2017 MLS Week 20 Referee Discussion

Jallow is 4th in Seattle tomorrow, 4th in Orlando on Friday, and 4th in Vancouver on Sunday. Does someone need to get a map for PRO headquarters? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

In unrelated (or possibly related) news, Gonzales Jr. gets his first MLS match as a 4th in New England this weekend. My understanding is that the Gold Cup, planned vacations, international friendlies, and a crowded MLS calendar meant PRO had to move outside the regular roster for this week. While it might be a one-off assignment, Gonzales Jr. will probably be a name you see in the VAR assignments soon and MLS generally in future seasons.

 

I know where he's based. It doesn't matter (and it's sort of the whole point--see below). You have two cross-country flights with no rest days. What if he has to step in? What if there are flight issues?

I know there were other factors this week. But the only reason to work someone three matches like this, with two in his home region, is to save the local travel costs. PRO pays for one round trip ticket to get three games covered, rather than sending someone else to Vancouver Sunday (if you stipulate that Jallow is needed in Orlando Friday). It's a minor detail, but it shows how cheap PRO tends to be.

 

I have some questions (not complaints, just curiosities) about the process, but the important thing is that the call was right. #14, the goalscorer, is in front of the ball and his teammate, #19, when the crucial touch comes. I know our angle isn't the best, but I think from the parallel lines on the field this is pretty certain--look at how far #14 is extended into the goal area at the point #19 heads the ball.

If I were guessing, I'd imagine the confusion came because Thornberry is looking through #19's body when the ball ricochets off #14 into the net. If he isn't sure the final touch came from #14, rather than a deflection of the goalkeeper, that would prompt the need for the conference (though it could--maybe should?--have been done over the mics in this case).

I don't think a professional AR would have questions about #19 being offside there, so I wouldn't agree with the explanation above about that. But I could be wrong.

 

No comments on the Portland-RSL match? Three red cards from Toledo.

 

Uh, you realize #14 is like 3 feet off the ground in that photo, right?

You picked a photo that shows the offside line at a 90 degree angle and two-dimensionally. It couldn't possibly be more favorable to #14 and, still, it only shows him as being even.

 

A caution was given, and I think it's correct. It's desperate, but it's an attempt to play the ball in my eyes.

 

Yeah, my only question is whether or not Toledo sends off Beckerman without Adi's reaction. Yes, he whistles after Adi stops, so he recognized the foul. And it's an elbow/forearm at the ribs. But I don't know if it rises to the level of VC on its own.

Yes. This could be a problem for Beckerman:

Here's @KyleBeckerman seeming to spit in the direction of a referee... pic.twitter.com/72ccudXwj6

— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) July 20, 2017

 

Meh. You could give it and you couldn't. In a match with a single caution for dissent, would anyone really be asking for it if Sarvas wasn't the one on the yellow already and/or Lodeiro reacted the way he did?

This is an example of what makes soccer refereeing both difficult for referees and maddening for players/fans. There are plenty of situations where managing Sarvass kick without a card would be lauded by most, but because Lodeiro reacts and because Sarvas is on a yellow, you get questions about why both aren't sent off. It's sort of the opposite result of the Beckerman/Adi situation, when you think about it.

 

I had edited my post, apparently during your reply, to say "managing" because "ignore" was too strong. But, the short answer is still "no," because I didn't say that and, quite frankly, you seem to be making up a couple key facts.

First, he kicked the ball into him. He did not kick him.

Second, if the whistle has gone before the kick of the ball happens, it's by milliseconds, so it's wrong to say play was stopped. Could Sarvas be expected to anticipate the whistle for the foul? Maybe. And was the kick unnecessary regardless, given where the ball was going? Of course. But play wasn't stopped when he started to kick the ball.

If a player deliberately kicks another play while play is stopped, it should almost always be a red card. But there's a lot more nuance here. I might still have a yellow card, depending on many other factors. I'm just saying you wouldn't always have a card for this, so Stott's call is defensible--just as a 2CT would be defensible. But very few people would be raising this if Lodeiro didn't react and if Sarvas wasn't the only player in the match on a yellow. Let's pretend for a moment that neither of those things were true and the only thing that happened here is the foul call and Sarvas' kick...

Stott recognizes what's happening, rushes in, pulls Sarvars aside, tells him that he's lucky he only kicked the ball and he's cutting him a break because it was just as the whistle went. But that's the end of his rope and his final warning. Would people say Stott blew the call? Would some--perhaps many--praise his management techniques? I think so. Not saying it's what I would do or that it would always be the right answer. I'm just saying this is a borderline decision where a referee has options and the only reason anyone is complaining is because Lodeiro then got himself sent off and a yellow for Sarvas would have evened things up. Hey, maybe that's a reason to send Sarvas (see Toledo/Beckerman above). But not all referees think the same on things like this.

 

Yes, but not everything done to antagonize an opponent always rises to the level of misconduct.

Mostly yes. Sometimes a player will do that to be a pain if, let's say, Lodeiro had gone down without a foul being called. Still done to antagonize, but done while the ball is in play.

Okay, and that's my big point here. If it can be managed without the retaliation, then a referee has a big question to answer about how he should handle given the retaliation. There's no official playbook for this type of thing and, again, given the similarities in the incidents you can easily argue Stott and Toledo took diametrically opposite approaches.

Well, that sounds like you have issues with the officiating outside this play, which I can't comment on.