the run of play.

The referee in the RSL-COL game siad that unless the injury is serious (head hit turf, bleeding, etc.) he is not to stop play.

[Jasonma]

Out of curiosity, did he explain why he let Garlick stay in the game? His actions after the goal pretty clearly call for a red card (Throwing and hitting Freeman with the ball, then charging 20 yards out to knock Freeman over)

[DadOf6]

Out of curiosity, did he explain why he let Garlick stay in the game? His actions after the goal pretty clearly call for a red card (Throwing and hitting Freeman with the ball, then charging 20 yards out to knock Freeman over)

I don't think he saw the thrown ball.

He said that he knew it was a red and that he may have to defend himself to the league. He discussed it with the SAR anf 4th and they agreed that a yellow would be appropriate.

The reasoning was that no matter what he did, the game would be ugly from then on. They figured that the game would be uglier if he showed a red than if he showed a yellow.

It ended up helping COL. He said that in the second scrum he should have sent off your player but that it would not be fair to send your player off after having only cautioned Garlick for similar misconduct. So he showed a yellow.

[Heist]

While it isn't fair to fake an injury, it isn't fair to play on with a man advantage while an opponent is seemingly unable to play, either. On several occasions play has not been stopped after in injury, as neither the referee nor the team with possession have stopped play, and I have thought this most unsatisfactory. Yet most of the posters in the above thread seem to think that most injuries are fakes and that play should be stopped as rarely as possible. Forcing "seriously" injured players to sit out for five minutes is ludricrous, IMO.

Why isn't it fair to play when a player is injured. I know when I was younger it was only the health of the player down that mattered, so if the ball was on the other end of the field play could go on as long as they guy down wasn't visibly getting worse or something. I think that's fair. Its a courtesy to play the ball out of bounds, and its a courtesy that I think is good for soccer.

[Jasonma]

He said that he knew it was a red and that he may have to defend himself to the league.

Well, that says it all right there.

Af red carding our player in the scrum, for what? Getting knocked down by Jaime Watson?

Even if there ws a red cardable offense by a Rapids player, he pretty clearly told the players that shoving and melee's were acceptable by not tossing Garlick. He actually thought the game would be inproved by letting Garlick get away with it? This guy shouldn't get near a MLS field for the rest of the season.

[MassachusettsRef]

I don't think he saw the thrown ball.

He said that he knew it was a red and that he may have to defend himself to the league. He discussed it with the SAR anf 4th and they agreed that a yellow would be appropriate.

The reasoning was that no matter what he did, the game would be ugly from then on. They figured that the game would be uglier if he showed a red than if he showed a yellow.

It ended up helping COL. He said that in the second scrum he should have sent off your player but that it would not be fair to send your player off after having only cautioned Garlick for similar misconduct. So he showed a yellow.Are there rules about these Q&As insofar as public disclosure?

[DadOf6]

Are there rules about these Q&As insofar as public disclosure?

I don't know of any rules other that the Code of Ethics. I think I'm OK there because I have only posted factual information. I have not been critical of the referee team, in fact, I think I tried to show that they did a good job given what the players were doing.

I thought what I said was an appropriate answer to the question asked and it was meant to show an example of a difficult decision that happened to be a good one.

What I did not notice was that I was answering a question asked not to learn about refereeing but to start a battle.

[DadOf6]

Mods, could you please remove posts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. I don't think they are appropriate for this forum.

I unintentionally enabled it to get out of hand.

[Jasonma]

What I did not notice was that I was answering a question asked not to learn about refereeing but to start a battle.

Not at all, I did want to know if he had reasoning behind it. I happen to think his reasoning is completely off base. I am not a ref, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about what, almost by admission of the referee himself, was a horrible call. Nor am I the only one who feels this way about this particular ref. If these comments are off limits here, in the Referee forum, then will you plase direct me to the place they should be discussed?

[IASocFan]

Mods, could you please remove posts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. I don't think they are appropriate for this forum.

I unintentionally enabled it to get out of hand.

I have had ugly games where I should have given red cards. For some reason, I felt that red cards would make the situation worse, and later thought otherwise. I have been to a referee post game Q&A by Richard Herron and was impressed by his composure and his analysis.

[DadOf6]

Not at all, I did want to know if he had reasoning behind it. I happen to think his reasoning is completely off base. I am not a ref, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about what, almost by admission of the referee himself, was a horrible call. Nor am I the only one who feels this way about this particular ref. If these comments are off limits here, in the Referee forum, then will you plase direct me to the place they should be discussed?

The mods think that I didn't put up anything innappropriate. Since these posts will stay up for posterity I will correct a few misconceptions and--hopefully--move on.

The ref did *not* almost admit to a horrible call. He told why it was an appropriate call.

Martins was not carded for the reason stated. He was the third man into a confrontation between two players and he initiated contact; either a hard bump or a push, I could not tell. It's on the video. The Watson incident came later, outside and behind the scrum, probably retaliation for Martins' misconduct againt Ballouchy. In that kind of melee the ref cannot see everything. They will card the third man in, possibly the fourth. The league can review the video and take further action if requested.

That, I hope, is all I have to say, trying to tell it from the view of a referee.

As time was winding down the players weren't very concerned about the game. RSL wanted to score and COL wanted to hold the lead but they seemed to have other "points" to make.

The reckless foul on Cunningham was unsound. He was headed across the field about 40 yards from goal. COL had men there to cover and they had shut him down all game long. The free kick was more dangerous than continued play would have been; it allowed RSL to put numbers in the area and run a set play. It was bad for COL, but a "point" was made.

Ballouchy also made a statement, but it hurt RSL. How smart is it to do something that runs off time in the 88th minute when you are trailing 1-0? If RSL was more interested in winning than in making a statement they would have backed away from the scrum and set up for the free kick.

Was Garlick's misconduct a statement? How about COL celebrating their goal directly in front of RSL's bench--was that a statement? Yes, and yes.

Four incidents; two from each team, all ugly, none of which had anything to do with the game.

My point? Sometimes the players are determined to make a game ugly even with perfect officiating. But the ref still gets the blame.

[blech]

***My point? Sometimes the players are determined to make a game ugly even with perfect officiating. But the ref still gets the blame.

Anyone see Mastroeni's postgame celebration with the stuffing of his shirt in his shorts? I couldn't tell who it was directed at -- the bench?? the crowd?? someone else?? -- it definitely emphasized that there was some extra emotion going on in this one.....

[blech]

Why isn't it fair to play when a player is injured. I know when I was younger it was only the health of the player down that mattered, so if the ball was on the other end of the field play could go on as long as they guy down wasn't visibly getting worse or something. I think that's fair. Its a courtesy to play the ball out of bounds, and its a courtesy that I think is good for soccer.

i'm not sure if "fair" is the word or not, but it certainly has become a regular piece of soccer etiquette not to attack when an opponent has a man down. given the diving, trash-talking, and other pushing and shoving that goes on, it is somewhat interesting that this courtesy has survived, but definitely something sporting about saying that we recognize you've got a man hurt and we should play this game at full strength.

the courtesy has evolved at the top levels to something of an expectation, with incidents of retaliation against players who haven't played the ball out. it has also left open the possibility for strategical abuse, i.e., you can press forward and then go down if you lose the ball and hope that your "injury" stops the counterattack.

my view is that the EPL's response this year was intended primarily to relieve the players from repercussions of not following the tradition. if you're not required to put the ball out, the opposing team can't be mad at you if you don't. it also should encourage the player marginally injured to get up and get back on defense, rather than stay down for tactical purposes.

from the ref's perspective (this is the ref forum after all), it also necessarily adds a little more pressure to the ref, who needs to stop play if the injury is serious but who has really been relieved of having to do that by the custom that has the players stopping play themselves whether serious or not. the ref can no longer rely on the players to put the ball out, and needs to make the determination of whether play should be stopped.

it sure seems to me that many professional players seem to go down and ask for treatment pretty easily (although i'll concede that i've never been kicked by a professional defender, so maybe it's not fair to compare it to my occasional weekend pick up game where guys go down and then get back up since there won't be a trainer running over anyway).... a 5 minute sit out rule seems a little rigid and strict, but i do wonder if a disincentive for players leaving the field might encourage them to get on with it a little more and not use these "injuries" as an opportunity for a water break and chance to rest.

i haven't heard anything about this from fifa. i'd imagine they're watching, and will evaluate what impact, if any, it's had. i've still seen some epl plays where players have put the ball out of play, and it's then been given back to them, so it's not stopped entirely, but probably some improvement already.

[DadOf6]

Anyone see Mastroeni's postgame celebration with the stuffing of his shirt in his shorts? I couldn't tell who it was directed at -- the bench?? the crowd?? someone else?? -- it definitely emphasized that there was some extra emotion going on in this one.....

I saw part of it and it left me scratching my head. From what I hear there was more that I didn't see.

[Jasonma]

The reckless foul on Cunningham was unsound. He was headed across the field about 40 yards from goal. COL had men there to cover and they had shut him down all game long. The free kick was more dangerous than continued play would have been; it allowed RSL to put numbers in the area and run a set play. It was bad for COL, but a "point" was made.


Actually, there could have been a reason for this. Nkong was down in the RSL side of the field awating treatment, so the Rapids were playing down a man. Better to foul a guy like Cunningham aways out than allow him ton continue and try to defend him a man down.

I don't know if that was Gargan's reasoning, but it's possible. The Altitude guys seemed to think that was the reason behind it.

[DadOf6]

Actually, there could have been a reason for this. Nkong was down in the RSL side of the field awating treatment, so the Rapids were playing down a man. Better to foul a guy like Cunningham aways out than allow him ton continue and try to defend him a man down.

I don't know if that was Gargan's reasoning, but it's possible. The Altitude guys seemed to think that was the reason behind it.

Could be, but something short of a reckless foul would have sufficed. That's why I think it was a statement. Maybe both.

Before the second half Gargan was warming up a child near me dropped a toy over the front rail. Gargan passed by and the parents asked him if he would throw it back up. He did and I said, "He did something nice, now I can't make fun of him!" He looked up, grinned, and squirted me with his water bottle. I told him we were even and he turned around and got ready for the kickoff.

I thought he was funny.

[bluedevils]

Wow. I watched some big chunks of this game but missed all the good stuff :( The Mastroeni post-match celebration seemed crude to me, although I didn't really understand it. I've sat in on a referee Q&A after an MLS match before. I don't see how there could be anything wrong with people discussing afterward, including on these forums, what the referee crew said during the Q&A session.

[prk166]

I don't think he saw the thrown ball.

He said that he knew it was a red and that he may have to defend himself to the league. He discussed it with the SAR anf 4th and they agreed that a yellow would be appropriate.

The reasoning was that no matter what he did, the game would be ugly from then on. They figured that the game would be uglier if he showed a red than if he showed a yellow.

It ended up helping COL. He said that in the second scrum he should have sent off your player but that it would not be fair to send your player off after having only cautioned Garlick for similar misconduct. So he showed a yellow.

I understand his reasoning but I disagree with it. If one of the ARs saw Garlick throw the ball and he gets a red, it forces RSL to not only play a man down but to use a sub to put in their backup GK. It also means that RSL is without their starting keeper for at least the next game if not more. This has implications beyond the game at hand. Surely a referee should keep this in mind. Even if CO goes down a player, they've at least only loose a field player where RSL has the backup keeper trying to get their head into the flow of things after sitting on the bench. Still seems like advantage CO even if a RC is doled out for each side.

I'm not sure what happened in the scrum that would've only resulted in a CO player getting a red. Maybe it was something said or something I didn't see. But if there was a red in there surely there was at least a yellow or two if not a red for an RSL player or three. The scrum looked pretty even aside from Garlick's 25 yard sprint to go knock over Freeman who he had just sniped with the ball from 40 yards.

I think my problem with it is that I disagree that avoiding a red prevents things from getting uglier. I would argue the lack of a red makes the players feel wronged. They're more likely to take justice into their own hands. Now the team that gets the red card may feel wronged. But they also know they're short a guy. They may feel compelled to try to take justice into their own hands but they also rationally know they don't want to risk being 2 guys short. More so I think in the long run it undermines the credibility of all referees. The ramifications go beyond the game at hand.