The assignments for the Knockout Round of the 2017 MLS Playoffs are: 10/25/2017 Chicago Fire v New York Red Bulls Toyota Park (8:30PM ET) REF: ISMAIL ELFATH AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Ian Anderson 4TH: Silviu Petrescu VAR: Edvin Jurisevic Vancouver Whitecaps v San Jose Earthquakes BC Place Stadium (10:30PM ET) REF: JOSE CARLOS RIVERO AR1: Adam Wienckowski AR2: CJ Morgante 4TH: Baldomero Toledo VAR: Dave Gantar 10/26/2017 Atlanta United v Columbus Crew Mercedes-Benz Stadium (7:00PM ET) REF: ALLEN CHAPMAN AR1: Jeremy Hanson AR2: Andrew Bigelow 4TH: Chris Penso VAR: Fotis Bazakos Houston Dynamo v Sporting Kansas City BBVA Compass Stadium REF: MARK GEIGER AR1: Joe Fletcher AR2: Mike Rottersman 4TH: Hilario Grajeda VAR: Juan Guzman Jr http://proreferees.com/2017/10/24/mls-assignments-playoffs-knockout-round/
Just tuned in to the Chicago Fire v. NY Red Bulls match. The first thing I noticed is that Ismail Elfath yellow jersey is super close to NY Red Bulls yellow sleeves, yellow shorts. However, I haven't watched any minutes of the match though.
They really should have used a fourth color shirt tonight. Green would have been perfect. As it was, red was obviously out, and blue matched the away kits even more than yellow.
I agree too why not green? one of the goal-keepers were green but yeah at that level I don't think that's an issue. Idk what it looked like in the stadium or in person.
Meant to say "could have used." I believe there are only three colors this year. Like I said, green would be a helpful addition.
Elfath completely ignores a fairly obvious VC kick out from Robles while he is on the ground. Already had a foul coming out so it wouldn't have changed the restart but certainly could have changed the outcome. He's right there looking right at it.
Stuart Holden said Robles deserved a straight red. He kicked out, but how well could he have seen where opponents were while he was down? At 67:05 a player dropped the ball behind him as he was attempting a throw-in. I don't know if any part of the ball went in (above the field) in that process. The player was given another throw-in. If a throw-in goes in play and out of play without being touched, what is the restart?
What, pray tell, was he kicking at if not the opponent? And why does it matter what he can see? GK was pissed that he got hammered and lashed out. (My guess on why there was no send off is that the R was looking for retaliation by field players coming in to protect their GK and didn't have a good view of the lash out.)
I really hope you are saying that without having seen the video. Otherwise, you're crazy. Robles knew exactly where he was. R was in perfect position and should have only had eyes on the GK and attacker who committed the foul as they are both on the ground in close proximity and it is both the player who fouled and got fouled. Even if your hypothesis is correct that the R is looking at other field players and missed it, three letters for you: V A R
I watched the entire thing, with the 3 replay angles, on MLS Live. He kicked at him, yes. But the reaction from Joao Meira is ridiculous. This is one of those tough ones. We sit here and can say that kicking at an opponent during a stoppage is always violent conduct and always a red card, regardless of the result. And that's a position that FIFA has seemed to hold and instruct very stringently until perhaps the last WC (Beckham got sent off in 1998 for a slightly more aggressive kick than what Robles did last night). If we vow to always referee by the book, then sure, Robles has to go and Elfath had a bad miss. But Joao Meira here has committed an unnecessary foul and is awkwardly falling on/near the keeper (not really "on," but he's making contact with him as he goes down). Is a petulant kick, that does no damage and is not really "violent" in the commonly accepted sense of the word enough to throw Robles out--particularly when Elfath would see with his own eyes how over-the-top the reaction is? If you get a chance to see all replays, focus on the one from behind the net and watch Joao Meria's reaction--it's abundantly clear that he's reacting in order to get Robles sent off. Do we reward that behavior? If we go back to my above paragraph and referee by the book, we're not "rewarding behavior," but just punishing the action. That's all well and good in theory, but the practical reality is that for every Stuart Holden who looks at 3 replays and says "yes, that's a red card," there will be 100 other casual observers of the game who say "wow, what an overreaction--the referee got conned." Is Elfath being discussed more this morning if he throws Robles out or if he manages the situation and tells Joao Meira to get up? The answer to that question is obvious, of course. Now, it doesn't make it right, but this is one of the reasons the top levels of professional soccer are different from everything else. And I don't mean to excuse obvious violent conduct--I'm just arguing there's a difference between "satisfies the LOTG definition for violent conduct" and "clear and obvious violent conduct." And I use that last phrase deliberately. I'm sure Jurisevic saw everything we saw on VR and was able to have a quick conversation with Elfath. If they confirm that he saw what he saw and opted to manage the situation without punishing Robles, that's the end of the story. This or similar plays may get a red card in a lot of situations, but there's absolutely no way deciding to not punish Robles here will ever be a clear and obvious error for a VAR (which, as I will always point out, just reinforces how these "objective VR situations are really subjective).
After Acosta was sent off for less on Sunday I think Robles is insane for doing what he did. But the Chicago player definitely should have been cautioned for the initial foul.
I would take great issue with the idea Acosta did less. That aside; a referee that only assesses such actions outside the immediate context, including the attitude of the involved players, is asking for trouble. But I don’t think these are points where I’ll sway you.
As is a ref that looks for too much context. You make an interesting and well argued rationalization for not giving the RC, while minimizing the fact that Robles clearly kicked out at an opponent.
I would argue pretty strongly that, at the professional level, a referee who looks for too much context will fare better than one who ignores all context. But, yes, extremism in either direction is often going to lead to bad results. And I didn't mean to minimize the fact that Robles kicked at his opponent; in fact, it was the first thing I said after stipulating I was able to watch the replays. I was just trying to, well, contextualize it.
Sure, and I think your thinking is exactly what PRO would want in this context. My thinking is, in the regular season, this is a RC, and in the playoffs, this is ignored.
I think that if the only change you make to this incident is to place it in the regular season, this incident gets ignored more often than not then, too. Change the referee and you've got a better argument--playoffs or not. But I think most PRO referees aren't going red here (again, in this exact scenario). The big question is whether or not PRO would identify this as a KMI and score it accordingly.
I think that's true. GK's are allowed to get away with a lot more than regular old players for some reason. That probably plays a bigger part in the equation than the playoffs. But I would imagine that factors into it too. I'm not necessarily saying Robles should have been sent off for this. A caution or even a stern talking to would have made sense (even though I don't believe he got even that). But I do think he was being incredibly dumb given what just happened right in front of him 3 days ago.
Bad offside call canceled out a Crew goal last night. Luckily they went on to win, or this would have been a big talking point today. http://www.espnfc.us/video/mls-high...w-sc-robbed-of-goal-on-erroneous-offside-call Ball played to Crew player on top of screen:
There was another interesting play in that game early second half where Columbus took a short goal kick, and one of the Atlanta players clearly cut across the penalty area (while the ball was still within the area) to challenge the Columbus player, and that Columbus player kicked the ball out for a throw-in because of the challenge. Should've been a re-take of the goal kick instead of giving Atlanta a pretty darned good scoring chance. Edit: Fix the opposing team... Atlanta, not SKC. *sigh*