|
Post by soccerloafer on May 22, 2018 11:22:54 GMT -5
For the record, I am a long time referee (and player, coach, parent). Not great or high ranking, but experienced enough over many decades and levels of competition. Referees of all types make mistakes and aren't perfect. For amateur referees, I just ask you to keep up with play, protect the players, be as impartial as possible, and interpret the rules mostly correctly. But I expect better from professionals with access to VAR.
After watching AU games this season and last, it's obvious that the standard of officiating has not kept up with the level of play.
The Martinez goal reversal against Kansas City was a shame. During our annual training, we watch videos straight from USSF on how to interpret various situations. That exact situation (player in offside position to start, defender intentionally attempts to play the ball but deflects, goes to attacker in offside position) was shown (different teams of course). The ruling - NOT OFFSIDE.
The Martinez goal reversal against Red Bulls was even worse. Incidental contact between two players running for the ball - with the defender cutting in front of the attacker. Another terribly wrong call. Guess who was running VAR?
How Mark Geiger could miss both of these basic calls, even after VAR review, is appalling. The fact that he will represent the US at the World Cup is unbelievable. He should be banned from all future AU games and turn back his World Cup assignments.
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on May 22, 2018 11:50:28 GMT -5
But the fact that Howard Webb and PRO said both calls were correct doesn't matter?
|
|
|
Post by rocko1989 on May 22, 2018 12:51:38 GMT -5
For the record, I am a long time referee (and player, coach, parent). Not great or high ranking, but experienced enough over many decades and levels of competition. Referees of all types make mistakes and aren't perfect. For amateur referees, I just ask you to keep up with play, protect the players, be as impartial as possible, and interpret the rules mostly correctly. But I expect better from professionals with access to VAR. After watching AU games this season and last, it's obvious that the standard of officiating has not kept up with the level of play. The Martinez goal reversal against Kansas City was a shame. During our annual training, we watch videos straight from USSF on how to interpret various situations. That exact situation (player in offside position to start, defender intentionally attempts to play the ball but deflects, goes to attacker in offside position) was shown (different teams of course). The ruling - NOT OFFSIDE. The Martinez goal reversal against Red Bulls was even worse. Incidental contact between two players running for the ball - with the defender cutting in front of the attacker. Another terribly wrong call. Guess who was running VAR? How Mark Geiger could miss both of these basic calls, even after VAR review, is appalling. The fact that he will represent the US at the World Cup is unbelievable. He should be banned from all future AU games and turn back his World Cup assignments. As a "long time referee..." you know there is no stipulation in the Laws for "incidental contact." If something is considered done with careless, reckless, or with excessive force then that action is considered a foul. Period and end of story. I happen to agree with you on the Martinez/KC goal. That one is a mystery to me. The Martinez/Red Bulls goal seems pretty clear to me. You even mention contact occurred. All that must be considered is this: was that contact careless, reckless, or done with excessive force? The answer, upon review, was yes. Geiger did not miss this call upon VAR review. He brought up the issue to Chris Penso (I think that is his name), Penso watched the video, saw the contact, recognized/identified this contact was done in a careless manner (reckless would have seen a yellow card, and excessive force would have been a red card), and did not allow the goal to stand. I have watched the replay a number of times. Martinez did contact the foot of the defender. That does not have to be intentional, as that word was taken away from the Laws of the Game years ago in regards to this type of thing. The defender then fell down. I suspect if this was BWP from the Red Bulls doing this to an Atlanta United defender, those of us in Atlanta that pull for AU would have been incensed had the foul not been called against BWP. Geiger will not "turn back his World Cup assignments." I happen to think MLS is one of the most difficult leagues any where in which to officiate. The differing levels of players, coupled with the styles of play, make things incredibly complicated. That does not excuse incorrect decisions, however if you have been in the middle of a difficult match, you should have some empathy for these folks. This will be the second World Cup for Geiger. He did well in 2014. How about we pull for our refs to do well since our team did not make it?
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 22, 2018 13:24:53 GMT -5
For the record, I am a long time referee (and player, coach, parent). Not great or high ranking, but experienced enough over many decades and levels of competition. Referees of all types make mistakes and aren't perfect. For amateur referees, I just ask you to keep up with play, protect the players, be as impartial as possible, and interpret the rules mostly correctly. But I expect better from professionals with access to VAR. After watching AU games this season and last, it's obvious that the standard of officiating has not kept up with the level of play. The Martinez goal reversal against Kansas City was a shame. During our annual training, we watch videos straight from USSF on how to interpret various situations. That exact situation (player in offside position to start, defender intentionally attempts to play the ball but deflects, goes to attacker in offside position) was shown (different teams of course). The ruling - NOT OFFSIDE. The Martinez goal reversal against Red Bulls was even worse. Incidental contact between two players running for the ball - with the defender cutting in front of the attacker. Another terribly wrong call. Guess who was running VAR? How Mark Geiger could miss both of these basic calls, even after VAR review, is appalling. The fact that he will represent the US at the World Cup is unbelievable. He should be banned from all future AU games and turn back his World Cup assignments. Soccer loafer, I'll have to disagree with you on both of these calls. While I agree that there is such a thing as incedental contact that should not be called (maybe at times when both players looking at the ball going up for a header and colliding, or sometimes when two players running side by side and legs get tangled a little), in the case of the disallowed goal on Sunday, the defender was in front of Martinez and Martinez cut and clipped the back of his legs. While Martinez may not have meant to do this, it still has to be a foul. And while I do think disallowing the goal against KC may have been a little controversial considering it was called a goal on the field (not sure what the specific VAR stipulations are, but I know in American Football calls are only supposed to be overturned with indisputable evidence), it is hard to say that the defender "misplayed" the ball as he was only about 4 yards away from the attacker when the ball was played through - I would say it was more of a split second instincual reach for the ball and therefore could easily be considered more of a "deflection" than a misplay. Maybe I'm wrong here - I do feel like there is some grey area in the interpretation of what constitutes a misplay by a defender or a defelection. I did, however, disagree with the penalty call at the end of the first half this past Sunday night. I thought the contact was minimal (maybe a little bumping, holding, but nowhere near enough for a penalty) and the attacker threw himself forward after feeling the contact and fooled the referee. Kind of surprised that one wasn't at least reveiwed - although as I mentioned, there was contact and even a little holding so not sure it would have been overturned. I also think NY's last goal was very close to being offside and a little surprised that one wasn't at least reviewed either - the TV replay didn't show the correct angle, so I'm obviously not sure, but it was pretty close (looked right at even to me on the bad angle replay, so probably a good goal, but I would have liked a better angle look). Maybe they did review it upstairs though and determined he was on so they didn't call down. I'm not a huge Matt Geiger fan, but I think you missed these two, and he got them right.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 22, 2018 13:39:15 GMT -5
Ok, I'm not a ref, but IMHO it was incidental contact at best. That happens in soccer... players feet sometimes get tangled up, you can't call it every time someone falls down from that.
Second, I have watched it a few times, and the defender falls backwards, not forwards, which is what would happen running at a full sprint and someone truly clips the heels with enough force for the player to go down. Instead, it looks like he was either trying to make a slide tackle on the ball or he was flopping. My point is... Either way, the contact isn't what brought the defender down, so no foul should have been called.
Finally, if he would have taken more time in the VAR monitor and watched it a few times, he would have been able to see this as well. instead, he took one glance and made a call reversal.
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 22, 2018 14:12:50 GMT -5
For the record, I am a long time referee (and player, coach, parent). Not great or high ranking, but experienced enough over many decades and levels of competition. Referees of all types make mistakes and aren't perfect. For amateur referees, I just ask you to keep up with play, protect the players, be as impartial as possible, and interpret the rules mostly correctly. But I expect better from professionals with access to VAR. After watching AU games this season and last, it's obvious that the standard of officiating has not kept up with the level of play. The Martinez goal reversal against Kansas City was a shame. During our annual training, we watch videos straight from USSF on how to interpret various situations. That exact situation (player in offside position to start, defender intentionally attempts to play the ball but deflects, goes to attacker in offside position) was shown (different teams of course). The ruling - NOT OFFSIDE. The Martinez goal reversal against Red Bulls was even worse. Incidental contact between two players running for the ball - with the defender cutting in front of the attacker. Another terribly wrong call. Guess who was running VAR? How Mark Geiger could miss both of these basic calls, even after VAR review, is appalling. The fact that he will represent the US at the World Cup is unbelievable. He should be banned from all future AU games and turn back his World Cup assignments. Soccer loafer, I'll have to disagree with you on both of these calls. While I agree that there is such a thing as incedental contact that should not be called (maybe at times when both players looking at the ball going up for a header and colliding, or sometimes when two players running side by side and legs get tangled a little), in the case of the disallowed goal on Sunday, the defender was in front of Martinez and Martinez cut and clipped the back of his legs. While Martinez may not have meant to do this, it still has to be a foul. And while I do think disallowing the goal against KC may have been a little controversial considering it was called a goal on the field (not sure what the specific VAR stipulations are, but I know in American Football calls are only supposed to be overturned with indisputable evidence), it is hard to say that the defender "misplayed" the ball as he was only about 4 yards away from the attacker when the ball was played through - I would say it was more of a split second instincual reach for the ball and therefore could easily be considered more of a "deflection" than a misplay. Maybe I'm wrong here - I do feel like there is some grey area in the interpretation of what constitutes a misplay by a defender or a defelection. I did, however, disagree with the penalty call at the end of the first half this past Sunday night. I thought the contact was minimal (maybe a little bumping, holding, but nowhere near enough for a penalty) and the attacker threw himself forward after feeling the contact and fooled the referee. Kind of surprised that one wasn't at least reveiwed - although as I mentioned, there was contact and even a little holding so not sure it would have been overturned. I also think NY's last goal was very close to being offside and a little surprised that one wasn't at least reviewed either - the TV replay didn't show the correct angle, so I'm obviously not sure, but it was pretty close (looked right at even to me on the bad angle replay, so probably a good goal, but I would have liked a better angle look). Maybe they did review it upstairs though and determined he was on so they didn't call down. I'm not a huge Matt Geiger fan, but I think you missed these two, and he got them right. In terms of the first Martinez goal, the defender reaches, plants his foot, and then the ball hits. The exact scenario given in referee training resulted in "not offside." I stand by that. Agree on the PK call, but didn't bring it up for brevity. The attacker clearly dove to initiate contact.
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 22, 2018 14:13:55 GMT -5
But the fact that Howard Webb and PRO said both calls were correct doesn't matter? That has about as much credibility as the FBI clearing Hillary, but that's for another forum... Standard protocol to circle the wagons to protect their own.
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 22, 2018 14:20:56 GMT -5
OK - so now I've broached the topic, how do we fix it? Easy. Each club should be required to have a DOR - Director of Referees.
How much training does an amateur referee get each year? About four hours. What's the quality of that training? Marginal at best. In my 30+ years of refereeing, I've been to about two dozen recerts (not active some years for family or work). Of those two dozen, about three were worthwhile. The rest were a milieu of conflicting instruction (including one year the two instructors almost went to blows), ridiculous questions from the audience that side-tracked the instructors, and even a profanity laced video show to an audience as young as 12 this year.
How much training does an Athena A / Classic 1 team get a year? Assume 30 weeks at 3 hours a week - 90 hours minimum. How about RPL / ECNL? Probably twice that. So it's very hard for the average amateur referee can be as sharp as the level of competition. Yes, there is a cadre of dedicated officials who work hard to learn the game, but not enough.
If each club had a Director of Referees, they could implement a regular (weekly / monthly) training program for officials, provide on-site monitoring, assessment, and feedback, and generally put referee training on par with player technical development.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 22, 2018 14:35:44 GMT -5
Hypothetically, if the defender had stumbled but regained his footing and continued on would it have been called a foul? or was it only called a foul because the player went to the ground? My point is, he went to the ground of his own volition, hence, it wasn't a foul.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 22, 2018 15:08:13 GMT -5
Hypothetically, if the defender had stumbled but regained his footing and continued on would it have been called a foul? or was it only called a foul because the player went to the ground? My point is, he went to the ground of his own volition, hence, it wasn't a foul. In order to not call it a foul, you'd have to be pretty darn sure that the defender intentionally threw himself on the ground after feeling a little bit of contact, because there definitely was contact when Martinez cut across the back of him. Maybe you have better insight into the mind and body language of professional defenders than I do, but it didn't look like a dive to me - in fact I can't imagine that any last defender would dive in that situation - 30+ yards from goal, still have a chance to stay in front and make a play. You may want to watch the replay a few more times. I think if you ask any unbiased knowledgable soccer person, they will tell you the referee has to call a foul in that situation. I'm an AU fan and wish the goal wasn't disallowed, but it was a clear foul and disallowed correctly.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 22, 2018 15:14:14 GMT -5
Hypothetically, if the defender had stumbled but regained his footing and continued on would it have been called a foul? or was it only called a foul because the player went to the ground? My point is, he went to the ground of his own volition, hence, it wasn't a foul. In order to not call it a foul, you'd have to be pretty darn sure that the defender intentionally threw himself on the ground after feeling a little bit of contact, because there definitely was contact when Martinez cut across the back of him. Maybe you have better insight into the mind and body language of professional defenders than I do, but it didn't look like a dive to me - in fact I can't imagine that any last defender would dive in that situation - 30+ yards from goal, still have a chance to stay in front and make a play. You may want to watch the replay a few more times. I think if you ask any unbiased knowledgable soccer person, they will tell you the referee has to call a foul in that situation. I'm an AU fan and wish the goal wasn't disallowed, but it was a clear foul and disallowed correctly. My second point from earlier... and yes I have watched it a multiple times... "Second, I have watched it a few times, and the defender falls backwards, not forwards, which is what would happen running at a full sprint and someone truly clips the heels with enough force for the player to go down. Instead, it looks like he was either trying to make a slide tackle on the ball or he was flopping. My point is... Either way, the contact isn't what brought the defender down, so no foul should have been called. Watch it again, he leans back before going to ground. I wish knew how to insert the video on here.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 22, 2018 15:30:19 GMT -5
In order to not call it a foul, you'd have to be pretty darn sure that the defender intentionally threw himself on the ground after feeling a little bit of contact, because there definitely was contact when Martinez cut across the back of him. Maybe you have better insight into the mind and body language of professional defenders than I do, but it didn't look like a dive to me - in fact I can't imagine that any last defender would dive in that situation - 30+ yards from goal, still have a chance to stay in front and make a play. You may want to watch the replay a few more times. I think if you ask any unbiased knowledgable soccer person, they will tell you the referee has to call a foul in that situation. I'm an AU fan and wish the goal wasn't disallowed, but it was a clear foul and disallowed correctly. My second point from earlier... and yes I have watched it a multiple times... "Second, I have watched it a few times, and the defender falls backwards, not forwards, which is what would happen running at a full sprint and someone truly clips the heels with enough force for the player to go down. Instead, it looks like he was either trying to make a slide tackle on the ball or he was flopping. My point is... Either way, the contact isn't what brought the defender down, so no foul should have been called. Watch it again, he leans back before going to ground. I wish knew how to insert the video on here. So I did watch the video again and understand what you are seeing; however, even if Martinez merely knocked him off balance with the contact, it's still a foul. Defender is running at full speed, gets clipped in the ankle from behind - even if what you say is true and the defender then tries to slide to reach the ball as he is stumbling, the contact from Martinez is probably what made him miss. The referee has to determine this and call a foul. Not sure how you can dispute this.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 22, 2018 15:49:58 GMT -5
So I did watch the video again and understand what you are seeing; however, even if Martinez merely knocked him off balance with the contact, it's still a foul. Defender is running at full speed, gets clipped in the ankle from behind - even if what you say is true and the defender then tries to slide to reach the ball as he is stumbling, the contact from Martinez is probably what made him miss. The referee has to determine this and call a foul. Not sure how you can dispute this. We will have to agree to disagree. Even you say " probably made him miss" and the ref "has to determine this and call a foul". I say, he has to determine this and NOT call a foul. Again, if he stayed on his feet and continued the run... and Martinez got the ball and still scored, would it have been called a foul? Probably not. He made the choice to go to ground and slide for the ball instead of trying to continue the run.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 22, 2018 16:03:15 GMT -5
We will have to agree to disagree. Even you say " probably made him miss" and the ref "has to determine this and call a foul". I say, he has to determine this and NOT call a foul. Again, if he stayed on his feet and continued the run... and Martinez got the ball and still scored, would it have been called a foul? Probably not. He made the choice to go to ground and slide for the ball instead of trying to continue the run. Referees have to base decisions on what happen, not hypothetically/if what might have happened. Fact is that Martinez clipped the back of his heels and ended up gaining an advantage from doing so. You can disagree if you would like, but honestly hope you aren't a ref.
|
|
|
Post by goalman on May 22, 2018 16:23:50 GMT -5
I think what many are missing is that the original call was consistent with the way the game was being officiated - watch the first half and you will see Martinez several times in the first 15 min being pushed and clipped very hard from behind by the defender and very frustrated with the no call. - Ref was letting that go - so if you look at a soccer play on VAR and make the call it needs to be consistent with the way the game was being officiated. For me it is always a foul, as is the first three by the defender. but if you let it go you have to be consistent. It is called the beautiful game and not the NFL for a reason - Geiger has no feeling for the game. Period.
Second, watch Pirez get pulled down in second half as he goes for a ball in the box right in front of ref - no call, After you have BWP get call with no chance at ball - NO CONSISTENCY (And if a players raises his arms as he falls like BRP he is embellishing. Soccer 101).
The tackle by Pirez in second half on breakaway is a RED. what happened there. No Consistency.
|
|
|
Post by jash on May 24, 2018 20:01:36 GMT -5
goalman is 100% correct. The problem is the lack of consistency. Call the game loose or call the game tight. But be consistent. If you take 20 second clips out of the game and watch them with the intent to apply the laws of the game with 100% strict interpretation, you could probably find a reason to call back almost every goal that is scored, or to call a penalty on EVERY SINGLE corner kick. The point is you cannot simply pluck these plays out and look at them in a vacuum. They HAVE to be assessed in the context of the game and how it is being called. Anything else is an impossible standard. VAR was to be used once every three games or so (at least that's what I have read). As it is it's being used at Atlanta United home games about 3-4 times a game. And when it's used, you go from "in the game flow" to "let's look at this as if we were in a clinic training referees on the laws of the game" and it's a totally different, and imho unfair, standard.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on May 24, 2018 20:42:12 GMT -5
goalman is 100% correct. The problem is the lack of consistency. Call the game loose or call the game tight. But be consistent. If you take 20 second clips out of the game and watch them with the intent to apply the laws of the game with 100% strict interpretation, you could probably find a reason to call back almost every goal that is scored, or to call a penalty on EVERY SINGLE corner kick. The point is you cannot simply pluck these plays out and look at them in a vacuum. They HAVE to be assessed in the context of the game and how it is being called. Anything else is an impossible standard. VAR was to be used once every three games or so (at least that's what I have read). As it is it's being used at Atlanta United home games about 3-4 times a game. And when it's used, you go from "in the game flow" to "let's look at this as if we were in a clinic training referees on the laws of the game" and it's a totally different, and imho unfair, standard. While I definitely stand by my opinion (which is the same as the opinion of the replay official and the center after he looked at the replay) that the goal Martinez scored to put AU up 2-0 was correctly disallowed because Martinez fouled the defender, I can agree that there was definitely a lack of consitancy overall in the way the game was called on Sunday. Martinez was probably fouled 2 or 3 times before that play. Did those fouls prevent possible scoring opportunities? Probably, but they didn't fit the VAR review criteria (not red cards, goals, etc.), and if you use VAR for things like that, there will be absolutely no flow to the game. But, why was the penalty at the end of the first half not reviewed? Why was Pirez's foul that prevented an obvious goalscoring opportunity not reviewed and the yellow card changed to a red? Not sure the answers to these last two questions. If the Martinez goal/foul was reviewed, these plays probably should have been too. I personally don't like VAR because of these inconsistenies. And I think AU wins that game without it.
|
|