Interesting we are debating the Atl sendoff. But not debating the 18 min decision in Houston. if Kelly is a foul and a send off ..... then what the heck is Houston???
Interesting. Thanks for the cite and totally understand on Kelly's language. Taking the second part of this first, we're in agreement--well, sort of. For me, precisely because the ball is "literally right on" the defender, as you correctly say, at the time of the foul, I just don't have DOGSO, as @sulfur first implied. It's a ball that hasn't been won or possessed by the attacker and the ball isn't even in front of the attacker until he's 3/4 of the way to the ground. So, personally, I think a key component of DOGSO is missing and that's the reason why the defender is challenging for the ball. Technically, that means I don't have any card here and you have yellow (if, of course, you think it's a foul!). So slightly different final result, but we both have no red card if we call the penalty. As to the first part of this section, I'd just quibble over an assessment of something like "two guys battling it out" being used to say it's not a red card. A couple months ago I posted a clip from Germany that I thought was an example of a bad DOGSO red because, like you here, I was going with what I thought was the spirit of the change. It wasn't a push, pull or hold, but it was a challenge from behind into the back (so either "challenge" under that new catch-all foul or a charge, like you say this Atlanta one is) though seemingly done in a desperate attempt to actually get the ball. I was pretty roundly shot down with my thinking. Just because it isn't overtly cynical, doesn't mean it's supposed to not be red. The IFAB had a long time to write this change and they came up with precise language in the Laws themselves. Push/hold/pull is inherently red, but other fouls that don't meet the attempt to play/no possibility of attempt to play the ball are still supposed to be red, even if they aren't transparently cynical. And with that, I just want to reiterate how this foul exposes the difficulties with the change. We have to identify and call the foul, get through the DOGSO considerations (which are hard enough), then classify the foul because certainly classifications are going to be automatic reds, then we have to assess the possibility of playing the ball and determine if there was an attempt to play the ball if we don't classify the foul as hold/push/pull. And we're doing all this in an age where the powers that be want consistency. Depending how you categorize things (ironically enough), we have to make about 8 subjective decisions on potential DOGSOs now. IFAB should have either gone all the way and made everything but handling on the line a yellow card OR not made the change at all. The hybrid system we have today is going to lead to so much inconsistency on one of the biggest calls we have in our game, just at a point where we seemingly were getting more consistency.
I don't think there's much debate. It's just that no one had shared it yet, which would have been helpful for you to do with this post! Here it is, though: http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...o-vs-minnesota-united-fc/details/video/100596 Don't think there's much debate on replay, as this just looks like a miss--and it would have been a red, since the foul was a hold. There was also a goal ruled out at the other end, which should have stood: http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...o-vs-minnesota-united-fc/details/video/100602
Not to belabor this, but if you think the first foul is on the achilles (before the ball arrives) and the subsequent "foul" is doubtful in your mind, why do you clearly have DOGSO?Just based on your description, I thought you were going to say "so yes, foul, but DOGSO isn't there when the foul was committed" (or something like that).
Sorry I could not get the links to post. but if missed why would he wave No Fould or give the get up sign or no foul sign. Yes the offside is missed. Not a good decision for a Trailist.
Sorry. By "miss," I mean they got it wrong--not that they didn't see it. Though perhaps you could argue Sibiga didn't see the hold from behind and didn't get the appropriate help from his AR, so maybe he did actually "miss" it. Who knows? Good point. Looks like there was a last minute AR change here. Mariscal moved to AR1 and Zablocki had AR2.
Back to the Atlanta DOGSO, anyone have no foul at all? The attacker initiates the contact, but was it enough to bail out the defender? If you agree with the referee that there was a foul, what was the specific foul? Kelly called it an "upper body foul" for the pool reporter. While explaining the foul call to the players, he pantomimed putting his arms over someones shoulders as if to pull them down, but that's not really what I think an "upper body foul" would be. For me that sounds like charging, as someone mentioned previously. So if we assume he called charging, was there an opportunity to play the ball? The attacker had position in front of the defender, who challenged from behind. If the opportunity was there, was this a legitimate attempt to play the ball? Personally, I don't see one. Defender just rode the opponent to the ground. In short, if it was pulling/holding, it's definitely red. If you think the defender couldnt challenge for the ball from that position or simply didn't, it's definitely red. In other words, if this is a foul, I think it's definitely red.
Either way, it's rescinded now. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...inds-red-card-atlantas-leandro-gonzalez-pirez
I'm not particularly surprised. It's not a cut and dry decision, and PRO and by extension MLS seem to want yellow if there's any reasonable doubt.
I think its better for them not to, as it could be interpreted as guidance in how to act in those situations, and that should probably come directly from PRO.
One of my biggest problems with MLS in general is the lack of transparency. The DisCo makes a ruling one week and then the next they don't rule on a play that is the same or similar. The IRP rescinds a red card in this case but not in another. It would be better for everyone - referees, players, the league in general - if everyone was on the same page and understood the parameters.
I have long thought that it is nuts to have one group of people responsible for rescinding and a different one for post hoc punishment. That makes it almost impossible to get consistency.
That's crazy. I can't believe they rescinded that. If they did, I hope they did it based on the 4-D's (some how saying that the attacker didn't have the ball), but if they did it based on the yellow/PK direction, they are just plain wrong. At risk of hyperbole, they may as well just say all DOGSO that is a PK is also a yellow. That would make it more simple. If they think that ATL foul counts as an honest attempt to play the ball, they are being deliberately naive.