Holy Smokes I just watched the last ten minutes of Vancouver vs. LAFC. That collision by Ford was unbelievable. How in the world he found himself in that position is beyond me. Honestly pulling an Esse Baharmast and going to the goal line by the near post would have been a better position (I'm not actually advocating that in that stadium as much as pointing out how absurd Ford's positioning was). Finally, the missed offside is bonkers. Yeah you can say "the kick point is closer than you'd like to think," but AR1 seemed like five yards out of position...and in the other direction, ahead of the ball somehow! That is two games in close proximity where ARs appear to not understand the 2TL defender rule. And when I say "not understand" I don't mean "intellectually don't recall 2TL language as being in the laws." I mean practically completely fail on how to handle a play behind the keeper. I'm so shocked about this one in light of the howler from two weeks ago, when people were like "Nesbitt is a WC official, she knows the rule..." Well, in both of these plays, the fairly straight forward call was missed, in both plays the AR doesn't seem to be aware of it, and in both plays the AR was out of position by staying with the last defender! In other words, they were both missed in the same way, by ARs who made the same mistake! You would have thought that after the Nesbitt one there would have been a bit of drilling into the ARs heads on this one. It really is bewildering. And yes, Ford could have bailed himself out (maybe) by trucking it over the AR after the goal for an old-school face-to-face. I think Penso should have done that two weeks ago too, because unlike Ford, Penso's body language indicated she thought the offside was missed, but she apparently didn't bring it up. Had Ford booked it over there, he may have had a chance to avoid the chaos that ensued. Also, it appears the players in this latest one knew the rule. They were waving two fingers around... that's why I think he could have/should have gone over to the AR who I think honestly was just brain frozen from pressure or environment or whatever.
I looked at Unkel's match history on transfermarkt and he hasn't worked an Orlando game ever since. I'd like to think things would blow over in six years, but fair enough. MLS Cup is not the time to end that streak.
He only watched the replay twice, and never repeated viewing from any camera angle. Once from the first angle that shows the down and backwards motion of the stomp, and then a second time from a different angle to confirm the point of contact. The rest of the time at the monitor was spent with the replay operating playing the footage on rewind or whatever. Definitely not the most efficient Replay Operation, but I don’t think Fischer can be faulted for this. He looked at two angles once each, that’s about as good as you can ask. Though I agree with the other commenter it would be better practice to view these situations in real speed at least once.
And Dickerson out too doesn't help. I don’t feel ready to write off the newbies from a potential Quarterfinal appearance. That was the situation Ford was in last year, and he made us playoff debut in the Quarterfinals (conference semis). You mention Szpala below, I could also imagine Freemon getting the call. What do you mean by “saved for a QF-only?” Rivas had a Game 2 just like Fischer did. And from the outside looking in, I didn’t think he had a very good game either. If someone in this middle tier slots into the QFs, what about Vasquez? With such a long break until the QFs, it’s easy to see a Game 3 referee slotting in there rather than hopping straight to the semis. There’s a lot of flexibility to make all these decisions heavily dependent on performance. I do hope that whoever has the Orlando QF is not someone who would think that they could be in contention for MLS Cup should Unkel be rendered unavailable. The idea that such a referee could have a vested interest in the outcome of that game doesn’t sit right. One interesting question is, if Orlando advances to the semis, does Unkel just get assigned to the Western conference final as a consolation, or do they hold off on him so that he can still have a chance at the big Final? In which case, you would need to keep another deserving referee on hold out of the semis just in case. …Unless you want to open up the possibility of pulling a Marciniak/Penso and assign someone to a semi / final combo. The existence of that possibility would make the Orlando semifinal also sensitive in the same way as I see their Quarterfinal. Messy stuff.
DisCo decisions I assume this doesn’t preclude further action based on the results of the investigation?
These are just the automatic suspensions from accumulation and/or RCs. DisCo decisions have been submitted by this point, but Sartini and Mizaga are not part of it. Some of this may be commisioner's office stuff as opposed to going through the DisCo.
Sorry, just seeing now that I never answered this. What I meant (and I worded it poorly--or just wrongly) was that a referee who would be used in the QF stage without any possibility of getting the semi or final. I didn't mean "saved" (even though I wrote it) in the sense that they would be someone who did not have any prior playoff matches this year. Rivas could (have) fit on a QF but likely no more. My other three names could be considered for more. That said, I have enough information now to know I'm wrong about Rivas (though, ironically maybe not more generally about the idea I was trying to convey). So the point is moot.
I just finished listening to Inside Video Review and have 2 questions: 1) How is it that a guy who is fortunate to make it to the pro level like Mendoza uses a justification such as "The ball is never going to get there" to not whistle an easy PK call? It's as if he is explaining to a Wide Receiver why there's no pass interference when the ball is overthrown in the stands by 20 yards. 2) Stott is saying "Yeah, but it's a clear pull of the shirt" while Mendoza is trying to justify the no-call to the players. When he's watching the replay and sees the jersey grab and the direction the forward is going, he STILL didn't feel it impacted his ability to make a play on the ball and scare the keeper? When Mendoza gives his explanation after seeing the replay, why doesn't an experienced guy like Stott repeat the same phrase? What am I missing?
1) This kind of logic is often used by players so he seems to explainit in a way a player would understand... the thought is if he was never going to have a chance at goal how is it justice to give them an 80% chance to score? 2) Stott never says this to Mendoza. When the mic is actually open you can see he clearly only says, "I understand that... you can see #10 pulling on #9 and the shirt is clearly extended." What is Stott arguing and lobbying for the call going to accomplish for the team? The referee made that call in real time, provided that answer to the players, then he got a chance to see it again and gave the same answer... what good will a debate do here? "Yes I understand what you're saying, but he is clearly grabbing the shirt... I can see that but there is no impact. Yes there is. No there's not. I know you are but what am I?" The while scene was totally evident to the referee here on first glance and he clearly stated his opinion.
You’ll notice that Mendoza was far from the only member on the crew to use that logic. You could hear Stott debating it, and I think an AR mentioned it also. If you categorize this as a problem, it’s not a Mendoza-specific problem. The language used in the video and on The Definitive Angle leave sit pretty unclear as to what PRO’s (as an organization) opinion on it is. “PRO’s opinion: In the referee’s opinion, the hold on Ruidíaz did not have sufficient impact to be a penalty because goalkeeper Maarten Paes (DAL) had come out and intercepted the cross. Although a subjective decision, the hold on Ruidíaz happened as the cross was being made and impacted his ability to possibly challenge Paes for the ball.” Even in that explanation, they reference the argument of impact on the play, it’s just that they came to the differing conclusion that there was possibly an impact. But it’s not clear to me if PRO supported this review. My best guess based upon the phrasing is that they think penalty is the preferred call, but that it did not reach the standard for a review (as it was “subjective”). Perhaps there was a lot of internal disagreement on this one.
They’re using that language because those are the considerations they’re teaching. First consideration is defender action which is clear. Second is impact. We see contact all the time in the penalty area that might be a foul elsewhere but the reason none of us call it is the impact it had on the play (refer to holding on every single corner kick). In the referees opinion (and others) the hold, while clear, lacked impact. Barkey clearly says in the video that he disagrees. The question you should be asking is how clear must an action be before impact doesn’t matter? If Ruidiaz was punched then nobody would question pk. But I’m sure you can think of lighter fouls that if gone unpunished would not be unexpected. This sits somewhere between the two
Interesting distinction to discuss here when thinking about if the foul is impactful... Here, the hold certainly impacts the attacker who is pulled, so there is impact on the individual. But, does this have an impact on the outcome of the play? Unclear, but I think 80/20 he never gets there without the hold (even though that's not a sureity). Another question: is the act of deliberately holding an opponent an act of misconduct that could have an impact on match control if unpunished? Analogous, but often splits opinions in the football world... what do you do about the late sliding challenge in the penalty area? A1 shoots and the shot is clearly going over the goal, B2 arrives .25 sec after the ball is gone and carelessly trips A1 while the ball is floating over the goal area in its way out... do you give a penalty? What if B2's slide is obviously reckless or SFP? Does that change it for you?
Yep... posing these hypotheticals for discussion... is it the recklessness or the act of misconduct that matters? If it's the act of misconduct, it is hard to say that a deliberate shirt pull like this was not a deliberate hold off the ball on purpose to slow a potential attacking option... it's this not a deliberate Unsporting act? If it is, is the referee correct to ignore the act as not impactful?
I'm aware of that. Mendoza while talking to the players: "The ball is never going to get there". Stott, when hearing this comment" "Yes, but it's a clear pull of the shirt". Basically, the way I understand it, Stott doesn't care if the play was "impactful" since he says "Yes, but it's a clear pull of the shirt" (I can't tell what he says the next few seconds). To me, that would imply he doesn't care if it's 80/20 or a 0% chance of getting to the ball or making an impact. The jersey grab is so egregious that I don't see how it's overlooked. I will re-word my question...How is that two guys who get the same PRO training are diametrically opposed for totally different reasons?
I think this play and the hypothetical really come down to what trifling means. For better or worse, when it comes to a PK call, I think the modern game wants to consider fouls trifling if they weren’t going to affect play on the ball. So if the ball is away on a shot before the foul, it’s going to be trifling, unless it’s a really bad foul, and the same is true for an off ball foul. I think the factors are additive—the severity of the offense plus the odds of it affecting the play. I think where the R and VAR differed here was a bit on both fronts—I think Stott thought the foul was a bit worse and that the chance of it mattering was a bit higher. And PRO agreed with him, but not strongly enough to expressly say the PK should have been given. All that said, in the games I do, if I see that holding, it’s going to be a PK every time.
I was on a webinar that Joe Dickerson did for a local association and he said to stop making things so difficult for ourselves. Call what you see. Call the easy fouls. Call the rules as written. Stop trying to talk yourself in circles to not whistle clear fouls. Why does Mendoza do this to himself? The defender is nearly pulling the shirt off of the attacker, it's not a minor little shirt tug. He's doing it to deliberately prevent any chance of a cross getting to him. The team and fans can have no response to this besides "the defender is an idiot". LOTG doesn't say "disregard clear fouls as long as the player couldn't get the ball". Mendoza is basically saying he would allow this to happen all game every game of his, if an attacker is running on the outside of the box with no chance for it, defenders can just pull hard on jerseys all they want with no repercussions. See how that goes. This is 100% on the defender for his ridiculous actions, and Mendoza galaxy brains his analysis of the play instead of just calling the easy foul.
Generally, I agree with this principle. And I also see this as Stott did, but it's a discussion that we need to have at this level of the game. When FIFA RED, UEFA, or USSF publish the consideration "football understanding," what do you think that means? I've always had trouble with this term because it's cultural. It's a consideration that literally means that the referee should know what the football playing and watching world expect from a given situation. It also means knowing why players make the decisions they do so you know where to go and what to look at and when... right? Well, where it comes to what is expected, that is generally highly subjective from country to country, league to league, and in the USA we have players and referees from all over the world... and to be sure there are a lot people who don't think a penalty should be given the play we saw (and many who do).
I think my response in the immediate aftermath to this is responsive to the question: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...feree-discussion.2128262/page-2#post-41820127 I think pretending that this is an easy call either way is just that--pretending. It's an obvious foul, yes. Is it an obvious penalty, given the impact and everything else we know is let go regularly? There are more consequential holds on nearly every single corner kick. This one tingles our spidey-senses because of the isolation and how outstretched the fabric is. And maybe that's a reason to call it--truly, I'm not necessarily arguing in the other direction because I think I'm with Stott on this one. But I do think it's an open quesiton. We let consequential grabbing go on a huge percentage of corner kicks and we are going to call this because it looks worse, even though it matters less? As I said in that above post, without VAR this never gets called and I don't think anyone really complains. What does "scare the keeper" have to do with it? That seems like an invented standard to me. The fact of the matter is that 99.99% of times, the keeper is getting that ball in a professional match with no trouble whatsoever. Mendoza is not wrong to assess that there's no impact here. The question is whether or not the deliberate act of fouling is so blatant that it cannot be ignored. As to the second part of this passage, it's not Stott's job to referee the match or insist. There's some give and take (and there was more give and take prior to the recommendation, which you don't hear publicly). But Mendoza knows what Stott's opinion is because the recommendation has been made. Stott has done what he's supposed to do.
Do not discount the possibility that they supported both Stott and Mendoza. Although it runs contrary to how VAR was introduced and how IFAB says it's supposed to be applied, PRO has increasingly been of the opinion that using VAR to demonstrate a true second look has been given and no massive mistakes are being made is... okay. So if Stott genuinely has a foul/penalty and Mendoza genuinely has it as not clear due to lack of impact... they can both be correct, especially if opinions are divided within PRO. Good for the officials, honestly. But frustrating on some other levels.