Was at the game last night. Very impressed with Marrufo's performance. Agree Friberg was lucky not to get carded on at least 1 of those two incidents. Thought our PK was a bit soft, but apparently others on here disagree. Does anyone have a good read on why there weren't any calls on the frequent Beckerman / Montero interactions? For some reason, I was always watching somewhere else & would end up seeing Montero on the ground after the fact. Thought it definitely contributed to his early miss. By the third time, I thought for sure there'd be a PI card.
What in the world is the guy in red pointing at before he is pushed. Almost looks like he's trying to make a point about something. But ya, that was funny.
Dead-on. The body language and quickness of the delivery conveys the a message from Marrufo that basically says, "you guys think that was a debatable penalty? Well, this is how sure I am of it. The fouling player is getting booked." I viewed it as a tactic to quell dissent and sell the call (and a deserved caution, ultimately), rather than any showmanship. What I do find interesting about the Friburg shove is that if the hands went up about 6 inches higher, we'd be talking about a red card for violent conduct. But because the shove was to the chest, it seems like many people are okay with no action, despite the level of force. I'm in that camp, but I'm in that camp because I think our instructions about contact above the shoulders are ridiculous, so I don't think I'm being inconsistent. As people praise this performance (and I think it does deserve praise--the only quibbles I'd have are the ones bluedevils raised, about anticipation in certain circumstances), I hope it's not lost on everyone that Marrufo went a little outside the parameters of what's been preached in recent years. It's not like he went back to the days where blatant misconduct was ignored; but he certainly didn't go rigidly by the book, either.
I was at the game, so my initial opinion is pretty biased right now. I thought Marufo did a horrible job in the first half and missed a lot of fouls that were quite dangerous and one that actually injured Brad Evans. I saw RSL coming in late studs up to Seattles feet/ankles on their follow throughs all first half. It seemed very deliberate to me. No cards, and some of them weren't even called. I think Montero's ankle being hacked so much in the first half had an effect on one of his early shots. His ankle was hurting pretty bad still. I saw a few runs from Espindola late in the 2nd half I thought looked offside. I saw the AR on one of them and it didn't appear he was even lined up properly with the 2nd to last defender. Was annoyed when Saborio blatantly grabbed Scott around the neck/shoulder and pulled him off the ball in the 2nd half with no call from Marufo. Going to watch the replay now though and will get another view of everything. I reserve the right to retract some of my statements [edit]Yeah, Will Johnson came in late on Brad Evans 3 times within the first 20 minutes of the game with his studs up and caught Evans every time on the foot/ankle which lead to Evans being injured and being subbed off after the 3rd poorly timed tackle. The 3rd tackle wasn't even called. No cards from Marufo on Will Johnson. Not sure how you can call that a good job by Marufo.
asoc, I agree with you. There were several challenges in the first half that were borderline reckless, and no cautions given. Some of these were fouls that were not called at all. Others were fouls that should have earned cautions, either individually or as a persistent infringement or the ref deciding the line in the sand needed to be drawn and some unlucky player would have to be the first one booked. There were many players down injured, holding their ankles, some of them on multiple occasions. For the most part, the players seemed to be legitimately injured/banged up. Overall I liked the management of the match, but I felt the bar for a foul and the bar for a caution were set too low. I know it's he playoffs, but when guys are getting whacked in the ankles or cleared or stepped on, it needs to be dealt with. I did not feel it was dealt with properly in this match. When you have players subbed off inside 20 minutes, or clearly laboring for long periods because of taking numerous knocks, or both -- which was the case in this match -- this should spur the referee to do some post-match self-analysis.
I was also at the match and agree with most of the things said here. Generally a well handled match. I think the Friberg restart issue was handled well (though Friberg was lucky to not see a card, I couldn't tell exactly where he pushed him and in the stands I was just waiting for it to be red!). I would have liked to see the bar set a little higher for fouls, cautionable fouls, and PI. I think RSL's plan of attack (as shown in the first leg) was to play very physical to take Seattle out of the game. In the end, injuries to Fernandez and Evans led to two substitutions in in the first 20 minutes and to Seattle running out of gas at about the 80th minute. I'm not sure how much of that has to do with the officiating, but it seemed like he was letting too much go (in my biased opinion). One other thing, I sit on the bench side AR line, and I'm always impressed by AR Corey Rockwell. I think he may have missed a call or two last night, both offside and out of touch, but his positioning and communication with the players seem very strong.
I'm surprised anyone would think this was funny. Sorry, I'm not trying to call people out, but isn't one of the referee's primary priorities to protect players and promote fair play? This flies against both. To me this was a sad display of sportsmanship from both parties. That just isn't funny. I agree that the bar for cards and fouls seemed too low in the first half. The players seemed fine with it, so maybe I'm off base here. But this could have easily escalated to severe injuries, altercations, and walking orders for multiple players. I think Marufo got lucky things remained fairly civil. If it weren't for the injuries I'd say the leniency favored Seattle more as they could continue to play at a frantic pace throughout the entire game. But with the injuries early, I think the leniency really ended up benefiting neither side over the other.
It did lead to injuries. Brad Evans off after three late studs up tackles by the same player within the first 18 minutes of the game. Montero ********ed up a sitter within the first 10 minutes because RSL targeted his ankle the first chance they got. You can clearly see Montero's ankle had an affect on that shot.
Which is fine, but if we go off doing what we are supposed to do, you can stand there with the card out and tell the guy to stand up first. Everybody knows you are going to give the card, you just don't raise it until the player is standing. In Marrufo's defense, he's not the only one doing this: It will be interesting to see if the call is covered in the Week in Review this week, if for no reason other than a few weeks ago they emphasized that you shouldn't sell a PK call with a card (as is being suggested here). If the foul warrants a caution for UB for being tactical or reckless, then fine, but there have been rumblings that too many officials (worldwide) are using the card to "defend" their decisions.
I think part of the reason that situation happened, "Friberg pushign Morales" was because Morales was doing that all night long, standing in front of the ball to delay restarts etc. At some point the ref needs to step in and deal with that before it gets out of hand.
You aren't off base. The players were NOT fine with it. There were numerous occasions where players appeared legitimately surprised and/or upset about non-calls. Pro games always have a certain amount of belly-aching from the players, but several reactions from the players last night were different. A couple of the fouls that WERE called, were paybacks for other challenges that weren't called. Both teams stayed focused on their respective tasks -- Seattle trying desperately to apply pressure and score goals, and RSL trying to keep the ball out of their own net. The fact that the game was REALLY fast-paced was quite enjoyable to watch, and it seemed that maybe the pace helped the players stay focused on playing and not on misbehaving really badly. I was glad the referee didn't try to tighten the match up too match or break up the flow and speed with which the game was played, but there were some things that should ahve been dealt with.
Sorry, I have to interject here. I recall all three of the challenges you mention. On the first challenge, I do recall being surprised it did not garner a caution. Unfortunately, I can't give details because I don't recall it clearly enough. On the second, both Evans and Johnson came in with their studs up on a ball thigh-high... Evans pushed the ball out of the way, and Johnson caught him on the side of the foot as a result. Sigi Schmid was apoplectic, but there was nothing more than a foul there. You can't caution or send off one guy when the other guy is going in the exact same way. On the third, I do agree that Evans got a raw deal... but it wasn't studs up. Johnson came through from the side/behind and hit Evans mid-calf. This was the one that knocked him out of the game, and after getting hacked a couple times, by Johnson and then being knocked out of the game, yes, Johnson should have been at least booked for PI. Montero did get his ankles cleaned shortly before his miss. Perhaps a cautionable offense, though difficult for the crew to catch because it was off the ball. On TV he was suddenly down and it took a replay to catch the infraction. The AR would have been focused on the offside line (and the ball near his touchline, as I recall) and Marrufo would have been focused on the ball. Perhaps a non-hacked Montero gets his feet square on his blown sitter. But whether a card was given on the play or not would not have helped Montero actually score. You can be upset about the defender not getting booked for the foul, but the foul and injury happened regardless of that. Fernandez subbed off due to a non-contact injury to his hamstring. You can't fault RSL for that one.
A couple of photos of Evan's ankle (links only for now, they're not pretty pictures): This is as he was helped to the sideline. He did not put any weight on it at all. http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...07038589_34459843588_8479900_1541273818_n.jpg And this is after the match. https://twitter.com/#!/brad_evans3/status/132166104171814912/photo/1
On the 3rd tackle from Will Johnson that wasn't even called by the ref(maybe he felt a corner was sufficient) Johnson was definitely studs up. Go watch the replay, the bottom of his foot with his toe pointing up catches Evans. There is a reason why you aren't allowed to go in studs up. Go watch the replay of the 2nd foul by Will Johnson. I believe it is around 9:50 on game clock. Evans definitely does not have his studs up on the play. Johnson just comes in and plows through Evans foot. You can clearly see Evans goes in with his toe pointing away from his knee (studs down). Johnson clearly has his his toe up and studs showing going into the tackle.
One thing I noticed was that many, MANY times, when Montero went up for a header against a taller opponent, he'd look at the opponent and line him up and jump into him. At some point, that's gotta be a yellow for PI.
I thought the push was in the first little bit of the game. Morales definitely does this a lot, but this was probably his first or second time doing it all night. The claim that it was happening "all night long" which led to the push seems to be justifying the action after the fact rather than a real look at the facts.
I think It was in the 1st half, you are right. But Morales was still doing that all night long, even after this incident. The ref didn't seem to mind, granted I think Morales was doing it nearly perfectly to delay just enough but not get carded for it.
Sure. I made this comment after taking off my referee glasses and looking at this from a strictly fan of the game perspective. The ref (IMO) was lenient in the first half and probably should have blown his whistle more and shown cards easier. He chose not too. Who did this benefit? Well, it may have contributed to the early injuries. The impact of two early subs likely favored RSL (although I think the two Seattle subs had such an impact on the game this is disputable). The lenient calls also allowed the game to be played with a higher intensity as the threat of calls was not as much of a concern. RSL seemed to try the entire game to slow the pace down and weren't really able to until the last 10 minutes. I think the fast paced game favored Seattle. So in sum, I think the leniency Marufo's decisions didn't really favor one team over the other. Keep in mind, I don't say this as a way of justifying the referee's decsions to manage a game this way, but purely from a standpoint as a fan of the game analyzing how the referee impacted this particular game.
I was sort of thinking the same thing. You don't know how the game will turn out if the game is called differently. I would much rather have not had to use a sub on Evans in the 20th minute though. Maybe if Fernandez hadn't gone off with his injury it wouldn't have mattered as much.
Battler - Ah, yes, I agree. His general demeanor was very good and he allowed the game to flow very quickly (as opposed to bogging it down with cards, warnings, etc.). Get up, get on with it. He let several restarts go quickly (while doing a decent job of squashing any delay tactics) and the players were respectful of his decisions. The consequence of this, may have been the Fernandez and Evans injuries. My take away, while this thread seems kind of negative now, is that he did a great job with the match.
Not sure how you can call it a great match when a player got injured because the ref wasn't punishing persistent dangerous tackles from one player on another.
Well, I can't make you see what I see, but what I see is the bottom of Evans' shoe exposed: Both players with their boots thigh-high, studs up. Evans got to the ball first, Johnson gets his foot. Foul, yes. Card, not when the other guy is doing the same thing. Sorry. The TV view only shows the midfield view of the challenge. I do see Johnson raise his leg, but it looks like Evans' leg buckles after he brings it down... certainly possibly because of the contact from Evans. I can't say for certain that he did spike Evans, though, because the TV view is so far back. Like I said, I did feel that by this point Johnson should have been booked for PI. Whether it should have been red for SFP, I'm sorry, I can't honestly say. But I do retract my earlier statement that I thought it was just a tangle of legs. He may have caught him with his studs.
I disagree with you completely and agree with asoc. Evans' foot is up in such a way that he is not posing any danger or threat to Johnson. Johnson's foot is coming right thru Evans' foot and not only does it pose a danger, he actually connects with Evans' foot in a careless or reckless manner. The direction of Johnson's foot is going straight thru the ball and Evans' foot. Evans' foot is out for the ball, but headed toward Johnson. Evans challenged for this ball in a safe way. Johnson didn't. It doesn't matter that both players have their feet an equal height off the ground and we can see both players' studs. It's not the same thing. Even if it was, Evans gets there first, at least as I recall. I don't believe Johnson should be let off the hook because of Evans' actions here. This isn't a sendoff for me, but I've seen slightly more severe examples of this sort of challenge punished with a red card.