10/29/19 Western Conference Final Los Angeles FC vs Seattle Sounders Banc of California Stadium (10PM ET) REF: Jair Marrufo AR1: Frank Anderson AR2: Logan Brown 4TH: Ted Unkel VAR: Geoff Gamble AVAR: Eric Weisbrod 10/30/19 Eastern Conference Final Atlanta United vs Toronto FC Mercedes-Benz Stadium (8PM ET) REF: Alan Kelly AR1: Ian Anderson AR2: Nick Uranga 4TH: Nima Saghafi VAR: Jon Freemon AVAR: Robert Schaap
My guess is Chapman-Rockwell-Dunn-Elfath-Brown-Jurisevic-Blanchard. But I've heard a decent source say Vazquez might fill the FO role, which seems unwise to me (if you don't trust someone to do a playoff match, do you really want him as the guy who fills in for an injury in MLS Cup?) but not crazy if you treat it as an award for a rising FIFA.
To me, the biggest surprise is not seeing Sibiga at all. Also not crazy if you want to show some respect for the voters, since he came in second (behind Chapman) for Referee of the Year. (I don't know that they do, I'm just saying that they might.)
Agreed. No Toledo is also a bit of a surprise (I’d have had him over Unkel) but a signal of a changing of the guard, perhaps. Meh. Then why not a semifinal? You either trust him with a playoff match or you don’t. Going this route is nice, but risky. Also, how do the nominees get selected in the first place? Suffice it to say I don’t put much stock in the results of RotY voting—or the process itself.
Neither do I, and I used to have a media vote. On tonight’s game - has Marrufo let a couple of careless charges go?
Thoughts on Marrufo's performance. Thought it was a balanced performance, was but a little to lenient regarding hands/arms to the face/neck area, as well as players charging through the back of other players when contesting balls in the air.
Marrufo always has such a high foul threshold for me, but I've come to appreciate his ability to handle without incident the big games.
I agree that no one should be surprised by now about Marrufo's foul calling (or lack thereof). Every team should know the book on every referee and plan for it, especially at this point of the season. For tonight's game, I think the soccer gods had to intervene after that "penalty" call.
Very interesting. I think you could maybe say it was clearly wrong and overturn. Maybe. But maybe there was an angle that showed more contact. If you call it, I don’t know how you don’t say it’s not a red, though. Given the standards in MLS this year, feels like it should have been reviewed one way or another.
If you're calling it a foul... yes. Was it a foul? Debatable. But according to the VAR, not clearly and obviously an error, so... sure!
Bradley’s rather muted protest really gives me pause. He’s not exactly the kind of guy to roll over too easily if he felt a completely phantom call—against him—was (very likely) about to end his season unfairly. At the same time, it’s hard to see where there was any consequential contact.
I hope they look at halftime -- someone elsewhere is making the case that other defenders could've intervened. (Which would make it that much dumber that Bradley put his hands there -- even if you don't foul him, you're just asking for a call.)
No one was intervening before a shot occurred. There was a player in the vicinity but he was marking another Atlanta player. No way he would have been able to contest a shot. After the foul, it looks like he was back “covering” but after the foul doesn’t matter.
Remarkable that no red card was produced. That costs Atlanta an MLS Cup appearance. Scandalous! No matter how hard PRO tries to improve MLS refereeing, the same style of don't call fouls and don't give red cards rolls around every playoff season.
Did we ever get a replay of the foul Atlanta wanted called prior to the winning goal? There was a tackle in the other half that started the change of possession—left an Atlanta player on the ground.
Ummm....no. Having the penalty saved and therefore allowing Toronto back into the game cost Atlanta an MLS Cup appearance.
No, I never saw it. From my view, looked like a clean tackle against Nagbe, but was curious to see a replay. Kelly seemed to have a good look at it.
If it's deemed a foul and DOGSO, I would think it has to be a send off no matter what because it would be deemed a hold (push, pull, or hold as a part of the DOGSO law). The foul was called because Bradley had his hands on Martinez. (Now if you want to debate whether that was a foul or not, I think that's a legit discussion. There was contact, but I don't think there's any doubt Martinez made more of it than it really was. For me, I can see why the foul was called.) What confuses me here is why it was a caution. If Kelly thinks it isn't DOGSO because of the other TFC defender closing in, then the foul itself doesn't rise to the level of a caution. You can't really say it's SPA or some other sort of tactical foul. For me, the options are no foul, a simple foul, or a DOGSO red. Since I've long been on record as believing professional leagues will find any conceivable way to keep matches 11 v 11, I'm sure some reason can be cooked up to justify the caution . . .
I think Kelley used the VAR and headset to sell this call. Bradley certainly swam around the attacker, and that is often enough to get a call. But by pointing to his headset, obviously having a conversation about it, then issuing the caution, Kelley killed dissent. Any argument would have been with the VAR then, who is not on the field. He made it look like "Oh, the VAR is telling me caution on this too, what can I do?" Obviously we know that is not how VAR works, but Bradley obviously doesn't.