This week we review how an assistant referee became involved in a denying of an obvious goal scoring opportunity decision which helped the referee reverse his original decision. Was this correct? A quick reminder about good AR mechanics, could it have prevented a mass confrontation from starting? A goal that was allowed, but was the attacker offside? Finally, the best decisions of the week made in Major League Soccer.
Involvement in DOGSO Decision
When the assistant referee has information, it is important that the referee get it in a timely manner. In Houston v San Jose there is a potential Denying of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) for this trip in the penalty area. The trip is clear, but the potential misconduct is muddied by several factors.
First, does the trip deny the attacker an obvious scoring opportunity? If you think so, than you need to determine what the proper misconduct is.
FIFA's interpretation of DOGSO misconduct states:
...the offending player is cautioned unless:
- The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
- The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
- The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc..)
For this clip the important consideration is "does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball".
The referee believed that DOGSO was present and from his angle determined that there was no attempt to play the ball and produced the red card. The assistant referee agreed with the DOGSO decision, but from his point of view, felt that there was a possibility for the player to challenge to play the ball, which would have warranted a yellow card. At that point the assistant correctly communicates with the referee that he has a differing opinion. After the consultation the referee decides that there was a possibility to challenge for the ball and reverses his original decision, cautions the player instead, and restarts with the penalty.
In a perfect sequence, the referee would have consulted with his assistant before showing the red card, however the important part is that he did receive all the information before making his final decision and restarting the match. Assistant referees should always make sure that the referee has considered their opinion, given from their vantage point, before the restart of play.
Did the referee crew get the final decision correct? There is debate as to whether there is a challenge on the ball or not. What do you think?
AR Mechanics - Keep your eyes on the action
This mass confrontation at the end of the NY Red Bulls v Orlando match was eventually settled with a pair of cautions and a send-off using video review. In this clip we are only showing the beginning of the confrontation and wondering if it could have been prevented with a quicker AR intervention.
Notice how the assistant referee turns his view towards the field while giving the throw in signal and loses sight of the players that begin the altercation. This momentary inattention delays his ability to notice the beginning of the confrontation and possibly get there to prevent escalation.
It is doubtful that the assistant referee could have prevented the confrontation, but we are always looking for ways to improve and sometimes a minor correction could make a difference the next time.
What Should You Do? Toronto v Portland
Is this goal offside? The eventual scorer is Toronto #2 Morrow and whether he is in an offside position at the moment of the cross may be debatable as the camera angle is not perfect, for this exercise however, we are going to assume he is in an offside position. Does it even matter? Does the Portland player deliberately play him the ball anyways? You decide. Answer next week.
Winner - Call of the Week #22 - Adam Garner
Call of the Week #23
Choose between to offside decisions that end in goals. Choice 1: Jeff Greeson in Houston for this far side offside decision where good position is key. Choice 2: Corey Parker in Columbus where he identifies that the scorer was not in an offside position.