Congrats to the ref. Outstanding call! I'd like to see a camera angle from his point of view. Must have had a really narrow window between defender's and attacker's necks/heads.
I thought the PK was clearly missed. I thought the Handball was not intentional or nondeliberate,whichever term in now in vogue. I thought if you spend the whole second half waving off "fouls" on Blanco,then you need to give him a yellow for diving. I thought Fred should have gotten a yellow for PI.
I don't think you're getting what they are saying. Whether he gained an advantage or not is irrelevant. If it wasn't deliberate, it's not handling, even if he scored as a result of the ball/hand contact.
Are you sure about this? I was always told that deliberate/non-deliberate only makes a difference if your hand is in a "natural position". If your hand it not in a natural position then it is a hand ball even if you didn't see the ball coming and it hit your hand without you taking a deliberate action to touch the ball.
In MLS Net's "behind the scenes" video, about two minutes in, Olsen says that Gomez told him it was a handball.
Statement above leads one to belive the poster is an official SAGY: If it is not deliberate there is no foul. This is very, very clearly stated in all the instructional material. Tha ball can hit the hand and in fact does during matches and it is NOT a foul. You have been lead to belive the myth of the unintentional handball....if the ball hits the hand and the playe gains an advantage you call it. The is wrong Please see the Myths of the Game, great video put out by the USSF. It very clearly explains what handling is and has some great video.
I'll take your word, I may be wrong I haven't been officiating for a little over a yaer because of college, but I'm going to brush up on the laws a recert next month
Red and Black....good stuff!! However, always be cautious taking advice from forums such as these. Your authority in MD is the SDI, SYRA or SRA. When in doubt contact them (though I think they will agree with what has been stated on this board ) Have fun....great conversations!
I'm going to clean this up for everyone's understanding. A deliberately handled ball is considered one of two things in the united states: 1. A player deliberately handles the ball 2. A player handles the ball regardless of deliberation if their hand is in an unnatural playing position. For the former (#1), several things come into play: how far is the ball from the player when the pass/shot is taken, as reaction time is key here and 2 is it a reaction to protect one's face or other part of body. These are your only considerations. There is no such thing as gaining an advantage from it hitting your hand, it has no place in the laws nor in how you call the game, please keep that in mind as this is how players have misconceptions as well.
I'm not a ref, but I do want to make sure I get it. Most refs here think that Marrufo got the call right, correct?
I didn't use the term "advantage" here. From my viewing of the video, Gomez made a deliberate play on the ball with his arm to redirect the ball to his feet, so he could shoot it. Handling.
Right, but I think you could be clearer here for people that might not be referees. The whole "unnatural playing position" thing isn't some sort of separate category. It's just a way of recognizing a deliberate action. If a player runs down the field with his hands above his head and a cross hits his hand, well, it was a deliberate action to put his hands in that "unnatural position" so, in turn, the handling is deliberate. I understand that you were trying to be clear and cover everything for people, but I think it's much safer to say there's only one type of handling offence: deliberate handling. Everything else has to do with considerations as to whether or not you determine there was deliberate handling.
I don't agree with #2. The arm/hand being in an unnatural playing position is not an automatic; it is an indication that it was deliberate. Situation 1: Free kick and a defender is walking away from the ball while waving his arms over his head. The kick is taken and it hits the hand: HANDLING. Situation 2: Free kick. While the team is preparing for the kick a player turns his back to the ball, faces the stands and waves his arms over his head, trying to catch the attention of his girlfriend. The kick is taken before he expects it and it hits his hand: NOT HANDLING. The players' arms are in the same position in both cases but the overall situation, combined with the unnatural position combine to help the referee decide if there was handling.
I can't speak for "most," but yes, I'm 100% convinced it was handling. His arm may or may not have got into that position intentionally, but once it was it seems pretty clear that there was a deliberate action to knock it (or maybe "corral" might be the better word) down into his path. I also think, as I've alluded to, that there was a pretty good argument for a pushing foul right before the handling, anyway. And not to open up another can of worms, but it just dawned on me that there are two ways you can get booked for handling. "Tactical" handling (stopping a promising offensive attack) and trying to score a goal with your hand. I don't think it was needed here and, as it took me almost 2 days to realize it I don't think I would have made the call myself, but it is worth considering that Gomez could have (should have, technically?) been booked.
Hold on. I STRONGLY disagree here. I think you're confusing "deliberate" with "intentional." "Intent" has nothing to do with calling handling; we only judge the actions. In your Situation 2, you make it clear that the player did not intend to handle the ball. Fine. But he still made a deliberate action that caused him to handle the ball (this is where KidRef is getting into "unnatural playing positions"). That's handling. If it wasn't, defenders would be able to "wave to their girlfriends" on every corner kick without any repercussions.
I think: 1. Marrufo's call was correct. Given the info available at the time, I thought it could've been either pushing or the handball, but I agree with everyone that the handball is the more obvious call when you watch the replay. 2. The PK didn't seem as obvious to me. This wasn't a jersey pull that continued into the box. This was a foul on Carr, who may have had a foot over the line or was getting a foot down but wasn't completely in the box. So where do you define the point of impact? Generally -- not just in MLS but elsewhere -- the ref is going to lean toward the safer call and put the ball down 19 yards from goal. 3. The most questionable call in my eyes was the Dyachenko red, though it had no impact on the game. Earlier in the game, Segares did a big-time leg whip to kick Gomez in the far knee (he approached from the right and got him in the left) when Gomez was maybe 45 yards from Chicago's goal. On the Dyachenko play, he clipped Segares' ankle or foot, 90-95 yards away from D.C.'s goal. It was neither atrociously reckless nor a particularly cynical "professional foul." I just don't see red there. If someone can explain that one, I'm all ears.
I think the Dyachenko red was dead on. It was a desperation lunge, from behind, into the back of the ankle/heel. There was absolutely no chance to get the ball at all. It comes under the category of "a tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent." The distance to goal, to me, makes it even worse. This has nothing to do with a "professional foul" it has to do with the actual nature of the tackle and there's really no need to make a tackle like that anywhere on the field, but certainly not 90 yards from goal. When you go into a tackle, directly from behind, when you literally have zero chance of playing the ball (and to be clear, that was the case here--it was physically impossible for him to play the ball), you're going to get sent off 99% of the time (or at least you should). You could visually see Marrufo's thought process. The foul was right in front of him and he did an "wow, that's bad!" as he reached for the yellow. I'm sure he thought, as all of us do sometimes toward the end of the match, that "ok, I can get out of here with a yellow..." before it clicked in his head how bad and unnecessary the tackle was. Getting rid of Dyachenko was the correct decision. If, somehow, DC had scored a goal 30 seconds later with Dyachenko on the field (or Dyachenko scored the goal) Marrufo would have had a lot of questions to answer.
I'd need to see a replay to see whether it's from behind. If so, then it would certainly fall under that FIFA mandate from a few years ago, though I'd point out that not many refs seem to follow that mandate in practice. I'd argue he had as much chance to get the ball as Segares had when he took a whack at Gomez's knee. Perhaps FIFA and USSF haven't placed an emphasis on that sort of foul, but I think they absolutely should. I wouldn't see it as a change in the Laws, just a change in emphasis. I see the point that it's unnecessary and therefore a little more irritating than a foul in your own half, but is that really something refs should be considering? Is that why Segares was punished less severely for a more reckless foul? That may be current practice, but I'd find it awfully hard to swallow. (And I'm granting, of course, that it's easy to dissect these calls from the pressbox with replay! If it simply looked worse from Marrufo's angle than it did from mine, then it's a question of viewing angles rather than judgment.)
Disagree with the characterization of 'from behind'...it was well on the side in my opinion, contact was not that significant though it was studs up. I thought the red was harsh, especially in light of the degree to which Marrufo had avoided handing out cards to that point.
I thought the red was given because the foul immediately followed his being dispossessed while doing silly stepovers in the box. He was clearly angry at losing the ball and had a go at the player....