2023 MLS Week 17 Discussion

Diego Chara VERY lucky not to be sent off for a 2CT in the 24th minute of Seattle-Portland.

Catches Nico Lodeiro late and high with studs showing to the back of the calf.

 

Not surprising at all considering who is the referee.

 

Getting playoff El Trafico flashbacks

 

Really interesting situation in St. Louis, a mass confrontation leads to a red card for a Houston player when it looked like he threw a St. Louis player to the ground, but then it’s overturned after OFR because it was clear on video that there was no contact to the head and that the opponent simply embellished the contact. But I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion and then not book the St. Louis guy for simulation.

 

What does they ball being in play have to do with the force used?

 

Good use of VAR to overturn a simulation Cal and award a PK in COL-SJ.

(Less convinced on the accuracy of the mustard & ketchup red)

 

What do you think about the disallowed goal in roughly the 24th minute do Vancouver vs SKC? Some offside offense called on the field I guess? I don’t see it.

The 8th minute review for DOGSO seems like a bad recommendation to me. It’s too far from goal, so the defenders, albeit far away, have a chance to recover.

 

I'm willing to die on this hill, but the disallowed goal in Vancouver is a good goal.

It's like the umpteenth example in MLS this season where OIO is taken to such an extreme and basically deeming if any attacker is in an offside position within the frame goal than it's OIO.

If that was the goalkeeper instead of a defender that Vancouver player is right next to, then yeah it's OIO, but it's not.

The defender isn't even attempting to try and get to the ball and prevent it from going into the net. I could plausibly buy that it's OIO if the defender himself is actually trying to get to the ball. But he's not.

Everyone wants goals and everyone wants fair goals. No one is gonna look at this play and say that's an unfair goal.

OIO is partially a judgement call with subjectivity and there is some "in the opinion of the referee."

MLS referees do a lot of good things and MLS VARs are doing a pretty good job all things considered, but they are really missing the forest from the trees on OIO.

 

It's been a while since De Oliveira had an incident where VAR had to bail him out from an embarrassing mistake which tells you that almost anyone with a basic understanding of the game, fitness and enough practice and opportunities can turn into a competent or semi-competent professional referee.

Inevitably it occurred in the Miami vs. DC game with that early DOGSO red card upgrade via VAR.

How do you not have DOGSO on the field initially? It's right on the edge of the penalty area and the "covering" defenders are at minimum 5 yards away (one is probably closer to 10 yards away).

Officiating soccer can be really difficult at times with sometimes no right answer (i.e. the red card in the NYCFC for SFP). But a lot of times it's not.

He's been a professional referee for well over a decade now and he can't get an easy DOGSO decision 5 minutes into the game right?

Everything is communicated now before it even happens (ARs and referees are yelling "DOGSO" before the foul even occurs if it is a breakaway or "think SPA here, etc.") and yet somehow they miss this?

This and the missed SFP in the DC vs. Montreal match are things these guys should be getting right on the field.

 

I thought it was a foul (looks like he may come down on the attacker's foot after going over the ball) but thought it was really weak for a yellow card, not to mention a second yellow after a not-particularly-strong first yellow.

 

Have you heard the audio and confirmed communication happened before? Are you suggesting that the ARs wanted DOGSO and the referee said no? Or are you taking a cheap shot at a guy you don’t like.

If it’s easy then you’re welcome to try. More goes into professional refereeing than kmis and while this is on the very obvious side of things, we all get caught sometimes. The fact that he doesn’t lose all credibility on the field tells you the players trust him. He also spends like 20 seconds at the monitor which tells you he isn’t trying to defend it. The MLS game is fast and there are two defenders right next to him. If you take a snapshot 1 second late you could talk yourself into the wrong decision. He missed it…it happens…and honestly nobody really cares because in the end it’s right.

 

I'm ok with this call. For me the intent of the defender isn't the question. The question is did the movement of the attacker from the time the ball is touched through the entire sequence impact the defender's ability to play the ball? The question isn't did he actually impact his playing the ball, just his ability to play it. And, the attackers movements kind of shepherd the defender away - albeit totally unintentionally. I think the call is good. I think it's really unlucky for the attackers.

 

This is what I was thinking when I posted about it earlier. I see how there could have been interference if the defender was ever actually moving in that direction. But the defender is running away from the attacker and away from the post where the ball eventually goes. He doesn't "interfere with the opponent's movement towards the ball."

 

If that was the language I would probably agree.

But it's not, it's much more defender friendly.

"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

The action is walking forward in the same path as the defender is trying to occupy.

At the point of the shot, the attacker impedes the defender with physical contact but in an inactive way (not saying a foul), but that changes the defenders movement options and where he might go to play the ball. At the time the ball was played, did the attackers movement impact the defender's ability to defend, or in other words to play the ball since he can't move towards the position he wanted to take on the field? Or, do we literally define "ability to play the ball" as in the instant where the defender could try to actually touch the ball? And even if we did, here if the defender wanted to try to slide for this block could he? (given the position of the offside attacker?)

But, I'm looking at this thing as any action by the offside attacker from the time it's last touches the attacker it impacts the defender's ability to play the ball including having to take a different defensive position on the field is enough for a oio here. It's like a 1.5 second window of time where the attacker kind of needs to stay out of that defender's way.

 

So you're arguing for an offside offense under a different bullet point than I am. The language I quoted is in Law 11. I figured the only real justification you could make for an offside offense would be for the following language: "In situations where: • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball." I don't think it's an offense under that bullet point because, as I previously stated, I don't think the attacker interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball.

So, now let's talk about the bullet point you suggested:

In general I agree with your reasoning here, in that the fact that the defender chose not to go to a certain place could have been caused by the presence/actions of the PIOP (I believe I used this same reasoning when debating the infamous Marcus Rashford offside incident in the Manchester Derby). But I don't agree that that's what happened here. The defender was not trying and would never have tried to go towards that space, because the ball was never going to wind up there until it took a wild and unpredictable deflection. I'll add that the defender was already moving away from that space before the kick; he never wanted to wind up there. I also disagree that this is an "obvious action" by the attacker. From the kick point until the moment the ball is past them, the attacker takes a grand total of three steps, and travels about one yard. That isn't an obvious action in my view, which is why I assumed that any argument for an offside offense would have to come from the "is in the way of the opponent" language.

Maybe I've gotten to the point of overanalyzing here, but looking at this in the bigger picture, this doesn't feel like this should be offside because the defender was never going to even try to get to that space anyways, and the PIOP makes no obvious action and doesn't block the defender's movement at all (after the kick).

 

This is my view too. I get what Boiko thought he saw: a lunge over the ball with the studs stamping down onto the top of the foot. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like the studs ever land on the top of either foot, they miss both and land between the two. It’s a foul but not enough for a yellow, to me. Tough one to see in real time.

 

This play is very interesting. Potentially two reckless fouls committed by the same player against two different opponents in the span of one second.

 

I don't really see it like that. We look at the same play and draw two different conclusions of the facts. I have the movement blocked, your don't. Not much more to discuss there.

That said, even if all that is taken away, he still can't make an attempt to block the shot with the guy in the way had he wanted to. Lack of intent is not the issue for me, The impact is he takes away the ability to play in the space to block the shot.



These decisions are often flavor of the year anyway. The standard changes am the time. Let's see what it is this year.