Oof. Another example of clear VC and it gets buried under excuses. At least this one isn’t in England this time. Once is an anomaly, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
Despite my arguments above, I think it’s safe to assume at this point that the DisCo will weigh in and levy a suspension. Whether that’s because this truly is egregious VC or due to the increased attention to the incident is in the eye of the beholder. It’s probably caused by a mixture of those two causes to certain extents. And I’m fine with the imminent suspension if this is a line the league is drawing. I just can’t help believing, in my own opinion, there are far more dangerous or violent incidents that don’t get the same attention and discipline. I think there’s a level of sensationalism here because of the unusual nature of the act. But I also realize I’m in a distinct minority.
I'm cynical and biased, but I think there's also a level of sensationalism because of the team involved and/or because it was on national TV (those two things are related). If this is a San Jose keeper and a Houston attacker playing on Fox Sports Bay Area this isn't as big of a story.
I do have a red card here and I think it should be given as a red card. Also, Melia seems to be a total ass. I don't view this as some scandalous decision or some reflection on the state of MLS refereeing. It's a miss. It happens. I do think do it is a ridiculous overreaction. I have seen much worse decisions this year alone in MLS. I agree with your premise that this probably wouldn't be given in the EPL (certainly not in Man U vs. Liverpool), but I think this would be given in most European leagues and in the Champions League. We also probably wouldn't see a keeper in Europe do this, though, in all likelihood. So it's really hard to compare MLS vs. EPL or Europe. Can anyone see David De Gea pull a stunt like this? How often do you get this type of shithousery on a high level CL match or international match? Once every couple of years involving Pepe? When VAR was first introduced, I thought it would lead to an increase in VC red cards because referees would no longer be able to hide behind the "I didn't see it" logic. To basically get around and keep the amount of violent conduct red cards the same, the leagues and IFAB have basically changed the definition of violent conduct. Pre-VAR, two players coming together and butting heads if seen properly was almost always a red card. It didn't matter how little force or "forward motion" there was. Hands to the face was almost always a red card. Now MLS, PRO and other entities say the force must be more than "negligible." Didier Drogba doesn't get sent off in today's game like he did in the 2008 Champions League Final for slapping a player because the force was "negligible." In a way, it's kind of brilliant. Elfath and the VAR can tell themselves this isn't a red card because the force was "negligible."
Finally watched the full replay of the SEAvKC match, and this caught my eye. I'm curious about thoughts on this one. Just a few minutes after the Melia/Roldan incident. I get that this is a playoff-atmosphere game and I get that this is a goal-saving clearance in the PA, both of which a lot of officials at this level use as considerations in their determinations. But the SEA player here (Arreaga) has a very dangerous chance on goal and a right to make an attempt on the ball; the KC player (Isimat-Mirin) is at best playing in a dangerous manner and at worse displaying reckless disregard for the safety of an opponent. It's also hard to tell if there is contact, which might be the strongest argument against whistling this, though it appears that there is at least glancing contact. It seems like another "anywhere else on the field" call. (Edited to note that this was a free kick and not a cross in the run-of-play, so everybody should have been well positioned.) I get the no-call in isolation, but on the heels of the Melia/Roldan incident (it's just nine minutes later), it felt at this point as if Elfath had decided he wasn't making any apparent results-critical decisions.
Defenders have a right to clear the ball to prevent a goal. This will be treated differently from anywhere else on the field. It's a risk the defender takes because if the attacker gets there first and defender gets the player it should be called as a foul. But in this case the defender cleanly gets the ball with only slight contact to the attacker and none of that was in the kicking motion. There is an angle from the side somewhere that shows minimal contact after the clearance.
An important point on this play--by the law, it is not a PK. To (mis) quote instant replay--"there is no universe in which it is a pk, including this one." So any call would have to be an IFK... from the six...with opponents on the goal line...and the keeper (who minutes earlier body slammed someone) running off the line to shut down the quick kick. While I'd like to think that anything the law allows for should be doable by the officials, this one would probably require several cautions to get it done, and even then it would be a total fiasco probably consuming 3-4 minutes. In short, there is no way that could be called there. Now, had it whacked him in the face, a PK would have been easier to award than an IFK there.
Agree with everything you say here. I'll also take this opportunity to say that, while I still think there's a popular overreaction here relative to the actual severity of the offence, I made some incorrect assumptions about how this was addressed in real-time by the officials. We'll wait to see if PRO addresses this publicly or not, but I think it's only fair for me to say I've learned that Elfath did not make this decision himself, which is something I expressed certainty of on Saturday. Bottom line, while I still think this doesn't rise to the level of scandal, I also now believe this was handled very poorly and, push come to shove, red card is the preferred outcome here (though, as to the question of expected outcome, I still think much of what I've written and what you write above most definitely applies).
I think we need to as a referee community stop trying to determine the “expected outcome”. The expected outcome should be the correct outcome. The only reason the two things are different is we keep trying to do mental gymnastics to justify a divide between the two things.
I don't think that is accurate. The "expected outcome" isn't defined by what is in the magic book, but by the messaging (formal and implicit) sent to the referees at any competition by the league and those who assign the referees. Whether we like it or not, those messages are not always consistent with what might be objectively correct in the LOTG. (See the discussion on the appeal in the USL game, where the overwhelming majority here agree the outcome should be appeal granted, regardless of whether it is technically consistent with the LOTG.)
I think you’re missing the point. “Correct” should mean the laws mirror the expectation. So in cases of maintaining safety of the game, which I think the three recent examples I’m thinking of fall into, expectation should mirror the laws. Because the laws are designed to encourage safe and fair play, while discouraging unsafe and unfair play. With regard to the USL discussion, I just can’t buy into the explanation from the refs they missed all 5-6 dribbles and passes of the ball that took place before the one that got it back into the net. If for no other reason than the ref could clearly have seen the ball wasn’t kicked from the same place he spotted it. This is speculation but I think there was some CYA going on to defend the call. This isn’t a case of 4 sets of eyes (assuming they had a 4th) missing contact in the area that should have resulted in a PK. This is all those eyes missing an entire sequence of play right in the middle of the field at the point of action. That’s grossly negligent to me.
I think you might be oversimplifying things. The amount of contact that is fair in u-10 game is much different than what is fair in a World Cup final. The laws of the game say pushing is a foul but how much force is necessary to deem a push? Is that force different for a 50 lb child than it is for a 200 lb adult? How about the level of skill? Is the result of that push more egregious to an awkward teenager who can’t co tell their body than it is a professional who can still play the ball correctly? expectations of play is something that has to be considered IMO
And that’s all good and well but there’s a threshold that can’t be crossed at either level. And of the three incidents I’m thinking about, they all endanger the opponent’s safety and are completely outside what should be happening in any game of soccer regardless of level. Us trying to justify the expectation versus what is correct based on safety and the laws is a split of ideology that is dangerous. We can’t be allowing litteral WWE moves to be what’s “expected” on the soccer field.
I think you're blatantly conflating "explaining" and "justifying." No one on this discussion board has any control as to what is expected from professional referees by those who employ them. We aren't "allowing" anything--we are merely observing reality.
https://theathletic.com/news/sporti...e-for-cristian-roldan-body-slam/baNl9l0GVxi0/ one game suspension, undisclosed fine my take- MLS felt they had to do something after all the attention paid to it but the nature of the suspension is such that they didn’t believe it was an egregious miss.
But we are here trying to justify it. Or we at least somehow are accustomed to it. I’ll never understand how we both look to refs at the highest levels as the examples to strive to, then in the same breath we say, “well remember they have different expectations on them so they have to do things differently.” Seriously?!
I think this is correct to some extent. But it's also worth noting or acknowledging that reporting relative to a 2-game suspension having been on the table is correct. So while the outcome reflects your assessment, there were also individuals/entities within the league that wanted to treat it as something more severe than "run-of-the-mill VC."
Has there been any discussion behind the scenes about VAR getting involved, or not, on this call? @MassachusettsRef;s statement back at the beginning that there wasn't much for VAR to do considering the CR was looking at the play and made the call made a lot of sense to me A foul that could have resulted in a multi-game suspension though seems like something that people might want VAR to step in on though.
This is the second time in relative quick succession that your definition of "justify" doesn't seem to comport with that of others. I agree with @socal lurker . I see mostly attempts at explanation, not justification (I'd concede that some of my initial analysis maybe hovered in both zones).. And I don't comprehend how you could possibly not understand that or think otherwise. Professional referees provide examples to strive to if you want to reach the professional level. They are not providing examples of how to officiate 98% of the matches out there (and with the advent of VAR, I might say 100% of the non-professional matches). Anyone who has ever moved up the ladder knows this; you have to calibrate your decision-making for the level you are at. You're supposed to serve the game and competition that is in front of you. If a referee handles a U14 game in the exact same manner they would handle a USL match, then they are doing something wrong in at least one of them. Other than basic things like professionalism, appearance, fitness, preparation, etc, no one should look at an MLS match and say "yes, that's how I'm going out to call my local youth game this weekend!" I think the fundamental disconnect here is the belief that there's one referee community or one "game." As @socal lurker rightly points out, the referees in MLS are doing their best to follow the instructions of their employer--that's the whole ballgame. Nothing you/we say or think really matters in the "justifying" realm. We can observe, critique, and take some lessons for our various matches--or just discuss things for the fun of it. But if you're approaching things at the highest levels with the notion that they should reflect what is happening and how things should be called at the larger grassroots, I just don't agree. And I think most of the people who work in MLS--individuals who, inherently, have gone up the ladder and used to observe other professional referees--would tell you the same thing. There must be an element of "don't try this at home" with some of the advanced game and player management approaches that occur at the highest levels. It's abundantly clear that you don't like that, which is fine. But arguing it's not reality or that we can change that reality just feels weird to me.
PRO: did not rise to violent conduct due to the lack of brutality MLS: violent conduct Isn't it usually the other way around?
But you have to normalize this with regards to how MLS deals with really any misconduct either missed by the officials or given. It's not like this is a league that gives out multi-game suspensions left and right and suddenly deemed this one not severe. They don't think anything is severe. MLS and the MLS PA basically don't want players suspended at all. This is a league that basically has to be begged by PSRA and PRO to do something about abuse or assault towards officials. Yet, they are going to drop the hammer on an asshole goal keeper? There was a coach that basically accused the officials of being straight up crooks multiple times in a post match interview and the only punishment was an "undisclosed fine" and a poorly written email to PSRA pretending to care from the commissioner. Unless your tackle breaks an opponent's leg, you're not getting a multi-game suspension for SFP. If the Rock doesn't retweet this and it doesn't happen on national television, I have my doubts he even gets one game.