That's not what the LOTG says though: "uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to the goalkeeper with the head..."
...in order to circumvent the Law (specifically the part of Law 12 that concerns back passes). That's the key. If it never touches his foot, there's no Law to circumvent because it's only a foul to handle a back pass that is kicked (assuming the other criteria are also met).
It’s worth noting that not a single referee working a middle tonight was an MLS regular 15 months ago (Gantar is a bit of an exception—veteran, but I wouldn’t say regular). I don’t think you’ve ever been able to say that with a full slate of Saturday matches before. PRO was slow with it, but has caught up. The changing of the guard is occurring. Granted international duty forced the issue a lot this weekend, but the fact that PRO could cope without notice or reaching too much says a lot.
Tim Ford had as easy of a SFP red card against Kristian Nemeth as you'll ever see in the SKC-Whitecaps match. I'm a SKC fan, and I have absolutely zero issues with the send-off. That was a very bad tackle and could have easily broken Felipe's leg.
I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that it must touch the player's foot to be considered an issue here... nothing in Law says that it must. Why is it consistently penalized (appropriately) around the world, even when it never touches the foot/ankle (not that we see it often, but still...)? In this case, I lean toward "trickery" because the player goes to ground to head it to the GK. If the player's already on the ground, then I have no issue with this. But... instead of touching it back with his feet, he goes to ground to head it back.
"An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: ... it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate ..."
I was doing a 2 man years back and the other referee tried to pull this. He blew for a foul as a player was shooting. The ball went in the net. He tried to pretend the whistle was for the goal and not the foul which he gave advantage on. I was 100% sure that wasn't what happened and even saw the defenders relax a bit. Defenders were livid. After a useless discussion with him, I took the ball, set it down at the spot of the foul and told them to take their free kick. Attackers were okay with it. They understood. Other ref was so pissed. Didn't talk to me the rest of the night (still had another game together.) In the end, if I hadn't done that it would have been chalked up to referee error.
It's late and this is the only reference I can find at the moment, but I do recall this being considered trickery in official documentation years back. http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/trickery-yes/ "Trickery is any contrived scheme or unnatural way of playing the ball in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of Law 12 when passing the ball to the goalkeeper. Examples of trickery include a player who deliberately flicks the ball with the foot up to the head, so as to head the ball to the goalkeeper, or a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with the knee or head." Bottom line is that is that it is the intent of the play that matters. In this case, the player intentionally circumvented the laws by kneeling down and heading the ball to the keeper. It is a judgment call as there are legitimate cases where a defender heads the ball to his keeper and it's not trickery. I think in this case it's hard to argue that though.
The trickery mentioned here was to be applied to when the player uses their head to avoid the consequences of the defender passing from their foot to their GK. Defender's foot -> defender's head -> goalkeeper's hands. It has always been allowed for a ball coming over the top to be tapped to the GK with any part of the body other than the foot, and I believe you wouldn't blink at that. You should explore why this is a problem for you now. Attacker shoots and a save is made the goalkeeper. We consider "last touch" for purposes of offside determination to be the attacker's touch. It's the same for this. Attacker shoots, defender uses their head to get it to the goalkeeper. There's no defender's foot to trick!
I genuinely can’t believe this is still a serious discussion. Not only did no one want or expect this, it’s also not a violation. You have two very good reasons not to call anything here. And absolutely no reason to do so.
Has this changed over the years? I know for certain, and can several old references, 10 years ago that this was specifically considered trickery. I hung up the whistle several years ago so am just trying to understand. The wording back then was, "such as......kneeling and deliberately pushing the ball to the goalkeeper with his head or knee -- he must be cautioned for ungentlemanly conduct"
Outstanding DOGSO red from Sibiga today. RBNY's Tim Parker held back Jozef Martinez when he was in on goal. Sibiga let it play out, but Martinez was off balance and couldn't get a good shot off so he brought it back for the foul at the top of the area. Everyone's confused, of course, but that's excellent work from the crew.
Just before half in LA-COL Fischer goes to VAR for a potential red on LA's Polenta for stepping on the ankle of COL's Nicholson Biased Rapids fan here, but seemed like a solid red to me. But then I'm not longer sure what's a red in this league since it seems to vary depending on what team is involved.
This is a tough one for me because Polenta steps on Nicholson's Achilles, which is extremely dangerous. The question I suppose is whether he could have known and whether he could have avoided it. He certainly doesn't seem to adjust his steps or otherwise go out of the way to make the contact in the same way as Arriola last night for DC at HOU. The referee clearly felt that his actions were reckless when watching it live and felt that assessment wasn't clearly and obviously wrong after looking at the video. My issue would be if you feel his actions rise to the level of misconduct, it's hard to ignore that point of contact. If you felt it was incidental and unavoidable because Nicholson slides in and Polenta has nowhere to go, why is it even a foul? After all, sometimes shit happens, and it's no one's fault. I'm interested to see what PRO has to say, and if they don't support the referee's final decision, I have to imagine they're looking for Serious Foul Play and not Violent Conduct like Arriola and Fabian.
He does seem to look down and not make any attempt to change his placement or ease up on it. Not that that itself is definitive but it doesn't help.
John Strong was surprised at the red, but I agree it was DOGSO. I've read about the triple punishment and if DOGSO should always be a straight red. If DOGSO is still always a straight red, it was the correct call. Strong said Sibiga has given 6 reds in 11 games this year after giving 6 reds in 27 games last year. MLS says the Red Bulls have 3 wins and 2 draws in their last 5 games with red cards.
There is now the possibility of a DOGSO yellow - but it's meant to avoid a triple punishment of red, suspension, PK for a stupid tackle in the box. That was a purposeful takedown DOGSO outside the box. No PK, so I'm pretty sure the options were red DOGSO outside the box, advantage - shot was taken (even if not good) and applying the "no two bites at the apple" rule meant no direct kick. We had the two bites version of this in a game last year with Gressel (I think) getting a crappy shot on goal and so weren't awarded a PK. https://www.thebluetestament.com/20...o-mls-in-2017-sporting-kc-major-league-soccer A lot of nonsense at the end of the game - couldn't tell if a red was given after the final whistle. I'm betting on some fines coming down.
I really like Strong and Holden, but they did us no favors with their incorrect criticism of Sibiga on the Martinez DOGSO in the NYRB-ATL game. If Martinez isn't fouled, he's one on one with Robles. There is not any gray area here. If it's a foul and the crew has deemed it to be a DOGSO, it's a red card. The foul definitely wasn't an overly hard foul, but it's not a situation where Sibiga had any choice but to send Parker off. Holden also was incorrect about the "genuine attempt to play the ball" for two reasons." First, the foul was outside of the area. Even of it's a genuine attempt, any foul outside of the area for a DOGSO is a red. Second, this was a hold/push. Even in the area, this would have been a red. Again, great call by Sibiga and crew.
By the end of this week, you'll trust it even less. The whole Chapman thing is going to be much ado about nothing.
I just got word from an insider that the ESPN broadcast audio was NOT in sync Thursday night. Ball was over the line before the whistle blew. Everyone breathe a sigh of relief. #LAFCvDAL— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) May 20, 2019
Go check out my VAR story in my IG 🤣🤣...the center ref said I was in the 🎥 blind spot in other words “you not worth a review”. So funny I can see it from this angle 🤔 pic.twitter.com/rDOf0UbcSE— KEI KAMARA (@keikamara) May 21, 2019