Incident at 2:13 on a corner. If a foul was adjudged while the ball is in the air, shouldn't it a foul? Seems like black fouled white and then black player, I assumed, dissented with abusive language? But he immediately pointed to corner kick.
The referee is already bringing the whistle up and this is before the corner kick is taken. A corner restart is clearly correct and expected.
I have a maybe obvious question about this. You specifically say "he's already bringing the whistle to his mouth". What if he knows the foul happened before the kick but doesn't blow the whistle/bring the whistle to his mouth in time, so he doesn't blow it until the ball is in midair in the PA. He would still be able to blow it dead and say that the foul was before the restart right?
Of course. Play has stopped when in the mind of the referee, play has stopped. It's physically impossible to blow the whistle instantly. 1 - Foul - Offense* 2 - Law 12 Introduction - "Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play." A DFK offense did not occur because the ball was not in play when it occurred. Misconduct (VC) occurred while the ball was out of play. It is not relevant that it takes a second or two for the referee to then blow their whistle.
Corey Rockwell covered communication for NISOA in 2020. My guess is that a lot of this is standard throughout PRO2, but of course could vary based on the refs personal preferences. But he talks about comms on corners starting at 29:35. If the trail AR was communicating when the run up began, the ref was able to know he was witnessing the offense occur before the ball was in play.
Common sense? If we're going to go down the the whistle is when it matters route then you can say that a penalty kick foul in which you attempted to play advantage and the player then puts the shot over the bar, then you can no longer go back for the pk because now the ball is out of play.
This was actually a question on the recertification test about 8 years ago when there were between 50-100 questions on the exam and before the whole process became a disaster. Can you imagine how much could be learned by today's "Grassroots" Referees if Zoom videos such as this were offered? Both Tori and Corey are great presenters, have a great personality and do a fantastic job on this entire video. In NJ (are they doing this in other states?), they started doing monthly Zoom seminars in January on different topics each month. As you can imagine, its nothing as detailed and professional as this.
Yes, California North Referee Administration (https://www.cnra.net/) has some really awesome monthly webinars that are quite interactive and super beneficial. I've learned a ton participating in those. They might only limit participants to Calif. and western states, not sure.
If you listen in to those, you'll also get to hear the instructor Matt Buckman tell people to shut the hell up when they leave their mics on or start babbling nonsense. They're great.
First, San Antonio's red card appeal was successful in their game against LA Galaxy II. This was the red card incident: (2:14 on YT) Secondly, in tonight's El Paso Locomotive 4-5 Las Vegas Lights game in the USL Championship, referee Brandon Stevis had some work cut out for a fight that broke out with a punch, shoves and much more in this melee. PART ONE: https://streamja.com/ZKPOg PART TWO: https://streamja.com/WLadR
There was 2nd minute Red Card for DOGSO in the FC Tulsa v NYRB II game back in April 2. Wanted to get everyone's opinion on it. Very rare to see a red in the 2nd min -- but it happens...? https://streamja.com/q5ma1
I could see some people making an argument that the touch is a bit heavy and the trailing defender likely recovers this but I don’t think there’s anything clear and obvious to overturn this.
He got the initial caution right and definitely got the VC red right for 20 White. I'd have also sent off 24 Black for a VC headbutt in Part One. Based on that video, for me it's pretty clear 24 Black makes contact with his head.
I have to say yes, it is a red card. Highlighting some of the considerations. 34. Is there a likelihood of the player gaining control of the ball? I'd say yes since the defender has to go around his keeper to get to the ball.35. What is the general direction of play? Straight into the PA 10 yards right of goal.37. Where are the defenders located? GK is left at top of PA. White 90 will be able to defend. White 80 has slowed his run and won't be able to recover. A single defender, who's only opportunity will be to block a shot without using their arms, does not take away the "Obvious Opportunity".
I didn't look up the referee for this match, but thefact that they have the courage to make such a big decision in the second minute on not the most nailed on dogso is a positive for their future trying to reach the top.
This cuts both ways, though. "Courage" can be the perspective of one observer but an eagerness to make a big decision could be the perspective of another. Look at it this way: what decision-maker the referee will encounter as he progresses the ladder would want to see a DOGSO red given on "not the most nailed on DOGSO" in an MLS playoff match in the 2nd minute? "Courage" was a term that used to be stressed on assessment forms. Properly understood, it's absolutely critical. But it needs to mean something like "having the guts to make the correct and proper decision, even when unpopular or difficult." It can't just be defined as having the guts to make a big decision, full stop. Because that's going to lead to big problems. I think this is the crux of the entire matter. I'm not sure I buy the idea that the defender has to go around the keeper being a huge impediment. Because, if not fouled, the attacker still has to go around the keeper on the other side. If he were a human traffic cone, both players would need to devieate their runs to get to the ball. I watch this in real-time and I think you've got something like a 55/45 or 60/40 ball in favor of the attacker. With the mantra coming on from down high that the first O in DOGSO is of paramount importance, I just don't see it here. Yes, it's a "last man" foul. And yes, it being the keeper with only one covering defender who cannot use his hands makes it more likely to qualify if the other conditions are present. But we have to be close to absolutely certain that the attacker will get and control the ball first. He probably wins a foot race to the ball if not fouled. But will he control it or be able to play it in a controlled manner? That seems dubious enough to me to say it's not DOGSO, given current guidance. For what it's worth, internally PRO highlights what it views as the top 4 candidates of "call of the week" from matches handled by PRO2 officials. It's a way to educate, generate discussion and highlight excellent decisions by colleagues. If something is controversial but deemed correct, it usually gets included as a nominee. This was not included for the relevant week. That doesn't mean it was assessed as an incorrect decision per se, though one might draw that conclusion. But it does mean PRO didn't view it as worth highlighting to its other officials as a top decision.
Since when is the clear and obvious standard for VAR usage important in regards to Monday morning quarterbacking a decision? Honestly though, why does clear and obvious matter in regards to using the FIFA considerations to break down a decision? Those are two separate things. Harsh decision for me. As you said, the trailing defender is easily going to get there in time to put a solid challenge in. Even if the keeper makes zero contact you could argue the defender has the speed to get there first before the attacker. UB SPA for me.
This is the type of red card I would give two days after watching a webinar about SPA vs. DOGSO, thinking I was some courageous badass who just made an incredible call, but then realize after watching that I completely blew it.
Any thoughts on the non-call near the end of the Spirit-Reign game that Megan Rapinoe is griping about.