Fewer Pedophile referees in the NWSL too. https://equalizersoccer.com/2014/11/22/nwsl-ref-berry-faces-child-pornography-charge/
You mean this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/wow.2013554/page-2 I knew this guy, may have assessed him back then. Obviously, he can no longer referee. But I don't know what all that has to do with this thread.
I know the good folks in the Referee Forum don't believe this but I'm almost always inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the referees in the forum (i.e. everybody except me for all intents and purposes). But this is really pushing it. This is annoying. The Portland player simply comes in and takes out Long from the side and Long gets the foul? After a delay presumably for advantage? We're going with vague Non-Heiseberg Uncertainty Principles of " how do we know 100% that Long didn't foul Moultrie". Well, Long sure seems to know 100% that she wasn't the one fouling but the one being fouled, and if we're saying the "preferred call" is a free kick to Gotham, then what in the heck are we getting mad at Allie Long for? And it's not the only controversial call in the game. There's Gotham looking for a penalty on the attack at 60:10 when Purce is tackled from behind. I'm willing to allow that for referees this is perhaps uncontroversial, that Portland's defender executes an exceptional but textbook tackle which all referees recognize. But Purce certainly feels she's been brought down in the box and we know the Portland crowd would've been screaming for a PK if one of their player was tackled like this. I would like to be able to come in on Tori Penso's side on all this because she's highly respected and we could use a really good FIFA ref in the women's game, someone who could represent us well at the World Cup. But I don't have a great feeling about this match and I can't totally dismiss Allie Long's complaints as much as I'd like to.
With all due respect, the tackle on Purce is never a foul, and I don't care how many players think it is. The defender played the ball and knocked it out for a corner. On the long play, she puts herself in trouble with a bad touch under pressure. The rest of the play is as I initially described it. Not every call is black and white. Moultrie gets her body in front of Long. You can say that should be a foul, and I would not say you are wrong. At the same time, Long sticks her arm across Moultrie's chest. Look at the referee's angle. She has a great view of the arm across the chest, but not an ideal view of the other contact. We are picking out one play in a 90 minute match. It may have been controversial, but it had no major impact on the game. It was not a penalty kick, or a red card, or even a caution. If that is the only thing people can pick from the match, the referee did a good job.
There's a lot to like in Penso's officiating and even more so from the standpoint of Accepted Referee Orthodoxy, but it isn't just one play and I can understand Gotham's (and Long's) frustrations boiling over by the time of Long getting bowled over in the 84th minute (which is simply a foul by Portland and there's no reason why anyone should accept our attempts to rationalize it, which can only damage the credibility of those defending the center referee's overall performance). It's also possible, though, that while the officiating is very good, Gotham is just very unlucky that every consequential call or potentially controversial call goes against them. In Portland where the fans seem to have, from the perception of opposing players, more influence over the officials. Because they're louder. Because there's more of them. 72'50 from a CK, Gotham takes a shot from the top of the box which GK Bixby tips out of bounds. How is this not a CK? I rarely think a missed out of bounds call is worth getting upset over but this is a blatant error. It's obvious the GK deflected the ball. It's a CK and EVERY player knows it, including the Portland players who start organizing around the 6 yard to defend the next CK 48'55 Gotham attempts a long pass forward which is broken up by Portland, but on the bounce Purce challenges, gains control and starts running in on goal while the Portland defender (Hubly?) falls down. Purce is called for a push and in isolation this is a completely plausible call. But I suspect this is one where Gotham thinks the call is inconsistent with the way the rest of the game is being called . There's contact, no doubt of it, but it doesn't seem all that forceful and (as the replay shows), the ball took a bite off the pitch from the backspin and the defender wound up overrunning the ball. It seems open to a challenge and a little jostling for position 53'10 Purce gets around the wing and is racing towards the box when Portland (Hubly again) leaves her feet (again) to try to tip the ball, Purce is thrown off stride and the ball rolls over the endline. Again, I try to accept as Standard Referee Doctrine that this is not a foul by Hubly, that it isn't enough contact for a foul (to my non-ref eyes it is because the attacker with the ball is running at full speed). But then , at the very least, if the ruling is the defender got the ball and not the player, how is this not a corner kick? 46'30 probably inconsequential but a minor curiosity, Portland called for clipping Gotham's Lee from behind as she comes back for a pass. But then Penso is talking to some player. Who? To Lee who got fouled? Is Lee asking for a card? To some other Portland player in the area? Because it's not the Portland player who committed the foul; she's run back to her defensive position. around the 80th, again probably inconsequential but curious; after Gotham heads a ball of the post, Portland's GK Bixby goes down. After staying down a minute, it's Penso who gives her a hand , lifting her back to her feet. It's kinda cute, Bixby's over 6 feet tall and Penso's ... not. But we know Penso is extremely fit. It's cute, but does Gotham think she's being too chummy with Portland and the crowd, which of course loves it? Purce at the very least, is super unlucky. She's used her speed to get by the defenders to get in towards goal 3 times... and nada. Twice she's tackled from behind and nada. Even if non-referees try to accept the Standard Referee Orthodoxy that the tackle in the box is a fair play, how often is a team unlucky enough to have tackle like that executed perfectly against them? Once a year? Twice?
Without video to look at, I'm really underwhelmed by the critique. Shrug. Refs and ARs miss things. (I lean to thinking this was more on the AR, as the R may have been watching the players, not the ball leaving the field--balls rarely commit fouls . . . ) I'm not sure why we are to get excited about what you acknowledge as a plausible call. the defender getting the ball doesn't mean the attacker didn't touch the ball afterwards--if indeed that is what the call was I don't see anything remotely cuirous here. There are a million reasons she could have been talking to the player. You've really got to be joking on this one. At these levels, the Rs and players on all the teams know one another. There is nothing remotely interesting about an R helping a player to her feet. Again, without video to look at, what is there to discuss?
This is where the standard of broadcasting and the utter cluelessness of the announcers and the viewing public undermine attempts to criticize the referees. The play at 72:50 is not a corner kick because Gotham were penalized for offside. One of their players was clearly in an offside position and attempted to redirect the ball with her head. By attempting to play the ball and being in Bixby's line of sight, she involved herself in the play and was therefore penalized for offside.
I knew you would be Even with video, I know you will be https://youtu.be/r2FAdNngk_0 And by Ortohodox Referee Praxis, I understand you will be, and perhaps should be, especially since so much hinges on the two tackles on Purce from behind, which I realize fall within Accepted Practice. On those two, it's probably a matter of non-refs having a hard time accepting the Orthodox Doctrine. (after all, the referee argument here is, ironically, She got the ball...) Perhaps, from a referee's standpoint, there's more leeway for argument on the play at 48'55, but even here, in isolation, I'm sure referees can justify the call. We'd have to look at the entire game, which you can't be expected to do, to judge whether this is consistent with the way Penso is calling the rest of the game. In the game, she allows a reasonable amount of accepted contact, jostling for position, even an initial use of hands, but consistently blows the whistle for repeated shoving. She also doesn't blow the whistle automatically just because someone falls down and she's almost always correct to do so. Portland's defender goes down very easily here and it's because she's off-balance. As I say, it's clear from the replay, she overran the ball because of the backspin the ball takes off the ground. (The missed CK is bad, too, and there's no excuse for the CR to not overrule the AR) @Midwest Ref says there's an offside infraction on the play. This seems correct and I missed it But without factoring in the two tackles on Purce from behind, it may not seem enough of a pattern of missed calls to get excited about. This probably isn't the time or place to discuss those tackles, which are uncontroversial calls to a trained referee, but this is where there's a disconnect in how fans (and probably some players) see what is proper in the spirit of the laws and what referees see as appropriate. I think Orthodox Referee Doctrine encourages cynical defending and, as a consequence, diving. The attacker who attempts to stay on their feet is simply penalized by Standard Refereeing Practice. There's no reward for it. Thanks to those relying, by the way. It almost always helps to see what the referee thinking and training is on these things. (Just not the foul on Long in the 84th)
The play at 48:55 is a foul all day long. She did overrun the ball, but her attempt to get back to it is stopped by Purce running into her from behind and giving her a push. I think you mean 50:10 rather than 53:10. On this play, a tackle is made, Purce runs after the ball, saves it before it goes over the endline, and crosses it out of bounds. The "missed corner kick" was dealt with in an earlier post. If you want to examine a foul that was missed, look at 51:40 on the youtube video, (48:25 on game clock). Gotham defender hip checks Portland #7 and no foul called. Penso did not really catch it as it was somewhat off the ball. If, as you admit, these are uncontroversial calls to a trained referee, we need to work to educate the general public, not criticize refs because the public does not accept or agree with the calls. I am not an apologist for referees. I have background and experience to know what I am talking about, and if you doubt it, ask @MassachusettsRef. There are many games that have showcased problems with NWSL refereeing. This was not one of them.
Are referees influenced by the home team spectators? Of course they are, at least according to some studies of EPL games showing, for example, a disproportionate number of penalty kicks given to the home team, compared to when they are away. I cannot and do not speak about the current referee staff for NWSL but, when the first women's pro league was started, very, very few of their referees had ever done a game in a real stadium before (e.g. excluding college games where you've pretty much just got a field with some portable aluminum stands), much less in front of thousands of spectators, with television/live-streaming/etc. .
I know these studies are always cited by the media. Certainly the numbers are correct — it's rather easy to verify the number of penalty kicks in favor of home teams vs. away teams. What's always bugged me, though, is the lack of analysis of whether or not those decisions were correct. The number of correctly vs. incorrectly given penalty kicks and the number of correctly vs. incorrectly NOT given penalty kicks. The articles and studies present the raw penalty kick numbers as proof positive that referees are biased towards the home teams, but maybe the away teams just commit more penalty kick offenses on average? Absent a more critical analysis of correct vs. incorrect decision, the studies alone aren't proof. Even though their conclusion is probably still correct.
I haven't tossed myself off the Tori Penso bandwagon yet. When is she going to become one of our FIFA refs? She would clearly improve the overall level of our FIFA delegation Thanks again for replies. It's very useful and I know a few differences can be chalked up to my subscribing to certain heresies.
As we know, deciding which calls were correct is easier said than done. But even without that, there are stats that would be more compelling than per-game by at least attempting to control for level of offense attack. Touches in PA would be very helpful. Even PKs vs shots would tell more than PKs/game.
Paul Riley's turn to criticize the referees A Paul Riley-ism postgame: "The referee could ruin a 2-year-old's birthday party." 😅#NWSL— Jeff Kassouf (@JeffKassouf) July 18, 2021 Two goals in 1st half ruled offside (I can't tell for sure, although Kristen Hamilton seems to me to be onside on the 2nd one). And then the winning goal is scored off a free kick after Denise O'Sullivan is given a yellow card for a foul right outside the box. I can see why an inexperienced referee might think something untoward must have happened, but, oof, it's not a foul 📼 Sights from Saturday 📼#NCvHOU | @Nationwide pic.twitter.com/5L7SwMRgd5— National Women’s Soccer League (@NWSL) July 18, 2021 My graphics skills are very poor so this is hardly definitive, but it seems likely Hamilton was onside. The still frame is after the ball has left Solaun's foot. I drew the red line through Hamilton's foot because we can't see the defender's other foot, but it has to be closer to goal.
Foul on who and for what? The central defender Caldwell reads Groom's move, steps in and blocks the ball away. O'Sullivan (who was assessed the yellow) pulls up in her tracks while Groom, cutting back, runs or falls into O'Sullivan who simply turns to minimize collision. There is a collision. Is every collision a foul? O'Sullivan didn't turn into or run into Groom and O'Sullivan has a right to be where she is on the pitch. She's even keeping her arms down and close to her to both protect herself and to keep Groom from getting impaled on O'Sullivan's elbow. Since we're talking about the deficiencies of NWSL referees (and if we're not going to talk about the elephant in the room...), we'd do better to ask constructively how their less experienced referees can most quickly and efficiently learn from mistakes. Perhaps it's natural to see a collision and someone hit the ground and think someone must be blamed for it with a foul and, perhaps, a card. This Forum has done an admirable job of making the point not to issue cards based solely on "how much it hurts". Red cards doesn't equate to "injury". Players can get hurt on fouls which aren't red cards. Players can get hurt even where there's no foul at all. Players can get a red card even where no one is hurt; sometimes even when there's no contact. Maybe this is one of the main differences between experienced and inexperienced referees — to get used to plays where someone tumbles but no foul is involved and to gain confidence in making a no-call in such cases. I'm trying to be constructive here but most likely @Thug Mentality is a harbinger of the circling of wagons to come
really tired of this non-productive mischaracterization not agreeing with you is not “circling the wagons” Referee mistakes and failures are regularly acknowledged and discussed on this forum—but in the context of learning not bashing. I’m done responding to your posts
I'm sure I've tried your patience so I understand if you're done. Thank you (again) for all the replies in the past. I have always been sincere and generous in my compliments to you and the rest of you. Which never seems reciprocal but that's okay, too! I am always more generous to my critics than they are to me. There's a point to that as well. Was Thug Mentality's comment constructive? Was it analysis? Or is this where we see where the limitations of the Forum are and it does start becoming a circling of the wagons when the criticism is coming from outside the circle?! We all agree that fans can gain from a discussion of the art of refereeing and how it's done. I just don't think you will ever get anywhere thinking the learning is a one-way street. Who is the game for? @Mikael_Referee said something very troubling, very ominous, a week ago, which I noticed everyone wanted to sweep under the rug... How can fans be blamed for not comprehending the officials when some of you say, among yourselves, that you don't recognize the guidelines and paradigms anymore? It's not like fans attended the last Party Congress and re-educated themselves to conform to the latest party doctrine. And why should fans be expected to?
O’Sullivan impedes. No she doesn’t. She makes no contact with the ball. Ha! Falls into? She does not have any right to run into the space and attacking path of her opponent, stop in her tracks, and not get the ball whatsoever. Be very clear, neither defender plays the ball. And make no mistake, O’Sullivan absolutely runs into the attacker, by getting directly in her path and stopping. It does not matter that she tries to minimize contact. Irrelevant. You realize the card is for the tactical nature of the foul? That card was not given for the severity of the collision. ^ 1:13:15. Slow-mo it if you need.
I'm all in favor of questions and discussion regarding officiating decisions. But comparing referees to communism really doesn't add a lot to the discussion. I think if you'll go back to the Copa America, Gold Cup, and any MLS weekly discussion, you'll see that plenty of officials are more than fine questioning and criticizing decisions. But we are doing it to learn what might have been seen and how we can try to avoid the same mistakes in our games. One of the things I enjoy about being an official is educating the non-officials with whom I regularly interact. For example, my son plays on a high-level team and we go to plenty of tournaments and other out of town events (I usually officiate a few games when he isn't playing - it's a great way to offset some of the travel expenses and to work some high-level events). During our inevitable pizza and beer sessions in the hotel lobby on Saturday nights, I'm happy to answer questions and share experiences with my officiating "hat" on - as long as the discussion stays on the "I want to learn more" topic and stays away from "that ref sucked". Unfortunately, comments like this one are more about the latter than the former, and it's an easy way to close off discussion.
Thanks for the effort. I'll accept your word for it that Caldwell doesn't get a touch on the ball and that Shea Groom alone changed its direction while evading Caldwell's attempt to deflect it. Gotta give credit to Shea for such quick change of direction. But... change of direction. That's just it. Within a few strides, Groom changes angle twice taking her to where O'Sullivan has beaten her to. You're not just asking O'Sullivan to be a cone on the practice field. You're asking her to be a doorman, to step back and hold open the door for Groom and invite her in. I take a lot of the comments and opinions of refs here and offer them as plausible explanations to fans elsewhere on Big Soccer or to the Equalizer website. I can take this there as implicitly endorsed by the consensus of refs here, but I can't say to other fans, Here, this is a plausible explanation from the refs at Big Soccer. No can do. I recognize and appreciate the sincerity and earnestness of your efforts. I can't explain the value of satire to those who don't think it has philosophical value in a discussion ADD: and now there is a sh!tsh0w in Washington/Gotham with an early red card. A disaster on many levels but one of them is that a fair number of observers think Midge Purce dives on trifling contact. But it is as I just foretold in the last few days: Purce learned in Portland that the way we think a game should be refereed, there's no upside to trying to keep on her feet. She tried twice against Portland as we just discussed. She was punished for it; the defender was rewarded. So what does she do today? She goes to ground and forces the ref to make a call. And she gets the call.
The foul happened at 4:09 and the red card was brandished at 6:15. Why did it take so long? Genuinely curious.