@socal lurker, I think this is one where if you take the words of my post literally without watching the actual play and seeing the incident in question... we're left with this confusion! The defender was never getting to the ball before it crossed the line. He wasn't stopping the ball from going in the goal. This is why, practically, he didn't make a last ditched attempt (combined with the fact that he was stunned--as was most everyone--by the trajectory of the bouncing ball). But if he HAD made a move toward the ball, it would have at least looked very close. And he would have made contact with the attacker in an OSP before the ball actually crossed the line. Otherwise, I bet he would have been able to kick the ball after it crossed the line but likely before it landed on the ground in the goal. So he would have got to the ball, just too late for it to matter. To @incognitoind 's point above, if Bello made that effort you'd end up with a situation where, for all practical purposes, the player in the offside position did not contribute to the goal being scored. So, philosophically, it's really tough to make an argument that there is a Law 11 offence. But per our instructions? Physical contact with an attacker in an OSP who is standing right on the goal line as the ball crosses that goal line? It has to be offside. For the reasons @incognitoind says, the attacker would be impacting the ability for the defender to play the ball. Now, any play would almost certainly be once the ball crossed the line and, if not, would just help deflect the ball over the line. But I say that with like 99.94% certainty. And when we're dealing with offside offences like this, that's not enough to ignore it.
In NSH-ORL, Elfath has called a few soft fouls, especially early on, but has been very solid overall. Both ARs are doing well, but haven’t been too tested. I don’t really like how chummy/patronizing Elfath’s style is, though. It seems like it wouldn’t work well if the players are intent on misbehaving. We’ll see how the 2nd half goes.
68’. Elfath called a foul against Nashville but then restarted with a dropped ball to Nashville. It’s one of those bizarre ones he has every half dozen or so games. It was a soft foul against McCarthy but he called it. Then there were two players down with minor injuries which caused a delay. So I guess he changed his mind, said there wasn’t a foul, and gave Nashville the ball? But Orlando had possession.
The above bizarre scenario aside, Elfath certainly got through that cleanly. But it was also—surprisingly to me—not as tough as the Portland match. I think we will see both Villarreal and Elfath again in the playoffs. Even just 48 hours later, I don’t think the late incidents in Portland have staying power insofar as being marks against Villarreal. Chara not being injured is very helpful to him.
Threads like this make me sad that I don't care about or watch MLS. Lots of good discussion seems to be happening, lots of learning chances, and I just can't gather myself to watch soccer games because I don't enjoy the sport that much.
Big fan of Dickerson’s foul selection this game. He’s had lots of opportunities to call soft fouls, but has very consistently declined every time. Players know exactly what to expect, they know they can’t expect to get bailed out by the referee’s whistle when they go down easily, and the game is flowing very nicely as a result. I want to see the Everton Luiz yellow again, but on the whole I think Dickerson has done quite well tonight (knock on wood for the last few minutes and extra time).
Dickerson has been really, really good. Just short of flawless. But this challenge in extra time on Roldan... I don't understand how Ford isn't sending that down other than the moment.
Did I jinx it? Haha And similar weird restart as you were talking about earlier. He originally called a foul coming out (free kick for RSL), but then restarted with a dropped ball (for RSL).
The Luiz yellow was good. Honestly, maybe over-punished rather than under-punished, if that was your question. It was late, missed ball and was not pretty in its nature, but it also didn't really connect much at all. And your "knock on wood" comment is why I hadn't said anything about this match! I guess we're all going to move on from that Roldan incident, but Holden's argument that it was "natural" and the defender had "no other place to put his leg" is just wrong.
Similar, but slightly different. I could see his AR bailing him out and saying it wasn't a foul once the whistle was blown. That really couldn't apply with Nashville. And, in this situation, at least he dropped the ball to the right team! In short, Dickerson's felt like an acknowledgement he screwed up initially and found the best result without doing a total 180. Elfath's was just... something else.
Can someone clarify the rules for keepers coming off their line early on PK's? When Frei's save was annulled in round 2 of the shootout, the commentators stated that it was because his foot made contact with the ground in front of the line before the shooter struck the ball. However, this also appeared to be the case when Ochoa saved from Rowe in round 6, but nothing was called and the save was allowed to stand. Just a missed call?
One foot must be on or in line with the goal line. The other foot can be wherever. In Frei’s case, both feet were off the line. On this point though, I’d like to amend your question to something that has confused me, and see if anyone smarter than me here has a good answer: are we only supposed to look at the moment the kick is taken, or do these restrictions apply from the moment the referee blows up until (and including) the moment of the kick? I noticed on one of the kicks that was scored, Frei at one point had both feet behind the goal line and then stepped forward such that at least one foot was in line with the goal line at the moment the kick was taken; would this kick have been retaken off Frei had saved it?
Thanks for the clarification....on Ochoa's save, one foot was still on the line, so that means it was legit.
The law reads “when the ball is kicked” which is the moment the attacker makes contact with the ball.
In one place, yes, but it also says: “The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing the kicker, between the goalposts, without touching the goalposts, crossbar or goal net, until the ball has been kicked.” And the R is not supposed to whistle unless the GK is there. That said, I’ve never seen a GK called for moving behind the line during the run up—and I can’t imagine it being called unless IFAB/FIFA were to decide they cared and made it a point of emphasis.
The challenge on Roldan is a very interesting case study discussion but I think it's largely a VAR question, because getting that live is extraordinarily difficult. You can, of course, fault Dickerson for not having the foul or at least a caution at all, though. But that incident aside, I think that when you take into account match intensity and the circumstances for the individual referees, Dickerson had the most impressive performance of the six matches (though I should stipulate I didn't see much of Kelly at all). Penso was also very good but that’s to be expected—this was a big assignment for Dickerson. Bazakos and Elfath were clean but those matches never really rose to a challenge (a testament to them). And then Villarreal had some shaky moments but he also had what seemed the toughest match. Overall, I think PRO will be happy with the first round. I believe only the Minnesota penalty claim can count as a potentially consequential miss. Then you have two possible SFPs—one clear, one more borderline—that are worthy of VAR discussion. Don’t think there was anything else big, right?
It seems like most of the MLS games I've watched over the summer and fall (which admittedly, isn't that much given a move and a crazy work schedule) have had Dickerson working. He's not perfect, but I am overall impressed with him. He seems to have the respect of the players and gets a lot of big calls right. Is it reasonable to think we see him one more time either on an Eastern QF or SF?
I don't think so, but I've been wrong probably just as much as I've been right on these things--if not more. This was Dickerson's first playoff match--two in a debut year feels like a stretch. Plus, he did get a lot of big calls wrong this year... but he was very good at using VAR to fix them. I think it really comes down to: Unkel-Fischer-Stott---XXXXX in the quarterfinals and Elfath-Villarreal---XXXXX in the final three matches The two wildcards could both be repeats from an earlier round (and in the second case, almost certainly will be). Then you have Chilowicz, Saghafi and Chapman out there as possibilities as well. There are some variables to this, such as Stott just doing a conference final and skipping the quarters, but the above seems the most logical framework.
This was Dickerson’s second playoff match; he had Philly - New England last year (as well as Orlando vs LAFC at the MLS Is Back Tournament if anyone wants to count that). Chilowicz, Saghafi, and Chapman are all refs I’d love to see on playoff games. Chilowicz in particular was terrific in the playoffs last year, and Saghafi was good too. (I can’t say the same about Chapman obviously, but he’s also Chapman, he has the pedigree). I wonder, assuming you’re right that Villarreal’s performance in Portland leaves some question marks about what was pegged to be an MLS Cup run for him, if they will throw him into a quarterfinal match, probably in the East, as something of a final test for him. One name that isn’t mentioned is Alan Kelly. Especially given how open the race is at the top right now, I have to imagine we will see him again somewhere. Penso as well, to a lesser degree. And, like you, I liked Dickerson’s performance and would love to see him again, but there’s just so few games. It’s impossible to squeeze EVERYONE in!
Thanks for the correction. My fault there! It feels like there's only room for two of them at most and likely only one. I think Chilowicz is most deserving from what I've seen this year, but Chapman does have the pedigree so many he's the default option. We'll see soon enough! I don't see that happening. First, I am not convinced it put that many question marks on the idea with Webb and those who matter--I genuinely have no idea how they saw it. Second, even if it did... well, that was the test; you don't throw him into another playoff match, with even more pressure, to figure out if he's ready. You either move to Plan B or you don't. And finally, logistically I just don't think it's feasible. Unless I'm way, way off-base, PRO would have had a plan for the four QF assignments when they made the first round ones. So testing Villarreal again would mean taking away an earned QF assignment from someone else, which just isn't fair. I think Kelly and Penso are the top two names to look for as a "repeat" referee on the conference finals or QFs. From my perspective, it really all comes down to how PRO wants to handle Stott. Just as it always does. He's sort of a "have to use" referee and you can use him on the toughest of matches. But PRO doesn't seem to see fit to consider him for MLS Cup. So is it one-and-done in the QFs? Is he saved for the the conference finals?
I actually thought Penso did even better at this than Dickerson, but his game probably wasn’t as difficult.
I totally blanked that we are still in single elimination and one-legged playoffs. There are half as many games as I thought.
Meant to post this earlier… Unreal. Team this ref. pic.twitter.com/I5k03gBG7N— vakidis (@vakidis42069) November 24, 2021