2025 MLS "Match Day 38" Plus Midweek Referee Discussion

Assuming this is in reference to the first red card, I don’t agree with DOGSO here. To me the defender clearly would be the first one to arrive to the loose ball if not for the goalkeeper’s handling. It’s certainly not obvious that the attacker would have had likelihood to control that ball.

I get everyone expects a red card for goalkeeper handballs outside the penalty area, but I don’t agree with this one.

 

Which game?

 

I’ve noticed this too, it seems like GK handling outside the box is just always given as a red card if an attacker is in the vicinity, even if not truly a DOGSO, I guess because it’s “what the game expects”… sort of like the opposite of the DOGSO YC in the box where they aren’t giving red cards except for truly egregious not playing the ball offenses

And if that’s the case, then I think it’s really not a problem that they used a photo rather than live video to determine this, because if they know they’re giving a red card for GK handling regardless since an attacker is nearby, all they would care about is if the handling was outside the box

 

Personally, I lean against a DOGSO red there, but if you play the video forward from the point of the handling the attacker does blow right past the defender (who is attempting to block him, not running forward with him at speed) in a way which isn't evident in the still frame version of events. So I do think the attacker would've gotten to the ball before the defender without the handling offense, but the reason I lean toward not DOGSO is that the keeper is right there at the ball. The most likely result without handling is the keeper knocks the ball away from the attacker's path, not that the keeper vanishes from the field of play and gives an open goal.

Watching it live, I did wonder how much VAR intervention rules and an obvious mistake played into the red. If VAR could recommend a review for a yellow for SPA instead, would that've influenced their recommendation?

See 1:14 of this highlights video:

 

You've touched on where I think GK handling is different than a foul by a defender. The defender is typically fouling an attacker (whether deliberately or not) because they aren't able to make a play on the ball. They're taking out the attacker rather than playing the ball, so they aren't much of a factor in terms of being able to recover and then defend later.

But a GK outside the penalty area is the closest player who can play the ball, even if they don't use their hands to do so. In this case, the attacker is right there, but sometimes they're much farther away and the ball is moving much slower.

Conversely, the third typical example, a non-GK handling, is also usually a situation where the player isn't able to have played the ball without their hand/arm, and thus their ability to play the ball wouldn't play into a DOGSO evaluation.

 

I've always had a similar question going back to 2016 or 2017 when Tim Howard was red-carded for handling outside the box. In this case the ball was coming towards a sliding Howard chased by an attacker and he put his hands up to deflect it. DOGSO, red card, etc. But if he had left his hands down, or out, or just in some position that the ball didn't hit them the ball would have hit his chest. So is that a DOGSO? Certainly I didn't have a problem with the call but the logic of it always confused me.

 

One way to think about it, potentially, is by asking “did an obvious goal scoring opportunity exist immediately before the offense occurred?” In this case, the answer would be no. You see the goalkeeper coming out for that ball and you’re not thinking “oh, the attacker is about to have a great shot here.”

One time a number of years ago in a ~U19 very recreational game, I had a truly bizarre situation where a player (whom I suppose usually played in goal) forgot that he wasn’t the goalkeeper and picked up a ball that was rolling slowly towards the goal. No other players (even the real goalkeeper) were in the vicinity. The ball probably had enough momentum to roll across the line if it wasn’t touched, but the real alternative reality is that it would’ve hit the defender’s legs, which were directly between the ball and the goal, or the defender would’ve recovered to save it anyways. In any serious game, red card would’ve been the expected decision, but given the spirit and low level of that game I used the above logic to stretch to a yellow and keep the player on the field.

However, I think that in general, “pretend the offender vanished” should be the standard for evaluating DOGSO situations.

 

I think this is the right logic. Here’s another alternative that supports the same conclusion.

We understand the general rule that once the goalkeeper leaves the PA, they are to be treated like a field player. If a field player caught that ball at the spot the GK caught it, and there was no goalkeeper available in the play for some reason, we would of course show a red card, even if their body might have blocked it. The goalkeeper chose to do something illegal based on his position on the field, which would be the same illegal move by a field player at any part of the field.

 

I was going to point this one out earlier but didn't. The DCU discussion seemed more interesting. IMO, this is a HUGE miss by Elfath. He's in a position where he should be seeing this foul by the defender clearly. There's no obstructed view and the movement of the defender's leg across the attacker should be clear from Elfath's line of sight. It becomes a de facto hip check by the defender. If Elfath sees shoulder-to-shoulder, then that's a whole different thing. Maybe because the game was a blowout in added time contributed to the decision. I don't know.

I realize Hernandez was a "scab" but shouldn't we focus more on Elfath's error here, or if it was an error at all? I was far more interested in Elfath's return to MLS in a "big" game to see where he was at than DC v. CLT. I wanted to see Elfath run and see how quickly the sharpness in his game would return cuz the reality is he's got a very limited amount time before decisions have to be made on him by CONCACAF and FIFA.

 

Yes, I second-guessed myself about bringing up a topic in this forum. You and several others can be quite condescending when someone has a different point of view or thought process than yours. So I made a conscious decision not to post about Elfath's decision in Miami while the DCU discussion was ongoing. I'm not complaining about it, but I am glad you posted about Elfath's decision so it could be discussed in this forum.

I found the DCU decision fairly simple. GK handling the ball outside of the PA is a send-off. Everyone expects a red card. Attackers, defenders and especially goalkeepers. Coaches, fans, everybody. And manipulating our minds to justify caution is odd.

Now, if Elfath saw shoulder-to-shoulder and let play go on, no problem for me. I think that's wrong but we'll see what PRO says. Hopefully you can post the final answer here when they release it for discussion. Methinks that they'll support him given the FIFA/CONCACAF implications though.

 

I think no-foul is a good call on that Miami one. I don’t see significant contact with the lower body that would constitute a trip, and the upper body charge is completely fair, its shoulder to shoulder, doesn’t use a high degree of force, just muscles the opponent off the ballon the negative side, the announcement seemed pretty sloppy. I also hate PRO’s directive to stop play immediately when the VAR decides to recommend a review without waiting for a neutral phase. New England had the ball in the attacking third with a decent attack going, and his review interrupts that attack. The enduring dropped ball doesn’t really restore the attack. Who cares if a goal is scored that later had to be wiped, the attack should be allowed to finish before stopping play to review something. They should wait for the ball to be in a truly neutral area or be out of play; blowing play dead immediately during an attack is really bad practice IMO

 

An OFR almost always results in a reversal (and that is as it should be as there should not be an OFR unless the VAR concludes there was a clear and obvious error). The powers that be think the risk of taking away an opportunity on a rare non-reversal is outweighed by the commotion of a "good" goal being wiped by a reversal. A "good" goal being reversed toward the end of a tie game to go back to the other end for a PK, for example, would be a mind-blowing fan experience. While I can see the counter-argument, I can't say it is a crazy position for the powers that be to take.