We see what, 2 or 3 of these all year at this point? Just a weird situation and from Katy's perspective I'm sure it felt like an easy decision. Unfortunately, I don't know how many fans are going to even remotely understand that.
Fischer has had a Marrufo-like misconduct threshold. Except for the actual caution he gave, which was very strange—seemed like he saw something (a stamp on foot/ankle?) that wasn’t really there.
We end with the opposite of what we saw with Manchester United and Club Brugge. Yellow to GK for deliberate/cynical handball to stop a shot on an open net. But the handball was 50 yards out and Fischer wasn’t sure it was going in, so went yellow. VAR didn’t intervene (unlike in Europe). It’s a reasonable decision, but given the cynicism (and the fact the net was empty), the red feels the more expected outcome. Without being sure the ball was going in the net, VAR shouldn’t recommend an OFR.
I'm going to respectfully call BS. You don't have to deny an obvious GOAL. Just an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Being certain it was going in the net isn't a prerequisite for a red card. I think that's red every day of the week, five times on sunday. VAR getting involved is a bit more murky, but we don't know what they had to look at.
Ok. Let's go with DOGSO. Distance to goal? 50 yards. Doesn't meet the criteria. Possession of ball / likelihood to gain possession? He took a shot. Defenders in the area? One tracking back. Doesn't meet it. Direction? We're assuming that based on a 50 foot high camera angle, it's probably going somewhere near goal. I'll say this meets it, sure. There's no attacker anywhere near that ball though. There's no way you can categorize that as DOGSO. Only denying a goal, and we have no clue if a goal was denied at that distance.
And this is why the 4Ds aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Distance to goal is irrelevant when there are no defenders covering the goal, and the shot is on the way. Defenders in the area? One tracking back isn't the same as being THERE. That defender was not going to get there. Direction? Unless it was going 20 yards wide, it's still an OPPORTUNITY. Possession? Who needs possession when you've already taken the shot? And actually, this is from IFAB: Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs. I probably should have looked that up first. Would have saved myself some typing.
But, it’s not BS. Where’s the opportunity once the shot is taken? It’s either going to be a goal or, in this situation, a goal kick. Instruction is clear on this for high-level competitions. Denying a goal is a red. Denying a shot on or toward net that isn’t a certain goal is a yellow. The “soccer expects” standard makes this a red. And if it had been given as a red, VAR also would have never intervened (short of evidence the shot was clearly not on target). If Fischer had given the red, I don’t think anyone would have complained. So he chose the technically defensible call over the expected call. No idea which one PRO wants here, but I bet I know which one MLS wants.
Sorry, this is all irrelevant. The shot is off. The opportunity is over. It’s either an obvious goal or it isn’t. That’s the only question. Introducing DOGSO standards confuses the matter.
You’re quoting the Law that I’m explaining to you. It’s not an “opportunity” once the shot is off. So the question is whether or not a goal was stopped. If you’re sure it was, it’s red. If there’s doubt, then yellow. It is that simple. The only real question is whether or not the cynical and obvious nature of the offence might make a referee lean toward being a little more sure the ball was going in. Because it does with fans. And it would with me. But, technically, it’s not supposed to matter.
I'm sorry, I just don't agree. The text I quoted says "Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs." And in this specific case, I would say when the net is empty, and there's no one covering, and the ball is shot in the direction of the goal, the shot IS the opportunity. Getting this deep into parsing words is also probably not supposed to be the point, anyway. A keeper, off his line and out of position, intentionally stopped a shot at goal with his hands to prevent a goal. This seems like a situation the Law was put into place for. Law 18 should take over at some point.
This isn’t a question of agreement. You’re wrong. There’s instruction to professional referees on this. I’m not debating you. I’m—trying—to inform you. Again, once the shot is off, the opportunity is over. It’s a goal or it isn’t. If it’s a goal, it’s red. If it’s not, it’s yellow. Obviously there’s some subjectivity to that assessment, but that’s the question a referee must ask himself. If you want to argue that the shot was going to be well short of the net and therefore the ball would have been possessed by neither team in the penalty area with an open net... then, sure, the “opportunity” clause is back in play. But, first, in this situation that seems demonstrably wrong. And, second, if it’s not wrong it then needs to be obvious that the attacking team is very likely to gain possession next, which simply wasn’t the case. The Law 18 argument is your best one. If you’ve read my posts closely, I’ve basically said I would have gone red here. All I’ve been trying to do is explain how Fischer can (from a technical standpoint, correctly) go yellow when the soccer watching world expects red due to the cynicism.
I said this in the PBP thread... I know the prevailing wisdom is "play to the whistle", but when one of the officials on the field says the play is offside, you tend to think the play is offside. I don't blame them for hesitating. But Atlanta actually hesitated as well, and Nashville dealt with the first chance. I think to blame the AR for the goal would be denying their own responsibility. Mistakes happen, though. I can certainly understand why the AR in this case thought the attacker played the ball forward. I was a little amused that the PBP guys kept making a point of saying it was a deliberate play by the defender. Doesn't matter. Even had it been a deflection, there was never a touch from the attacker that would have made the play offside anyway.
On the handling, think of it this way. What other opportunity is there for Atlanta to score if the ball doesn't enter the goal directly? There are no other forward attackers. Law 12 says that a player will be sent off for denying a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by a handling offense, with the exception of any handling offenses by the goalkeeper inside their own penalty area. The opportunity, obvious or otherwise, was the shot, and at that point, it was out of Atlanta's control. The question for the referee is whether the handling offense denied a goal. If there is doubt, the correct outcome is a yellow for stopping a promising attack. Of course it feels like it should be an automatic red no matter what because it's the goalkeeper and it feels so egregious, but that's not the Law. As for the VAR, they recommend a review here if and only if there is zero doubt that the ball was going to enter the goal. They have to be able to show the referee something that's going to change their mind.
This tweet is from an Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter. Re: the non-red card on the handball, #ATLUTD players were told that there were two defenders behind Willis that would have been able to stop the goal. Ref was very sure of himself and all four refs were in agreement. #MLS #PRO— Doug Roberson (@DougRobersonAJC) March 1, 2020
This is exactly how I feel. It’s cynical and intentional, but it’s not an OBVIOUS goal or goal-scoring opportunity. By law, it’s a caution.
I get this, and I also fully agree that colored socks won’t work when we have a 10 AM game on Field 8, a noon game on Field 2, and a 1:45 PM game on Field 14. At this level, ensuring that referee’s socks contrast with players is a good thing.
Why not? You were making the argument that a red card was only appropriate if it denies a goal. The statement was that the presence of defenders meant it wasn’t an obvious goal.
Again, once the shot is off the question becomes whether the ball is going in the net or not. That’s it. Unless those two (edit: at least one of them) defenders have jetpacks, they are absolutely irrelevant to that question in this case. How can anyone say they would have been able to stop the goal? That’s not true. It was either going in the net or out for a goal kick. The presence of two defenders is answering a question about DOGSO. Two defenders means any opportunity cannot be obvious. And as I’ve said repeatedly, this isn’t a question about DOGSO.
Over the weekend Simon Deli was given a red card for stopping a shot with a hand which looked like the keeper was going to save it: https://streamja.com/NvAe After VAR review they agreed on red. Does that mean they thought the keeper was NOT saving the shot if not for the handball?
I know about this. It is literally the first thing I pointed out when I posted where. And no one agreed on anything. The recommendation of the review meant that the VAR thought it wasn’t going in or there was enough doubt about it going in to make red an obvious error. The referee disagreed and stuck with his call, which was that the ball was going in. This was discussed in the UEFA thread.
This angle shows there was only one defender who could possibly even be in the penalty area when the shot arrived, which is why the “two defenders” answer is poor. The only questions given the facts is whether or not that one defender had a realistic chance of stopping a goal OR there was a chance the shot wasn’t on frame. Again, Fischer is actually on solid ground with the yellow because both are somewhat possible unless video conclusively shows otherwise from a different angle. But as we’ve said, the cynicism of the offence makes that feel wrong.
The stream above does not show both defenders at the time of the shot. Two were making a run back on the original save. At the time of the handball, one was well back, about 10 to 15 yards downfield of the center circle. The other, defender that didn’t stop was further down field, off screen, and the view shows almost down to the penalty arc. The ‘shot’ was made to the left of the center circle, maybe 5 yards past the midfield line. Given this, how can anyone say the defender couldn’t to the goal?
I edited my post a minute ago after watching the video to say only one needed a jet pack. Still, the nature of the answer—reflexively going to “two” defenders—means they were answering the DOGSO question. Not the “denying a goal” one. That one defender near the penalty area is what Fischer wants to point to for doubt. Hell, there could be 10 players behind the goalkeeper here and if they are all within a few yards of the ball, they are irrelevant. It’s not a question of number of players, it’s whether the ball is definitely going in the net or not. Answering the question the way it was done feeds the myth about DOGSO.