MLS Conference Call Notes (29 April)

Could someone who has this handbook tell us what this is about?


Regarding the elbows / face slaps, I have been calling this much harsher over the last year or so and every time I call it / give a card for it, I get a lot of grief for it. Guys are challenging with elbows out and thinking they are perfectly within their right to "hold their space" by greeting a challenge with a head high elbow held out.

The problem is that the thrown elbow / back slap is generally a retaliation to a hold or something. However, it's a response way out of proportion to the initial foul and they are doing it either before the initial foul can be called or while they are still maintaining the attack and I am letting play continue for a bit to see where it goes.

Personally, I am glad to see MLS focusing on this more and IMO, MLS needs to hand out suspensions when the referee crew misses them like they did last year with Even Whitfield toward the end of the season. Jaqua should be suspended for his elbow on Petke. The Moreno face slap on Beasley should be called as a foul and possibly earn a caution, but personally, I don't think that one warranted a red card nor should it warrant a suspension by the MLS Disciplinary committee. I can't recall what the third incident that they are referring to is about.

 

Could the play where Adu was cautioned be on of the three? Freddy was complaining about getting hit in the face, and when they showed a replay I could see that it had happened. I don't recall if Stone or Wynalda picked up on it.

 

You're probably right. That is probably the 3rd (actually middle) occurrence.

 

I'm surprised that what Zotinca did was considered by any top-level official to be a possible red card offense.

Apparently Joe has some preference for detail. The actual game start time should be listed not as 4:00 but as 4:06:03, approximately.

I'm glad to see that Joe is willing to admit MLS refs sometimes make mistakes. But why not go full bore, and gives us the game times for the calls and situations that are being discussed?

Why the concern about the TV window? With no possibilility of overtime, shouldn't this be of much less concern than in past years? And what "time wasting tactics" is he talking about? What does "being more proactive" mean?

Doubt is not the same as Close. Maybe Joe isn't aware of the difference. If I know a player is offside, even it it was very close, shouldn't he be called? On the other hand, if I am not quite sure if he was offside, but he very possibly was, then doubt enters the picture, so I should allow play to continue. That is, if an error is going to be made, it should be made in the favor of the attacker. But it is still an error.

 

Remember Paul, these conference call notes are a synopsis for the referees use. They are viewing and discussing specific tapes and situations at the time of the conference call that are sent to the MLS officials to assist in their doing a better jobl. The notes are not for your benefit and it is ridiculous for you to make demands that they provide additional information that is not relevant to their discussion.

With regard to matches starting on time, I am sure that in some match an issue came up where the match was delayed or perhaps started too quickly and therefore, they want the referee and 4th official to be accurate to the 1/10 second in the event it is questioned later by the TV networks.

Who are you to demand a laundry list of match times officials made errors. I am sure you make mistakes everyday in your job and personal life that you would not want to be made public record.

Be thankful the USSF allows access to the conference call notes. It could be construed that allowing access to these calls could be turned against officials as a means of criticizing their performance.

Paul the issue of giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player regarding offside infractions has to do with the speed of play. There are many instances that the decision is so close you cannot tell. Therefore, he is reminding assistant referees that if you have doubts to keep your flag down. Here is where not having the benefit of experience in running a line in a professional match leads to an ignorant statement. There are many extremely close decisions every match. You are running to keep even with the next to last defender. The offensive players may be running dummy runs. You cannot always anticipate where the run will come and be mindful of when the ball was passed.

As for mistakes. Referees make much fewer mistakes than players. Why not hold players to the same standard. You could then write threads, create postulates and expand on dissertations on why player "A" constantly loses concentration and gets caught in offside traps and how his mistakes are destroying a chance for victory.

 

The USSF is free to ignore my demands. I just think some referees (non-MLS) and fans, myself included, would like to know how Machnik is judging his referees, so we can be better aware of how MLS referees are expected to apply the law, and more informed about any criticism we may apply at a later date.

I was trying to be light. I saw it in the same vein as First Officer Spock's elaborate sense of time.

I am a fan of the game and of the league. On many of the controversial plays, the match officials get it right, and they should certainly be publicly commended for doing so. I certainly don't expect officials to get every call right. In some parts of the world, I think it might be unsafe to devulge such information. But not here.

I am thankful. I wouldn't read them if I wasn't thankful.

Heaven forbid.

I don't disagree with that. But Machnik said simply "two offside decisions were close enough for consideration to keep the flag down." He didn't say anything about "doubt". He didn't say he talked to the two AR's in question and determined if they were absolutely sure the player was offside or if they only thought so. He implys that all "close" plays should be given to the attacker, no matter how sure the AR is that the player was indeed offside. I don't think that is right or fair to the ARs involved.

Sometimes I do. See The Train Wreck -- What Went Wrong 4/3. I write player ratings after each Crew game. If a Crew player "constantly loses concentration and gets caught in offside traps", I will be one of the first to say so. (As you can probably guess, I have a lot to write about these days.) I was so impressed by Salazar's performance in the last Crew game, and it it seems to be such an issue in every game, that I have decided to add a referee rating to all my future Crew Player Ratings. Am I the most eminently qualified? No. But I will put it out there. You may praise it or hate it. Comments are welcome.