2020 MLS Week 15 & 16 Referee Discussion

Sounds like quite the cluster in the DC United - Atlanta United match with an unrostered player subbing in at half time for DCU.

 

You can listen to the extended conversation about this in the timeline. While it happened around the 48th minute (and on from there), it's in the timeline at 68.

EDIT: Much easier to access at https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2020...l-canouse-enters-dc-united-illegal-substitute

 

Wow..that is a bad, bad look.

I'll withhold judgment on Dickerson, because I just don't know the procedures for managing substitutions at that level. But it's pretty embarrassing to see such a messy situation come about that could have so easily been prevented by checking a printed roster before allowing a substitution.

 

They are not using printed rosters right now. Digital rosters via smartphone.

 

Bet they'll be using printed rosters from now on.

 

That probably explains this then

 

I'm not sure if anyone else watched the Seattle-Vancouver match, but you missed what may have been the worst call of the year.

Attacker (Cavallini) shoulders defender (Yeimar) off the ball just outside the box and then goes down inside the box. The ref (Tim Ford) awards Vancouver a PK and gives Yeimar a red card.

The after talking with the VAR, goes over to look at the play on the monitor. Looks at the play for a good 2-3 minutes. Still gets it wrong! Changes the red back to a yellow, but still awards the PK.

Problem is twofold.....first is the fact that contact occurred outside the box, meaning the the award of a PK was incorrect. Second is the fact that since the attacker initiated contact, the defender did not commit a foul, let alone one deserving of a yellow card. The correct call should have been a foul on the attacker and a free kick for Seattle going out.

Making the wrong call in real-time is bad enough....still making the wrong call after looking at it on the monitor for 2-3 minutes is inexcusable.

I don't know much about the ref, but he shouldn't be working MLS matches...

 

As far as I can tell...

The foul given was a trip when Yeimar's left leg came out inside the penalty area as he was falling. If that's a foul it's DOGSO and to give a red card the referee would have considered it not to be a genuine attempt to play the ball.

So it goes to review, and they look at two things, starting with the first contact. Obviously outside the area, and very clearly not a foul committed by the defender. Certainly a question there if it's a foul by the attacker, though. If the referee determines it was clearly and obviously wrong to not give a foul there, the review is over and play restarts with a direct free kick for Seattle. However, he decided it wasn't a clear and obvious error so he moved on to the foul he did call, and the same standard is applied: he called a foul so is that clearly and obviously the wrong decision. So he looks at it, decides that yes Yeimar sticks his leg out and zooms in to see if he can confirm that he made contact, and in the end decided that either there was sufficient contact to warrant a tripping foul or that the video was inconclusive, in which case he must keep the original decision on the field, which was a foul.
He does, however, decide that it is a genuine attempt to play the ball and therefore changes the red card to yellow as per Law 12.

Did he get it right? I'd lean towards no. I think the contact from Yeimar is trifling at best and the foul is doubtful and not expected. It's also possible that he *did* call the first contact against Yeimar somehow and thought it was in the area, saw that it wasn't a foul on review and then decided there was a trip anyway, but that feels very unlikely, and I think would definitely be the wrong outcome.

 

There we go. Now at least we know for sure what the call was and can discuss it without speculation.

For those wondering about the foul against Yeimar that set up Vancouver’s goal, I had the opportunity to ask referee Timothy Ford about it via email. Here’s the explainer: #SEAvVAN pic.twitter.com/MkSacQPKhk

— Jayda Evans (@JaydaEvans) October 4, 2020

 

Still a bad call, IMHO.

Even if the ref thought there was a trip, it was inadvertent, and caused by the attacker shouldering the defender to the ground.

There's no way you can call a foul on the defender for anything in that sequence.

 

With the clear caveat that (like @mfw13) it's also my hometown team - though you'll have to trust that I'm more observer than fan - I was stunned that Ford kept the foul and PK once he went to the monitor, and then a little less stunned (even though it was wrong) as the review continued (and continued...).

Getting to watch what the VAR replays real-time is interesting: the broadcast showed what seemed like the most useful video right away - Cavallini bodies Yeimar out of the way outside the PA, Yeimar is clearly trying to regain control and go for the ball, and there is an at-best-trifling trip - but the VAR doesn't start with that clip; the first videos Ford are watching are far away, start after Cavallini's contact [I think?], and are pretty difficult to make out. Only about halfway through the (very long) review do we see the video we see on broadcast, and for a really short time - then there were [some other videos I don't really remember as well]. So you can imagine that with a lot of inbound information, and/or with the VAR perhaps not putting the full story together in the setup for Ford, that might have gotten missed.

All that said, I'm bending over backwards here. Even with the true-and-torturous one clear and obvious review after another framing, the call doesn't seem justifiable at all, and as much as Incredulous Keller is my Favorite Keller, he had good reasons on that one.

 

Wide angle may have been to confirm that the considerations for an obvious goal scoring opportunity were indeed present since that's part of the final decision. Would probably make more sense to look that last, though.

Key thing to remember is that there are two foul decisions under consideration: the no foul by the attacker outside and the foul called on the defender inside, and you examine them in order and with the same standard. Was the decision on the field clearly and obviously wrong? So even if you might call a foul coming out, if you can justify not calling it when applying the considerations for a carless foul, then the decision mustn't change. Then, as long as there is some reasonable justification to call a careless tripping foul, the decision mustn't change.

And again, I disagree with the final outcome. I don't see any reasonable justification for calling a foul against Yeimar. But it's important to understand that there is a significant hurdle to leap in the mind of the referee who, it must be noted, is an experienced VAR so he's very familiar with wading through this gray area. More so than I am, surely.

 

Yikes.

First of all, I'd be in the camp that says a foul call here is a clear and obvious error. I think it's clearly not a tripping foul. That said, I can accept the decision (though the bar for "clear and obvious error" seems to move game by game, which is hard to accept). I think it's a bad call, but maybe it's close enough to a reasonable call that video shouldn't overturn it.

But it's baffling that a red was given for this in real time. It's as if Ford completely forgot that there's no more triple-jeopardy for DOGSO in the box. Even then, this is a somewhat borderline DOGSO for me even under the old standard. I personally don't think this is DOGSO even if the foul was outside the box--though it's close enough that a red would be certainly justifiable.

Not a good look all around.

 

Eh, if the referee thinks he saw a beaten defender throw his leg in the way of the attacker without even being in the general vicinity or direction of the ball, then you can justify a red. In general, lower body fouls are going to be yellow for DOGSO in the area, but the referee is still allowed to use their judgment to determine the nature of the offense, and it is certainly possible to deliberately trip a player without making any attempt to play the ball (most commonly from behind I would think).

But it does need to be something extraordinary. The spirit of the Law is to default to yellow and find a reason to upgrade to red, not the other way around. Pushing, holding, and pulling are explicitly mentioned as fouls for which the referee must go red for DOGSO, even in the penalty area. Otherwise, only if it's not a genuine attempt to play the ball, and the Law does not draw a distinction between a good attempt to play the ball and a poor one. Either can be genuine so the referee must consider whether the challenge is towards the ball or just towards the opponent, and if there's any doubt, they stay yellow.

 

An interesting play from San Jose tonight: San Jose had a PK, which was saved, but the referee called a re-take for the goalkeeper being off his line. However, VAR (correctly) overturned the re-take--the keeper's foot was clearly still on the line.

It's interesting to me, because we've frequently discussed how detrimental it is for VAR to be intervening on trifling PK infractions that in the old world would never get called. But I never expected it to go the other way, with the on-field referee calling the trifling infraction, and the VAR overturning it.

I can't help but wonder if VAR has caused referees to call infractions on PK's that in the past they would have let go, and perhaps that's the reason for the quick whistle in this instance.

 

I do think there is an eagerness to get that call right on the field knowing that it will be reviewed otherwise. Unfortunately, the AR was very wrong this time and ended up accomplishing the exact opposite.

 

Youtube version just in case anyone hates the MLS site...like me.

 

All I got out of this is both HCs behave like babies.

 

Curious what people thought of the handling PK against SJ. About 1:10 on the highlights. https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=onebox&v=Tl1uXSNX3jM

 

Looked like the defenders arm is right at his side when the ball hit. Don’t see a penalty there.

 

Pretty darn harsh, really--I'd go as far as to say that's close to a clear and obvious error, though I understand why it wasn't overturned. His arm is down, and in about as natural a position as you can get.