04/07/2017 LA Galaxy v Montreal Impact StubHub Center (10:30pm ET) REF: ARMANDO VILLARREAL AR1: Jonathan Johnson AR2: Richard Gamache 4TH: Younes Marrakchi 04/08/2017 Chicago Fire v Columbus Crew Toyota Park (2:00pm ET) REF: ALAN KELLY AR1: Matthew Nelson AR2: Eric Weisbrod 4TH: Sorin Stoica New England Revolution v Houston Dynamo Gillette Stadium (2:00pm ET) REF: SILVIU PETRESCU AR1: Gianni Facchini AR2: Craig Lowry 4TH: Jose Carlos Rivero D.C. United v New York City RFK Stadium (4:00pm ET) REF: DREW FISCHER AR1: Claudiu Badea AR2: Jeff Muschik 4TH: Mark Kadlecik Philadelphia Union v Portland Timbers Talen Energy Stadium (7:00pm ET) REF: ROBERT SIBIGA AR1: Adam Wienckowski AR2: Kyle Longville 4TH: Jorge Gonzalez Toronto FC v Atlanta United BMO Field (7:30pm ET) REF: DAVE GANTAR AR1: Philippe Briere AR2: Jason White 4TH: Geoff Gamble FC Dallas v Minnesota United Toyota Stadium (8:00pm ET) REF: CHRIS PENSO AR1: Brian Poeschel AR2: Jose Da Silva 4TH: Rubiel Vazquez Real Salt Lake v Vancouver Whitecaps Rio Tinto Stadium (9:30pm ET) REF: BALDOMERO TOLEDO AR1: Corey Parker AR2: Kevin Klinger 4TH: Fotis Bazakos San Jose Earthquakes v Seattle Sounders Avaya Stadium (10:30pm ET) REF: RICARDO SALAZAR AR1: Kathryn Nesbitt AR2: Logan Brown 4TH: Younes Marrakchi 04/09/2017 Orlando City v New York Red Bulls Orlando City Stadium (4:00pm ET) REF: ISMAIL ELFATH AR1: Kermit Quisenberry AR2: Peter Balciunas 4TH: Ted Unkel Sporting Kansas City v Colorado Rapids Children's Mercy Park (7:00pm ET) REF: ALLEN CHAPMAN AR1: Peter Manikowski AR2: Nick Uranga 4TH: Caleb Mendez http://www.proreferees.com/2017-mls-regular-season-assignments---week-6.php
Argh ... is it just my #ATLUTD goggles that made the send off of Asad look as terrible as it did to me?
Salazar seems to be struggling in SJ-SEA. Inconsistent foul threshold, barking (and at a couple of points, yelling) at players, etc...
Look, if you're trying to get around an opponent, there's typically a way to do it without giving them a forearm to the head well away from the ball.
Sibiga had a weird one yesterday, First there was the penalty he gave I'm told was Blake who took down the Portland player outside the box, Blake was booked and penalty given (could have been red?). I thought it was actually Fabinho who took the player down, which would have been red and penalty. A replay was shown and suddenly Sibiga went over to talk to the 4th official and AR on other side of stadium (as far as i know the AR who should have seen wasn't involved in the discussion). I'd guess to talk about the replay, and as you can't use that to influence a decision gave penalty? The really weird one was late in the game. He showed Onyewu a yellow then red card, but Onyewu stayed on the field and someone else was shown a yellow too. The MLS site doesn't give info on the other yellow, but no idea what happened with Onyewu unless he thought it was a 2nd yellow? It was also a long time after the foul he gave the cards, hopefully not taking any injury into consideration. For what it's worth I thought he missed a stone wall penalty earlier in 2nd half when I thought Adi was taken down in the box. Still really confused with what happened with Onyewu though.
I think the snow started right around kickoff and for the whole first half it didn't stick to the field. It was only the second half that got really crazy. And I suppose once they started the match they weren't going to stop it.
I think Sibiga got the penalty correct. Blake was at fault, and the location is tricky. When the hand hits the foot, it's just outside the area, but continues into the area. If you define it as holding, and it continues into the area, it's a PK. Regardless, I think it's a great chance to do a yellow card DOGSO and not a red card. But that's just me, a bit biased in favor of Portland getting 3 points. The Onyewu thing was weird. No idea.
But if you define it as holding it has to be a red card. I thought the location call was good, regardless of the type of foul--way too close to criticize. That said, I'm surprised no one has questioned the yellow. If it's a hold, it's red. If it's a challenge or trip with no real chance to play the ball, it's red. Sure, Blake had a chance to play the ball initially. But he reached out to grab the attacker once he knew he was beaten and had no chance to get the ball with the action that actually constituted a foul. I don't fault Sibiga as I think this is the call PRO wants. I just wonder if it's what the IFAB wants.
Very interesting. Two things on this: 1) PRO has a very thorough presentation here, but they confuse the issue on the key point. The article says (my emphasis underlined): But that's not how the Law is worded. The Law says a player is cautioned unless he does either of those things. That means that both conditions have to be satisfied to stay with the default position of a yellow card. If Sibiga is only satisfied that one of those conditions is met, the Laws say it's a red card. Yet PRO presents it by saying you stay with a yellow card if one of the two conditions is met. That's wrong. I hope it's only a mistake in presentation, rather than a mistake in interpretation. 2) Fascinating that PRO backs the call, yet concedes in slow motion it appears Blake was not trying to play the ball. That opens up the door to an implication that this play was correctly called on the field, but would have had a different result with VAR (notwithstanding the clauses in the VAR protocol about when to rely on slow motion).
I think Sibiga and crew got this call correct. The PRO article needs some proofreading. One more confusing passage in their explaination: "The general philosophy on this Law, as explained by The IFAB (International Football Association Board), is that if the referee is unsure whether the player has made an attempt, or if there is no possibility of the defender playing the ball, the referee should err on the side of a yellow card rather than red card."
I didn't want to be cynical and shout out cover up but I think you may have predicted they would lean this way earlier this year. This feels very political and has the smell of pressure for yellows over reds coming from somewhere else. *cough* MLS *cough*
While framed with an "or" in the LOTG bullet, I don't really see two separate considerations. I see the second "no possibility" as really informing the first "attempt to play the ball" -- if there is no possibility of getting to the ball, there can't really be an attempt to do so. In my mind, the intent of the bullet is to view the scenario holistically, not as two separate considerations. The sentence in the POTW I am not fond of is this one: "The Law does not require a judgement as to how good of an attempt it was to play the ball." I think Law 12 sorta does do that in saying there has to be a possibility to get the ball. At the end of the day, I'm OK with a caution here (but would be OK with a send off as well, as I think it is very close -- and I note that PRO never says it was the decision that had to be made. The GK flings himself at the ball and can't get there. I'm comfortable with the concept (which the POTW attributes to IFAB) that where nothing indicates a cynical, non-soccer play, err on the side of a caution on these plays. (And I think it is wholly inappropriate to try to tease out in slow-mo that there was something more there.)
I really don't follow this reasoning. At the assuredly high risk of entering into a grammatical debate or analysis of syntax... If the second component of that bullet informed the first, why wouldn't the sentence say something like "including situations when there is no possibility to play the ball?" There are many ways to construct that sentence where it makes it clear that one thing is being talked about without using the word "or." But "or" is there in black and white. Notwithstanding whether you're right or wrong, PRO's explanation that I quoted above uses "either" and "or" in a way that shows they think there are two separate considerations. The sentence I quoted literally says that Sibiga might have went yellow simply because there was a possibility to play the ball. And that's the problem in my eyes.
Maybe it's just me. But I don't think careful reading of syntax has ever been particularly useful in understanding what IFAB is really trying to say. Were I a betting man, I'd bet that the bullet was originally written with just the attempt to play. Then there was a discussion about what that meant, as players will always say they tried to get the ball. Some on the committee said if you can't get to the ball, it's not an attempt. Others said, but what will the refs call. So the or part got added in to make it clear that what they really meant was an honest attempt to play on the ball. Be that as it may, I agree that IFAB expects the player to be attempting to get the ball and to have a chance to do so. And though I thought it could have been more clearly written, I didn't read the POTW as trying to say anything different.
Couple thoughts: Personally, I think the IFAB would have wanted red for Blake. That's a hold, IMO, and regardless I felt that there was no attempt to play the ball. That said, MLS probably doesn't want a red there so PRO doesn't want a red there, and perhaps for good reason. It's convoluted enough of a situation to err on the side of caution, literally. Also had a good laugh at Montreal's failed appeal against the Donadel red. Puh-leeze.