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

VAN vs SJ - Marrufo

Discussion in 'Referee' started by usaref, Jul 23, 2012.

Moderators: IASocFan, MassachusettsRef
  1. usaref

    usaref Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Country:
    United States
    Interesting Penalty Decision here: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-07-22-van-v-sj/highlights?videoID=193804

    Marrufo waves away the penalty at first but then points to the spot when he spots his AR's flag. Because they got it right, I think that this is extremely courageous by the AR and also well done by Marrufo to trust his AR with a game critical decision. Well done all around for getting it correct.
     


  2. code1390

    code1390 Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    Gutsy call by the AR. Thats a long ways away to be certain of a trip.
     
  3. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Sure it was a foul and it was sure a bone-headed play by Cronin, despite Camilo most likely losing the ball to the keeper. There was no way Camilo was going to get the ball. But boy, did Marrufo really put himself on the spot with his play on and then pointing to the spot. Mechanics of handling this was absolutely atrocious, but they got the call right. That is what matters in the end is getting the call right.
     
    Alberto repped this.
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Well done ultimately, yes. But if Vasoli actually raised his flag (which reactions from the players seem to indicate that he did), then Marrufo had no choice but to trust him. Wave down would have been impossible at that point. We can laud Vasoli's gutsy call in this case (and I do), but if replays showed this was a dive, we'd be saying how he insisted rather than assisted. So this is a double-edged sword that is results-orientated. I guess it all comes down to a guy as good as Vasoli being that confident in his decision-making. For a FIFA, with the benefit of television replay confirming his call, this works. For the vast majority of officials at lower levels, this might fall into the "don't try this at home" category.

    Also, this is a reminder/lesson to not give one of those negative signals unless you are 100% confident that you're not going to reverse your decision. I guess it's hard to foresee a reversal, but it's something to think about.
     


  5. NC Soccer United

    NC Soccer United BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    An AR making a call on the opposite side of the goal, while the CR is practically there in the area of the foul. It just doesn't look good, but if the AR saw clear cut contact and the CR thinks otherwise then wasn't the AR empowered to do so? Probably so. This situation happens a lot, even in a U12 game.
     
  6. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    Is raising the flag the correct mechanic when calling a PK as the AR? I thought we were supposed to use that signal at the waist. Or am I way off?
     
  7. code1390

    code1390 Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    Flag up to get the ref to stop play then the flag across the waist to signal penalty.
     
  8. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    Precisely.

    Just the flag at the waist is too subtle or the R to see in dynamic play. A (perhaps) helpful way to think about it is to compare the flag straight up to the whistle -- the signal to stop play. Other AR signals are comparable to the referee hand signals -- indicators of what happens next. (E.g., just as the R does not whistle for balls badly out of play, the AR does not flag straight up for balls badly out of play; but if it is in question and player need to know, the R whistles, or the AR flags straight up prior to signaling direction.)
     
  9. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa
    What is it that has everyone so convinced that the AR got this right?

    The replays in the highlight are looking through the defender (not too dissimilar from the AR's view?).
    The CR might have been able to see between them.
    And the attacker does seem to straighten his leg and throw his upper body. I can't tell if he is calling attention to contact, exaggerating it, or inventing it.
     
    duality72 and Hararea repped this.
  10. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Good post, other than this comment.
     
  11. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I thought there was another interesting situation/learning tool from this match. The first yellow card is here:

    http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-07-22-van-v-sj/highlights?videoID=193774

    Now, I'll say upfront that I think the yellow card worked here and I didn't even consider anything else until I saw it for the second time, so this is no criticism of Marrufo, but...

    What is the argument for this not being DOGSO? Freeze the play at the moment of the foul (0:12) because even if you wait half a second later, the scenario looks much different.

    At the moment of the foul, the attacker is going to goal with speed at the center of the park. He's certainly close enough to goal to meet the distance requirement and he's undoubtedly the next person to touch the ball if he's not fouled so the ball is close enough to meet that requirement. Number of defenders would seem to be the sticking point when you watch it in real-time, but again, when you capture the frame at the moment the foul is committed, it becomes pretty clear that we are talking about the last defender committing the foul and it being pretty dubious that any of the other three defenders would have been able to challenge before a shot was off--#28, the closest defender, would have still been chasing from behind if the attacker wasn't planted into the ground. When you add in the deliberate nature of the foul and its obvious purpose (yes, I know it's not an explicit factor in DOGSO... but when you compare a foul like this to some careless tackles that result in DOGSO reds, it is illuminating), I think a strong case can be made that this is the sort of foul the IFAB wrote the DOGSO clause for.

    So again, no criticism here. And I didn't expect the red card and I doubt many others who watched it the first time did either. But... should we expect a red for a foul like this?
     
  12. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Thanks for the compliment, but can you elaborate what you find wrong with that comment? I know it's a hypothetical, but if replays showed Vasoli was wrong, you don't think the assessment would be a lot different?
     
  13. whistleblowerusa

    whistleblowerusa BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I think that this was a dive. Marrufo most likely saw it that way but was not confident. Attacker drags his foot/leg and goes down. Has a rep for doing that stuff.
     
    duality72 and Hararea repped this.
  14. whistleblowerusa

    whistleblowerusa BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    3 defenders there and distance is suspect. Just a tactical foul.
     
    Hararea repped this.
  15. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Country:
    United States
    I thought about this as well and could have seen it called this way. But not upset or surprised that call wasn't made.
    I did how ever have another thought on it. Could the argument be made for a Red for SFP for this foul? The defender make no attempt to play the ball, looks straight at the on coming attacker and uses excessive force to knock him down to the ground?
     
  16. chwmy

    chwmy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    I for one could not see myself ever raising the flag in this circumstance. The cr is so much closer: the distance is probably over 50 yards, further than a trail AR at midfield is to the top of the pa. Give many pk calls from there?

    I would also love to see the timing of the AR flag: Maruffo spots the AR flag and points to the PA in the same gesture as he points to keep playing. Does that mean the AR raised his flag after he saw Maruffo was not going to call the PK? The timing would suggest that he already had his flag up.
     
  17. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    A couple of things:
    1) Insisting vs Assisting doesnt' have anything to do with whether he is correct about the call.
    2) I think Insisting requires more than just signaling the foul.
     
    harrytheref repped this.
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Ok. Well, in reality you're absolultely right about #1. But I don't think that means people would perceive it that way.

    I guess we just disagree on #2. "Insisting" would be, in my eyes, imposing your judgment in a situation that doesn't need--or isn't helped by--your judgment. That's why I said it's a double-edged sword... if you're right, no big deal... but if you're wrong, people will say you should have never involved yourself. And you can't really be "assisting" if you've got it wrong.
     
  19. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Fair enough. I tell my ARs not to raise the flag unless they are sure I didn't see something, but would have blown the whistle if I had, but be especially sure in the penalty area. So I don't see a problem.
     
  20. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    We see plenty of red cards for DOGSO at that distance from goal, so not sure how it's suspect. But leaving that aside, when you cite the 3 players, do you mean...

    (A) There are three defenders in the vicinity of the play, so the "number of defenders" D isn't met and you can't give a red because of our instructions?

    OR

    (B) One of those three defenders is likely to get to the ball and challenge the attacker before he gets to goal, so the goal-scoring situation isn't obvious and we shouldn't give the red because it's not in the spirit of the law?

    I see merits to both arguments and, again, I didn't expect a red card. But while I almost totally buy (A), I'm not sure (B) is true. So I'm just wondering if you think this is a case where the 4 Ds fail us or if you believe--in a literal sense--there was not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I think an argument could be made for SFP, as I thought the same thing. I mean, he deliberately lines him up like a bodcheck in hockey, and he aimed for the upper body and hit him with far more force than necessary.

    That said, I don't think it would fly at this level. The fouled attacker bounces right back up and shows no signs of an injury or of even being shaken up. At this level, it would be viewed as a gross overreaction from the referee.

    At the youth level or an amateur match below the very top levels? I think an argument could be made that it almost has to be red for game control purposes.
     
  22. MrRC

    MrRC Red Card

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    That's VC. Although Wondo has the ball, there is no attempt by the defender to challenge for the ball. He does as you write and delivers a hockey check.
    Bob Evans had a video on fouls and misconduct a few years ago. One of them was a body block similar to this and his conclusion was red for VC as this action has no place in the game.
    Need I even mention that it was committed against the league's leading goalscorer on a dangerous counterattack? (I don't see this as DOGSO due to the position of #6 white.)
     
  23. DPRoberts

    DPRoberts Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Cronin might have made contact with Camilo's knee, but not enough in my opinion to be anything more than incidental. Camilo kept the offended leg straight and back and deliberately fell to the ground, milking the contact for all it was worth, after the ball was well on its way to the keeper. It's too bad Marrufo probably felt compelled to go with his AR's decision. A poor game-changing call IMO.
     
    duality72 and ColinMcCarthy repped this.
  24. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Ok, let's forget the mechanics of the penalty decision and AR involvement... I'm a bit surprised--almost shocked--people are defending this tackle as a non-PK.

    Cronin dives into a tackle, in a situation where he's never going to get the ball once it's touched by him. He physically and adversely affects Sanvezzo to the point that there's no way Sanvezzo can get on the end of the ball (when he would have, if not for the tackle). Plus Cronin puts his arms on Sanvezzo, to either drag him a little or hold him back. Embellishment or not, how exactly is this not a penalty? Why should what Cronin did be allowed to go unpunished? Heck, freeze the replay at 0:54... that's not a penalty and a possible DOGSO?
     
  25. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    If this was in Italy, Rocchi or Tagliavento would be pulling out the red on the PK faster than you can say Collina. It's DOGSO. It's not what the Law was created for but it is. The attacker is at the six with the ball at his feet and the keeper to beat. Is that not an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

    They got the call right, but I don't think the AR should have flagged it. Maybe at a World Cup or major tournament, but I don't think it's worth it getting right in a regular season game. Teams and players are now going to expect AR involvement that far away from the AR. Imagine in Vasoli's next game and the ref not giving a stone wall PK, players will go to him and say "why didn't you call it? You called it last week.

    I don't think it's worth it.
     
Moderators: IASocFan, MassachusettsRef

Share This Page