2022 MLS Week 10 Referee Discussion

Most interesting thing here was an OFR in the 4th minute that resulted in a red card

https://www.mlssoccer.com/video/red...ard-ralph-priso-mbongue-toronto-fc-4th-minute

Good to see strict enforcement on challenges like this.

 

Do you really want to be the referee who gives a red card in the 4th minute of the game?

This is prevalant thinking, no? I worked with a guy a few weeks who had a clear DOGSO in the 9th minute and only gave a yellow.. and when I asked why, he said "Well you know... it's the 9th minute of the game...."

 

Full assignments are out for the weekend.

Anyone know if we will see Stott on the field this season? Or is he done?

 

I hope so! I know Elfath is trendy for FIFA right now but Marrufo’s able to pull things off in a way that no other ref can. He’s definitely at least in the same echelon as Escobar and Elfath in Concacaf, I really hope we see him at the World Cup (with a whistle).

Edit: One point that perhaps undercuts your theory… if this was the World Cup crew, wouldn’t it be a lot more likely that Anderson would be AR1? He has significantly more international (men’s) experience than Nesbitt does. For example with Elfath it’s always Atkins as AR1, Parker as AR2 when they work together in MLS.

 

Yes. In the world of kmis and assessments the referees in the mls do not care about the time of the game. The penalties for missed kmis are not trivial. The officials won’t likely be willing to give up points because it’s too early in the game. That kind of thinking may work in the amateur game where self preservation takes priority but not at the pro level.

 

I am watching the Inside Video Review which is heavy on offside interference with play and something came to my mind: Do you think PRO or VAR in general worldwide would ever consider having the VAR screen be a telestrator where the CR could see them circling a player or point of contact, etc.? Potentially a telestrator BOTH ways where the CR would ahve a pen he could write on as well? Or would that just be unnecessary?

 

What would the purpose be? Did it seem like there was some confusion that a telestrator would have clarified?

 

VERY interesting non-review for handball in SJ-Colorado, 74th/75th minute. I can get there but its a real stretch to not see that as a handball IMO.

Also the San Jose announcers follow it up with "we were told it was checked and no penalty was awarded". Um no, that's not how it works (Tori Penso never went to the monitor, so it was checked and no clear and obvious error was found).

 

Oh, I know. This is exactly what I told him. "A DOGSO is a DOGSO -- just do it (sanction) and I don't want to hear 'but it's the whatever minute'. The LoTG do not have any provision where it says it needs to meet a certain duration threshold." Or something along those lines. I was stern but he understood... I hope.

And this was for MLS Next. U15M for context.

 

2:34 in this video, with a reverse angle about 10 seconds later. Hard to see how this wasn't sent down for review.

Match recap from the studio with @FlemingSport and @marcelobalboa17 ⬇️#SJvCOL #Rapids96 pic.twitter.com/dscTQarFvf

— AltitudeTV (@AltitudeTV) May 8, 2022

 

The only still shot I've seen of the point of contact appears to me to maaaaaybe be a frame ahead of where it should be based on what I was able to do with limited tech so I am reserving judgment until I can be sure what that looks like.

 

I get the sense this is an unpopular opinion, but I definitely do not think this is not a clear and obvious error. I think there is a strong argument for no handball here. Hear me out:

Nathan’s left arm is in a natural position for a player who is sidestepping to the right. For a sidestepping action, it is normal and natural for a player’s arms - especially their opposite arm - to move away from their side by a pretty large amount. For comparison, look at SJ #3 after the play: he’s making the same action, and his left arm comes out to about the same position:

Additionally, have a look at SJ #80 just before the shot. He’s sidestepping to his left, you can see his right arm come quite far from his body too as a result:

Maybe Nathan’s arm comes out slightly further than those examples. We can split hairs about just how far it was, and at what point that crosses the line into handball, but there’s nothing clear and obvious about that for sure.

Look, I get it’s a tough call, and an even tougher sell since the arm blocks a goal. Maybe this is one of those cases where it feels like the Law gets it wrong. But when the standard for handball now is all about natural position *for the given action*, when the IFAB has said they don’t want to require players to tuck their arms behind their backs anymore… this is the sort of play they’ve chosen to allow.

 

These videos are hard, but I don't see it anywhere as low as you say. Unless there's a better video, I don't see how it's clear enough to recommend it being overturned and if VAR doesn't think the call was clearly wrong, then we all know they aren't supposed to just give the CR another chance to make up her own mind.

(edit: Yes, check my team affiliation. Still not convinced it's nearly clear enough at least from what is here or on replays last night.)

 

Watching it live I was thinking all of the things posted. Yeah, his arm is just a bit out further than it would naturally be. Yeah, it hits just high enough that it could be in that grey area. Yeah, it was a fast enough play that he didn't really react to the ball. I can get to what Stott was thinking by not sending it down.

But oof. If VAR and the handball rule are at the point where that's not a clear handball (that likely prevents a goal no less) that needs review then FIFA and the IFAB need to take a step back (again) and figure this out. Because as is often quoted here, I feel like the game expects a call there and not having one, even if correct by the letter of the law, does more harm to officiating than good IMO.

 

But as described, that’s never been a handball. Until a couple of years ago, all handling had to be deliberate, and I can’t think of anything in prior laws that would make a non-deliberate handling if the arm is in a natural position.

IMO, the problem is not in the handling law, but in the illusion that VAR or lots of words in the Laws can make all handling clear. (I also don’t agree with the idea that non-deliberate contact with the arm should be an offense.)

 

I think back when the language was “deliberate” this would have more often been called than not. Of course, everyone who refereed in that era knows that the definition of “deliberate” was stretched way beyond all practical reason, and other specified considerations were used as guidance instead.

 

I, in turn, am quite surprised at the lack of review in the ~67th minute in Vancouver. It seems clear to me that there is no foul by the attacker on the goalkeeper because the goalkeeper did not have the ball between his hand and a surface. The video showed this clearly. The ball was kicked into his hand before he touched it. Even when explaining his decision to players, Rivas looked to be showing that the hand was over the top of the ball, which is inconsistent with what the video shows: even when there was contact between the ball and his hand, the hand was in front of the ball rather than above it.

Also, there’s a possible SPA in the 75th minute that I think pretty clearly shows how the hard line PRO was taken on SPA at the start of the year has definitely softened quite a bit.

 

I think we need to remind ourselves what the player's purpose was in making that leftward movement. They were trying to block the shot. They succeeded.

The arm is making the body unnaturally bigger IMO so all that really matters for me here is where on the arm the ball made contact. If there's any chance the point of contact is at or above the bottom of the player's armpit, you don't have a clear and obvious error. If it's clearly below that point on the arm, you recommend a review.