1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

San Jose : Salt Lake [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Apr 22, 2012.

Moderators: IASocFan, MassachusettsRef
  1. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Yes, but only one kept it there while falling and while a ball was coming at him.

    Remember, keeping an arm in an unnatural position is no different than placing an arm in an unnatural position in regards to handling offenses.
     


  2. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Easy handling call. Arm was in unnatural position, meaning well away from the body. Nothing controversial here, moving on.
     
  3. lurking

    lurking Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    Yes. Your having trouble with a very simple concept here. If you are within playing distance of the ball, and ahead of the other player, you have the right of way. Its not basketball, it doesnt matter if you were there 10 seconds are a millisecond before the other guy, if you ahead of him, your ahead of him.

    Just like it if you tackle and miss the ball. It doesnt matter to much wether you were a millisecond late or a half second late in calling a foul (it might in terms of a caution, but not the foul portion of the decision). Late is late.
     
  4. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    At the risk of being accused of having trouble with a simple concept, what is your basis for this statement? The player ahead is still obligated to charge his opponent fairly.

    In this case, the striker has caused the contact by his attempt to hold the defender with his arm before any contact initiated by the defender.
     


  5. lurking

    lurking Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    This has been beaten to death, but the statement that the striker held before Olave contacted Lenhart with his shoulder is a matter of some debate. What asoc is talking about is wether Lenhart is sufficiently far ahead to be able to stand between Olave and the ball. There is no "sufficient". You either ahead or your not. If Lenhart can get to the space before Olave can, hes entitled to it, assuming he is within playing distance of the ball.
     
  6. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    After countless pages of debate as to who fouled whom from referees with the benefit of slow mreplay, various caera angles and freeze frame shots, and still unable to come anywhere near consensus, wouldn't the better option forBazakos have been "play on"?
     
  7. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    What kind of logic is that? Just because you think another referee might not make the call, it doesn't mean you shouldn't make the call.

    Referees need to start growing balls and stop avoiding calls because they think the public/coaches/pundits will criticize them.
     
  8. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Sure, it's a matter of debate and it's just my opinion that Lenhart held Olave (even before he got ahold of the shorts), but that's not really relevant here.

    The question which you're begging here is what is getting to the space? At first you said the player who's ahead has right of way, which would mean the player behind would be required to give ground. Now you're saying the player ahead has to get to the space but what does that mean? Is leaning over getting to the space? Do I need to be in the space with a natural position?

    What right does Lenhart have to his unnatural position (an extreme lean to his left) when it initiates contact with Olave?
     
  9. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    When a player is within playing distance of the ball they have the right to shilled the other players from trying to get the ball. The fact the Lenhart is within playing distance of the ball and is between the ball and Olave gives him the right to shield the ball. Take away the situation as it is and but Lehart and Olave at the corner flag and Lenhart trying to run down the clock and Olave trying to strip him of the ball. Same thing different situation. Now that being said does that give Lenhart the right to grap Olave's shorts NO, but it does give hime the right to place himself in Olave's path to try and prevent him from getting to the ball.
     
  10. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Except that you are not allowed to use your arms or body to shield the ball.

    "A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body." Page 114 2010-2011 LotG.

    So Lenhart isn't legally shielding here.
     
  11. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Its GREAT logic because it avoids a harsh dogso red and also avoids a foul call on Lenhart for the kind of tugging which occurs a multitude of times throughout a higher level match, and which MAY have been preceded by an Olave foul...on a ball that NEITHER Olave or Lenhart were going to get too before Raimondi.

    What a good ref needs to do is make the call the game needs/requires. If you think Olave deserves a red here, with all that happened, God Bless you.

    Nonetheless, come out and watch me ref sometime and let me know how devoid of "balls" I am.
     
  12. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    But sometimes harsh calls need to be made. Its part of the game. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need cards. We don't live in a perfect world.

    If a referee sees a DOSGO call, he needs to call it. If the same action at midfield with players all around would result in a run-of-the-mill foul call, that same action HAS to be a red card when it prevents an OGSO. No exception.

    This isn't serious foul play or violent conduct (where common sense and other factors come into play), this is DOSGO. It doesn't matter if a team is already down to 10 men, or its only 10 minutes into the game. You HAVE to make that call. The USSF and FIFA both ask you to do that. If you're unwilling, then I seriously think you should turn in your badge.

    There are certain things that FIFA asks you to call regardless of external factors (unless making the call endangers the safety of players/coaches/referees/spectators). Simulation, and DOSGO are both in this category. There is no leeway.
     
  13. Hararea

    Hararea Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    I would add that from what I've seen of Olave, he does push the limits on physical challenges, which is not surprising when you consider his incredible abilities. I remember a recent game where he plowed over a Montreal player inside the box, but the referee let it go, apparently not wanting to make a harsh call.

    Now, I couldn't care less whether Montreal or RSL wins, but I wasn't happy to see that. In effect, it's a lot like the concern people have about rewarding Lenhart's devious play. If you're not going to punish Olave harshly when the LotG call for it, you give him an unfair advantage.

    Finally, to be clear, I'm not debating aek's interpretation of the Lenhart play, just making a general observation about the need to make the harsh decisions sometimes.
     
  14. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Except that in THIS instance, NOBODY is sure who fouled whom first...or if in fact a foul was even committed....and Bazakos certainly can't be certain trailing the play on a quick counter some 50 yards away.

    The other issue you disregard is that a foul has to precede the dogso...and whether Olaves actions constitute a foul is to a large degree left to the refs discretion. In other words, what Bazakos considers careless another referee mght consider trifling.

    Now lets go over the possible scenarios:

    1) Olave fouls Lenhart first.

    Result? DFK and red card dogso send off.

    2) Lenhart fouls Olave first.

    Result? DFK and in all likelihood yellow card caution to Lenhart for simulation.

    3) Play on.

    Result? Raimondi clears a ball he would have gotten first to anyway and NOBODY gets a caution...and certainly no send off.

    Given that Bazakos is 50 yards or so away when initial contact is made AND nobody is really certain who did what to whom first (Bazakos included) AND you have an available option which doesn't really penalize anyone, which is the best available option?
     
  15. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever with making the "tough, gutsy" call...as long as you're certain of its correctness. In this instance, Bazakos can't be certain...especially from 50 yards away. Heck, none of us can be certain...or agree...on this forum, and we have the benefit of every bit of modern technology available today to analyze the matter in slow mo pace and in still shots.

    If you're NOT sure however, AND considering both pieces of contact/fouls CAN be construed as trifling, why not "play on"?
     
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Location:
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    This is the part that I don't get. At all.

    I've seen a ton of different angles. The suggestion that Lenhart faked contact and fell absolutely baffles me!! It's one thing to think he committed a foul, I totally get that. But I'm 100% certain that Olave's right arm pushed him over.
     
  17. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Country:
    United States
    35 by eyeballing the goal line replay. Contact happens just above the D, Bazakos is just on the attacking side of midfield. 115 yard field makes that about 35 yards.
     
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    With the huge caveat that I no longer think I know or believe what the "right" call was (though I now lean toward DOGSO being right) and that debating the merits of this particular call endlessly is somewhat pointless, let me try to take a stab at how that might be a legitimate call in situations like this.

    Let's assume the short pull comes first and that Lenhart committed a foul. If he is doing so in order to create a scenario whereby he is then bundled over, making it appear as though Alave has instead fouled him, with the sole purpose to get an opponent sent off, that is an action meant to deceive the referee and it could be construed as simulation.

    Now, an important point. The action is being created by a holding foul, as you point out. And the punishment for a holding foul is a DFK. Whereas a simulation call is only an IFK, but carries a yellow card with it. Law V says we punish the more serious offence. Technically speaking, I'm not sure there's a correct answer as to what is "more serious" when it's DFK/no card vs. IFK/card. Some also might argue the point is moot because the holding foul would precede the part of the act that would be considered simulation.

    All in all, it's a bit of a tortured argument to get toward simulation based on the Laws, but I think you can get there. DFK for the foul, as you point out, is the easier call and the path of least resistance.
     
  19. LongDuckDong

    LongDuckDong Member+

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Country:
    United States
    I disagree. Looking at the play in real time, I would have been 90% certain that Olave committed he foul. I would have called it. So saying Bazakos cannot be certain is presumptuous. Just because you dont see the foul it doesn't mean others can't see the foul. There's no right or wrong answer here.
     
  20. joe-soccer

    joe-soccer Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    AEK, I'm with you on this one. I think there were better options. As I noted earlier in this forum, I think Bazakos was heavy handed in this game, using a sledgehammer when he could of got the job done with less.
     
  21. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    You can disagree all you want, for whatever reason you want, but you can NOT possibly tell me that you would have been 90% certain in real time a foul was committed by Olave when after 15 pages/145 posts of analysis and Zapruder like scrutiny, there is nowhere near consensus or unanimity as to what occurred on this very thread.

    NONSENSE.

    Bazakos got caught in referees no man land...as most of us have at some point or another, and did the best he possibly could do given the circumstances. IMO, what sold him on the Olave foul was the fact that Lenhart had a step on him. I have no way of knowing this for certain, just a calculated guess. But what I CAN tell you with a high degree of certainty is that there isn't a referee alive today who could have accurately seen what occurred if in Bazakos' position, both in terms of distance and angle.
     
  22. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Actually, let me retract part of my earlier statement. Raimondi would NOT have gotten to the ball before Lenhart...in fact, Lenhart had one last touch right before contact. That being said, I still think no call is very sellable and doable here.

    Mind you, I'm not criticizing Bazakos...in real time, I may have done the exact same thing as Elias did in this circumstance. Not certain. But my gut instinct here is no call whatsoever.
     
  23. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    I don't think Raimondi would have gotten to the ball either.

    Although Rimando would have had a shot at it.
     
  24. kirsoccer

    kirsoccer BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    I think your reference to it was okay, but I have seen this frequently misreported. Kreis didn't suggest he was going to pull his team off, but that he himself was considering walking away. Also it's up for interpretation, but I don't think he meant it literally. He was expressing his frustration in an interview moments after the match without having seen the benefit of replay. The audio gives a different impression than reading his comments when they are written.

    I'm really 50/50 on this. I think Lenhart created alot of the contact, maybe even pulled Olave into him. However, the referee was trailing the play and on the opposite side. It's hard to expect him to get that call right from his position, which I don't think was inappropriate given the circumstances.

    That's why defender's have to be careful about even the appearance of a foul. That's also why many argue for some form of technology to aid the referee.

    Well, I guess they even out if Lenhart gets suspended for this, right?

    Of course if you applied this math to every match, we'd average about 10 minutes of stoppage time, wouldn't we? That's why the typical complaint is that not enough stoppage time is added.
     
  25. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    LOL.

    Good catch.

    Raimondi is the last name of a good friend of mine, ironically.
     
Moderators: IASocFan, MassachusettsRef

Share This Page