I genuinely also thought about making this argument, but I decided against it for two reasons. One, Lozano turns left in front of the keeper. Why? He can peel right and come back upfield without ever being near him. Or run behind him and back up. No, he's not waving his hands or jumping in front of him to cause some commotion, but he turns deliberately in the only direction where he possibly could interfere if the keeper wants to release quickly. And he didn't have to do so. Even if it's only passive interference due to his location and proximity, it's still interference. But more importantly, the word "technically" does a ton of work here. Sure, maybe technically you can say there's no interference so then, technically it's a penalty (and red card?!). But do we really want to go around giving penalties for this? It would encourage the sort of behavior that we already all hate around goalkeepers. And it is completely out of whack with what is expected given the totality of circumstances. The game would be toast. It would be a so-called hero call, for sure, but not all situations call for heroism.
I explained earlier. Ball was slightly wide and not direct toward goal and far enough away, along with Lawrence's speed to get into position. Five yards closer would have changed my mind that Lawrence would not have closed. I suppose its my NY Red Bull bias, as I've seen Lawrence make up this difference many times in the past.
Can you point me to where the laws say to take into account the speed of the defender as being part of the decision? I admit its been a number of years since I was reffing but I don't recall every being given guidance that part of the DOGSO had anything to do with the speed of the players involved.
Wait, Lawrence was the player who committed the foul. Whether he could have made the play without fouling is immaterial. He was the last defender, he committed the foul. The "Defenders" D of the 4D's only covers OTHER defenders. If you are the last defender and commit a foul you didn't need to, that's on you.
I'm sorry but this is simply a 100% red card. If you want to say the direction or distance is too much in a U15 game then fine, but at a pro level this is DOGSO. You can't argue that the player who committed the foul counts as the reason to not give it.
I've got red, as I said, but how wouldn't you take into account the speed? Distance isn't a fixed component after all. It's a consideration, right? So you can have a situation with the foul 55 yards out and speed/momentum making it an obvious red or, you know, you could have something 30 yards out with defenders closing due to more speed that sow more doubts. Speed is part of the distance discussion.
To me speed comes in two flavors. There is the speed players are currently moving at (a sprinting player is getting somewhere faster than a standing player who has to start running) and there is the speed of particular players who may be faster or slower. The first is clearly part of the analysis. The second, not so much. Just as we don't say so-and-so is a lousy finisher, so it isn't an OGSO. On this play, I don't think it is close at all. To me this not only meets the criteria, but it is exactly the kind of foul DOGSO was designed to weed out--a cynical play calculated to save a goal.
This isn't a perfect comparison because it was a slide tackle so the fouling defender took himself out of the play, but otherwise the distance and the direction the ball goes is a pretty good match. UEFA says red and even says the VAR should intervene if a red isn't given.
I asked specifically to show me the law or some guidance that says that. 1. The attacking player is past the last defender. 2. The attacking player has a direct path to goal. 3. The attacking player is clearly pulled down from behind. I fail to see what speed has to do with it. Do you know at that instant that the defender is faster than the attacker? Do you know that for every players you could ever ref? I have just never heard any use of the players speed in making this determination. As I said its been awhile since I have reffed but I was never party to any discussion like this so perhaps the reffing world is more advanced and has passed me by in old age....lol.
Okay, fine. So you asked for something that doesn't exist. But the Laws enumerate distance as a consideration. Again, distance cannot be and is not a fixed criteria. Otherwise it would say something like "DOGSO can only happen within 30 yards of goal." No such fixed criteria exists. So, again, speed is an inherent component of the distance consideration. Why would distance matter if speed was not part of the equation? And again, for this particular play the issue is academic because it only has to do with the covering defenders, not the defender who commits the foul. This is a red card.
I think when you look at "location and number of defenders" (which is the words in the magic book), you're not looking at static location, but dynamic location, and need to take the direction and current speed of those defenders into consideration as part of their location. But as @MassachusettsRef wrote, that is about other defenders, not the one who commits the foul. The player who commits the foul is removed from the board, so to speak, in doing the analysis.
Agreed. You've got 17 refs who worked at least one match at the 2021 Gold Cup (Drew Fischer and Radix were the only two in the pool who did not get a match), as well as John Pitti, who reffed the National League Final and then took the summer off (I guess?). That's 18 refs with big match experience in a situation where you have no more than 12 matches per window. There's no excuse for someone from outside that pool (like Radix) getting a meaningful match in the Ocho. Maybe blood him on a dead rubber in Matchday 13/14 between two teams that have already been eliminated (for example El Salvador-Costa Rica on MD13 or Jamaica-Honduras on MD14). But you don't give him a meaningful match this early, especially involving one of the favorites (i.e. USA or Mexico).
Clatts is one of my fav all-time refs but it’s funny he so soundly criticized this decision 30 seconds in when he might have done the same thing.
Maybe some great refs would have. That's why someone like Skomina got to the level he did. He made the big decision when needed. A third minute red in the World Cup or a pk 20 seconds into the CL final.
The issue is that the smaller countries have a big say in CONCACAF matters, and that will include officiating. If I had the assigning duties with no outside interference, there's a list of probably 8-10 referees who would work important matches in CONCACAF. US - Elfath, Marrufo, maybe Villareal Mexico - The top three referees from Liga MX (so Ramos and the Liga MX counterparts of Elfath and Villareal) El Salvador - Barton Honduras - Martinez Guatemala - Escobar (but I'm not a fan at all) But you know the smaller countries are banging down the door wanting their officials to work. I'm sure that CONCACAF would also like to have some Caribbean referees to balance out the North American and Central American referees. The issue is that none of the Caribbean referees are good enough. One of the Jamaican referees had the Mexico-Canada Gold Cup semifinal and bombed it. It is what it is. Until soccer in the Caribbean gets better, we'll just have to hold our noses and hope that a match-deciding call isn't blown when we see a referee from one of the islands with the whistle.
I'm not defending Radix, but this seems a weird hill to die on. If Radix had got one single Gold Cup match this summer, which seemed to be the plan until he had a tough final qualifier, your argument would be completely undermined. It's not like the slate of 17 referees you're referring to set the world on fire across the board. There are officials in that group who have done and would do just as poorly as Radix. I don't quite get the implication that CONCACAF was good at selecting its Gold Cup referees but then bad at selecting its WCQ referees. Maybe they're bad at both? Regardless, Radix is on the CONCACAF Elite list, just like all the other referees you cite. He didn't get a Gold Cup match due to circumstances around that tournament. The circumstances around this tournament (Octagonal) make it very difficult to heavily rely on a group that is filled with referees who are from the countries competiting. Based on his status and his country, it was likely inevitable that he would be used in the Octagonal and, as I said before the match, US home against Jamaica is probably the safest option (do you want him on a tough away match for the US or Mexico? or on a very competitive match for the teams likely fighting for 3rd and 4th?). Again, at a base level CONCACAF refereeing is poor. Radix might be easy to pick on because of his inexperience and country of origin, but he's not some gigantic outlier. Pretending that one of the Gold Cup referees--many of whom we have railed upon as being sub-par on a regular basis--would be much better feels weird. Also, predicting what might be meantingless on the final few matchdays of an Octagonal tournament where the fourth place team makes a playoff is a lot harder than you're implying above. I look at the calendar and think Mexico v El Salvador is the only one that is highly likely to be irrelevant--maybe Canada v Jamaica, too, if trends continue . You cite two games where I think the away teams very much may need three points. Even if you're right, it just shows how opinions would different on such things and predictions are impossible to make. Again, not to defend Radix but if I'm in a position where I plan to use him, I'd rather test him on an earlier match that matters but feels like the outcome is safe and has probably the least hostile environment possible short of, perhaps, Canada v Jamaica.
Let's face it. Radix probably went 0 for x on KMIs and in the end the US won comfortably. I feel bad the guy didn't get 5 minutes to settle in with a few easy foul calls but if anything it proves @MassachusettsRef point.
And I’d add that we should stop trying to talk ourselves out of this even at decent level youth. I know Plenty of 15 year olds who can 1 keep a defender behind them 2 finish 1v1 at a full sprint 3 get their shot off well before a lateral defender closes the space. It’s a red I would like to think I would get right 100% of the time. And if he was not aware enough about where the wide defender was in this case to be able to tell himself without a conference, that is almost as damning.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure why there is the perception that US-Jamaica would be a "safer" option to blood a ref from a tiny country, given that Jamaica has historically been pretty competitive against the US and that the US failed to qualify in 2018 and is under huge pressure this time around. I was really just trying to point out that there really is no need to "blood" a new ref at all during the Ocho given that there is an ample pool of experienced refs already available. You only need four refs per matchday, and 8-12 per window...and that's assuming you don't have anybody work twice during the same window (easy doable logistically, although probably not politically). So why choose someone who is your 15th-20th best ref?
2018 is a historical anomaly. On paper the US and Mexico are your best teams. Mexico is more of a high pressure environment. So, on paper, this or US-El Salvador is the safest match if you presume those are the two weakest teams. Again, maybe a Canada match if you really think the discrepancy in quality is there this time because that’s usually even less pressure. But given where Canada stands right now that might not be true. As for the logistics of assigning I think you’re ignoring a ton of factors. Again, every top referee except Escobar is from a country in this competition . Then you add one more Guatemalan referee and Radix. Only three guys without teams in this group. The need for options due to conflicts is real. Also the distinct possibility of someone having a poor performance is real. Your math just doesn’t work. At all. There are 56 games. I suspect Escobar and maybe a couple others will get four matches (maybe Escobar gets a 5th if it’s unavoidable at the end). But that’s probably the limit. Most referees will average three. You need all 18. If anything, another referee or two might be thrown on a useless match at the end—that would be political. But you need Radix or his equivalent here. But again, my fundamental point would be asking why you or anyone else presumes or asserts Nation, Cornejo, Calderon, etc are markedly better than Radix just because they all worked at least one Gold Cup match. There’s no real evidence to suggest that.
I would answer because they have (at least a little) more "big" match experience and come from bigger countries with better leagues. As someone stated upthread, Grenada Premier League matches are probably the equivalent of USL League 1/2 matches or college D-II/D-III matches. He may be on the CONCACAF Elite list due to politics, but it's pretty obvious from last night's performance that he doesn't belong there on merit. When was the last time any of us saw an "Elite-level" ref get three KMI's wrong in one half?
Okay, fair enough there. I missed this. If it was said this way, I’d point out first that USL is well above D1 college, so that is weird. But also, this is probably way too generous to the Grenadian league by orders of magnitude. The absolute best and/or exceptional players from Grenada might cut it in USL. But day-to-day? Grenada has a population of ~120k. An amateur league in mid-sized American city is going to be of similar or higher caliber. Sure. But how many of the referees on the list are “elite on merit?” Having an elite referee from a small island nation is the price of admission in CONCACAF. Often? Mateu Lahoz had an interesting situation at EURO and a tough playoff a few years before that. Ayetkin? When you factor in the idea that a lot of referees are correcting missed KMIs through VAR in competitions we often watch, it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that a few missed KMIs in one match occurs semi-regularly. Regardless, I’m beating a dead horse from my perspective. The bottom line for me is that Radix was poor with a couple big misses but this wasn’t some abomination relative to some of the other stuff we’ve seen in CONCACAF. I mean look at Martinez in Philadelphia a few weeks ago—and he’s supposed to be one of the region’s best!