I'm not sure I agree with Kelly's whistle in the first half after the SEA defender took the ball in the face from Giovinco. He didn't blow the whistle immediately but gave a drop to Seattle long enough after the play had been resolved to see that it was going to be a TOR corner. Also, I'm still not sure whether he's decided shoulder challenges are or are not OK.
In a game where there really were no big decisions for the ref team to make, the only question I have is whether a few early cards would have helped smooth the game out a bit. But really, it isn't the refs job to try and make a terrible game better...I think Kelly was consistent, and the players seemed fine with his foul and card thresholds.
http://www.socceramerica.com/article/71566/toronto-0-seattle-0-another-forgettable-final.html This sums my thoughts on the officiating and the approach in general the referees had throughout the playoffs. Poor game with poor officiating.
I don't disagree with much that is in this article, except this little gem: "Should you want an explanation of the yellow card fouls, you can consult the MLS website, which will tell you that all three were for “unsporting behavior,” an explanation that tells you nothing, except that MLS seems intent on disguising what its naughty players are up to". Ouch. Way to submarine your credibility. I'm not sure he is making the distinction between the way Kelly ran the game vs the way MLS wanted Kelly to run the game.
Kelly was recruited to come here. He's been on ESPN and FS1 more times in 2 years than some 10-year league veterans have in their entire careers, and was appointed to MLS Cup the first time he was legally eligible. Are you asserting there's a difference between how Kelly would referee a game on his own and the way MLS wants Kelly to referee? Or are you saying something else?
I have no inside knowledge of how MLS wants their games called, but the MLS refs are letting more go and giving early cards less in the playoffs than they did in the regular season. No statistical evidence to support this, just a general impression from one who watched a bunch of MLS games this season. It reminds me of WC14 - it seems like they are favoring keeping players in the game over clean play, and in the end I think it hurts the product.
I'm not quite understanding where this is coming from? I don't see at all how your post is pertinent to @threeputzzz post. Maybe, I'm just reading it wrong. I don't think he was saying at all the Kelly shouldn't have been on the game...
On a side note, it looks like the College Cup Final was pretty much officiated the same way the MLS Cup Final was. No surprise there. 40 fouls and only three yellows. I didn't watch the game, but apparently there should have been a second caution or two in the game.
The guy is not an official referee, so I think you can give him a pass there. Overall, I thought it was well written and a relatively fair and balanced assessment of the refereeing in the game. His overall analysis of MLS officiating is pretty fair in my opinion.
Not what I was saying at all. I was reading his post as saying that Kelly on his own might referee the match differently than how MLS wanted him to referee. My counterpoint was going to be that more so than any other referee, PRO has chosen and supported Kelly due to how he referees.
Obviously this is way off topic...but I was frankly shocked at the level of violence Kadlecik allowed to occur. In the first half one of Stanford's players barreled into the Wake GK. A very hard foul on an exposed GK right on the goal line with a long full speed run up and no attempt to do anything other than hit the GK. It deserved a caution at minimum and was only called a foul. The announcers (especially the former USWNT player) were incredulous. Second half there was another very hard foul (I think by the same player) right at midfield that also required at least a caution. But it was just a foul. Again even the announcers were shocked that no card was produced. Those were the two most egregious events that I saw, but I did not watch the entire game. I thought it was interesting that they have a replay review system.
This doesn't take into account the time of the match, but I can at least provide the averages. Source is my personal archive. R for regular season, P for playoffs, Y for yellows, g for game. Sorry, haven't finished 2016 yet. Code: 1996 (R): 3.26 Y/g 1996 (P): 3.82 Y/g 1997 (R): 2.86 Y/g 1997 (P): 3.31 Y/g 1998 (R): 3.17 Y/g 1998 (P): 4.07 Y/g 1999 (R): 3.17 Y/g 1999 (P): 4.50 Y/g 2000 (R): 3.79 Y/g 2000 (P): 4.41 Y/g 2001 (R): 3.86 Y/g 2001 (P): 4.50 Y/g 2002 (R): 3.98 Y/g 2002 (P): 4.06 Y/g 2003 (R): 3.61 Y/g 2003 (P): 4.73 Y/g 2004 (R): 3.49 Y/g 2004 (P): 4.64 Y/g 2005 (R): 3.63 Y/g 2005 (P): 4.45 Y/g 2006 (R): 3.56 Y/g 2006 (P): 3.55 Y/g 2007 (R): 3.70 Y/g 2007 (P): 4.18 Y/g 2008 (R): 3.53 Y/g 2008 (P): 4.45 Y/g 2009 (R): 3.71 Y/g 2009 (P): 3.82 Y/g 2010 (R): 3.10 Y/g 2010 (P): 3.64 Y/g 2011 (R): 3.13 Y/g 2011 (P): 3.77 Y/g 2012 (R): 3.02 Y/g 2012 (P): 2.33 Y/g 2013 (R): 3.11 Y/g 2013 (P): 3.20 Y/g 2014 (R): 3.24 Y/g 2014 (P): 3.53 Y/g 2015 (R): 3.65 Y/g 2015 (P): 3.47 Y/g Of course, with fewer playoff games, outliers are going to skew the hell out of the results in some cases.
Code: R/g 1996 (R): 0.18 1996 (P): 0.24 1997 (R): 0.23 1997 (P): 0.15 1998 (R): 0.31 1998 (P): 0.07 1999 (R): 0.28 1999 (P): 0.19 2000 (R): 0.28 2000 (P): 0.18 2001 (R): 0.28 2001 (P): 0.78 2002 (R): 0.31 2002 (P): 0.24 2003 (R): 0.26 2003 (P): 0.09 2004 (R): 0.23 2004 (P): 0.09 2005 (R): 0.22 2005 (P): 0.27 2006 (R): 0.23 2006 (P): 0.27 2007 (R): 0.28 2007 (P): 0.27 2008 (R): 0.28 2008 (P): 0.18 2009 (R): 0.36 2009 (P): 0.09 2010 (R): 0.23 2010 (P): 0.18 2011 (R): 0.28 2011 (P): 0.31 2012 (R): 0.18 2012 (P): 0.27 2013 (R): 0.24 2013 (P): 0.33 2014 (R): 0.27 2014 (P): 0.33 2015 (R): 0.26 2015 (P): 0.06
As you said in your prior post, @ManiacalClown , outliers are going to skew playoff stats--particularly on red cards. Looking at your stats, you could make the argument that referees avoided red cards last year (and probably this year) in the playoffs, but then to be consistent, you'd have to make the argument they went out to show more reds from 2011-2014. And then just go back in 2001, where a couple matches probably greatly influenced that statistic. For red cards in the playoffs, a factor that could very well influence the lower frequency of them is that playoff matches don't get assessed. In the regular season, if you miss a red card, you get a -3 on your assessment score, which thereby helps risk your future employment and risks your chances at a playoff assignment. There is a clear incentive during the regular season to get every red card decision correct. But, if you miss a red card in the playoffs, there is no formal penalty. When you add in the factors that some of us spoke about in the other thread, when there's just a more natural hesitancy to be extra sure when more is on the line, that's likely going to help more referees come down on the side of yellow when they are in the grey area. Maybe the playoff matches should be assessed.
I am kind of surprised to hear that playoff matches are not assessed. Does UEFA or FIFA adhere to the same principle for say the finals of international or continental tournaments?
The statistics are interesting, but like most stats can't tell the full story -- we all know it is possible to have a game with one caution in which too many were given and a game with 7 cautions and 2 send offs in which not enough plastic was shown (or in which it was not shown early, possibly leading to more). I don't know how to truly control for the difference in a playoff game and a regular season game. The stakes and energy are certainly higher in the playoffs, but so too are the consequences to the team if a player is sent off or accumulates cautions. Perhaps a proxy of sorts would be to see the first half/second half breakdown on cautions -- if there are more 1st half cautions in the regular season and more second half cautions in the playoffs, it might tend to support the theory that referees are too reluctant to caution early, leading to more cautions late. (Subject to all of the small sample concerns.)
I'd heard about that match, and I thought there were 40 fouls for both teams. But ONE TEAM committed 40 fouls? Look, I didn't watch it, but I'm still very, very confident that the referee did an absolutely horrible, horrible job of recognizing PI.
Did one team commit 40 fouls, or is that just coach speak for "it seemed like they were always fouling"?
ok, that's much, much, much better. I can't believe someone would be imprecise/less than truthful in a tweet, said no one ever.