Mls Final Added Time

Given 6 subs (I think they were all in the second half), a goal, the penalty stoppage and red card, and some time wasting, there wasn't really anything wrong with 6 minutes. Maybe 1 minute too wrong if you want to argue it, but I think it was fine.

Tough to live through, but fair.

I have seen a couple of La Liga matches already this season that featured 8 minutes of second-half stoppage time.

 

6 minutes was appropriate.

 

100% in agreement in fact by my watch another 30 seconds would not have been out of line. Statesman do you know why DC played with 9 men for a short while?? Freddy was on the touchline but something amiss about the substitution perhaps??

 

Kennedy allowed the game to restart before the substitution could be made, despite the signalling by the fourth and the DC bench. As a result they had to wait for the next stoppage to get Freddy on the pitch. Just one of the minor mishaps in an overall well-officiated game.

 

PK+Ejection+6 subs+time wasting by DC (that resulted in a caution)+an injury to Eske= 6 mins. Seems fair to me.

 

Kennedy and his crew did a great job. Now if we could only get Waldo to stop making idiotic remarks.

Just one point regarding stoppage, unless an excessively long stoppage takes place for celebrating a goal. Time is not added.

 

Wynalda barely tolerates everyone.

Six minutes was fair. I was expecting 5. When DC was so aggressive about time-wasting, and Waldo was praising them, I was thinking, they're pissing off the CR, he's gonna have his revenge with a huge amount of stoppage time.

I find it hilarious how timewasters get praised by announcers, and then they blame the referees when there's lots of stoppage time.

 

They also made passing mention of this when they shoed a highlight of one of the goals on SportsCenter on ESPN, which impressed me.

 

This is an incomplete sentence.

must be deliberate for what?

- to blow the play dead?
- to issue a yellow card?
- to issue a red card?

what?

- and what -exactly- do the words "deliberate" and "intentional" mean. Surely Alecko wasn't "trying" to play the ball with his hand - the speed and closeness would've made it impossible to react fast enough. But did he intentionally raise his arm to make his body bigger and increase the chance of a deflection? Who's to say?

So many folks jump into handball debates without defining terms. I've seen so many angry posts on handball topics when folks are really talking about different things.

You're sentence doesn't define whether it refers to crime, justice, or punishment.

 

Some notes:
1) Stoppages Time: Stopage time is used for "Allowance for Time Lost... Subsitutions, Assesment of injury to players, Removal of injured player from the fireld of play for treatment, wasting time, any other cause. The allowance for time lost is at the discression of the referee." Direct Quote from Laws of the Game 2003/2004 authorized by FIFA. Stoppage time is used to replace lost time so the each half is 45:00min. In theory a referee could add up to 45 minutes of stoppage per each half. (Very, Very, Very unlikely!)
2) Handling The Ball: In the world of soccer the is no such thing as a "Hand Ball." The offical term is "Handling the Ball." For the ball to be handled a few thing have to be assesed. Was the direction of the ball changed? Did the handball give the offending an advantage? This may result in a DFK (Direct Free Kick) or a PK if in the box. Also ask, the the defender do this delibretly or to slow play or to stop movement down field? This might result in a DFK or PK and a yellow card, caution, for UB (Unsporting Behavior). Lastly ask, Did the defender deny an OGSO (Obvious Goal Scoring Oppurtunity). In this case a DFK or PK would be awarded and the offender would be sent off. Intentional is to stop play on purpose. Delibrate is the same. Lastly, as in all games, the Center Referee makes the final choice. When the USSF referees teach classes to new referees they give them the phrase that they will use there entire career, "If in the opinion of the referee..." You fill in the dots, but if in the opinion of the referee he did it delibretly, then by golly he did it delibretly it's that simple.
3) For a red card to be issued for denied OGSO 4 things must be considered:
A) Number of Defenders: there must be no more than 1 defender between the goal and the foul for it to be dening OGSO. (Not including the one who committed the foul)
B) Distance to the Goal: The referee must decide if the attacker/ball was close enough to go into the goal or there can be no dening OGSO
C) Distance to the Ball: The attacker must be close enough to the ball for him to continue play or the ball to go in to the net or dening OGSO cannot be a reason.
D) Direction of Play: The ball must be moving toward the goal otherwise there is no denied OGSO

Note: Even if it might not be dening OGSO a yellow card may still be warrented for unsporting behavior.
FROM THE MEMORANDUM TO REFEREES BY US SOCCER "OGSO Denied (The 4 D's)

4) Lastly, i covered a lot of topics that might have been interpreted wrong on this fourm and i might have jumbled some words or it might be confusing or i might just be flat out wrong. Please put some more questions and comments here and I'll check back in a week to see what's up.

 

They are very close in meaning. In fact, you will see me using one of the words to partially define the other.

"Intentional" was removed from the Laws because it involves needing to know why a player does something. In the case of handling, knowing that the player wanted to handle the ball. That involves knowing the player's thoughts and motives - and no one expects refs to be mind-readers - no one except the players, coaches and fans, that is

"Deliberate" refers to the action itself, not the reason for the action. The ref only has to evaluate whether the action itself was deliberate ("intentional"?) as opposed to accidental. It's a fine distinction, but important.

An example - Once I called a trip, and the player said, "I didn't mean to do it." I knew that - if she meant it, it would be misconduct. But her deliberate actions - making a move for the ball with her foot - caused her to trip her opponent. She didn't want to trip her; she didn't set out to trip her. It's just that her deliberate actions resulted in tripping her opponent.

In the case of handling, deliberate can also mean deliberately not getting the hand/arms out of the way when it would be possible to do so. That's why handling is called against a player who uses his arms to make himself wider or taller. Again, it has to be a deliberate inaction, in the opinion of the referee, with which others can definitely be in disagreement. Witness the [in]famous non-call decision made by the ref in the USA-GER WC game.

 

There is nothing about the statement I bolded above in the laws of the game.

In order for an offense to be committed, the offending player must a) have intentionally (positively) touched the ball with arm/hand or b) intentionally positioned his arm or hand in such a way (even if it is only passively - like sticking them out from your body when standing in front of the goal) that the ball strikes them.

An example of A is Dema Kovalenko doing what he did on Sunday. An example of B is Thomas Krings at Japorea (or Brian Carroll in the box two weeks ago).

If ball-to-hand gives a player an advantage, that doesn't make it a foul. If ball-to-hand affects the direction the ball travels, that doesn't make it a foul.

And welcome to BigSoccer, but there are plenty of refs (some at high levels) who post here and would dispute your understanding of handling

 

My best guess is that he put his arm up there to shield his face. My observation is that referees will call handling for ball-to-hand whenever the arm isn't in a natural position for running. If a player puts his arm up for protection, I usually see handling called.

On this specific play, on slow-mo, it looked like the ball would have hit him anyway. Of course, the deflection would have been very different. Does that negate handling? I don't think so, but I'll let the real referees chime in here.

 

Deliberate contact means that;

A) the player could've avoided the touch but chose not to, OR
B) the player's arms were in a non-normal playing position at that time, OR
C) that the player continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage.

EXCLUSION - Moving hands instinctively to protect the body when faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute handling unless there is a subsequent action to attempt to direct the ball once contact is made.

The fact that a player may have benefited from the ball contacting the hand does NOT transform the otherwise accidental event inot an infringement.



That's the handling rule in a nutshell. In the space of 1 - 1.5 seconds, Mr. Kennedy had to decide. I've watched the play over and over again and changed my mind 4X.

The answer is in the opinion of the referee, if the ref thought that Eski had an instintive reaction to protect himself or not.

 

I want to touch and stress on the importance of the point raised in the first part of your post. Deliberate is all that must be judged. Handling that is not deliberate even if it results in an advantage to the team or player hit by the ball is not a reason to blow the whistle for handling. This is one of the great misconceptions of the game.

 

I am so sorry. I set my self up for this conclusion by not explaining it clearly. Handling the ball is not when the ball hits the hand, but quite the opposite. For handling the ball, you must do just that, handle the ball. The hand must some how be used to change the ball, but the hand must have moved into a possision to change the direction of the ball. However a player moving this hand to his face to protect it against the ball is not a foul because the purpose was for protection not to change the direction of the ball.
For the other reason it cannot be a foul "because the player gains an advantage," this is the reason behind all fouls. A player who handles the ball but does not gain an advantage has clearly committed a foul, but the referee decided that the offending player did not gain anything from it so he "declines" the foul. (Decline is an American Football term which means to turn down a penalty) In soccer the only person who can "decline" a foul is the referee.
Every call made on the field is of course of the referee and depends on the flow of the game, advantage, and his seeing of the foul. A trifling foul may be call because it gives the offender an advantage, and a obvious violent conduct may be ignored by the referee because it clearly gave the team fouled an advantage. (A card would still be given for misconduct) It is all up to the game and referee.
Good catch Liverpool_SC now everyone can fully understand it. If I am still confusing, misunderstood, wrong, or it just doesn't seem write forgive me because sometimes it is hard to write down the explanation of the LOTGs. Any more questions? Keep 'um commin'!

P.S. if I am really wrong, please get some proof and give it to me because I don't want to make these mistakes in my games.

 

Sounds like someone is back-pedalling.

a) If a foul causes the opponent to have an advantage, you call it.
b) If a foul gives the player the advantage, you apply it.
c) If the foul gives neither an advantage, you ignore it.

Referees don't "decline" fouls so I would suggest keeping that word out of your vocabulary when talking about soccer.

Gaining an advantage is not a factor in deciding whether an offense is handling or not, but it is a factor in deciding whether the offense should be called or not.

I'm sure you didn't mean to actaully say the referee can ignore violent conduct. Instead he acknowledges the misconduct, applies advantage, and then punishes at the next stoppage. I'd also point out it is USSF's strong recommendation that advantage not be applied for any send-off offense, but that's just an aside to the topic at hand.

 

Thank you so much for clarifying it. It is so hard to choose words that non-referees understand but still not change the meanings of the LOTGs. "Declining" would never be used in an officials documentation, applying advantage would. It was probably a poor choice of wording but I was trying to relate it to something everyone would understand. "A, B, C" are good ways to explain it.

 

I myself have also watched the play over again and have changed my mind several times. I've seen it called both ways. Probably didn't deserve a card, but more times than not seems it would have resulted in the play stopped.