2017 MLS Week 12 Referee Discussion

Discussion in 'MLS Referee Forum' started by bhooks, May 16, 2017.

  1. bhooks

    bhooks Member

    Apr 14, 2015
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    05/17/2017

    Philadelphia Union v Houston Dynamo
    Talen Energy Stadium (7:30pm ET)
    REF: JORGE GONZALEZ
    AR1: Jason White
    AR2: Logan Brown
    4TH: Mark Geiger

    Chicago Fire v Colorado Rapids
    Toyota Park (8:30pm ET)
    REF: ARMANDO VILLARREAL
    AR1: Corey Parker
    AR2: Peter Balciunas
    4TH: Geoff Gamble

    Sporting Kansas City v Seattle Sounders
    Children's Mercy Park (8:30pm ET)
    REF: TED UNKEL
    AR1: Joe Fletcher
    AR2: Adam Wienckowski
    4TH: Sorin Stoica

    Real Salt Lake v New York City
    Rio Tinto Stadium (9:00pm ET)
    REF: SILVIU PETRESCU
    AR1: Daniel Belleau
    AR2: Ian Anderson
    4TH: Younes Marrakchi

    San Jose Earthquakes v Orlando City
    Avaya Stadium (10:30pm ET)
    REF: DREW FISCHER
    AR1: Frank Anderson
    AR2: Jose Da Silva
    4TH: Dave Gantar

    05/19/2017

    New York Red Bulls v Toronto FC
    Red Bull Arena (7:30pm ET)
    REF: ROBERT SIBIGA
    AR1: Peter Manikowski
    AR2: Claudiu Badea
    4TH: Nima Saghafi

    05/20/2017

    Montreal Impact v Portland Timbers
    Stade Saputo Stadium (3:00pm ET)
    REF: JAIR MARRUFO
    AR1: Kyle Atkins
    AR2: Jeffrey Hosking
    4TH: Rubiel Vazquez

    D.C. United v Chicago Fire
    RFK Stadium (4:00pm ET)
    REF: HILARIO GRAJEDA
    AR1: Danny Thornberry
    AR2: Eric Weisbrod
    4TH: Mark Kadlecik

    Seattle Sounders v Real Salt Lake
    CenturyLink Field (5:00pm ET)
    REF: KEVIN STOTT
    AR1: Cameron Blanchard
    AR2: Felisha Mariscal
    4TH: Alex Chilowicz

    Atlanta United v Houston Dynamo
    Bobby Dodd Stadium (7:00pm ET)
    REF: ALLEN CHAPMAN
    AR1: Jeremy Hanson
    AR2: Nick Uranga
    4TH: Ricardo Salazar

    Vancouver Whitecaps v Sporting Kansas City
    BC Place (7:00pm ET)
    REF: BALDOMERO TOLEDO
    AR1: Mike Rottersman
    AR2: Eduardo Mariscal
    4TH: Baboucarr Jallow

    Philadelphia Union v Colorado Rapids
    Talen Energy Stadium (7:00pm ET)
    REF: JOSE CARLOS RIVERO
    AR1: Craig Lowry
    AR2: Anthony Vasoli
    4TH: Sorin Stoica

    FC Dallas v San Jose Earthquakes
    Toyota Stadium (8:00pm ET)
    REF: ISMAIL ELFATH
    AR1: Jonathan Johnson
    AR2: Kathryn Nesbitt
    4TH: Alejandro Mariscal

    05/21/2017

    New England Revolution v Columbus Crew
    Gillette Stadium (2:30pm ET)
    REF: ALAN KELLY
    AR1: Corey Rockwell
    AR2: Matthew Nelson
    4TH: Marcos DeOliveira

    Minnesota United v LA Galaxy
    TCF Bank Stadium (5:00pm ET)
    REF: CHRIS PENSO
    AR1: Jeff Muschik
    AR2: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho
    4TH: Fotis Bazakos

    Orlando City v New York City
    Orlando City Stadium (7:00pm ET)
    REF: MARK GEIGER
    AR1: Kermit Quisenberry
    AR2: CJ Morgante
    4TH: Caleb Mendez

    http://www.proreferees.com/2017-mls-regular-season-assignments---week-12.php
     
  2. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Juan Guzman is back with a USL assignment this week!
     
  3. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Definitely offside. #44 obstructs the line of vision on the initial shot. AR can't signal that in real time because he has to follow the shot (and he's not supposed to). Rebound goes in and the referee team confers about the initial phase, getting the call right. Hard to tell from clipped highlights if it worked perfectly from a mechanical perspective, but it's 100% the right decision.
     
    usaref repped this.
  5. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member+

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    It's very hard to see, but Red Bulls FW Gonzalo Veron actually blocks the initial shot at the top of the penalty area, so there never should have been an offside whistled in the first place.

    Second, TFC's #44 (Raheem Edwards) is 8 yards away from the keeper. Is he really obstructing the line of vision? I'm not sure I totally agree. In my opinion, the only thing that threw him off on the dive was the slight deflection the ball took on the deliberate attempt by Veron to make a play on the ball and not because someone lifted their foot up on a shot taken 18 yards out.

    On an unrelated note in that same game, a missed foul against Jozy Altidore on D Aaron Long led to a penalty kick. When you go to 0:34 of the link below, you'll see Sibiga has his head barely turned, so he apparently misses the beginning of Jozy clipping the back of the defenders leg and his AR, who is in ideal position, let's him down:

    https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...-red-bulls-vs-toronto-fc/details/video/104278
     
  6. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Dec 10, 2010
    Altoona, IA
    Offside was definitely the call. If I'm ever intending to make an offside call for a player obstructing the line of vision then its pretty much got to be here.

    It is completely understandable why the call came so late too. The center and AR each have one piece of the puzzle and are unable put the puzzle together in real-time. The AR cannot determine line-of-sight but knows he's offside so must chase the next phase of play.

    This thread is bringing back nightmares of self-taught parents who are trying to apply a layperson's definition of "gained an advantage." One must give them kudos for trying though... at least they read the laws.
     
    jarbitro repped this.
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. Why does 8 yards matter? I'm not sure if you're arguing he needs to be closer or further away, in fact. If he's directly in the line of vision, to the point that he needs to jump over a shot, then he's guilty of offside if he's in an OSP. This is one of the more clear-cut examples of the line of vision provision and, frankly, it's a clause that is rarely clear-cut (and still difficult to get right when it is).
     
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Calvert's 2CT in Philadelphia is not something you're going to see everyday.
     
  9. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bunch of Rapids bitching about them and the PK but I can't really see anything that wrong with any of those 3 calls.

    Overall I thought the officiating was poor but it didn't influence the outcome.
     
    SccrDon repped this.
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The PK is 100%.

    There's a level of discretion with the two cards. It's an odd sequence, but Calvert seemingly tied Rivero's hands once he had the first one so in that strict sense, he can't complain. Will be interested to see if PRO says anything. You could either defend both cards as supportable by Law, or possibly suggest different management techniques on the first, which could have thereby prevented the either or both cards.
     
    billf repped this.
  11. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed but some Rapids fans are claiming that the ball never hit his hand/arm. From the center camera angle its hard to know for sure when he rolls over (though it appears to bounce up and fall down on his hand before he rolls over) but the reverse angle repla they showed during the game makes it clear. Admittedly I'm not sure the CR could have seen it from his angle, but good call.

    Hard to know exactly what happened on the first one as the Altitude broadcast was in replay until right before the card was shown but the game log shows it was for dissent. We all know that MLSSoccer.com's reasons are best guesses so it could have also been for time wasting. Either one is justifiable under the rules. The Rapids were time wasting from the moment they scored and since none of us know what was said we have to assume the dissent call was legit (if that was what was called).

    After that the second yellow is textbook.
     
  12. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not a laughable argument, really. This might be a situation where our instructions bind us and prevent us from doing what most expect. Sure, some Rapids' players are closer to the goal than where the foul takes place. But who is going to challenge that shot, which would be from 10 yards away in the center of the goal, before it's taken if the ball isn't handled?

    Probably not a DOGSO under how we are taught. But probably much more likely to be a goal than a lot of OGSOs we do punish. And that's a disconnect between us and players and fans (and commentators).
     
  14. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    His hands are completely tied on the second caution. Has to give it. Only thing you can say is that maybe the AR on that side could have yelled at, maybe possibly grabbed, the Colorado player from running onto the field.

    The first caution is really interesting and really tough. Really tough to deal with.

    Neither the referee or Calvert helped themselves there.

    Calvert was kicked and possibly fouled there. So he genuinely was probably in some pain. At the same time, he could have just rolled over and moved off the field and been treated. If his team was losing there, you can bet he either doesn't go down or rolls over off the pitch.

    I think most of us have been there in that situation. You have guy right on the edge of the pitch down injured and you go and check on him and all of a sudden you here a knucklehead from the other team yelling, "get him off the ********ing field!"

    You don't want to come off as an insensitive and uncaring asshole, but, at the same time, you want to restart the game as soon as possible and not promote time wasting. It's a really fine line there.

    I had a similar situation in an amateur game. Guy got cramps on a hot day and goes down right by the touch line. I ask him politely if he can just crawl across the touch line. He kind of ignores me. I say a little bit more sternly that I'm gonna need you to move off the field. He is still taking his time.

    I'm getting fed up and so is everyone else. I then tell him, "are you seriously hurt and need medical attention or is it just cramps? If it is cramps, I'm gonna need you to get off the pitch. If not, I'm gonna have to give you a yellow card."

    The guy responds, "******** you give me a yellow card." I give him a red and needless to say, the rest of the game didn't go so well."

    Again, first caution is really tough. Rivero has a responsibility to not allow delay here, but, at the same time, he doesn't want to be an insensitive prick.

    I know PRO had a point of emphasis on this at camp. They showed a clip of a Portland player down for cramps on a game in Houston right on the touch line by the bench. He just laid there waiting for "treatment." It took like three minutes to restart the game.
     
    MetroFever repped this.
  15. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    ???

    Blocking shot = save and dies not reset OS.
     
  16. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the issue some Rapids fans are having is that the ref determined that Calvert was injured enough to call for the trainer. But then he was ready to card him almost as soon as Calvert was well enough to stand up. That said Calvert did jaw with the ref a bit before being carded (instead of moving off the field) and multiple Rapids had been warned about time wasting before this incident.
     
  17. rh89

    rh89 Member

    Sep 29, 2015
    OR
  18. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    I thought it was pretty clear that ball ends up behind the attacker if it's not handled. I thought the commentator was simply saying a blatant handling offense in the PA should be a red when he says "you can't play the ball on the ground with your hands like that". Makes a *bit* more sense if he was thinking DOGSO.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  19. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
  20. jdmahoney

    jdmahoney Member

    Feb 28, 2017
    Plymouth, MN
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Another example of using the vanishing spray to keep players away during a discussion w/the AR was seen today in the Minnesota-Galaxy match by Penso. I really like the use of this tactic as it helps defray chaos when you need to discuss a play with your AR.
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You might be right about the thought process of the commentator.

    I would still argue that, at the moment the defender first handles the ball, he's practically denied an OGSO. But I would also concede it would be difficult to justify in the Laws and most certainly frowned upon based on USSF and PRO instruction.
     
  22. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One of the stranger, and to be honest dumbest, red I have seen in person.
     
    SccrDon and JasonMa repped this.
  23. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The AR was telling Calvert he could not enter and to go around the corner flag up towards midfield. You just cannot let an attacker enter the field in his attacking end behind play like that. The player was upset about the first incident and the caution and either deliberately ignored the AR or misinterpreted his instructions. I understood what was going on from the other side of the stadium so...
     
    RedStar91 and JasonMa repped this.
  24. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's basically what I assumed had happened. There's no way he could have been told to re-enter since he was over the goal line, and they're not going to let him on unless he moves closer to midfield, not to mention he could never have re-entered over the goal line with the ball in play anyway.
     
    billf repped this.
  25. oldmanreferee

    oldmanreferee Member

    Dec 28, 2005
    Mountain View, ca
    So if someone steps over the spray and enters your discussion what is the action that results in crossing the line??
     

Share This Page