8/26 - Chicago v NY Red Bulls - CHAPMAN

Discussion in 'MLS Referee Forum' started by GlennAA11, Aug 26, 2015.

  1. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    I'll try and find video. For some reason MLS's website doesn't have any highlights for this match for some reason.

    Anyway, NY's second goal came from a trick corner. Lloyd Sam places the ball in the corner arc using his foot and touches the ball about 3 or 4 times. Kljestan comes over and pretends to wind up. Meanwhile Chapman has blown his whistle several times during Sam's touches and critically, after he is finished touching the ball. Kljestan then dribbles the ball out of the corner and passes to his teammate who scores. The AR seemed to tell Kljestan that the ball was in play before he dribbled away. But I think that was an error.

    There's no way this goal should have been allowed.
     
  2. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    Unfortunately, that goal should not have stood.

    It's getting chippy after that goal too.
     
  3. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    May 24, 2012
    #3 Scrabbleship, Aug 26, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
    Chapman never blows his whistle during the setup for the corner. You're hearing him blowing his whistle in real time while watching the replay. In the replay, you can see the NYRB player telling the AR what is going on, he very casually seems to acknowledge what is going to happen and just before the NYRB player begins to dribble away, you see the AR talking which I presume is telling Chapman that it is a trick corner so he doesn't whistle it dead.
     
    jarbitro and GlennAA11 repped this.
  4. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    snkscore repped this.
  5. RefLI

    RefLI Member

    Nov 4, 2013
    New York
    The goal should not have counted, but Shep Messing is driving me nuts with his commentary on the LOTG as usual. Immediately after Steve Cangilosi read the MLS explanation on why the goal should not have counted, which included saying the ball must be kicked and move, Shep said that wasn't good enough for him and claims the ball has to "travel a full circumference", and that the referee could have deemed the play to be "trickery" and thus awarded an IFK to Chicago. He was a great keeper in his day but can't stand his commentary when he turns attention to the referee.

    I only saw one quick replay and didn't see it live or hear the whistles, but it seems like a simple double touch call with IFK for Chicago should have been made, either for Klejstans initial multiples touches, or Sams dribbling it out of the corner if there was in fact a whistle, or the ball was not deemed not to have moved.
     
  6. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    May 24, 2012
    Source on this statement?

    I don't see multiple touches. He uses one foot to place the ball and then plays it with a different foot. Two different actions.
     
  7. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    source was the Chicago announcing crew who were mostly upset that the ball didn't "travel its circumference" or "leave the arc". So they were way off on the wrong tangent.

    When does anyone know that "placing" has been completed and "playing" has been done? He touches it twice with his right foot and then once with his left. This sort of thing is so against the spirit of the game....

    I suspect this has a good chance of being Play of the Week.
     
  8. sitruc

    sitruc Member+

    Jul 25, 2006
    Virginia
    I believe CSN Chicago referenced a PRO statement during the broadcast.
     
    snkscore repped this.
  9. RefLI

    RefLI Member

    Nov 4, 2013
    New York
    OK so if MLS (I'm assuming the statement came from PRO but Red Bull announcers said MLS) is making a statement that it shouldn't have counted, it either has to be because they feel Klejstan was guilty of a double touch, or the ball didn't move. Now I'm just wondering why they don't just simply say which one it is since they've come out so quick to say the goal should not have been allowed. The long confusing statement that was read also referenced the ball needing to leave the arc, but that is news to me as I thought it simply needs to be kicked and move?? Interesting that Chicago announcers also referenced circumference, I wonder if they sit next to or listen to each other, or if they both came to that conclusion on their own...

     
  10. MetroFever

    MetroFever Member

    Jun 3, 2001
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    #10 MetroFever, Aug 26, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
    If there was a pool reporter at the match (doubtful), I'm guessing that Chapman's answer would be that while Sam Lloyd touches the ball twice, the ball doesn't actually get "kicked and moves" until the third and final time.

    The whistle mentioned here was not from Chapman, but from the fans.

    MSG Network also mentioned that statement from MLS (they wouldn't have gotten a statement from PRO that quickly would they?) that the goal shouldn't have counted, but the reason given really wasn't clear. I can't imagine anyone from MLS commenting on an officiating decision...especially one while the game is going on.
     
    RefLI repped this.
  11. TheDanish

    TheDanish Red Card

    Jul 18, 2015
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    #11 TheDanish, Aug 27, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
    Gotcha refereeing. The defense is sleeping, why reward them?

    If you don't believe me watch it again, he adjust the ball with his foot for it to be only the line, which is exactly what players do all the time. Then he swings his leg, kicking the ball towards the touchline, which is also legal. The balls in play, there's No Way PRO can say this is Illegal when it's so easy to make a counter argument.
     
    GoDawgsGo repped this.
  12. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If you are going to pull a trick play like this, you better get it 100% within the Laws in my opinion.

    I've watched the vine, and the ball is moved with the foot while inside the corner arc twice prior to being dribbled by a second player. That's a BS restart and needed to be penalized. You can't just dick around with the ball and claim that only the last touch was your restart. It's unfair to the opponents.
     
    aek chicago, AlextheRef, RefLI and 3 others repped this.
  13. TheDanish

    TheDanish Red Card

    Jul 18, 2015
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    PRO trains and pays a referee to make the distinction, what is moving the ball into position and what is putting it into play. Either let that Mother F***** make that decision or let's have lawyers from both teams argue their case in court.

    I'm really sick of the MLS and PRO throwing their referees under the bus. Walton needs to go.
     
  14. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    PRO trains and pays their referees to make plenty of distinctions. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong.
     
    superdave and Lucky Wilbury repped this.
  15. TheDanish

    TheDanish Red Card

    Jul 18, 2015
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    This isn't black and white, refereeing isn't black and white. In my expert (maybe not but whatever) opinion calling this is trifling, let play go on. Just wait and see what happens next week when a player kicks the ball in the corner arc and then adjusts it with his hands. If that isn't called (which it won't be) this entire thing is BS.

    Just a question...which club do you support?
     
  16. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I understand that things aren't black and white, but this is a corner kick. It's a significant restart that often results in a goal scoring opportunity. It needs to be properly taken. Based on the video, Sam's first touch on the ball was a valid restart according to Law 17 at which point he touches it again. While the second touch would also be a valid restart on its own, combined with the first touch, why would the opponent have any reason to believe that the ball was officially in play after the second touch if it wasn't in play after the first?

    Had Kljestan just kicked the ball like a normal corner, this is a non-issue and Sam's actions are clearly trifling for the same reason we don't call a foul throw when a player tosses the ball to a teammate to take the throw instead. Instead, Kljestan dribbles with the ball and suddenly what Sam did with the ball matters a lot because now you have a team picking the ball out of their own net after what was, plain and simple, an illegal restart. As a referee, I personally would consider this a bad thing.
     
  17. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, while I have supported the Fire for over a decade, I am first and foremost a referee and always seek to post on this forum with as much impartiality as I can muster.
     
    Lucky Wilbury repped this.
  18. TheDanish

    TheDanish Red Card

    Jul 18, 2015
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Alright, agree to disagree. This is an imperfect play for me and the kind that referees allow all the time. Calling it here is gotcha refereeing, interrupting an interesting play which would've taught Chicago and other teams a lesson. Instead it's teaching them a different lesson, how they should complain when something seems slightly off at the taking of a corner now.

    In my opinion the PRO official makes the call, he made it, live with it. Don't re-referee the game and throw the referee under the bus. This AR and the referee now look completely discredited, and MLS refereeing is once again being mocked. If this happened in the EPL, no one would say jack except good job to the team that scored.

    This is an example of a bad corner kick, and yet professional players and many fans say it's correct. Perhaps there's a middle ground?

     
  19. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    Well, there's a HUGE different between the ManU play and what happened last night. That is, Rooney sets the ball correctly in the arc and kicks in ONCE, i.e. legally restarts the play. Last night Sam kicked the ball at least 3 times after it was stationary in the arc.
     
    aek chicago, AlextheRef and JayRockers! repped this.
  20. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    But multiple touches is not legal.
     
  21. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The referee's job is to enforce the Laws of the Game, not to use his opinion of if the defense is alert and should be punished for it.
     
    superdave repped this.
  22. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Club:
    --other--
    Messing claimed right after the play exactly what you said that the ball merely needs to move.
     
  23. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Dec 10, 2010
    Altoona, IA
    It's a bit grainy to me. It looks to me like he touches it twice. Once to "pull" it and again to "stop" it. I will go with the benefit of the doubt that he touched it once.

    Everyone in this thread keep saying "it just has to move". I assert that is false.
    It must be "kicked" and "move." I am uncertain that the pull was a kick. It bears no resemblance to a kicking motion whatsoever.

    In the abstract I have little sympathy here. The entire play is based on deceiving the other team about whether they kicked the ball or not. Then they ***** and moan about the AR being deceived about whether they kicked the ball or not? Tough cookies.
     
  24. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Kick = touched with the foot.
     
  25. Lucky Wilbury

    Lucky Wilbury Member

    Mar 19, 2012
    United States
    Wait...PRO trains their referees on this specific play?

    I haven't heard or read the statement from PRO, but if it exists and if they feel allowing this play is a wrong decision, would you really rather have PRO go down with the ship and look incompetent? People make mistakes. Addressing them does not necessarily mean that PRO is throwing the bus on someone.

    Walk into any referee clinic across the country and ask the instructors what the right answer is. You will get a 50/50 split on whether it is legal or not (even if Sam only touched it once). Ask the referees and you'll get a 50/50 split. People either think "tough luck for the defense" or they think "that's against the Spirit of the Game". Your "expert" opinion means nothing because the ref sitting next to you thinks otherwise, and neither of you are going to change your opinion.

    This play never happens in MLS. I haven't seen it done in youth games in years, but when I have seen it, it's been called back for a retake as often as it's been allowed.

    Allowing it here could be interpreted a "gotcha refereeing" as well, right? And what lesson did Chicago get taught exactly? You do realize that the goal still counts, even if PRO says this should not be allowed, right?

    I'm not sure any MLS team is thinking "Finally! Now we have the green light to complain about stuff!" Don't act like this is a "get the pitchforks" kind of moment.

    The hyperbole here is astounding.

    And my final point: Insulting Maniacal Clown's opinion by trying to tie him to a specific club is the dumbest thing you've done in both this thread and your entire time on this board. The guy is an MLS historian and that either yields itself to becoming a fan of a team or spawns from being a fan of a team. To come waltzing in here and act like he's got some bias....wow.

    Your whole premise seems to be about defending the referees and insulting PRO, instead of giving analysis on the play or, more importantly, the management of the play.

    If we are faced with this play and we allow a defender to come in and get the ball then we have to manage a train wreck because the attackers will say they weren't doing the trick play. Proactively managing this type of situation is key, in my opinion. I watched someone long ago stop play when one the defenders didn't rush in (but could have) when it was fairly obvious what was going on, only to have the attacker start dribbling. He just used the power of law 5, declared that the whole situation was horsesh**, and had them retake it. There was no penalty for a two-touch, and there was no "trick" play allowed. People complained for about 15 seconds. And then they forgot about it. Life went on. I've always kept that with me, and I traditionally manage those situations similarly.
     
    SA14mars, superdave, Ismitje and 2 others repped this.

Share This Page