Interesting sequence Red Bull vs DCU

Discussion in 'Referee' started by lmorin, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In the game last night, RB was attacking with a fast break. Attacker touched the ball beyond last defender and succeeded in getting bodily beyond that defender who proceeded to pull down the attacker by his jersey about a yard outside the PA. The ball was inside the PA and the ref signalled play on as another attacker ran onto the ball. Keeper came out and nicked that guy. Ref pointed to the spot. No cards.

    Seemed to me that no card was merited by the keeper as his foul was not USB or particularly hard. But, what to do with the previous foul? It was difficult to tell from the TV view whether or not this was an OGSO interpretation or not because the view was too close up and other defenders. But, suppose it was? Is this a send-off or is the penalty nullified by the second penalty? The PK was obviously a better outcome for the Red Bull than would have been the DK just outside the area. If not a red for DOGSO, should the guy who committed the first offense have been given a yellow? That would have been my judgment.
     
  2. refereejoe

    refereejoe New Member

    Aug 20, 2007
    Bay Area - Cal North
    Is there a video of this incident?
     
  3. dadman

    dadman Yo soy un papa

    DC United
    United States
    Apr 13, 2001
    Reston, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Video link to MLSnet.

    DOSGO? You've been listening to MSG's announcers too much. ;) A move straight to the end-line (not toward goal) with a defender and the keeper back. (see 1:56) A trip (actually holding the leg with his own legs—no shirt pulling involved, as the player's shoe comes off) outside the box and a DFK if advantage doesn't materialize. Possibly a yellow as well.

    As to Richards, the view at 1:59 looks like a trip, but it's the AR and not the CR that calls it for the PK as he turns from touch to the end line.

    The telling moment is at 2:21 when Richards "kills" his left leg and goes to ground off minimal contact (you can see Perkin's left hand is on the ground with the left foot in the air).

    A bang-bang play, and the CR was consistant with the PK call when Emillio went down in the second half with only a little more contact. DOSGO doesn't enter into this sequence. A yellow for holding from Burch as he was rolling, maybe, but as you say, a hard sell after awarding the PK.

    I was at the game, and Perkins pulled his hands up as Richards went by, as he'd missed the ball. But Richards had been falling down a lot (and mouthing off at Burch from about the ninth minute after United was up by 2). :p
     
  4. refereejoe

    refereejoe New Member

    Aug 20, 2007
    Bay Area - Cal North
    I like the advantage being applied and the PK awarded. However, I would have cautioned for the first foul.
     
  5. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah, the video clearly shows it was not an OGSO.
     
  6. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Apr 7, 2004
    Southern NH
    Not OGSO, there is another defender back. I could also argue there's no foul there, the attacker attempts to step over the defender and doesn't quite make it all the way over. You could argue for incidental contact and play on. Didn't see a good view on the keeper taking the guy down to tell if it was a dive.
     
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sorry, but if you made that argument you'd be wrong. That foul has to be seen for how cynical it is. The defender has been dispossessed of the ball, he's on the ground and the attacker is through on goal. It's disguised somewhat well, but that foul is clearly tactical and clearly meant to prevent an attacking opportunity.

    And if you can't see that for what it was, then it's still a careless foul, isn't it? The two players are tangled, the Red Bulls' player gets up to start moving to goal, and he gets tripped by the DC player. If you were to somehow accept that it was not a deliberate tactical foul (I obviously don't), you still would have to say that he was carelessly tripped.

    I think that in a vacuum, this is a clear yellow card (and closer to a red card for DOGSO than it may look, as though there was a defender "back," what were the chances he'd be able to close before a shot got off?). But given that the advantage resulted in a penalty and the foul wasn't that violent, the game probably wouldn't have been served with a caution. It's certainly a judgment call and you can't fault Salazar for choosing not to award one. Had there been no advantage to apply, I think you certainly would have seen one.
     
  8. KidRef

    KidRef New Member

    Jun 27, 2000
    California
    On this play, once you've given the PK, no need to come back and caution the player. Technically a tactical foul, yes, but you need to use common sense here. Esse says don't salt the wound once it is already inflicted. In this case you get nothing from giving the yellow as the PK is awarded, just as if there is a tactical foul and you play advantage and the team scores. You don't go back to give a yellow for a tactical foul in that case either.

    Also, definitely not DOGSO as there is another defender present.
     

Share This Page