PVancouver
04 Jul 2008, 11:20 AM
Referee Week In Review (http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_14_2008.htm)
Week 14 – ending June 29, 2008
WEEK 14 OVERVIEW
The flow of MLS games continue to be a positive factor as the number of fouls per game remain lower at this time compared with all twelve prior seasons. Referees are resisting the temptation to call the trifling and minor offences and, instead, choosing to take calculated risks and let the game flow. Thus far this year, an average of 25.5 fouls per game have been whistled compared to 28.3 in 2007.
That is terrific but Paul Tamberino and Brian Hall passed on an opportunity to discuss Mauricio Navarro’s match that had 52 fouls (Red Bulls at Chivas). Most of the fouls were probably deserved. No cards for persistent infringement were issued as far as I know.
Video Clip 1: Toronto at New England (46:00 – added time)
In this clip, the referee has just whistled for half time. Closely watch the player with the ball as the whistle is blown. What are his actions? Are his actions visible so that other players and spectators can witness – are the actions public? Do the actions undermine or question the authority of the referee? In this particular instance, the player shows his disregard and disrespect of the referee by, first, clapping his hands in defiance of the referee and, second, by sharply rolling the ball at the referee. This is a case in which the referee must respond with a message that corresponds to the intensity of the player’s actions; hence, a yellow card is an appropriate response that communicates a strong message to the player, the other players, and to the spectators that such dissent will not be tolerated. Recommendation: In cases where the referee anticipates potential dissent at half time, the referee would be advised to move to a neutral position on the field away from the players and coaches so as not to invite dissent and create extra space between himself and potential problem players.
I wonder what Laurent Robert was complaining about (it was he, not Tyrone Marshall, that received the card). Yes, the clapping appeared to mock the referee but I would find it difficult to punish the rolling of the ball.
Video Clip 4: New York at Chivas USA (25:33)
This situation involves incidental contact albeit with the arm/elbow. In “Week In Review 8,” the acronym F-I-R-E was introduced to assist officials with identifying elbows that should be dealt with as violent conduct (red card):
Frustration
Intimidation
Retaliation (payback)
Establish Territory or Space
When evaluating this clip, it is evident that the defender did not intend to intimidate, retaliate, or unfairly establish territory or space. Notice the defender’s focus – on the ball. He does not look back to “size up” the attacker. Contact is initiated by the attacker who jumps up and into the defender. Also take note of the fact that the attacker does not leap as high as the defender. In fact, his jump takes him only as high as the defender’s elbow and forearm. Given these factors and the fact that the defender does not cock and throw his elbow, the actions should not be considered as misconduct.
I think Boyens used the fact that he was going up for a header as an excuse to throw an elbow and got away with it. He certainly did “Establish Territory or Space”. I don’t think it was a red card, despite contact with the head, but Boyens didn’t linger on the scene for a reason. He was only trying to knock the ball a few yards into touch--did he need the extra oomph his arm thrust gave him? No. It was unnecessary and I suspect Boyens was well aware that Braun was challenging for the ball.
Video Clip 3: Los Angeles at DC (41:05)
When viewing this situation, apply the standards set forth above. This clip does not depict the more frequent violent conduct for the elbow (cocked and thrown) but illustrates a deliberate slap to the opponent’s face that is intended to intimidate as well as endanger the player’s safety. Additionally, such action, unless dealt with promptly, can lead to further misconduct/retaliation on the part of the opponents and jeopardize match control.
The offence is initiated by the defender holding, from behind, the attacker with the ball in order to prevent his advancement. When situations like this (defender holding from behind) unfold, the referee team should be prepared for the attacker to take action to “release the defender” and create space to continue their path with the ball. The “release the defender” action is frequently done with above the shoulder contact or an elbow. Anticipation and a quick whistle on the part of the referee may assist in preventing the violent conduct.
As the slap to the face unfolds, notice the position of the referee, AR, and the fourth official – all seem to have clear views of the action from different angles. If any of the officials clearly see contact with the hand to the opponent’s face, they must bring the violent action to the referee’s attention if the referee on his own does not identify the offense as a red card. Notice the eyes and head of the player committing the slap just prior to the hand going back: he looks over his shoulder to see the position of the opponent thereby ensuring the success of his slap. The eye and head movement of the player is a sign that the action was deliberate. Additionally, the evidence of blood from the player’s nose should be another sign (most obvious) that unnecessary force and contact was made.
The correct action by the referee team in this clip would be to send off one player for violent conduct (slap to the opponent’s face) and issue a yellow card to the other player for unsporting behavior (tactical holding foul).
While I agree this clearly should have been a red card (yellows were given to Gallardo and Donovan), I have some qualms about some of the statements made here. Specifically, I disagree with “If any of the officials clearly see contact with the hand to the opponent’s face, they must bring the violent action to the referee’s attention if the referee on his own does not identify the offense as a red card.” Well, doesn’t Boyens make contact with Braun’s head in Video Clip 4?
“Notice the eyes and head of the player committing the slap just prior to the hand going back: he looks over his shoulder to see the position of the opponent thereby ensuring the success of his slap. The eye and head movement of the player is a sign that the action was deliberate.”
I don’t see how the AR and 4th official both missed either the contact or its deliberateness, but I think that either must see both, or a discussion must take place, before a red card is issued.
Week 14 – ending June 29, 2008
WEEK 14 OVERVIEW
The flow of MLS games continue to be a positive factor as the number of fouls per game remain lower at this time compared with all twelve prior seasons. Referees are resisting the temptation to call the trifling and minor offences and, instead, choosing to take calculated risks and let the game flow. Thus far this year, an average of 25.5 fouls per game have been whistled compared to 28.3 in 2007.
That is terrific but Paul Tamberino and Brian Hall passed on an opportunity to discuss Mauricio Navarro’s match that had 52 fouls (Red Bulls at Chivas). Most of the fouls were probably deserved. No cards for persistent infringement were issued as far as I know.
Video Clip 1: Toronto at New England (46:00 – added time)
In this clip, the referee has just whistled for half time. Closely watch the player with the ball as the whistle is blown. What are his actions? Are his actions visible so that other players and spectators can witness – are the actions public? Do the actions undermine or question the authority of the referee? In this particular instance, the player shows his disregard and disrespect of the referee by, first, clapping his hands in defiance of the referee and, second, by sharply rolling the ball at the referee. This is a case in which the referee must respond with a message that corresponds to the intensity of the player’s actions; hence, a yellow card is an appropriate response that communicates a strong message to the player, the other players, and to the spectators that such dissent will not be tolerated. Recommendation: In cases where the referee anticipates potential dissent at half time, the referee would be advised to move to a neutral position on the field away from the players and coaches so as not to invite dissent and create extra space between himself and potential problem players.
I wonder what Laurent Robert was complaining about (it was he, not Tyrone Marshall, that received the card). Yes, the clapping appeared to mock the referee but I would find it difficult to punish the rolling of the ball.
Video Clip 4: New York at Chivas USA (25:33)
This situation involves incidental contact albeit with the arm/elbow. In “Week In Review 8,” the acronym F-I-R-E was introduced to assist officials with identifying elbows that should be dealt with as violent conduct (red card):
Frustration
Intimidation
Retaliation (payback)
Establish Territory or Space
When evaluating this clip, it is evident that the defender did not intend to intimidate, retaliate, or unfairly establish territory or space. Notice the defender’s focus – on the ball. He does not look back to “size up” the attacker. Contact is initiated by the attacker who jumps up and into the defender. Also take note of the fact that the attacker does not leap as high as the defender. In fact, his jump takes him only as high as the defender’s elbow and forearm. Given these factors and the fact that the defender does not cock and throw his elbow, the actions should not be considered as misconduct.
I think Boyens used the fact that he was going up for a header as an excuse to throw an elbow and got away with it. He certainly did “Establish Territory or Space”. I don’t think it was a red card, despite contact with the head, but Boyens didn’t linger on the scene for a reason. He was only trying to knock the ball a few yards into touch--did he need the extra oomph his arm thrust gave him? No. It was unnecessary and I suspect Boyens was well aware that Braun was challenging for the ball.
Video Clip 3: Los Angeles at DC (41:05)
When viewing this situation, apply the standards set forth above. This clip does not depict the more frequent violent conduct for the elbow (cocked and thrown) but illustrates a deliberate slap to the opponent’s face that is intended to intimidate as well as endanger the player’s safety. Additionally, such action, unless dealt with promptly, can lead to further misconduct/retaliation on the part of the opponents and jeopardize match control.
The offence is initiated by the defender holding, from behind, the attacker with the ball in order to prevent his advancement. When situations like this (defender holding from behind) unfold, the referee team should be prepared for the attacker to take action to “release the defender” and create space to continue their path with the ball. The “release the defender” action is frequently done with above the shoulder contact or an elbow. Anticipation and a quick whistle on the part of the referee may assist in preventing the violent conduct.
As the slap to the face unfolds, notice the position of the referee, AR, and the fourth official – all seem to have clear views of the action from different angles. If any of the officials clearly see contact with the hand to the opponent’s face, they must bring the violent action to the referee’s attention if the referee on his own does not identify the offense as a red card. Notice the eyes and head of the player committing the slap just prior to the hand going back: he looks over his shoulder to see the position of the opponent thereby ensuring the success of his slap. The eye and head movement of the player is a sign that the action was deliberate. Additionally, the evidence of blood from the player’s nose should be another sign (most obvious) that unnecessary force and contact was made.
The correct action by the referee team in this clip would be to send off one player for violent conduct (slap to the opponent’s face) and issue a yellow card to the other player for unsporting behavior (tactical holding foul).
While I agree this clearly should have been a red card (yellows were given to Gallardo and Donovan), I have some qualms about some of the statements made here. Specifically, I disagree with “If any of the officials clearly see contact with the hand to the opponent’s face, they must bring the violent action to the referee’s attention if the referee on his own does not identify the offense as a red card.” Well, doesn’t Boyens make contact with Braun’s head in Video Clip 4?
“Notice the eyes and head of the player committing the slap just prior to the hand going back: he looks over his shoulder to see the position of the opponent thereby ensuring the success of his slap. The eye and head movement of the player is a sign that the action was deliberate.”
I don’t see how the AR and 4th official both missed either the contact or its deliberateness, but I think that either must see both, or a discussion must take place, before a red card is issued.