MLS - September 30 - Miami (Away)

[moogoo]

JFC, they ought to save that clip and use it at referee school as the perfect example of what a red card call should be.

"You can see he was pulling his leg back". WTF does that mean and what difference does it make???

It means you can step on some ones head or try to punch them.. make contact but if you pull back at the last moment.. it's only a yellow

 

[LionNYC]

It means you can step on some ones head or try to punch them.. make contact but if you pull back at the last moment.. it's only a yellow

Yeah, punching an opponent in the face but not following through on the punch and instead retracting after making contact, only a yellow card for Miami.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I will say, I liked the beginning of the video covering some craziness in Philly-Columbus. Especially, the explanation for why Malte Amundsen did not get a red card for DOGSO.

For those who didn't see, Malte basically grabbed and tackled a Philly player who was about to be in on goal. However, a different Philly player then latched onto the ball and eventually sent a shot off the bar, with the official playing advantage. In that case, Amundsen did not, in fact, deny the goal scoring opportunity, hence only a yellow card.

It reminds me of something that Gotham, Jr. told me after he became licensed to ref games. If there is a tactical foul, but the referee plays advantage, he can't go back and show a yellow card to the person committing the foul. Same principal - if the referee plays advantage, then the offending player did not, in fact, break up a promising attack. So, no card.

 

[VernonJohn]

I will say, I liked the beginning of the video covering some craziness in Philly-Columbus. Especially, the explanation for why Malte Amundsen did not get a red card for DOGSO.

For those who didn't see, Malte basically grabbed and tackled a Philly player who was about to be in on goal. However, a different Philly player then latched onto the ball and eventually sent a shot off the bar, with the official playing advantage. In that case, Amundsen did not, in fact, deny the goal scoring opportunity, hence only a yellow card.

It reminds me of something that Gotham, Jr. told me after he became licensed to ref games. If there is a tactical foul, but the referee plays advantage, he can't go back and show a yellow card to the person committing the foul. Same principal - if the referee plays advantage, then the offending player did not, in fact, break up a promising attack. So, no card.

Curious what you thought about the second call. Wiebe ends up saying that Cucho fouled a Philly player before Elliot pulls down Ramirez. It looked to me like Cucho had just dished maybe lost the ball and possibly was tripped up by another Philly player causing him to falli head first… Wiebe doesn’t give you that context. I’m not 100% on how he ended up falling face first into the Philly player but it seems like that also was relevant (in Wiebe world)to the play.

 

[mgarbowski]

I will say, I liked the beginning of the video covering some craziness in Philly-Columbus. Especially, the explanation for why Malte Amundsen did not get a red card for DOGSO.

For those who didn't see, Malte basically grabbed and tackled a Philly player who was about to be in on goal. However, a different Philly player then latched onto the ball and eventually sent a shot off the bar, with the official playing advantage. In that case, Amundsen did not, in fact, deny the goal scoring opportunity, hence only a yellow card.

It reminds me of something that Gotham, Jr. told me after he became licensed to ref games. If there is a tactical foul, but the referee plays advantage, he can't go back and show a yellow card to the person committing the foul. Same principal - if the referee plays advantage, then the offending player did not, in fact, break up a promising attack. So, no card.

That was interesting. I would love to get a point of clarification though. In this play, the second Union player Uhre was 100% clear on goal with no defender on him or in front of him after Malte's takedown of the other guy. Uhre's chance was probably better than the first guy would have had because he had 2 defenders running right with him. Philly's problem is that Uhre just Alex Ringed the ball over the net.

But what if Uhre got the ball and had a shot and the ref played advantage but a defender was there to challenge and that's why he missed? I guess my question is does playing advantage always mean no DOGSO even if the advantage is not as good as the pre-DOGSO status quo? I don't know where I could go to get the answer.

I also liked Wiebe's explanation of why the takedown of Christian Ramirez in the box wasn't a penalty (because a Crew player committed a foul a few seconds earlier).

ETA: just saw VernonJohn's comment. That's arguably right also. A lot going on in that play.