2021 MLS Week 10 Referee Discussion

I thought so as well. Maybe could say that there was one central LAFC defender that could be considered as coverage, but this is one where SKC has a goal scoring opportunity and it's clearly an intentional/cynical foul. This is one of those where a caution could have been somewhat justified, but it can be considered a goal scoring opportunity and the foul was clearly intentional. I'd rather see a play like this punished with a send-off so we don't see as many clearly cynical fouls.

 

Timbers coach infuriated about an apparent racial slur sent to one of his players during the match and lack of consequence by the official. Not sure what was said, but he’s hopping mad.

"We are all in support of Diego Chara. What happened to him today, the discriminatory word that was said to him, should not have a place anywhere."

Gio Savarese addresses why the game was stopped in the 65th minute, and expresses his disappointment in how it was handled. #RCTID pic.twitter.com/5FUmTwErq5

— Portland Timbers (@TimbersFC) June 27, 2021

 

I respectfully disagree. The next touch is a shot on goal from inside the penalty area. At this level there is no grey area. That’s a red card

 

Dogso was created to remove cynical “professional fouls” from the game. Like too many things, it has, IMO, become too technical in nature. I’d like to see the cynical element more prominent, if only in an instruction that when weighing the other factors, cynical fouls should raise the bar on the other elements. (We sorta, kinda, not exactly have that in the PA.)

 

I realize I didn't phrase my original post well at all. I am in 100% agreement that this is a send-off for the reasons you mentioned. I also think Chris Penso is one who will make a call like this and not worry about the optics so much.

The better way for me to say what I did is that if Penso had ruled this as a SPA caution, I doubt whether this would have been called down as a clear and obvious error because of the reasons I mentioned. I know a lot of this depends on what the C&O bar is, but had Penso called this a caution I'm not sure he would have been recommended to take another look. I hope he would have, because I do think this is a very professional foul and should lean more toward a DOGSO send-off compared to a legit play on the ball in this case.

A send-off was the right call, and I'm glad it was made. There are referees and situations where I do think we would have seen a caution.

 

Not sure what this clown expects the crew to do. You can't punish what you don't hear or see.

 

If you do that, I think you have to sell it as "mic-ed up for broadcast", and even then probably not.

 

is it still week 10? Unkel with the 5 minute VAR review... How that insanely wild tackle wasn't a PK is beyond me. Is he just claiming that because the player cleared the ball before wiping out his opponent that it was OK? I expect that will definitely be in the week in review

 

Similar issue a couple weeks ago. A player clears out another player after the ball is gone. It seems like a foul everywhere on the field except in the box.



edit at 3:58

 

so at least he's consistent?

 

tonight's was the defender making a clearance and wiping out his opponent as opposed to the crossing player being fouled after the cross.