PVancouver
06 Jun 2008, 02:46 PM
2008 MLS Week 10 Review (http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_10_2008.htm)
Video Clip 2: Houston at Dallas (76:58)
Clip 2 shows a referee who is reactive and does not anticipate the actions of the players. The player who commits the first foul is wearing a cast. This should be the first sign as contact is made with the cast and an opponent. The action is cautionable. The referee must feel this situation. Adding to the negative reaction of the players is the fact that the referee delays his whistle as he decides there is a potential advantage as the ball proceeds to the goalkeeper. This is a poor risk given the player’s cast and the fact that the infraction is cautionable. Once the whistle is blown, it is too late and the referee is too late to the hot spot. Any opportunity for preventative work on the part of the referee has been wasted due to the late whistle and the lack of urgency. Once the moment of truth passes without immediate action on the part of the referee, mass confrontation amongst opponents is the by-product. Finally, the referee takes too long to disperse the punishment to the players. During the more than three minutes it takes to resolve this situation, players tempers continue to rise and the doors are opened for more potential conflict amongst the two players as well as other opposing players.
I don’t know if Prus was going to call a foul on Saragosa for running into Robinson, but even if he was, it was not a clear caution. Robinson borderline obstructed on the play. So it was a bit of a 50/50. The ball was in Onstad’s hands, play could have easily carried on without incident. It was Robinson’s almost immediate violent reaction that caused all the problems. To blame this on Prus’ “late whistle” or lack of urgency is terribly misleading and unfair to Prus. It did not help that Saragosa refused to get up from the ground, inciting Robinson to spew more and more venom. On the other hand, Saragosa may just have been wisely taking into account his own safety. Certainly his safety was in danger. Prus immediately talked to Robinson in a calm matter, theoretically with the intention of calming Robinson down and defusing the situation. Is he showing a “lack of urgency”? I don’t think so. Prus and the AR are in the middle of a “mass confrontation” of about 10 players. The NRO now wants referees to back a way from this mass confrontation and just observe? Like hockey? Let them start throwing punches until blood starts to flow? The NRO claims the referees were too involved in the confrontation and thus “there was some off-the-ball activity that went undetected”. Exactly what misconduct was left unsaid. The problem wasn’t that the referees were too involved, IMO, it was that they weren’t involved enough. Robinson was the instigator of the conflict. Either Prus should have stayed closer to Robinson, or preferably, the AR should have gotten right next to Robinson and escorted him away from the conflict. Instead, Prus was understandably distracted by everything going on and Robinson was left alone to stir up more trouble.
This is what Paul Tamberino said in the podcast:
“US Soccer’s position is: first referee at the scene, try to disperse. Three or more players get involved, we want our referees to back out, form some type of a triangle, where they’re at a good distance to observe, and then watch all the players react, and watch it settle down. As it starts to settle down, somebody can get in there and start to pull players to the safety zone. But we want them to form a triangle around the scene, obviously not focusing on one part, sort of scanning the entire mass confrontation, so we get the main culprits, that are doing this mass confrontation.”
Great. Back away from the situation. That will ensure that it gets resolved in a hurry.
“Once the situation is under control, the referee team should get together, discuss the situations, and administer the appropriate misconduct, whether it be yellow cards, red cards, but that’s not to be done without conferring with all four officials.”
Also great. Don't issue any cards until all the dust has settled. That way, the players will feel compelled to settle the situation themselves, since the referees obviously aren't doing anything.
“In all mass confrontations, it should be an equal number of misconducts: 2 yellows, 2 reds, whatever the case it should be an equal number of misconducts.”
I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. If one side is pressing the issue, and the other defending, the antagonizing side should get the majority of the misconducts. Apparently, since Prus sent Rocha off, he should have found another Houston player to send off. I’m sorry, but this concept is absurd. I would make the argument that many times an “equalizing” card is given when none is actually warranted, and the outcome is often unfair.
If an equal number of misconducts is to always be handed out, what is the penalty for misbehaving? Mass confront all you want. The referees won't interfere. If the referee sends off one of us, he has to send off one of them as well. This just gives the green light to more mass confrontation. That, and the requirement that referees back away from player-to-player conflicts. I really have to question US Soccer's thinking here. I wonder what off-the-ball activity was missed that would have been seen by distant, triangulating refs. It must have been a doozy.
Persistent Infringement – Targeted Players
Players are often targeted by opponents. Opponents know that their success is predicated on their ability to slow or stop certain players on the opposition. These players tend to be impact players, players that manage the tempo or flow of the game or players that possess a certain attribute (speed, technical ability, skill) that is difficult to contain. Hence, teams and players look to send messages and look to eliminate the attribute.
Referees must be capable of identifying the players who may be on the receiving end of such tactics. Doing the appropriate pregame homework is one method of preparation and identification. Also, feeling the game and building a mental database of information during the game is another method. Top class officials find ways to maintain a mental count or database of the number of fouls committed, who has committed fouls, who has been on the receiving end of fouls, and the time span over which the fouls have been committed. Also, challenges that take a player off his stride or challenges that influence a player’s ability to participate in that particular play or the game. Review the “Referee Week In Review 9” for a refresher of the discussion involving “players who are repeatedly fouled.”
Referees are encouraged to protect the players that are repeatedly fouled by taking preventative action. As referees mentally track the foul count, become more demonstrative in addressing subsequent fouls. Discuss the topic of player match ups and foul counts at halftime with your crews. If a demonstrative message does not end the tactic, a caution should be issued. Consider use of communication amongst the referee team to help monitor and identify persistent infringement as well as a strong word with the player(s) during the game or at the start of the second half.
Blah, blah, blah. Sigi Schmid gets his ass kissed. Fortunately, Galvan isn’t directly or indirectly called out for a poor performance in this area and Rogers wasn’t mentioned by name, but Rogers is the not so obvious player being discussed. What exactly should Fernando Galvan have done to prevent this supposed persistent infringement by Chivas? I don’t have the foggiest idea.
Coach Dismissal
This week, another assistant coach was dismissed for inappropriate behavior in the technical area in accordance with the guidelines established by U.S. Soccer in several “Week In Reviews,” reinforced by MLS, and detailed in the March 22, 2006 U.S. Soccer position paper entitled, “Management of Behavior in the Technical Area.” (Click here to access the position paper)
Referee teams should continue to utilize proactive preventative techniques in dealing with bench personnel. Fourth officials should approach team personnel in the technical area in a positive, non condescending manner. Remember, the onus is on them to comply with the Laws of the Game and modify their behavior. So, work on clearly indicating to the individual(s) in question the behavior you want modified. Once you have politely yet firmly indicated the expectation, you can and must hold them accountable for their actions.
From the podcast: “The assistant coach [Warzycha] approaches the fourth official, starts to discuss the situation, apparently there was some profanity and some improper behavior, and the referee, the fourth official had the coach dismissed... They definitely handled it properly. We’re stressing improper behavior on the bench cannot be tolerated at any time.”
Serious Foul Play
A 22nd minute red card was correctly issued for serious foul play resulting from a poorly timed tackle that clearly endangered the safety of an opponent and is done with excessive force.
Video Clip 3: Columbus at Chivas USA (22:00)
In reviewing the clip, look at the position of the leading leg: raised off the ground, over the ball with cleats exposed to the opponent. The tackle is started five yards or further from the opponent and is done in a manner lunging at the opponent and not in an attempt to play the ball. The referee correctly identifies this action as serious foul play and without hesitation issues a red card. Note: this is the first card issued in the game and it is done only 22 minutes into the game.
Yes, “leading leg: raised off the ground, over the ball with cleats exposed to the opponent” is accurate.
Yes, “the tackle is started five yards or further from the opponent” is accurate.
No, “and is done in a manner lunging at the opponent and not in an attempt to play the ball” is not accurate. O’Rourke lunged toward the ball, not toward Harris. Harris beat him to the ball. I don’t think either player was certain when they were five yards away who was going to win that 50/50. The end of the play was certainly awkward. I’m certainly not sure what O’Rourke was thinking at the time. But if there was no attempt to play the ball, it should be VC, not SFP.
WEEK 11 FOCUS
Mass Confrontation and Persistent Infringement Against a Specific Opponent
Officials are asked to deal with situations of “mass confrontation” (in either form) in a more proactive manner ensuring situations do not escalate. Additionally, referees are asked to work hard to identify cases of persistent infringement against a specific player. Referees should protect the players who are on the receiving end of multiple fouls in a game as a result of their possessing a skill or technical asset that teams cannot contain without fouling.
I’m sorry, but how is backing away from mass confrontations dealing with them in a more proactive manner ensuring that they do not escalate?
“Referees should protect the players who are on the receiving end of multiple fouls in a game as a result of their possessing a skill or technical asset that teams cannot contain without fouling.” That is, MLS referees should go out of their way to protect the “skill” players, just like Sigi Schmid has been calling for. I hope the next player that touches Robbie Rogers is carded. Obviously, fouling is the only way to contain him.
Video Clip 2: Houston at Dallas (76:58)
Clip 2 shows a referee who is reactive and does not anticipate the actions of the players. The player who commits the first foul is wearing a cast. This should be the first sign as contact is made with the cast and an opponent. The action is cautionable. The referee must feel this situation. Adding to the negative reaction of the players is the fact that the referee delays his whistle as he decides there is a potential advantage as the ball proceeds to the goalkeeper. This is a poor risk given the player’s cast and the fact that the infraction is cautionable. Once the whistle is blown, it is too late and the referee is too late to the hot spot. Any opportunity for preventative work on the part of the referee has been wasted due to the late whistle and the lack of urgency. Once the moment of truth passes without immediate action on the part of the referee, mass confrontation amongst opponents is the by-product. Finally, the referee takes too long to disperse the punishment to the players. During the more than three minutes it takes to resolve this situation, players tempers continue to rise and the doors are opened for more potential conflict amongst the two players as well as other opposing players.
I don’t know if Prus was going to call a foul on Saragosa for running into Robinson, but even if he was, it was not a clear caution. Robinson borderline obstructed on the play. So it was a bit of a 50/50. The ball was in Onstad’s hands, play could have easily carried on without incident. It was Robinson’s almost immediate violent reaction that caused all the problems. To blame this on Prus’ “late whistle” or lack of urgency is terribly misleading and unfair to Prus. It did not help that Saragosa refused to get up from the ground, inciting Robinson to spew more and more venom. On the other hand, Saragosa may just have been wisely taking into account his own safety. Certainly his safety was in danger. Prus immediately talked to Robinson in a calm matter, theoretically with the intention of calming Robinson down and defusing the situation. Is he showing a “lack of urgency”? I don’t think so. Prus and the AR are in the middle of a “mass confrontation” of about 10 players. The NRO now wants referees to back a way from this mass confrontation and just observe? Like hockey? Let them start throwing punches until blood starts to flow? The NRO claims the referees were too involved in the confrontation and thus “there was some off-the-ball activity that went undetected”. Exactly what misconduct was left unsaid. The problem wasn’t that the referees were too involved, IMO, it was that they weren’t involved enough. Robinson was the instigator of the conflict. Either Prus should have stayed closer to Robinson, or preferably, the AR should have gotten right next to Robinson and escorted him away from the conflict. Instead, Prus was understandably distracted by everything going on and Robinson was left alone to stir up more trouble.
This is what Paul Tamberino said in the podcast:
“US Soccer’s position is: first referee at the scene, try to disperse. Three or more players get involved, we want our referees to back out, form some type of a triangle, where they’re at a good distance to observe, and then watch all the players react, and watch it settle down. As it starts to settle down, somebody can get in there and start to pull players to the safety zone. But we want them to form a triangle around the scene, obviously not focusing on one part, sort of scanning the entire mass confrontation, so we get the main culprits, that are doing this mass confrontation.”
Great. Back away from the situation. That will ensure that it gets resolved in a hurry.
“Once the situation is under control, the referee team should get together, discuss the situations, and administer the appropriate misconduct, whether it be yellow cards, red cards, but that’s not to be done without conferring with all four officials.”
Also great. Don't issue any cards until all the dust has settled. That way, the players will feel compelled to settle the situation themselves, since the referees obviously aren't doing anything.
“In all mass confrontations, it should be an equal number of misconducts: 2 yellows, 2 reds, whatever the case it should be an equal number of misconducts.”
I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. If one side is pressing the issue, and the other defending, the antagonizing side should get the majority of the misconducts. Apparently, since Prus sent Rocha off, he should have found another Houston player to send off. I’m sorry, but this concept is absurd. I would make the argument that many times an “equalizing” card is given when none is actually warranted, and the outcome is often unfair.
If an equal number of misconducts is to always be handed out, what is the penalty for misbehaving? Mass confront all you want. The referees won't interfere. If the referee sends off one of us, he has to send off one of them as well. This just gives the green light to more mass confrontation. That, and the requirement that referees back away from player-to-player conflicts. I really have to question US Soccer's thinking here. I wonder what off-the-ball activity was missed that would have been seen by distant, triangulating refs. It must have been a doozy.
Persistent Infringement – Targeted Players
Players are often targeted by opponents. Opponents know that their success is predicated on their ability to slow or stop certain players on the opposition. These players tend to be impact players, players that manage the tempo or flow of the game or players that possess a certain attribute (speed, technical ability, skill) that is difficult to contain. Hence, teams and players look to send messages and look to eliminate the attribute.
Referees must be capable of identifying the players who may be on the receiving end of such tactics. Doing the appropriate pregame homework is one method of preparation and identification. Also, feeling the game and building a mental database of information during the game is another method. Top class officials find ways to maintain a mental count or database of the number of fouls committed, who has committed fouls, who has been on the receiving end of fouls, and the time span over which the fouls have been committed. Also, challenges that take a player off his stride or challenges that influence a player’s ability to participate in that particular play or the game. Review the “Referee Week In Review 9” for a refresher of the discussion involving “players who are repeatedly fouled.”
Referees are encouraged to protect the players that are repeatedly fouled by taking preventative action. As referees mentally track the foul count, become more demonstrative in addressing subsequent fouls. Discuss the topic of player match ups and foul counts at halftime with your crews. If a demonstrative message does not end the tactic, a caution should be issued. Consider use of communication amongst the referee team to help monitor and identify persistent infringement as well as a strong word with the player(s) during the game or at the start of the second half.
Blah, blah, blah. Sigi Schmid gets his ass kissed. Fortunately, Galvan isn’t directly or indirectly called out for a poor performance in this area and Rogers wasn’t mentioned by name, but Rogers is the not so obvious player being discussed. What exactly should Fernando Galvan have done to prevent this supposed persistent infringement by Chivas? I don’t have the foggiest idea.
Coach Dismissal
This week, another assistant coach was dismissed for inappropriate behavior in the technical area in accordance with the guidelines established by U.S. Soccer in several “Week In Reviews,” reinforced by MLS, and detailed in the March 22, 2006 U.S. Soccer position paper entitled, “Management of Behavior in the Technical Area.” (Click here to access the position paper)
Referee teams should continue to utilize proactive preventative techniques in dealing with bench personnel. Fourth officials should approach team personnel in the technical area in a positive, non condescending manner. Remember, the onus is on them to comply with the Laws of the Game and modify their behavior. So, work on clearly indicating to the individual(s) in question the behavior you want modified. Once you have politely yet firmly indicated the expectation, you can and must hold them accountable for their actions.
From the podcast: “The assistant coach [Warzycha] approaches the fourth official, starts to discuss the situation, apparently there was some profanity and some improper behavior, and the referee, the fourth official had the coach dismissed... They definitely handled it properly. We’re stressing improper behavior on the bench cannot be tolerated at any time.”
Serious Foul Play
A 22nd minute red card was correctly issued for serious foul play resulting from a poorly timed tackle that clearly endangered the safety of an opponent and is done with excessive force.
Video Clip 3: Columbus at Chivas USA (22:00)
In reviewing the clip, look at the position of the leading leg: raised off the ground, over the ball with cleats exposed to the opponent. The tackle is started five yards or further from the opponent and is done in a manner lunging at the opponent and not in an attempt to play the ball. The referee correctly identifies this action as serious foul play and without hesitation issues a red card. Note: this is the first card issued in the game and it is done only 22 minutes into the game.
Yes, “leading leg: raised off the ground, over the ball with cleats exposed to the opponent” is accurate.
Yes, “the tackle is started five yards or further from the opponent” is accurate.
No, “and is done in a manner lunging at the opponent and not in an attempt to play the ball” is not accurate. O’Rourke lunged toward the ball, not toward Harris. Harris beat him to the ball. I don’t think either player was certain when they were five yards away who was going to win that 50/50. The end of the play was certainly awkward. I’m certainly not sure what O’Rourke was thinking at the time. But if there was no attempt to play the ball, it should be VC, not SFP.
WEEK 11 FOCUS
Mass Confrontation and Persistent Infringement Against a Specific Opponent
Officials are asked to deal with situations of “mass confrontation” (in either form) in a more proactive manner ensuring situations do not escalate. Additionally, referees are asked to work hard to identify cases of persistent infringement against a specific player. Referees should protect the players who are on the receiving end of multiple fouls in a game as a result of their possessing a skill or technical asset that teams cannot contain without fouling.
I’m sorry, but how is backing away from mass confrontations dealing with them in a more proactive manner ensuring that they do not escalate?
“Referees should protect the players who are on the receiving end of multiple fouls in a game as a result of their possessing a skill or technical asset that teams cannot contain without fouling.” That is, MLS referees should go out of their way to protect the “skill” players, just like Sigi Schmid has been calling for. I hope the next player that touches Robbie Rogers is carded. Obviously, fouling is the only way to contain him.