2022 MLS Week 34 Referee Discussion

Discussion in 'MLS Referee Forum' started by A66C, Oct 4, 2022.

  1. jarbitro

    jarbitro Member+

    Mar 13, 2003
    N'Djamena, Tchad
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, I think it "feels like" a pk, but doesn't "feel like" DOGSO. I just meant I could see referee's waving it off, saying "no intent" kind of thing, or I could see them pointing to the spot, and players accepting that, because hey, it did hit his arm at an opportune time. But I don't think players would have accepted a red. Now, had it come off his hand, or had he fisted the ball away, then I think you enter the world where red is accepted.
    As for something more factual instead of guess work, I'd say direction of ball. The cut back was away from the goal, and at that distance, 30degrees away from goal is way more significant, and sets up an off-foot shot that's not squared up to the goal. I think DOGSO-H was designed more for handling off the goal line, or blocking a shot out of the box (keeper) than a sneaky/instinctive interference on a cut back in a fast moving play.
    This is already too long, but one more thought on how players would accept the foul--when the whistle blows, the attackers feel vindicated--they got their PK, and not cheated (their goal got robbed). While not "factual" that feeling I think should be a part of a high level referee's awareness.
     
  2. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    I’ll start by agreeing for sure that if it’s a penalty, it has to be a yellow for SPA at a minimum.

    I think the technical question of DOGSO is surely interesting. For me the direction is not a big issue. The only point that I might have against it is the likelihood of control of the ball; the touch is bouncing and goes to the attacker’s left at the same moment that the attacker cuts right. The defender is trailing a bit, but is on the left side and so might have a chance to contest for control of the ball.

    Gun to my head, I would say DOGSO over SPA here, but I think it’s definitely too ambiguous to warrant a review anyways.

    (And of course, as I’ve rambled on about too much already in this thread, I personally hate that this is a handball in the first place, but that’s more a disdain for the philosophy and direction of PRO’s instruction than anything against Rivas or Jurisevic or anyone here)
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  3. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    I actually feel like it’s the other way around. No professional referee is deliberately missing a KMI red card because it wouldn’t go over well with the players. Refs might get away with that in an amateur Sunday league, but not at the professional level where every decision is scrutinized and scored.
     
  4. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    While you have a point about KMIs, I also don’t think Law 18 goes completely away. At some level calls like this come with a certain level of feel to them. (See signature line below . . ]
     
  5. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    PHI-TOR sees seven TFC players mob the referee on the penalty for the Union’s third goal with not one card issued. And we wonder why those of us at the grassroots have to deal with this stuff.

    Michael Bradley led the mobbing as captain. He should have had a card really quickly.
     
    StarTime repped this.
  6. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    About 10 minutes into LAFC-NSH - How the pull back on Arango is not called as DOGSO red in real time, let alone after a VAR check, is beyond me. It’s straight on goal, 30 yards out, no defender covering, and it’s a clear pull back. If we aren’t giving a DOGSO red for that, what do we give a DOGSO red for?
     
    gaolin and blech repped this.
  7. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Certainly an interesting game in Austin today. Austin had two goals waved off for offside, one via VAR and one from the AR. Then a possible DOGSO foul on Colorado in stoppage time was uncalled and Colorado went back down the field to score in the last minute to get a point.

    I'm not here to argue for or against the calls (though I will say that even wearing burgundy colored glasses I think the Rapids benefitted) but to comment that the Austin announcers took their disgust to another level. Highly unprofessional. Does the league ever take steps towards having the announcers tone it down when it comes to officiating?
     
    SccrDon repped this.
  8. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My guess is that there may be a phone call from PRO or MLS, but that will be it. After today, local broadcasts are done. National broadcasts for the playoffs, then the Apple deal goes into effect. No real reason or punishment to send out here.

    That being said, I don’t like broadcasters ripping officials. You can point out controversial issues without sinking to that level. As someone who dabbles in broadcasting, you can get the point across without just going full homer. I get that I’m an official and defer to them a lot. However, there are times when you at least have to say, “Hey, that was a point of contention.”
     
    StarTime, gaolin and JasonMa repped this.
  9. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Good point, there's nothing to address here since they're all out of a job now anyway. Pretty sad for them to go out like that though.
     
  10. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I even tweeted that I thought the review was coming, and I don't do that unless I'm pretty darn sure.
     
  11. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Lets call it what it is - Unless it was so obvious that there was no choice at all, we weren’t going to see red cards this week since that would mean a suspension from playoff-eligible teams’ first games.

    That being said, I personally thought that play met that standard. It was just so obvious to me.
     
  12. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    He was already on one, no? Not saying you're wrong in theory but in practice... Michael Bradley leaving on a perceived "soft" 2CT in a blowout Decision Day game is probably not the path that most referees in this league would choose, nevermind one of the ones who isn't an established veteran.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Anyone have video of the LAFC-NSH incident that doesn't require me searching through ESPN+?
     
  14. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Honestly, I'm not sure about Bradley being on a caution. I turned the game on really late as I was flipping through various games. You're right - if Bradley was on a caution, he wasn't getting a second one (see my previous post about not issuing reds unless it was just so blatantly obvious). So card someone else, then.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  15. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    I didn't see the incident and can't comment if Bradley really deserved a 2CT for dissent. We all agree that in practice and, in theory to an extent, that a player on a caution should have a greater leash when it comes to receive a card for dissent.

    Let's say for the sake of argument that he really did deserve the card for dissent. If you can't send Michael Bradley off for dissent on the last game of the season in a 4-0 game with his team eliminated from the play-offs then when can you?

    It's the easiest red card to give. You think Michael Bradley is gonna be upset about missing the first game of next season in 15 degree weather in a foot of snow (if they play in Canada or somewhere in the north east)?

    We just saw Sergio Ramos get sent-off for abusive language 40 minutes into a league match on a 0-0 game without hesitation and we all applauded it. Keep in mind Ramos plays for the club that practically runs Ligue 1.

    Yet, here we are excusing a referee not having the courage to a send-off Michael Bradley. Come on.
     
    StarTime repped this.
  16. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree with everything you say except the last line. I'm not excusing, just presenting what reality is. That card is not coming in this situation unless we reach the point where physical contact and direct/personal insults are occurring (and even then, it might depend on the referee). But that's because not everyone is thinking it through the way you just did--or, to be more generous, they are weighing different factors.
     
  17. gaolin

    gaolin Member+

    Apr 21, 2019
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am oscillating between typing that's better than I expected or exactly what I expected. It's one of those.

    Obviously Unkel is making the case that there is a second covering defender. And the further out from goal you are, the more credible that becomes because a lot can happen and it's often hard to accurately judge sprint and closing speeds. But the defender in question was already beat (McCarty is the second defender to engage) and is coming from behind as the ball is played diagonally to the left. That last fact is sort of what seals DOGSO for me. If the attacker was making a beeline to goal, the defender has a better chance of closing. But he's smartly playing it slightly diagonally which, almost perversely, makes the eventual GSO all the more obvious. Anyway, for me it's red. And I think McCarty knows it's supposed to be red.

    Hate to say it, but at both the referee and VAR level this definitely feels like a "there has to be absolutely no way out for us to go red" type situation. I think Unkel's decision is wrong, but borne out of the moment and the recent instruction that obvious means obvious, which I feel has put a little too much doubt into some referee's minds (or, less charitably, has allowed some referees to find the excuse they want). And once Unkel goes yellow and says it is because of the covering defender, I can totally see a VAR looking at it, believe it's very close to obvious DOGSO, but accepting that Unkel's initial argument is at least reasonable so sitting on their hands and not sending it down because of, again, both the moment and instruction around the obvious nature of obvious GSOs.

    All in all, I'd say I'm disappointed here but not shocked.
     
    StarTime and AlextheRef repped this.
  19. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    In theory? Can’t agree with that. A caution is exactly that—a warning that behavior must be better or you can’t play any more today. While there is certainly a practice of using cautions as a way of saying “now you get get away with more,” I don’t think that is the theory of the LOTG.
     
    StarTime repped this.
  20. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    I would have DOGSO here but I can get behind the argument for the check complete, I think. The other defender is even with the attacker and only about 2 yards to his right. Strictly speaking he’s not currently between the attacker and the goal, but, relative to the distance the attacker would still need to cover, he has a chance to get there. Unkel sells the call really strongly by pointing to the other defender right away, knowing that he’s going yellow the whole time and knowing that everyone expects red here.

    What I’m not fine with is the fact that at least 6 LAFC players mob Unkel right away and not a single one gets a card. Like the situation with Toronto another commenter mentioned, this is unacceptable and sets a terrible precedent for the rest of the pyramid. Referees at all levels should be empowered by their organizations to let the cards fly in situations like this.
     
  21. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I fully realize that I probably thought red because of the obviously cynical nature of the foul. Right or wrong here, the blatant pull back on the shoulder with zero attempt to play the ball is what seals it as DOGSO for me. On a play like this, I feel like I could sell a caution if this was a legitimate attempt to play the ball instead of such a blatant pull back.

    Again, I 100% realize that I should NOT be taking the nature of the foul into account if I'm looking to make a decision fully consistent with the Laws. I just know that the clear and cynical nature of the foul would ultimately be a subjective factor as I'm running in determining what card to issue.

    I was the one who made the comment about the mobbing of the referee by TFC, and I totally agree with you here. There has to be at least one card of some type here. When the top domestic league lets this go, then you'll see it happen farther down the chain.
     
  22. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    I’ll throw my hat into the ring on this too because it’s an issue I’m very passionate about.

    If I were Supreme Emperor of Everything, I’d tell my referees that they should be carding every player who commits dissent in a mob, whether that’s one player or seven players. And it would be a tough learning curve for the teams at first, but after a few months of a crackdown we’d see better behavior result from it.

    If, for various reasons, that’s not a possible approach in practicality, and the referee organization needs to instruct referees to limit themselves to one or two yellow cards in this situations, that’s one thing.

    But instructing them to explicitly avoid giving one of these cards to a player who already had a yellow? That’s completely backwards, and dare I say cowardly, instruction.

    Players who have been cautioned should not have a longer leash to commit misconduct. It is their own faults they are already cautioned, and if they then go out of their way to commit a needless cautionable offense by dissenting to the referee, there should be no one to blame but themselves when they get sent off for it. The referee should not be criticized for “failing to keep 22 on the field” or for “making themselves the center of attention” when this happens; instead the player should be criticized for his misconduct which hurt his team.

    Furthermore, a policy of “you’re allowed to dissent in a mob if you’re already on a yellow” lacks most of its teeth: the big threat of yellow cards is that a second one means a send-off. If referees officiate these mobbing incidents in a way that guarantees that no one is sent off, then (for the most part) it’s an all-bark-no-bite policy; the consequences of the first yellow card don’t actually exist if the referee wants to avoid showing a second one.
     
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't want to jump too far into Unkel's head here, but I would suggest it's very difficult (and potentially very counterproductive) to give a dissent card to a player protesting a call that, deep down, you yourself would admit you would make differently in slightly different circumstances. To come out of that situation at the 10' mark with one card to each team would not be, shall we see, managing an event/spectacle. It wouldn't feel like justice.

    And yes, in this instance I essentially am making excuses if your priority is stamping out dissent. But there's a time to be a hero and there's a time to manage a professional match. In this situation, if you're going yellow (and that's a HUGE "if" from me because I believe I would have gone red in real time), you know you're going to be eating a lot of dissent and you're probably accepting of that as you blow the whistle.
     
  24. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd


    Since I've been watching Instant Replay, it has gone from one extreme to another. At the beginning everything was a red card and penalty kick.

    Now it's turning into a defacto Dale Johnson PRO propaganda piece defending sometimes the indefensible.

    Some of this is laughable.

    No "contact" in Vancouver vs. Minnesota? Are we not watching the same thing? The attacker just jumped over Will Trapp for no reason and stayed down?

    The Colorado vs. Austin offside? Are we not sure, that the defender didn't poke the ball to the attacker? If the freeze frame is right, that looks enough for the attacker to be onside. He looks well behind the defender.

    Even the missed DOGSO in LA was an exercise in looking for an out and saying the call was correct.

    Then the DOGSO appeal at the end in Austin. You want to say it's not a foul, fine. But to say that even if a foul is a called that a yellow would be appropriate is absurd. It's a rolling ball on the ground with the keeper nowhere near in sight. Who else but the attacker is going to get to the ball and be one on one with the keeper?

    If Christina Unkel wants to continue doing this, she has to have more courage to just say, "hey they got this wrong, this is a bad call." She does this on Champions League coverage so often.

    Referee blows an obvious call and then she goes into lawyer mode and starts using mental gymnastics as to why the VAR didn't intervene or why the call was correct on the field. Her analysis of the missed handball in the Inter vs. Barcelona match was so cringeworthy. You lose total credibility with the viewers and audience when you do this.

    You have to be willing to throw your referee colleagues under the bus when you take on a job like that. You have to be willing to step on toes.

    It's why Mike Perreira remains the gold standard for rules analysts on NFL games. He isn't shying away from calling out bad calls.
     
    frankieboylampard, StarTime and JasonMa repped this.
  25. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have to agree with @RedStar91. I only watched the two Austin-Colorado incidents (for obvious reasons) but I was surprised that nobody found them to be the wrong call. I can get to where they are coming from, but it felt like the discussions we have here about theoretical reasoning and not "what the game expects". On the offside call if that's really the best angle VAR had then yeah, I can probably go along with "not clear and obvious" since it was close, but that seems to be a huge favor to Colorado. Not even sending the DOGSO down though? That seems like a huge stretch.
     

Share This Page