Wednesday's knockout round assignments have been posted. http://www.proreferees.com/2016-mls-cup-playoffs---knockout-round-assignments.php If the same pattern is followed as pretty much has been under PRO where the MLS Cup Final referee does one of the "play-in/knockout games" then all signs point to Kelly getting the MLS Cup. Since PRO took over, every referee who has done the Final was on a first knockout stage game.
he is a lock for final. They wanting him to do final last year but CBA blocked that. On separate note any ideas of game times on sunday which conference is which?
Best for the game, but Altidore climbed the perimeter wall to celebrate the final Toronto goal with fans and Toledo opted against a second caution Video should eventually be here http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...-fc-vs-philadelphia-union/details/video/92166
Curious about the game times as well. Was very unimpressed with Kelly tonight. But everyone is saying he gets the Final no matter what? Seems an odd way to do things.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/...toronto-instant-replay-ko-round?autoplay=true Borg literally has an additional 3 PKs, 2 2nd YCs, 2 offside goals, and 1 RC Respectively, referees had 0 PKs, 0 2nd YCs, 0 offside goals (because they were very close), and 1 YC If any referee had done what Borg lays out in his video, it would be described as the worst-refereed playoff game in history. Note the actions of Barnetta with Toledo after Altidore scores the 3rd TFC goal. Barnetta thought there was a foul back at midfield by Altidore. Barnetta had gone down easily all game long. He then started giving Toledo the business like a baseball player who just got called out on strikes. It's brief in all the angles and on the broadcast, but it's very aggressive. And it gives Toledo the perfect excuse if someone complains: "I didn't see Altidore in the stands because your guy was yapping at me." Plus, in all seriousness, Altidore's actions do not equal a YC in MLS, historically. Lambeau leaps have always been allowed/tolerated as long as the player doesn't go into the stands or delay excessively. Re: MLS Cup, the gambling companies across the pond stopped taking bets on that sometime during 2015. Done deal. No one will remember Kelly's performance last night in a few weeks anyway.
You're taking that way too literally. Of course, if he has a string of historically bad games in the playoffs, he won't do the finals. But based on his body of work during the season, he's the clear favorite to get it unless something monumental happens.
The only thing that Borg points out that I can't excuse/justify is the non 2YC to Phillips. I admittedly didn't see the match, so don't have context about what else was let go. But I just don't see how that isn't a yellow in any game, at every level, regardless of what else has gone on. Every other decision he takes exception with is either debatable, defensible, or just flat-out appropriate/correct.
He won't have another playoff match before MLS Cup, unless PRO deviates from what they've done since PRO has taken charge. If a knockout round ref gets MLS Cup (2012, 2014, 2015) then that match and MLS Cup are the only two matches they work. The only exception was 2013, when Grajeda had a first round, first leg match and then did MLS Cup--still, he only did two playoff matches. If we see Kelly before MLS Cup, it's potentially an indication that everyone is wrong. No, based on his body of work in 2014 and 2015 and the fact that he was ineligible for the playoffs then and PRO/MLS want to show off their international hire/success, he's the indisputable favorite. I would argue others have been better this year. Penso and Fischer, in particular, I thought have been excellent (leaving aside referees that have already had MLS Cup, who also would be in the running).
Or an indication that they've come to their senses and are giving who they consider the best ref more playoff games.
Do you think he already knows he is getting the final? Would seem a little mean to not give the guy games for two weeks and have him waiting all that time.
"Come to their senses?" Let me get this straight. You are arguing Kelly is the best referee and deserves MLS Cup. You also said that the only way he could lose MLS Cup is if he has a "string of historically bad games in the playoffs." You then argue it's sensible to give him those more games and therefore run the risk of him having the very set of bad performances that you just said would make him ineligible for the game. Huh? Unless your argument is that, since Kelly is the best referee, he therefore should work every round and every leg of the playoffs and that using anything but the absolute mathematical minimum for referees in the playoffs is the wrong move, then you're not making any sense. Because you just admitted that he could screw up along the way and then force MLS to use what you consider to be an inferior referee on the championship match.
No. Nothing is written in stone. And, while even I ascribe to the belief that is espoused in the first few posts above, stranger things have happened. There actually are a couple reasons why Kelly wouldn't or shouldn't get MLS Cup. But I think those factors are outweighed heavily by the desire to put him on MLS Cup (and the desire from last year to put him on MLS Cup).
Also, "who they consider the best ref" doesn't always get MLS Cup. No referee has gotten MLS Cup back-to-back. I find it difficult to imagine that the responsible assignor has never felt someone was the best referee two years in a row. There are many other factors that go into such an assignment other than "who is the best?"
I'm arguing that the best ref should get more games. Practically speaking, one game in each round seams reasonable. And the possibility of him being so bad that he needs to be replaced in the finals is a minuscule risk that I'd gladly take.
Except if he gets the conference final first and screws it up, right? I'm sorry, but your statements on assigning professional matches are just overly simplistic and ignore outside factors and implications that are very real. Even this statement, that the "best ref" should get the final every year, leaves so many questions to be answered. Who is making that determination? Just one person? If so, and that person has a favorite, what real motivation do the other referees have? If it's a committee, what happens when that committee isn't reaching a consensus on who is the best? And what happens when the "best" referee's only terrible match all season happened to completely and utterly screw over one of the teams in MLS Cup? What if the best referee overall (let's say based on assessment scores) failed his final three matches of the season but still had the best overall average score? What happens if the best referee had a terrible match in the previous year's final? "All things being equal, the best referee should get the championship match each year" is a defensible statement. It's a defensible statement that I would still take issue with, because if there's not much difference between your top few referees, I think it's an honor that should be open to more than one person at any given time. But ignoring my own differing opinion for a moment, all things aren't ever equal. There are so many real-life factors that go into assigning other than a simple and subjective assessment of merit.
Why not one game each leg? Why should the playoff teams have inferior referees on a leg where the best referee is available? I give up. If you think that's true, not only are we never going to see eye-to-eye, but I question how much you pay attention to the attention professional referees can get for their performances in major matches.
@akindc, this isn't NISOA. This is professional soccer. You're advocating for the method that was used for the first 15 years of the league, where they could only "trust" a handful of guys with the important games. What happens when those guys get hurt, retire, or decide to move to a foreign country? This has been widely cited in referee circles and in some public articles: in 2010 the average age of an MLS referee (whistle) was 41 years old. Average. There is no way a professional league can sustain referee growth for itself, let alone have its Federation develop referees if that is the average age of your referees. For 2011, Herb Silva & Asher Mendolsohn (the guys in charge of USSF at the time) decided to invest in the future & gave a bunch of new referees 10 games each that year (paging @ManiacalClown). If you break it down, each team got the same number of games with new referees. From memory, that list included Penso, Guzman, Kadlecik, Elias Bazakos, and several others. In 2012, PRO came around & gave the following referees their first middle: F Bazakos, Chapman, Elfath, Fischer, Rivero, Stoica, & Villareal. Now, you've still got your handful+ of people you can "trust" with a big game that were there prior to 2011, such as Stott, Toledo, Marrufo, Geiger, Grajeda, Salazar, and even Petrescu. Which way would you like to have it: your way, where Tamberino, Okulaja, & Prus handle everything that needs handling, or the current way where referees get a wide variety of big experiences so that they can be ready when their time comes? I don't care whether you're assigning the local recreational league, your thoughts make zero sense.
Steve Olsen got MLS Cup in '96 & '97 Craig Lowry got it in '99 & '00 Quisenberry got it in '04 & '05 Morgante got it in '09 & '10 Lowry got it in '10 & '11 and, as previously noted, Manikowski got it in '14 & '15 Try to keep up
I'm not sure what you're arguing here...that every MLS ref should have an equal crack at the playoffs? I think PRO is doing a great job of adding younger talent, but at the end of the season you pick your best crews for the playoffs.
2011: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y4rmk226dfe5cyr/2011.txt?dl=0 2012: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6izl8y703wobjb0/2012.txt?dl=0 Sent from my 2PS64 using Tapatalk
I'm blasting apart your stated argument that the referee you have penciled in for MLS Cup should be doing a game each round, and your implied argument that they should do the entire playoffs with 4 guys. You said it best: "your best crews"...as in plural It's not about adding younger talent. It's about giving that talent opportunities on important games throughout the season and in the playoffs. That creates a good product going forward. Assigning is an investment, unless you're just in it for the quick pay check at your local club. Referees can't develop if you make them max out at U14 because your club has a guy who can handle the U16s already.