Sorry, it's a day later, and I'm more convinced than ever that Suarez was jobbed. And the Burn was jobbed. At the game, I thought he was possibly jobbed, but was unsure how close his arms were to his body. Looking at the game clip on MLSnet, I'm convinced he was red carded wrongly. The reason is, I think his arms were protecting his face. Had his arms not been there, I think he takes it in the face at 70 MPH from 3 feet. I can't say the human instinct for self-preservation deserves a red card. go look, see for yourself. It's in the video clips. Use your mousepointer, and grab the moving counter button, you can stop it, move it frame by frame. Frame 1, ball falls to Harris. Frame 2, the blur of the ball is visible on the front of Suarez's jersey. Suarez is protecting his face looking directly to the left and down, not at all at the ball, and his arms are plainly in front of the body. If he reached out for the ball, why was he not looking at the ball? Cameras distort, no doubt. I have little faith that Brian Hall had a better angle. But frame by frame, it's not hard to see when he took the ball on the arms--right in front of his face. This is of course, in direct contrast to the US-Germany game, where the ball struck the arm of the person on the line. He should have had his arms behind him, and the US deserved a penalty kick for it. Neither was intentional, and neither should have been tossed on a red. Giving NE a pk that early is a gift, but it's not handing them the game. A red card virtually handed them the game. And by the way, I've been in the Cotton Bowl pressbox. I trust a camara with zoom on it more than I trust 40 referees of already questionable visual acuity.
Absolutely correct. But we're talking Brian Hall here. I have never liked that guy. I think he consistently does a terrible job. How he got such high marks at the World Cup I will never know. The best ref in MLS is the guy with one short arm. I can't remember his name, but I have seen him call a coupel games this season and he does a firm and fair job, Most of the other MLS refs are all over the board from game to game, often during the same game.
Uh guys, referees dont watch this stuff FRAME BY FRAME... Hall sees Ryan put his hands out (no matter the reason) and they keep the ball from going in the net. That all happens in under a second. Get real... I know my opinion on this issue isnt popular, but it is reality. Hall had to make a decision, and by the letter of the law as he saw it in that one, single second, he made the one you dont like. That is how the game goes. Why isnt anyone talking about the 3-5 perfect scoring chances that EJ, Marrow, Rhine and Vaca all missed in the opening 25 mintes? Huh? peet
Plus you never know the angle he saw the play in. Maybe from where he was standing it looked like Ryan played goalie. I'm not trying to defend the bastard but it's a tough call. FINISHING FINISHING FINISHING is our MAIN enemy not the Ref.
Why? Because the scoring chances that were left unfinished did not hinder the ability of the team to rally for the rest of the 55 minutes. Over the entire second half, if the Burn were playing 11 on 11, the game is a lot different. Are you saying that Hugh Dallas blew the call in the World Cup? No matter what the reason? The US was robbed of a trip to the World Cup semifinals? Brian Hall made a JUDGEMENT call that went against the Burn. The Burn lost. The Burn Lost. They didn't score enough goals. WHY did they lose? Because the didn't finish their chances AND they played a man down for well over half the match. A man down they played superior soccer to the Revolution. The Burn deserved the win. They controlled the ball and pressed the attack from the opening minutes. The Revolution were totally on their heels and defending to save their life. When you get that many chances in the first 25 minutes, ONE is going to fall your way, just by averages. Then, the PK came and changed the entire game for the worse. Until Revolution were awarded a penalty kick, the Burn were on control of the game. From that point on, Burn had to fight to stay in it, and they did it. They were even in it until very late, because they, miracle of miracles, got a penatly kick they actually deserved. And then Hall made ANOTHER JUDGEMENT CALL IN STOPPAGE TIME TO YELLOW CARD ANOTHER BURN PLAYER. By the way, let's evaluate what the cadre of referees said about the Burn PK. Did they deserve it? Was there total unanimity in the press box that even though Olivares clearly smashed Heaps in the face, that the PK was deserved? Or were they up there saying "he never should have gotten in the box, he committed a yellow card foul before he ever got there?" My best guess is they just shrugged it off and said "well we can't see everything, we're only human." Don't answer any of the above, just answer this Hitman: Reality, is subject to interpretation. Is it reality or luck that for two straight matches (and the next one too, since half the defense is suspended) the Burn has been burned by referee JUDGEMENT?
Well I don't really know what you are talking about. Two straight matches? Huh? You lost me.. But pending that I am forgetting something, I would state my answer as that it is "bad luck". I would, in turn, pose this question for you to answer: Is it reality or luck that the Burn have been miserable in the offensive end of the field for quite some time of late. Or that the team has seemingly been unable to buy a the easiest of goals? How many 1v1's can a team fail to convert? Or any of the other numerous issues this team has on the field that have contributed to these losses rather than the refs... Look, the Burn are in a "bad" streak... Bad streaks are made up of a lot of things (poor form and luck)...it is as simple as that. peet burnradio
Re: Re: Burn got jobbed-MLS net video clip But Viking64, Hall has no basis to make that decision (PK without a red) under the laws. If he deems it an intentional handball, it's a PK, but it also must be a red card, because it denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. There's no room for wiggle room at all (this is one of the few cases where referees don't have discretion). Either it's a PK and a red card, or it's no call at all. If you accept the fact that Hall made a good-faith judgement in saying that Suarez intentionally handled (to me, on replay, it certainly looks like Suarez's arms are slightly above his thighs, and not trying to protect his face, but you are entitled to your own opinion), then the red card must be accepted because it's automatically part of that call. To put it more bluntly, if Hall had given the PK but failed to send Suarez off, then he would have failed his assessment then and there, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also, there's talk about the "judgement" call to send Broome off. A couple things on that. You can tell from Broome's reaction that he knew he was going as he had little, if any, argument about the card, and you can also tell from Hall's reaction that he didn't want to do it then but that he had to (Broome left him no choice committing that type of foul right in front of him). It was not a case of Hall wanting to screw the Burn or anything like that. Well he got the high marks because he reffed two incredible matches. Hall's a very good international ref, his style just hasn't seemed to fit with MLS play in the past. With that said, there is an argument that can be made (maybe twisted in the eyes of most fans) that reffing an MLS league match is tougher than reffing a World Cup match, but that's besides the point. The point is that Hall, all things considered, is a very good referee and that he deserves to be where he is. I agree with you here. You speak of Erich Simmons, who, for my money, along with Kevin Stott, are the best referees in MLS. Stott is a veteran, and will probably be the US representative at the next (possibly next two) World Cups. Simmons is very young by refereeing standards (26 or so) and will be around in MLS for years to come. It's only his second year in MLS, and he'll only get better. So, for those of you that hope there is young refereeing talent coming up to replace to old guard that you despise, Simmons should serve as an indicator of what to expect.
This isn't meant as a troll, but 70 MPH? That was Wolde Harris taking that shot. He probably doesn't get up over 50 on a pk...
MassRef, How often does FIFA make changes to its Laws? With the type of controversy that's been generated by this call on Suarez, the non-call on Frings in the World Cup, etc, etc, it seems as though the handball rule in the penalty area could use a little reworking. Right now, the 2 available punishments are at two ends of the spectrum: either a PK and red card, or no-call. Rather than be limited to just these 2 choices, I think it would also be appropriate to be able to award a PK alone, or PK and yellow card under a couple of scenarios. 1) In Suarez' case, I think a PK alone would be appropriate. Sure Suarez used his hands to deliberately handle the ball, but his arms were up in a defensive positon to protect his face. And had Suarez' hands not been up, he would have stopped the goal scoring opportunity anyhow by blocking the shot with his head. 2) In Frings' case, I think a PK and a yellow would have been appropriate. While Frings did not move his arm to block the ball, he was standing on the goal line with his arm deliberately extended away from his body in order to increase the probability of his successfully preventing a goal. To me, a PK and red card would be appropriate in a case where a defender other than the keeper deliberately moved his arm away from his body and reached out to block or handle the ball with the intent to either prevent a goal or to prevent a goal scoring opportunity.
I don't think that it's limited the way that you think. Most fouls inside the box result in a pk. Also, any foul that stops a goal-scoring opportunity is a red card. However, there are fouls in the box that don't result in stopping a goal-scoring opportunity. For instance, we had a game vs Colo where a Rapids player had a corner kick (undeflected) bounce off of his arm. A yellow was awarded, as well as a pk. Also, I've seen players running across the box get fouled right before they ran out of the box, resulting in a pk but no card. In the Frings case, however, if you call a foul on him then he gets a red because his foul stopped the ball from crossing the line.
Why was the yellow awarded? According to Mass Ref, refs seem to have a limited range of options available to them: 1) If a player handles a ball deliberately and stops a goal scoring opportunity then a PK is awarded and the defender gets a red card. 2) If a player handles a ball deliberately but did not stop a goal scoring opportunity (it's hard to imagine this occuring too often -- practically any play run by the opposition in the penalty area is by its nature a goal scoring opportunity), a PK would be awarded but no card presumably should be issued (although I guess one could be given for "unsporting behavior" if applicable). 3) If a player unintentionally handles a ball in the penalty area, then no foul is committed. So its hard to see how it was correct to award a PK and yellow card in the situation you describe.
Here's a link to some interesting info from mlsnet.com that discusses much of what we've been arguing re the handball: http://www.mlsnet.com/about/rules/rotg0504handball.html The summary paragraph is enlightening: "The following guidelines, briefly stated, are used in deciding the proper action to take when a defender commits a handling offense inside his penalty area: Was the handling deliberate within the meaning of Law 12? If yes, a penalty kick is the proper decision to punish the foul. In the absence of any other factors, this is the only action that need be taken. Did the handling offense interfere with attacking play? If yes, showing the yellow card to caution the offender is within the referee's discretionary authority. Did the handling offense prevent a goal (i.e., but for the defender's offense a goal would have been scored)? If yes, showing the red card and sending the player from the field is the correct action. Did the handling offense interfere with "an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" based on the direction of play, the distance from the goal, and related factors? If yes, showing the red card and sending the player from the field is the correct action. "
vw, You seemed to have answered some of your own questions with the quotes from MLSnet.com, but allow me to add my two cents. First, as is evident now, I didn't mean to imply that a handball contact in the box can only be a red card/PK or no call at all. That is only the case when the contact denies and obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Most handling calls in the box are a PK and only that. A PK/yellow card is least common, but is appropriate, as MLS says, when it intereferes with attacking play but doesn't stop a goal (for example, if a defender intentionally knocks down a cross that is about to be headed...still, in some circumstances, like if the goalie was out of position, a red could also be considered here). Anyway, insofar as FIFA changing the Laws over these recent "controversies", the chances are nil. FIFA (the IFAB actually, of which FIFA is a member) reviews it's Laws every year. The Spirit of the Law involving handballs over the past 100 years at least, has also stated that the handling offence must be "deliberate". Controversy over the US call (sorry, but there really isn't much controversy over the Suarez call, and any such controversy probably isn't the concern of FIFA and the IFAB) will not force FIFA and the IFAB to completely alter the underlying principle of a fundamental law that has existed for over 100 years. The fact is, if handling is unintentional, then it's legal. FIFA would be wrong to suddenly say that unintentional handling on the goal line is a penalty but not a red card. What if they decided that legal shoulder charges are no longer legal in the penalty are? It doesn't make sense--or seem fair--to have separate rules for the penalty area and the rest of the field. So for those that truly think Suarez didn't mean to handle the ball, your gripe is not with the Law but the referee's judgement of what intentional is. If you think Suarez did intentionally mean to handle the ball, then you can't really argue with the consequence (PK, red card) that he met.
A minor but important point: The language that you refer to is "obvious goal-scoring opportunity". This is important because referees are instructed on what factors to take into consideration as to whether an opportunity is "obvious" or not. They include how far the attacker is from goal, how many defenders are around him, where the goalkeeper is, what direction the attacker is heading (or, in the case of handling, where the ball was heading). As a few examples, an attacker with the ball at his feet, tripped directly in the middle of the field 40 yards out by the last defender would be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Conversely, if the attacker was 20 yards out, at the corner of the penalty area and was actually heading towards the corner flag, the defender wouldn't be sent off (even if he is the "last" defender) because the opportunity isn't deemed "obvious". The same goes for handling. If a headed ball is directed towards goal, but the referee cannot tell as to whether or not it would have hit the post/gone wide/gone in, then a red card cannot be given, because the goal/goal-scoring opportunity isn't obvious (it would seem pretty stupid to send a defender off for preventing a goal kick). When handling is involved, it either has to stop a certain goal, or, stop a breakaway if it's by the last defender or the goalkeeper outside his box.
This is really making it a judgment and application nightmare. The deal is this: a handball in penalty area is judged to be a PK and red card--unless the referee deems it was not intentional and did not prevent the ball from going in or made no impact on the play. Now we can debate if a handball was intentional or not. We can debate if it prevented a goal or not. But right now, the rule is actually pretty simple. You're either in violation or you aren't. I'm not aware of any refs who refuse to make the call b/c they feel a PK AND ejection is to great but they'd make the call if they could only give a yellow or a free kick or some interim step. Frankly, I bet Hugh Dallas didn't see the handball on the goal line. But his comments afterwards (assuming he was telling the truth) was that he didn't think it was intentional and didn't think it prevented a goal. So it's really pretty simple. Handle intentionally OR influence the play and the ref calls the PK and shows the red card.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, the German scum got away with murder and he didn't think it prevented a goal! takes deep breath trying not to get into German hatred I think we should just shake our heads and move on, theres not much else we can do about it.
I'm watching the clip on videotape, real time speed and slo mo. The ball is shot point blank at Suarez, his arms are in close near his torso. If his hands were down his body still would have stopped the shot on goal. "Hands" did not prevent the ball from going into the net. Don't even discuss this unless you are watching it on full screen video. And it's obvious in real time. Whether the Burn were putting away their early chances is moot. Even the Revs going up one point off a PK is not the issue. The issue is Brian Hall ejecting Suarez. Being down a man - and that man being Suarez (he got an amazing assist against NY a week ago, remember?) - is how the Burn got jobbed. The quotes by vw point out that refs DO have some leeway in making this call. Brian Hall screwed the Burn around the 30th minute. Last week Salazar screwed the Burn three times by cowardly no-calls against NY in their box denying the Burn any PKs. We have a legitimate gripe here, slump or no slump. Wonder what will the 19th will bring? Peet, I appreciate your unbiased point of view. (That's why you have a radio show and I don't!) It is definitely needed here. What I want to hear more about is why there was a cadre of reffing officials at the Cotton Bowl Sat night? Is that normal? Did their presence have any affect on Hall's performance? Can you bring this up on tomorrow's show? I'll be tuning in!
The Burn and MLS are having seminars for local coaches and refs. The refs get sessions with the game refs before the game and get a game ticket for a very small amount of money. I think there might be an after the game discussions as well. This might have been one the reasons for all the refs. There is info on it at the Dallas Burn website. Similar deal for NTSSA coaches and refs.
Hey Viking, I liked the article on 3rd degree, especially this part... it's so true it almost brings a tear to my eye
The same Salazar that screwed the Burn vs. Metros for several gross non-calls, is now poised to do it AGAIN in DC. That's right folks, the same guy that decided Nelson Akwari did NOT trip Paul Broome in the box from behind going to goal, is now in place for the FIX of DC United Making the Playoffs. Will this madness never stop? I'm saying that no call was a one of his options in a split second. He looks, he sees that if Suarez had not used his arms to protect himself, the ball would NOT have gone THROUGH his HEAD or CHEST, and bounced off. Would REVS fans have a had a cow? Maybe. But at least the call would not have handed the game over. And yes, the Burn have against-the-odds bad luck in REFS. That's why I point out that that Cuckhold Salazar that did a CRAP job vs. Metros, is now in place for the BIG FIX with DC United. Mark my words down, right now, right here. He's going to BLOW a call that would have favored the Burn. And I'm not talking a minor call either. He's going to give a penalty on a dive, or do a gross non-call on a Burn player that deserves a penalty. I am so certain, because I've seen the future. As for your assertion a that, perhaps, the Burn's inability to finish much these last few games have anything to do with their losses? Duh. But as you were told elsewhere, giving a team 15 minutes to win a game, and then taking away a player, is not really a fair indication of how many chances could have been created with 11 guys. Yes, their finishing sucked. Does that erase the "bad luck" that the Burn have had with Hall and Salazar? No. No. No. It does not. Luck and referees...you expect that half the time, a ref is going to screw you, and half the time he's not. Well for two straight games, the ref screwed the Burn. And as I said, I've seen the future and number 3 is less than a day away. DC Fans, rejoice, your Salazar is here.