Away - March 1 - Columbus (Postmatch)

[Kjbert]

Tough day to be an Everton and NYCFC fan

I worked today and taped both games. Watched Everton first and was pissed off. Made 4 minutes into NYCFC And just turned it off. No one wants to watch a 10 v 11 for 90 minutes. And that was a straight Red in Columbus too

 

[Shwafta]

I thought the Sub was more of a reaction to Tinny almost having his ankle broken and Ronny figuring he was going to be off the pace a bit after it so Ibeagha was there to help him out

However, the sub was going to happen before that tackle anyway (he was getting ready before the tackle)

 

[ZYanksRule]

Tough day to be an Everton and NYCFC fan

I worked today and taped both games. Watched Everton first and was pissed off. Made 4 minutes into NYCFC And just turned it off. No one wants to watch a 10 v 11 for 90 minutes. And that was a straight Red in Columbus too

Yes, by the law it's a red. What I don't like is that it's just two guys running for the ball. It reminds me of Ofori's red in the Derby in 2018. Yes, it's a red, but something should be said for intent. Obviously it should be a red based on the laws of the sport, but I think accidental coming togethers like that should be handled a little differently.

 

[Kenny]

Tough day to be an Everton and NYCFC fan

I feel ya. Spurs fan here. What a trash fire this morning, and I don't even know how it can be fixed.

At least it isn't football season, otherwise I could have hit the trifecta with the Jets

 

[mgarbowski]

Yes, by the law it's a red. What I don't like is that it's just two guys running for the ball. It reminds me of Ofori's red in the Derby in 2018. Yes, it's a red, but something should be said for intent. Obviously it should be a red based on the laws of the sport, but I think accidental coming togethers like that should be handled a little differently.

I’m struck by the contrast with the non-DOGSO call in NSH-ATL. In that game the ref choose no DOGSO based on distance from goal and the possibility that defenders could catch up to the ball. We were just as far from goal and while our other defenders were probably further away there was a chance they could have caught someone who was slowed by controlling the ball.
So the ref who faced an intentional handball by a losing keeper leans backwards to avoid a red even though a red would have no effect with less than 1 minute left, and our ref leans in to making the first game of the season unwatchable 3 minutes in for an accidental clip. You can’t really say it’s inconsistent because both determinations involve a guess and maybe each official went purely on what he saw. But they don’t feel like a consistent application of judgment and discretion.

 

[moogoo]

I’m struck by the contrast with the non-DOGSO call in NSH-ATL. In that game the ref choose no DOGSO based on distance from goal and the possibility that defenders could catch up to the ball. We were just as far from goal and while our other defenders were probably further away there was a chance they could have caught someone who was slowed by controlling the ball.
So the ref who faced an intentional handball by a losing keeper leans backwards to avoid a red even though a red would have no effect with less than 1 minute left, and our ref leans in to making the first game of the season unwatchable 3 minutes in for an accidental clip. You can’t really say it’s inconsistent because both determinations involve a guess and maybe each official went purely on what he saw. But they don’t feel like a consistent application of judgment and discretion.

i think our game came down to a newbie ref and newbie VAR and possibly the fact that it was chanot and velarayan by themselves whereas in the nashville game, there were a few players around, there was one nashville defender already sprinting back to their goal slightly before the handball took place, and even then, the difference between shooting at goal from midfield vs. going 1v1 with a keeper are very different situations. that's probably why it was yellow in nashville and red for us. I dont necessarily agree with it, but I think it was very subjective in how they applied a goal scoring opportunity. if there was any indication that the trajectory of the ball was on goal, that should be sufficient to make the intentional handball worthy of a red.

I think had we had more experienced refs in our game, it would have gone as a non-call or at most a yellow.

 

[Antidote P. Smiley]

How many points thru the first 5 games this year?
More than last year (4), same or less?

 

[mgarbowski]

How many points thru the first 5 games this year?
More than last year (4), same or less?

>

 

[Ulrich]

Yes, by the law it's a red. What I don't like is that it's just two guys running for the ball. It reminds me of Ofori's red in the Derby in 2018. Yes, it's a red, but something should be said for intent. Obviously it should be a red based on the laws of the sport, but I think accidental coming togethers like that should be handled a little differently.

It’s not a red because it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity- the ball was moving diagonally and not straight in on goal. The player didn’t even have control of the ball, nor had he even touched it, so it’s a stretch to say he had a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I’m struck by the contrast with the non-DOGSO call in NSH-ATL. In that game the ref choose no DOGSO based on distance from goal and the possibility that defenders could catch up to the ball. We were just as far from goal and while our other defenders were probably further away there was a chance they could have caught someone who was slowed by controlling the ball.
So the ref who faced an intentional handball by a losing keeper leans backwards to avoid a red even though a red would have no effect with less than 1 minute left, and our ref leans in to making the first game of the season unwatchable 3 minutes in for an accidental clip. You can’t really say it’s inconsistent because both determinations involve a guess and maybe each official went purely on what he saw. But they don’t feel like a consistent application of judgment and discretion.

What’s also interesting regarding DOGSO and intent, is I get the feeling that Willis thought he was the last one. I think in his mind, he thought it would be DOGSO, even though it wasn’t.

Not sure if that really should factor in at all, but I find kind of interesting.

 

[ZYanksRule]

I’m struck by the contrast with the non-DOGSO call in NSH-ATL. In that game the ref choose no DOGSO based on distance from goal and the possibility that defenders could catch up to the ball. We were just as far from goal and while our other defenders were probably further away there was a chance they could have caught someone who was slowed by controlling the ball.
So the ref who faced an intentional handball by a losing keeper leans backwards to avoid a red even though a red would have no effect with less than 1 minute left, and our ref leans in to making the first game of the season unwatchable 3 minutes in for an accidental clip. You can’t really say it’s inconsistent because both determinations involve a guess and maybe each official went purely on what he saw. But they don’t feel like a consistent application of judgment and discretion.

I absolutely agree that the level of inconsistency from game-to-game in this league when it comes to the officiating is extremely frustrating. But just because the call in the Nashvlle game was wrong doesn't mean a call in our game should be wrong, too. Touchan seemed pretty overwhelmed out there at times, but this is a call I think he got right, even if a yellow could have been called. It was a breakaway in the attacking half of the field. There's no reason to think any defender was catching up to it, and the only hope was a bad touch by Zelarayan taking him away from goal. I think he was in on Johnson.

 

[ZYanksRule]

It’s not a red because it wasn’t a goal scoring opportunity- the ball was moving diagonally and not straight in on goal. The player didn’t even have control of the ball, nor had he even touched it, so it’s a stretch to say he had a goal scoring opportunity.

After looking at the replay I can see your point. He needs to go get the ball, but it seems highly likely he would have. The way the ball was bouncing, he would have had to slow it down which maybe allows Chanot to get there. I don't know the exact definition of DOGSO, but you're right that a pretty convincing argument can be made that it wasn't an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity. It probably leads to one, but can we say it with enough certainty to send Chanot off? It's a close call.

 

[Davo15]

Tough day to be an Everton and NYCFC fan

I worked today and taped both games. Watched Everton first and was pissed off. Made 4 minutes into NYCFC And just turned it off. No one wants to watch a 10 v 11 for 90 minutes. And that was a straight Red in Columbus too

Unfortunately My mom passed away a couple of weeks ago and family friends invited me over for brunch today that I really couldn't turn down to watch soccer so I also dvred the match. I avoided the score and planned to watch the full 90 but as soon as the red card happened fast forwarded for goals / to the end.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Unfortunately My mom passed away a couple of weeks ago and family friends invited me over for brunch today that I really couldn't turn down to watch soccer so I also dvred the match. I avoided the score and planned to watch the full 90 but as soon as the red card happened fast forwarded for goals / to the end.

Really sorry to hear about your mom - all the best.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I think the red in our game is one of those calls that by the letter of the law is correct, but that also didn't always get called in the past. Previously, a referee might look at the fact that it wasn't a cynical foul - or even an attempt at a tackle. It was just two players getting tangled up. And that referee would often just use discretion and award a yellow instead of a red.

Now, with VAR, there is more of a slavish adherence to the rules and you get a game that sucks and a result that comes down completely to luck. It is what it is. One game, and since it wasn't in the playoffs, we move on.

 

[mgarbowski]

One game, and since it wasn't in the playoffs, we move on.

I'm pretty sure we went all of last year (MLS season at least) without losing a single player minute to red cards. Stuff like this will happen.

 

[Ulrich]

I think the red in our game is one of those calls that by the letter of the law is correct, but that also didn't always get called in the past. Previously, a referee might look at the fact that it wasn't a cynical foul - or even an attempt at a tackle. It was just two players getting tangled up. And that referee would often just use discretion and award a yellow instead of a red.

Now, with VAR, there is more of a slavish adherence to the rules and you get a game that sucks and a result that comes down completely to luck. It is what it is. One game, and since it wasn't in the playoffs, we move on.

I would disagree that it even constitutes letter of the law, since the Ball was not in an obvious scoring position and the player did not have control of it. However, if we’re playing the game that it did satisfy it, then it’s malpractice that the ref did not issue a straight red with zero hesitation to the hulking Dutchman who two-footed a studs up tackle on Tinny leaving him writhing in pain on the field.

One play was not obvious but called a red, while the other play had no possibility of subjectivity and the ref hesitated and gave a yellow.

The ref blew two game-changing plays in the first 15 minutes of the first match of the season. He is objectively in over his head and should not be employed as a head ref.

 

[canchon]

I'm pretty sure we went all of last year (MLS season at least) without losing a single player minute to red cards. Stuff like this will happen.

I remember a stretch towards the end of the season where NYCFC had several games where opposing players got red carded (Colorado, NE, SJ?) which did help them take max points and propel them up the table.

Eventually was bound to go the other way, just sucks that it was in the third minute and effectively ended the game. Expecting your team to get a result after they are down for 87 minutes is asking too much in a league where teams are this evenly matched.

 

[Schwallacus]

Tough game due to the red, but a few things I noticed;

We only had one defender (Ibby) on the bench. I'd have left GMS off and had Scally on the bench since you have Taty and ITS as serviceable wingers. Especially sucks since we don't know how bad Ibby's injury is now. An extra defender would've been nice.

Heber had a tough game. Wasn't able to hold up the ball as well and had a few stray passes. Nothing terrible, but when your team is down a man and need a breather, Heber wasn't able to do so by holding onto the ball or giving it back with a bad pass here and there. Much more noticeable when down a man. Nothing I'm going to be worried about as I think it was more of a one off.

I'm okay with subbing Medina out early, however I think a better move would've been to bring Parks on and strengthen the midfield. Medina doesn't have any pace so wouldn't help in any regard either defending or helping counter (similar to Mitri, but I'll explain more below). Sands was fine dropping back to help out Callens and leave Ring right in front of them. I'd feel better having Ibby presumably subbed later in the game to help close it out or add help to a back line that is tired from being down a man.

I feel Taty should've come in earlier for Mitri due to his speed and better ability to hold up the ball. I'm a pro-Mitri guy, but his strengths aren't in defending low for extended periods of time. He is fine when the team has possession and he needs to make a defensive play to prevent a counter (I've seen him make numerous tackles covering for Maxi or Mata to prevent counters). This game wasn't going to have any of that since we were down a man the entire time. Due to his lack of size he also wasn't helping win any headers when our team cleared the ball.

As a whole, I think we did pretty well considering the circumstances. I don't think Columbus had too many chances (Aside from Diaz being 10 feet away and coming closer to hitting the corner flag) especially considering they were up a man for 90 minutes. First game of the season, tough circumstances, move onto Toronto. Hoping we get to see the team with 11 people for the majority of the match. Good thing we don't have the CCL the middle of this week to worry about, get everyone home and give their legs some rest.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I remember a stretch towards the end of the season where NYCFC had several games where opposing players got red carded (Colorado, NE, SJ?) which did help them take max points and propel them up the table.

Eventually was bound to go the other way, just sucks that it was in the third minute and effectively ended the game. Expecting your team to get a result after they are down for 87 minutes is asking too much in a league where teams are this evenly matched.

And this play kind of reminds me of the New England game at home where the Revs had a player sent off for knocking down Taty as he was running onto a long pass. The situation was a little different, as there was a touch by the defender as Taty was running by. In last year's game, the red was awarded after video review, but PRO came back later and said it should not have been a red.