As a soccer newbie, I use this segment to properly understand some questionable calls, although I hope that the segment would be longer, meaning more calls or non-calls were analyzed. All I can say is he's definitely an upgrade over Kennedy. As some referee experts in this forum, do you agree to most of his analyses? Do you think some are incorrect? Or do you think Borg is an idiot and don't know most of the rules?
Before you are met by some crazies that tell you how Simon Borg is the root of all evil, here's the general consensus presented in a sain way... As referees we do disagree fairly often with what Mr. Borg says. Since he's not a referee a lot of us don't feel that he should comment on referee performance in the "official manner" that he does. He sometimes interjects opinions that many of us disagree with as well. So, for a newbie, most of what he says is up to par with what a referee would say, but take all of it with a grain of salt and realize that he makes plenty of mistakes even after he sees video replays. As an aside, there are many decisions that a referee makes in a game where there is no "right" answer. People will argue both ways for a decision, (evidence covers this forum) but at the end of the day, many calls are an opinion that the referee got one shot at. EDIT: Borg tends to use very elementary concepts to explain complicated decisions. This is especially true of his explanations of red card tackles (serious foul play) and deliberately handling the ball. His explanations just don't fully assess the situation and don't amount to a defendable opinion. Also, like it or not, the MLS is a business and part of the referee's job is to help the "show" run smoothly. Red cards do not come out as easily in the MLS as they do in amateur leagues for this very reason, as well as the reason that the game is played in a much more controlled environment. Mr. Borg fails to understand this idea at times and this leads to his opinions about red card tackles. In a way, his opinions are good because they represent an expectation for everyone at home while they play in amateur leagues. Unfortunately, his opinions also lead to the perception that referees in the MLS are incompetent.
The general problem with Borg's recaps, in my view, is that he doesn't found his opinion in law. Sometimes his opinion is spot-on when critical of refs, sometimes it's a bit ludicrous. Likewise, sometimes he points out things that refs did well and he's right; other times he praises referees when, upon replay, most here would question whether the call was right or not. So he's just very hit or miss. He's also rather declarative in situations where there is a lot of grey area. Take this week's, for example: At the 0:31 mark, he says there's "no question" about Cooper's simulation. Actually, from one grainy replay, I'm not so sure. It's a late stab from the Houston player and I honestly don't know if a free kick is the right call or not, yet Borg seizes on this one incident as a clear dive. Then, at 2:41, he says Toronto's PK is a great call and cites the arm on the shoulder of the player cutting through. He says the attacker helped "sell the call." Why is Cooper's incident a clear dive but this instance is the attacker "selling the call?" Both are judgment decisions, so Borg isn't analyzing the factual nature of the decision-making, he's just offering his own judgments. Even at 2:31, when he says the Montreal PK was correct, he wrongly cites a "shoulder charge" (which is fair) as the justification for the foul. Perhaps most annoyingly this week, at 2:09 on the goal line decision in NY, he says his gut tells him the ball was likely in but that the officials can't make the call. Actually, the fact that Henry is on the post and never reacts by claiming it's a goal is enough circumstantial evidence for me to say it almost certainly wasn't in. Plus, you could point out the AR is right on the line and let everyone know what he's looking at and through. In short, bringing that play up adds nothing to the discussion, other than him offering his own personal "gut" thought. Then you've got the Chivas/LA game. Leaving the actual red card aside, he addresses three other incidents. All could have been red in their own right; he says 2 should be red, 1 should be yellow. I agree with him, I just think it should be a different 2. Regardless, he's just offering his opinion (like I'd be offering mine) and not citing laws to say why those challenges might be red. Same goes for the Seattle game. I'm with him on the challenge to the goalkeeper and on the fence as far as the possible DOGSO (though, it didn't cross my mind in real time as being possible, so I'm with Stott there). A good analysis would talk about why those challenges to goalkeepers should be send offs and how referees make DOGSO decisions. Borg just simply states that both should be red. It's a drive-by "analysis" that really doesn't analyze at all. His program is a nice recap of the controversial incidents for the week, but I wouldn't take anything that he says as gospel. He's going to be wrong just as often as he's right. I do find it interesting, though, that an MLS-endorsed program is saying there should have been 5 red cards this weekend. I know Borg doesn't speak officially for the league, but they are publishing something that is flat-out calling for a lot more red cards. I do wonder if the Disciplinary Committee and PRO see things the same way.
I think Borg doesn't know most of the Laws. It's fine that this segment exists, they have Match of the Day over in England where former players talk about the referees calls. Those players rarely if ever cite the Laws or even appear objective or analytical. That does not mean it's for referees or should be used in practice when reffing your own games. My concern isn't really at the MLS level where the fans might complain because of something Borg said. My concern is that, this mans opinion is brought to my games at the lower levels, and that ignorance is infecting others who don't realize that this isn't the MLS. What they do in their league isn't nearly the same as the level at which I referee. I get the sense that if you were to put Simon Borg in a Harvard style debate with a referee, even one from this board his arguments would be utterly destroyed. To me that's sad, and I wish PRO would do it's very own video package. Also why does BS think that I spelled "Analytical" wrong?
My analysis: Cooper "hand ball" – agree, although "ball to hand" is a bit simplistic. Cooper "dive" – disagree. Garcia clearly tripped Cooper, but Borg (and Kinnear) claim "there was no question about the simulation". Jackson "offside" – agree. Jackson was probably onside, kept on by Taylor as well as Boswell (Borg's red line is not parallel) Velazquez "red card" – agree, no foul. Franklin "studs to chest" of Soto – disagree, sort of. I was surprised by the cleat marks, a red is certainly not out of the question, but I am "perfectly OK" with a yellow card here. Mista "follow through" on Magee – disagree. Magee was late to the ball, I don't know what he has to complain about. Sarvas "kicks Correa from behind" – disagree, sort of. Like Franklin, a red card is a possibility, but certainly not a requirement. Sarvas actually cleated Correa with his left foot and kicked him fairly hard with his right leg, but probably also got the ball. I don't see the play as a clear red. Paladini "studs up sliding tackle" on Besler – disagree. The play may have looked like a textbook red from afar, but Paladini got the ball, got his feet down quickly, and did not make contact with Besler with his studs. Hamid "goal line save" of Barklage header – agree, although my gut tells me the ball never crossed the line. I don't agree with his 100% sure requirement, either. Morgan "shoulder charge" into Romero – agree. It was a "shoulder charge" into the back of Romero, illegal in my book. Iapachino "arm" on Dunfield – disagree. Yes, Iapachino did slightly hold Dunfield, but this was mostly a dive by Dunfield, IMO. No PK for me. Di Vaio "offside" – agree, not offside. Hurtado "scissors" on Ryan Johnson – disagree. Hurtado got the ball before he got Johnson, good no call. Jean-Baptiste "pull down" of Eddie Johnson – agree. It looks to me that Johnson had an OGSO denied. Ochoa "stomp" on Ricketts – disagree. I believe Ochoa had a valid shot at playing the ball and the "stomp" was more of a "graze", certainly not intentional. Although I don't doubt that Ricketts has cleat marks there. Gaddis "push" of Bengtson – agree, outside the box. Gonzalez "backpass" to Shuttleworth – agree, the "backpass" was not a clearly controlled kick.
You know you're not supposed to be here. Your ban still exists and the admins will be fixing the technical glitch momentarily. I advise against further posting in the referee forum.
I'm not saying the ball was in, but let's remember that the ball was still in play. Henry's reaction was to try to redirect the ball into the net and remove any doubt. Quoted for emphasis. As a recap and as entertainment, I think it's outstanding. I may not side with Borg on individual calls, but I sure agree with him on this point. This year's reigning philosophy seems to be to round all orange down to yellow. With some of the Borg highlights as precedents it's going to be hard for a ref to sell any challenge in MLS as red, ever.
On the "offside," it looks to me like the attackers shoulders/head are both in front of the line. And having done one of the AR2 offside tests I can tell you that they are nuts, and anyone who passes is far better on this judgement than me, and certainly a commenter.
I just don't understand why MLS would choose to slander itself like this. Personally, I've always had the opinion that MLS referees are much underrated by the fans of the league, and I think the number one culprit is the uneducated, homer broadcasters we often have showing the games constantly ripping referees apart on calls that are often correct or completely justifiable. Simon Borg just adds to this--though he is *more* educated than most of the regional TV broadcasters--and makes it worse by doing it in what people see as an official light. Why would the league want to exaggerate its advertisements for how bad its referees are?
Because it is run by very dumb people? Who knows but you make a very good point. Personally I feel the referee in the MLS is up to par with the players skill level. Same with the EPL and Champions League. The problem is respect, I was hoping PRO would do something like have their own Respect campaign but it's just not happening. I don't understand, PRO seems to have a lot of power in this situation yet they refuse to use it like any Union would to protect it's members.
But Henry is right on the line and he would know whether it went in or not; he had a better view than anyone--perhaps even including Hamid. Once the ball is cleared, Henry makes no appeal. Given his historical penchant for telling referees exactly what they got wrong in a vocal and demonstrative way, I find it hard to believe he would have let a game-winning goal slide without letting the officials know they missed it. Hell, I'd think Henry would make a half-ditched effort even if he knew the ball didn't go in. His lack of any sort of appeal, to me, is telling. I also think the combined camera angles make it appear as if it's unlikely the ball crossed the line.