Chicago-NE: Penalty or dive?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Bootsy Collins, Oct 19, 2009.

  1. Bootsy Collins

    Bootsy Collins Player of the Year

    Oct 18, 2004
    Capitol Hill
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. meyers

    meyers Member

    Jun 11, 2003
    W. Mass
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. boylanj64

    boylanj64 Member

    Nov 7, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    First angle looked like no contact, second looked like a clear penalty. I suspect the CR was as surprised as anyone else by the bad touch and got caught out of position. I could certainly see how it could look like a dive.
     
  4. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    I wish there was more acceptance of 'attempting to trip' as a direct free kick infringement. This sort of thing happens a lot -- the GK gets there late and the attacker tries to jump over him so as not to get cleaned out and to keep going, but the attacker loses his balance and sometimes even falls down, and the opportunity is gone. This sort of challenge can be a foul even if there is no contact.

    On the other hand, I can't stand it when an attacker will keep his feet/legs down closer to the ground to ensure that the GK makes contact. If I see something like this, where it looks like the player is trying for the contact and not trying to score a goal, I am VERY likely to caution the attacker for simulation.
     
  5. Bootsy Collins

    Bootsy Collins Player of the Year

    Oct 18, 2004
    Capitol Hill
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One thing that Bretos seemed to be suggesting is that even if no contact was made, if the keeper got in the attacker's path with no chance whatsoever of making a play on the ball, then it's a foul (presumably by obstruction). Is that a valid argument?
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not obstruction. It's the argument that bluedevils makes in his first paragraph--attempting to trip.

    I hate to convict Gonazalez here, because we never see a perfect angle and--much to my surprise--the protests from Rolfe seemed quite muted. But I see a clear PK and a red card at first glance and on replay. Since USSF has been very willing to throw referees under the bus on big calls this year, it will be interesting to see what we hear on Friday. In the same vein, I can't wait to see how they dissect the Beckham/Clark/Ching incident...
     
  7. socfan60

    socfan60 Member

    May 6, 2001
    I agree 100% on the former- too often players come in with a rash challenge, force the opponent to leap etc to avoid getting crushed and because they miss completely- no foul

    on the other hand- Why in your second case is it the offensive players responsibility to try to avoid getting tripped? If the defender is going for the tackle he better get the ball. If he misses, he better not get the man. If the offensive player is skilled/quick enough to make the defender miss the ball and is willing to take the clattering, why shouldn't he get the call? No where in the laws does it say must avoid getting fouled /falling down.

    Unfortunately, these two go hand in hand. If more officials called the former, there would be less perceived "need" by players to do the later.
     
  8. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    It DOES look like there is contact, based on one of the slow-mo replays. At full speed, it looks like either a foul with contact or a foul via attempting to trip. It's a lot tougher when you are 30 yards away running at full speed, possibly with players blocking your view!

    Watching the game live, it looked like an obvious goalscoring opportunity. But watching the replays several times today, the opportunity looks much less obvious...
    Rolfe touched the ball around the GK and would have gotten to the ball first, but the ball was really running away from him quickly on the turf and it would have taken him probably 2-3 seconds to track it down and take a touch to control the ball and be ready to shoot. 1 defender was in the goal mouth to defend against a shot, and Reis might have had time to recover in time to save a shot.

    Massref, you aren't the only one who found Rolfe's very limited protest to be very odd. If he really thought he was fouled, why not at least say something to the referee after he has shown you the yellow card? Rolfe gave a mild protest via gesture while he was still on the ground, but he did not appear to say anything after that.
     
  9. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    They DO go hand in hand; you are 100% right about that. But I still have a problem -- from both a referee's AND a player's perspective -- with attackers 'looking for contact.' It's one thing to get tripped/clipped/cleaned out unavoidably; it is entirely another to have time to think about your actions and elect to ensure the contact, especially when there's still a good chance to avoid it and score the goal.
     
  10. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    It was a penalty.

    Gonzalez probably felt that even if there was contact, Rolfe did not try hard enough to stay upright.

    Dangerous play could have been called on the preceding clearance and Rolfe might have been offside, so it isn't clear how badly Chicago got ripped off.

    It was probably a red card too but soccer is ridiculously harsh in that regard.
     
  11. dadcoachref

    dadcoachref BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 30, 2007
    Crosby
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    IMO...penalty...YC to Reis...Rolfe played the ball away from goal which negates the RC for me...

    very possible from Gonzalez' position that it looked like a dive...
     
  12. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    When I saw it live (on TV), I thought it was clearly a RC and PK. Two quick replays later and I saw a little bit of tail dragging by Rolfe, but mostly thought it was still a PK/RC.

    Maybe Rolfe felt guilty about leg-fishing for the foul; or maybe mad that he did, so the attention was removed from Reis...
     
  13. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Live, I thought it was a PK and a red card. First replay, thought it might have been a dive. But a later replay showed it was clearly a foul and a PK. Red card? To me, a close one.
    Geez, you guys are never satisfied. Now you're mad at a player for not protesting a call? ;)
     
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    All valid points. My problem is that USSF's instructions on DOGSO have been so twisted and tortured that I'm honestly not sure how they'd want it called. Couple years ago the fact that "direction" wasn't patently obvious would have negated a red. This year? Not as certain. Let's just say that in the EPL, it definitely would have been red. In MLS, it's debatable.
     
  15. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    Especially after picking up a yellow card, can't argue too much or you risk getting sent off. And giving a card for a dive has a negative connotation that the ref isn't wanting to hear your side.

    This is also why I strongly feel that the only way to handle diving is after the fact on replay. It is too hard and too angle dependent to figure out dives from non-dives in real time.
     
  16. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    Some referees will give a player some latitude to vent after the player has just been cautioned. I would think a couple of words from Rolfe in a normal voice would have been tolerated for sure. There's nothing wrong with a little conversation....

    'Jorge, he clipped me on the right leg. I didn't dive on that one.'

    'Sorry Chris. You might be right, but it sure LOOKED like a dive and I did what I had to do.'

    I'm not advocating the player berating the referee, just trying to express a realistic viewpoint that some sort of frustration at that kind of HUGE call is to be expected.
     
  17. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    But is that conversation realistic?

    I would not be able to have a civil conversation with the referee if I was tripped with a great chance to score and instead of a PK and (maybe) a red to the GK, you tell me I get a yellow for diving. I would either start chewing you out (probably involving a few swear words) and risk getting a second yellow, or I could just ignore you. It isn't like arguing has ever changed the referees mind, and I think many players are risking saying something very nasty if they try to talk to the ref in this spot.
     
  18. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    Yes, I think it is.

    If Rolfe had the restraint to say nothing at all, surely he could have said SOMETHING without getting totally carried away. I just don't know why he didn't.
     
  19. sm. town ref

    sm. town ref Member

    Aug 24, 2009
    Canada
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Although it appears there was contact (very little, yes), the attacker lets himself just slide along the ground with no attempt to continue playing. Had he rolled then got up.... he might have got the call.

    Thoughts?
     
  20. Another NH Ref

    Another NH Ref BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 29, 2008
    Southern NH
    I don't think you get DGF on this one. The ball was going away from the goal, and much more quickly than it probably appeared on TV, and there was another defender right there to Rolfe's right, moving faster than he was, so 2 of the D's are absent.
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well I disagree completely on the number of defenders. The defender you are talking about would have ended up being behind the goalkeeper, who is the one doing the fouling. So there is only one defender back (and one who cannot use his hands). If anything, this "D" is more obvious than usual.

    As you'll see above if you look at my exchange with bluedevils, I conceded the direction "D" isn't obvious, so there's room for some debate. I would point out, though, that Rolfe was moving at quite a clip of speed until he got brought down, too. I think too often on these replays we look at the speed of the ball right after the foul and compare it to the (non-existent) movement of the fouled player. We've got to remember that a split-second before the alleged foul, the ball was at Rolfe's foot. I'd argue, without a foul from Reis, Rolfe would have definitely had the ball at his feet with only one defender to beat... the only question, really, is how tough of an angle he'd have once he collected the ball.

    Also, as to my argument that this is a red card elsewhere but questionable here... anyone see the England v. Ukraine DOGSO for Green? It was an extremely similar situation. One defender chasing. Foul by keeper near the top of the area in the center part of the field. Last touch is to round the keeper to the left.
     
  22. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    Rolfe played the ball early; the keeper had no chance to play the ball. The keeper just pulled him down. Not the best tape, but it looked to me that Rolfe's right leg made it past the keeper but not the left trailing foot. I don't see how you can fault Rolfe for that. The contact was really late. Two steps after Rolfe played the ball. I don't know about Rolfe, but I would not have expected the keeper to take me down that late. Okay so the ref may have been caught way upfield, what about the AR? I imagine that is one crew that was not smiling the next day.
     
  23. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Apr 7, 2004
    Southern NH
    I was there and actually had a very good view of the play, I was part of a ref group going to the game (grade 5, grade 6, 3 grade 7's and 5 grade 8's). All agreed it was a foul/card/pk, debated the color of card. All where shocked when the card went to Rolfe. Rolfe actually was running pretty much right at us at the point of the foul, we had a good angle.

    For me it was yellow on Reis, of the 4 D's:

    - Defenders: yup, that was there
    - Distance to net: yup, well inside PA
    - Distance to ball: debatable, the touch moved it pretty far ahead, he would have caught up, but at what angle?
    - Direction: At the point of the foul he was well off line of the goal. However as Massref says this one gets changed almost daily, but the play/ball was NOT going towards goal here.

    In my mind, since all 4 are not "yes", it's not a DGF. It is a PK.
     
  24. bluedevils

    bluedevils Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    USA
    it's hard to say, but my impression was that if he had hurdled Reis successfully and continued toward the ball, Rolfe probably would have taken another touch before shooting.

    I suspect most non-referee soccer people would say this is a good example of what SHOULD be a red card for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, or 'last man.' As far as the 4 Ds go, I believe it is a gray area. If the game was on grass, I think Rolfe would have tracked down the ball or gotten another touch on the ball much quicker. But the turf really helped the ball scoot toward the corner flag.
     
  25. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wow, I really disagree. Because I'm me.

    When I get really pissed, I can only go one of two ways. Shut up, or blow up. I would have the control to walk away, but I wouldn't have the control to say, dear kind sir, I beg to differ. If I say anything, it's something like, you blind ********head, you just screwed us.
     

Share This Page