Anyone who actually cared about whether NYCFC gets a raw deal from refs would know how many times such call go both for and against.
MLS - May 7 - Kansas City (Home)
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
This is the problem. Ref was calling pretty soft fouls all game. This was a pretty hard collision and to me.. gp was quicker and got hit in the back. I haven't gone back to look at the reply yet though. Even so, based on how he was calling the game, he needed to keep it consistent. It was outside the box so it's not a pk. But I think we should have had our fk.
My biggest peeves were the multiple times we had advantage for promising counter and he blew the whistle. One time I can understand it was a mistake.. but he had a few. And it's not like he wasnt playing advantage at all.. he was just inconsistent all game and that's the most frustrating.
Last edited:
I noticed this too. He just stopped instead of continuing to attack down the flank and make the defender stop him. Maybe it's lack of confidence?
Finally got to watch the game on the replay, the final third ball was very lacking and I agree that Heber just didn’t have it. Maxi also seemed to be missing his pinpoint passing ability on the day. A lot of the balls into the box went to defenders that usually make it straight to Taty. The angle of the camera was weird on the tv and it seems like the lines on the field were very faint and hard to see. The foul line net on the first base line towards the outfield also played a roll on viewing because the top of it cut through the field of view and made it difficult to know when the ball would go out of touch. Other than that the game was fine but definitely a let down when you start to expect 3 or 4 goals a game from your team.
keep these coming pleaseNot even HEBER is smiling! LOL... parks gets me every time.
Parks is the team picture GOAT.Not even HEBER is smiling! LOL... parks gets me every time.
I agree it was a foul and we should have had a FK. I still don't think VAR would overrule it if it were in the box and reviewable.
I only noticed this once, fairly late, and right after a SKC free kick when we won the ball and started a counter only to be waved back. My guess at the time was the call was offsides and that offsides is not subject to playing advantage. But I don't actually know if either part of that is true. I didn't notice the call and I don't know if you can play advantage after offsides, because it doesn't come into play that often. Offsides calls usually end either with a goal (later waved back), a whistle, a save or a shot over the end line. Not much opportunity to play advantage.
from IFAB:
Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.
If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.
-------
Seems that advantage can be played in almost all situations except red card/2nd yellow violations and even then, only if there is no clear opportunity to score. so offsides wouldn't have mattered and that makes sense. i don't recall the instance you're talking about, but it makes sense that the ref could ignore the linesman if the defending team wins the ball and is in the middle of a promising counter. it would be punishing the defending team by calling the offsides and allowing the previously attacking team to get back to set up their defense.
The only positive yesterday was noticing the sign offering 10% at Shake Shack if you paid with a Citicard.
I am just curious that ball that Martins played backed to Sean Johnson that appeared to have potentially turned into an own goal around the 30 minute mark, that was all Martins correct? I am assuming so but I just wanted to see if I missed something the better versed fans could point out.
That was Santi, not Thiago Martins
Do you really think it was an issue of effort with Heber?
As SoupInNYC pointed out, it was Rodriguez. To answer your question, without knowing the communication on the field it's hard to analyze in full, but Santi clearly mis-hit the ball.
A few decades ago when keepers could handle balls kicked backwards it facilitated a lot of time wasting, and when the rule was changed to disallow it they still permitted keepers to handle balls headed backwards by teammates. The reason is that it is harder to control a header and so there is at least some risk of an own goal or an opportunity for an attacker to pounce on a misdirected header. Santi misdirected his header back to Johnson. Both players were caught in a tough spot. The ball was bouncing back somewhat lazily. SJ came up to the line and stopped because he wanted to catch the ball and could not do so outside the box. He could have crossed the line and kicked it but because the ball was bouncing and not skimming the grass it would have been a somewhat difficult kick. There was an SKC player approaching and if Santi does not head the ball and Sean waited for the ball to be in the box there was risk of that player getting to it first. Santi was also pretty close to Sean by the time he hit it which made everything tougher. Santi's job would have been easier if Johnson had not come all the way out to the line, but you also can't blame SJ for coming out because it was not clear Santi would have a clear chance to head it back. That's why I mentioned the field communication.
IMO it was a somewhat perfect storm that made it a tough play. I think the decision by Santi to head the ball instead of letting it just continue was defensible, but he hit it poorly. It's exactly the sort of decision the rule is designed to force on players.
ETA: I should note that because of the way the ball bounced Santi probably might have headed it instead of kicked it even if that old rule never changed. The play still serves as a good example of how that rule forces occasional tough decisions on teammates.
Last edited:
Thank you for correcting me on that.
Thank you
He put in a crappy shift. I hope it’s effort.
