Sometimes once the mouth starts, you really can't control it! I've learned this when my kids piss me off, usually about lazy school work, if I don't bite my tongue til I calm down, I explode all over them
I Don't see anything in those replays to justify a caution for simulation. The second replay seems to make it pretty clear that there was contact. And as others have pointed out, even in the absence of contact there's still a good case for tripping (due to attempt to trip) here. I agree that it was probably a hard thing to see from where Gonzalez is coming in, but unless you're sure about the dive, you shouldn't be giving a caution. I wish we could see it how he saw it, that would help explain the call at lot, I'm sure. Right or wrong, I am glad to at least see a referee have the balls to make the call. If he believed it was simulation, I'm glad he didn't back off as so many do. Unfortunately though I think this may be an example of why so many are afraid to make that call, because it is so hard to be sure of it.
Ya know, that's a brilliant idea. The make these cameras you can strap to your head. We can make these mandatory for all CR's. Obviously I'm joking, but we would get some cool shots and maybe maybe some might have a better understanding of the difficulty of the job.
As a newbie referee I am having difficulty in the 'yellow card' decision here, when it's not DOGSO. Is it because it's considered as a 'tactical foul', is it something like 'Denying a possible goal scoring opportunity' or is it 'red would be too harsh, let's go with yellow here'. Thanks for clarification, - ArdaBey
The actual justification, if one went with yellow, would be the first you mention (tactical foul). I think in the 7+7 USSF document, it defines a tactical foul as something like "stopping an attacking opportunity or play." An argument could be made that Reis definitely did that (again, if you decide it's not DOGSO). It's a bit of a myth that tactical fouls have to be intentional/deliberate. A careless foul can rise to the level of tactical.
For me, Reis certainly got close enough to the ball, with obviously valid reasons for attempting to play it, that the foul should not be considered "tactical". Had Reis not come close to the ball while taking out Rolfe, it should be considered tactical, even if he gives an appearance that he is only attempting to play the ball.
I didn't let on in the previous post but I was there in this group as well. We were much closer to the play than Gonzales was! As NHRef said, we were 100% for PK and the only debate was the color of the card. I'm also in the yellow (for a tactical foul) because the direction "D" wasn't there. Rolfe touched the ball away on a line outside the post right before Reis got him. The touch was heavy enough he was going to have trouble getting there before it went over the end line even without the foul. We were all fairly well stunned by the call going the other way. That said, Reis knew he had gotten a gift and behaved himself rather meekly the rest of the game.
This clearly is a dive to me. Caution Rolfe! I thought Rolfe made a concerted effort to get the referee to call it in his favor. Thankfully the referee saw right through this and appropriatly punished Rolfe.
Not that I don't think what's found in this week's WiR is useful--because I definitely do and am glad it's published. But it's not--in any way, shape or form--a review of the week. So when there are two huge incidents--one major PK/dive/DOGSO call that's intensely debated and a fracas with one red card for a VC that involves several start players--at the end of the season, USSF punts? We get a "WiR" that talks about pre-game preparation and an incident in the EPL. Far, far, far less controversial incidents than what happened this past weekend have been dissected and critiqued all year. I'm really disappointed we didn't get to hear what USSF had to say on these two calls.
Since pretty much all of the referees here seem to disagree with you, and described why, can you explain your reasoning in detail?
Re: the second incident to which you refer, there was never a chance they were going to dissect an incident involving Beckham. Never.
I believe they've dissected at least three incidents involving Beckham in the past, so don't think you're correct here. And I don't think the majority of any dissection would focus on Beckham. I think the big question would be this: Ching got sent off for raising his hands to an opponent's face; Clark pushed Beckham in the head and didn't get a red (and he was the first retaliation and was the one, really, who escalated the initial tackle into a larger incident). So would USSF say both Ching and Clark should have walked? Was the red to Ching necessary/required appropriate even though the focus of the incident was Beckham and Clark? Would USSF have been okay if Clark was sent off but not Ching? What about the initial reaction by the refereeing team (Stott was in right away) and how the red to Ching was shown pretty much well after everyone was already calmed down? There are lots of things to examine and not just from a "was this right or wrong?" standpoint (which is pretty much what the Reis call would have been--aside from DOGSO considerations). The Ching/Beckham/Clark incident could really have been a teaching tool. I'm disappointed USSF opted not to touch it.
You're right, I was being flip. My assumption was that a careful review would be critical of Beckham, something the USSF would want to avoid publicly doing. Maybe that's not fair.
It would be interesting, but Ching admits his red was the correct call. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ25VOg1uCo"]YouTube - Kicking it with Brian Ching (10-18-2009)[/ame] Now, a discussion on Clark would have been very interesting. I think USSF didn't touch it because I think the realize a large percentage of officials would not have given a red to Clark in that situation. But given the LotG and the varying directives, I don't see how USSF could have taken any position other than that it should have been a red. They don't want to instruct to give reds for that type of conduct and they don't want calls for them to punish Clark now. USSF probably made the wise choice leaving it alone.
He admits it's the right call, but I believe his quotes have been along the lines of "I put my hands on a player's face and you can't do that." So his admission of guilt is premised on the fact that such an act has been consistently called a red card this year. And that's great. But then that leads us to what transpired immediately before... Agree with pretty much all this. If what occurred between Clark and Beckham happened on an amateur field, it's highly doubtful I send off Clark and keep Beckham. It just wouldn't seem just to the players on the field. But you're also right that under what USSF has been espousing this entire year, I think Clark needed a red card. I think it's impossible for USSF to take a different position when viewing the video. This is where I break with you. I'd lean more toward "cowardly" than "wise." If we follow everything that USSF has been throwing at us for the past 2 years, then both Clark and Ching are supposed to be sent off--and Beckham stays on the field. There's no other way to interpret all the directives and WiRs about VC and hands to the face. And USSF has been very willing to highlight, in the WiRs, almost every other instance of a "missed" red card so far this year. But in this case, where an application of the directives would have led to two red cards, USSF is silent. Why? Because they don't want the 11 v. 9 situation resulting from a situation that wasn't really lopsided in terms of aggressors? That's my guess. What this amounts to, in my eyes, is "the book" vs. "the management" side of refereeing clashing right before our eyes. So much of what's been coming from USSF recently has been the "book" stuff: If X happens, do Y. It's been very regimental. But the powers that be, who include some very excellent former referees, know that you can't apply a one-size-fits all approach to each incident. And, in an incident like this, where 2 red cards to Houston and none to LA would be laughable, they decide to remain silent because if they highlighted why the Ching card was correct, they couldn't defend why Clark stayed on the field. I'd personally argue that, if not for the stringent directives, you could have left Ching on the field, too. A top-class referee like Stott could get in there, issue the two yellows, calm everyone down, maybe have a word (or a caution) with Ching, then get on with the game. This whole "I saw X happen, so it needs to be red" doesn't serve the game, in my opinion. Did Ching really do something that bad? He admits his guilt and accepts his red, but that's only because of the way things have been called recently. Anyway, the bottom line for me is that, by not explaining (or critiquing) why Clark stayed on the field, USSF missed a teaching moment. But the problem is they couldn't have that moment because the Clark decision doesn't jive at all with the Ching decision--and USSF can't suddenly say "well, Ching could have stayed on the field, too." They've twisted themselves in knots with the contact above the shoulder thing. This was bad enough because a full application would have meant 11 v 9. I fear (though also sort of can't wait) for the first bad MLS incident where 5-6 players clearly put their hands to the faces of opponents in one single fracas. The explanation from USSF--no matter the discipline result--will be quite interesting.
Bootsy...This was a tough call for me to make. While I do see the points being made in previous posts, it did appear that Rolfe reaches back with his right foot. I am not arguing the merits of the foul nor am I advocating I am right. Just how I see it. Interestingly enough, Rolfe never argued the call, odd huh? Only makes me wonder why if Rolfe didn't dive why he wouldn't argue the call. I would love to see it from Jorge Gonzales position. True, I would be hard pressed to "sell" this with all the superior intellects in this forum.
If Ching's only contact with Beckham's face is shown in the video, then a very good argument could be made that Ching's contact with an opponent's face was not deliberate. Ching never says he did or did not deliberately contact Beckham in the face, only that he did make contact. (Besides, somebody should wipe that awful beard off his face.) The USSF directive clearly indicates that only deliberate contact with the face is a mandatory send-off. Also, I don't think mere contact with the face is enough, even if it clearly was deliberate. Touching an opponent with a finger is not necessarily the same as "the jabbing a finger to the face", etc. That is, incidental contact, even if deliberate, does not need to be a red IMO. Clark's contact with Beckham's face clearly was deliberate and also was clearly not incidental. MassRef says a yellow for Beckham and a red for Clark would be seen as unfair, but Clark is the one who crossed a clear line in the sand.
Some of the opinions expressed on this thread disturb me. Forget the danger of a second yellow for dissent for a moment. The sportsmanlike response to a bad call by a referee is to grin and bear it. If we are to start taking a player's good sportsmanship as evidence against a bad call, I fear for the future of good sportsmanship -- and sometimes the present of good sportsmanship is frightening enough as it is.