2024 MLS Match Day 34 Referee Discussion

Discussion in 'MLS Referee Forum' started by ManiacalClown, Sep 20, 2024.

  1. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    Greater Pittsburgh
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    09/21/2024

    New York City FC vs Inter Miami
    Yankee Stadium (2PM ET)
    REF: Jon Freemon
    AR1: Corey Rockwell
    AR2: Mike Nickerson
    4TH: Elvis Osmanovic
    VAR: Kevin Stott
    AVAR: Mike Kampmeinert

    Charlotte FC vs New England Revolution
    Bank of America Stadium (4PM ET)
    REF: Mark Allatin
    AR1: Adam Wienckowski
    AR2: Walt Heatherly
    4TH: Ted Unkel
    VAR: Greg Dopka
    AVAR: TJ Zablocki

    Columbus Crew vs Orlando City
    Lower.com Field (7:30PM ET)
    REF: Sergii Boiko
    AR1: Corey Parker
    AR2: Zach McWhorter
    4TH: Fotis Bazakos
    VAR: Kevin Stott
    AVAR: Fabio Tovar

    CF Montréal vs Chicago Fire
    Stade Saputo (7:30PM ET)
    REF: Lukasz Szpala
    AR1: Jason White
    AR2: Gerard-Kader Lebuis
    4TH: Marcos DeOliveira II
    VAR: Ismail Elfath
    AVAR: Tom Supple

    New York Red Bulls vs Atlanta United
    Red Bull Arena (7:30PM ET)
    REF: Chris Penso
    AR1: Jeffrey Swartzel
    AR2: Brian Dunn
    4TH: Guido Gonzales Jr
    VAR: Carol Anne Chenard
    AVAR: Mike Kampmeinert

    Austin FC vs Houston Dynamo
    Q2 Stadium (8:30PM ET)
    REF: Victor Rivas
    AR1: Andrew Bigelow
    AR2: Stephen McGonagle
    4TH: Timothy Ford
    VAR: Younes Marrakchi
    AVAR: Jeff Muschik

    FC Dallas vs Los Angeles FC
    Toyota Stadium (8:30PM ET)
    REF: Alexis Da Silva
    AR1: Cameron Blanchard
    AR2: Adam Garner
    4TH: Rubiel Vazquez
    VAR: Edvin Jurisevic
    AVAR: Robert Schaap

    Sporting Kansas City vs Minnesota United
    Children’s Mercy Park (8:30PM ET)
    REF: Ismir Pekmic
    AR1: Logan Brown
    AR2: Tyler Wyrostek
    4TH: Rosendo Mendoza
    VAR: Greg Dopka
    AVAR: Claudiu Badea

    Nashville vs FC Cincinnati
    GEODIS Park (8:30PM ET)
    REF: Pierre-Luc Lauziere
    AR1: Kyle Atkins
    AR2: Ben Pilgrim
    4TH: Sergii Demianchuk
    VAR: Jorge Gonzalez
    AVAR: TJ Zablocki

    Colorado Rapids vs Toronto FC
    Dick’s Sporting Goods Park (9:30PM ET)
    REF: Rosendo Mendoza
    AR1: Chris Elliott
    AR2: Felisha Mariscal
    4TH: Matt Thompson
    VAR: Kevin Terry Jr
    AVAR: Jozef Batko

    Real Salt Lake vs Portland Timbers
    America First Field (9:30PM ET)
    REF: Tori Penso
    AR1: Brooke Mayo
    AR2: Kathryn Nesbitt
    4TH: Drew Fischer
    VAR: David Barrie
    AVAR: Joshua Patlak

    LA Galaxy vs Vancouver Whitecaps
    Dignity Health Sports Park (10:30PM ET)
    REF: Jair Marrufo
    AR1: Chris Wattam
    AR2: Eduardo Jeff
    4TH: Ramy Touchan
    VAR: Sorin Stoica
    AVAR: Fabio Tovar

    San Jose Earthquakes vs St Louis CITY
    PayPal Park (10:30PM ET)
    REF: Ricardo Montero Araya
    AR1: Jeremy Kieso
    AR2: Nick Uranga
    4TH: Allen Chapman
    VAR: Carol Anne Chenard
    AVAR: Tom Supple

    09/22/2024

    Philadelphia Union vs D.C. United
    Subaru Park (6:15PM ET)
    REF: Filip Dujic
    AR1: Cory Richardson
    AR2: Eric Weisbrod
    4TH: Lorenzo Hernandez
    VAR: Younes Marrakchi
    AVAR: Joshua Patlak
     
  2. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    So Mendoza will be a 4th in Kansas City at 8:30 ET and then leave at half-time and somehow get to Denver by kick-off at 9:30 ET for a whistle?

    Or there are two Rosendo Mendoza's or this is, obviously, an error.
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  3. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    Greater Pittsburgh
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cleaning up PRO's mess...

    SKC/MIN
    4TH: Matt Thompson

    COL/TOR
    4TH: Joshua Encarnacion
     
  4. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    Greater Pittsburgh
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Assignment change

    NSH/CIN
    REF: Sergii Demianchuk
    4TH: Benjamin Meyer (MLS Debut)
     
  5. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    70' CLT - NE
    Borrero cautioned and then sent off within 30 seconds

    Looks like the second caution was for dissent - I can see that maybe the challenge was a foul but I have a hard time seeing how that was a caution. New England bench looks perplexed more than mad and I can't really blame them
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think Unkel gives the dissent card, too. He points at him and tells him to turn around. Second card is coming before he has a chance to say anything to Allatin.

    There is a chance this is double dissent because there was a visual initial reaction. But yeah I think it was for the tackle. Without seeing the match it’s a bit hard to say if it’s warranted or not. But if it’s a foul, he does appear to trap the right leg as he comes through. I can understand reckless but, on first look, it doesn’t scream reckless.
     
    StarTime and SouthRef repped this.
  7. Bradley Smith

    Bradley Smith Member

    Jul 29, 2013
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I actually think it’s two dissent cautions. There’s no initial reaction by Allatin after the foul. Simple point of direction, no reaching for a card, no sign that he’s getting input. It’s the player’s aggressive gesture towards Unkel that appears to precipitate the first yellow.
     
    StarTime and MassachusettsRef repped this.
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, there's a public and aggressive hand wave. Not sure that was at Unkel, as I don't think he made the call. But it was in his direction. It absolutely could be double dissent, but if it was, I think the first one is public that Allatin observed and the second one is personal that Unkel reported.

    Could be wrong, though.
     
    StarTime and Bradley Smith repped this.
  9. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Door #3 is that Allatin had no card for the tackle and Unkel told him to give a yellow for the tackle. That would then lead to the personal dissent. It seems a stretch, but it probably also should be considered as possible (because why else dissent personally at the fourth?).
     
    frankieboylampard and SouthRef repped this.
  10. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    41' CIN-NSH trying to find where the offside was.

    I mean, I assume it was interfering with an opponent but I'm still not sure how that's given
     
  11. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #11 SouthRef, Sep 21, 2024
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2024
    update

    1837673210156114401 is not a valid tweet id


    ok, this has gone from completely befuddling to something that's kind of a stretch.

    Weibe says he sets a moving screen - sorry I don't see that

    Law says

    "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing an opponents line of vision"

    "challenging an opponent for the ball"

    "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts an opponent"

    "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

    here we have the "clear and obvious" language and while I think you can make an argument for impacting the ability of an opponent to play the ball, I think clear and obvious is quite a stretch
     
    StarTime and RedStar91 repped this.
  12. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    Agreed. Which probably contradicts my initial take on the DC-NYC play last weekend. But I think saying this has impact is a stretch, it just doesn’t look like there’s much/any chance the defender gets to block the ball anyways. If it’s given as offside on the field, it should stay, but to call it clear and obvious offside is, as you said, a stretch.
     
  13. StarTime

    StarTime Member+

    United States
    Oct 18, 2020
    Went back and watched the broadcast of this. The commentators reported that they received information from the VOR confirming it was two dissents.
     
    MassachusettsRef and Bradley Smith repped this.
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wasn’t it called on the field? This wasn’t a VAR decision. Clear and obvious isn’t the question. Well, it is. But the question is whether or not it’s clearly and obviously NOT offside.

    And I think this is offside (clearly, for what it’s worth). It is last week’s DCU call, but correctly done this time.
     
  15. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Colorado - TFC announcers just talked about "after VAR a penalty is given". Except the CR didn't go to the monitor. I'm guessing this was just them misunderstanding VAR and it was really "after VAR cleared the check, a penalty was given"?
     
  16. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    it was called on the field

    I used clearly and obvious here because the law uses that phrasing (sort of). David Elleray has his own preferred way of speaking which keeps showing up again and again.
     
  17. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    Greater Pittsburgh
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's tough to tell from the wide angle, but I think there might even be slight contact which PRO has considered a *significant* consideration in the past.
     
  18. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I’ll say I don’t think it’s indefensible but I am really surprised it was made, given how much players in offside positions run in and around defenders without being called
     
  19. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Pool report Q&A

    upload_2024-9-21_23-6-33.jpeg
     
    StarTime repped this.
  20. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Similarly Nashville had a goal disallowed in the 49th minute - here’s the pool question and referee response

    upload_2024-9-22_6-33-46.jpeg

    I have similar perspective on this incident; while technically defensible I think these are both a stretch and neither of the defensive teams were expecting an offside call in either situation - defenders turned to look at each other, goalkeepers shrugs and look frustrated, etc

    no one is acting like they were interfered with here. I think everyone was surprised and that’s not a good thing
     
    RedStar91 repped this.
  21. incognitoind

    incognitoind Member

    Apr 8, 2015
    I’m not saying you can’t ever use a players reaction to make your decision but the fact they don’t know they have been interfered with doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
     
  22. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Law 11 also says:

    • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12
     
  23. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    it’s not dispositive as the lawyers say, but it’s helpful, particularly here

    in both cases, no one appears to be looking for the call and the play was accepted as is.

    I don’t want to get into how much it matters if players react but I think it matters here
     
    RedStar91 repped this.
  24. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Opening kickoff of NYRB-Atlanta, AU plays it back to Guzan. A defender for ATL moves back and forth, screening the NYRB striker from taking a straight line path to pressuring the keeper.

    What is the dividing line here that would make that play obstruction?
     
  25. SouthRef

    SouthRef Member+

    Arsenal
    Jun 10, 2006
    USA
    Club:
    Rangers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I’ll add to that this isn’t a call made very often - it certainly happens and you don’t want to miss it when it does but the law makes a point of using the words “clear” and “obvious”.

    I don’t think this it’s a great decision when the match officials and people on this board are the only ones who have any clue something is “wrong”
     

Share This Page