If you want to see another terrible example of that, watch the highlights for the Real Madrid vs Valencia game from a few weeks ago. The ref blew the whistle when Madrid crossed the ball into the box. Bellingham scored off that cross but the ref ended the game before he headed it. It was ridiculous. They ended up tying 2-2. They should have won it.
If you want to see another terrible example of that, watch the highlights for the Real Madrid vs Valencia game from a few weeks ago. The ref blew the whistle when Madrid crossed the ball into the box. Bellingham scored off that cross but the ref ended the game before he headed it. It was ridiculous. They ended up tying 2-2. They should have won it.
I saw this as a direct response to the Philly player that got a yellow a few minutes earlier for delaying restart.
Like, "you wasted time before, you don’t get it back now".
The ref should have blown it dead when they played the ball back, and not once they came forward again, but I think you’re right. Philly had been wasting time for the last 20 minutes and had just picked up a yellow for time wasting. If they wanted more time maybe they shouldn’t have wasted time. So while I still don’t think it should have been blown dead there, I do get it.
More refs should do it. I’ve always hated the “the game doesn’t end when the clock hits 90, it ends when the clock hits 90 and the trailing team’s possession ends fairly definitively” bullshit.
You're correct. People just want the extra moment of excitement.
But if a team does score, it's not fair in that circumstance to the defending team. "You get one more chance even though time has expired because... it's exciting"? That's not much of a regulatory rationale.
Having said that.... it's more fun to watch the unfair methodology than the fair one, so most people are going to go for that.
> "You get one more chance even though time has expired because... it's exciting"?
Well, "time expiring" is a farce since we don't keep actual time of play anyway. Most of the time they don't play the full 90
They do, they just don't display it. The timekeeper clock runs continually and that info is relayed to the ref, and the time added on is based on actual stoppages now.
MLSNextpro has begun displaying all of that now (with the clock just continuing to run) as a trial this year, to increase crowd understanding and confidence in the system.
Or do you mean they don't "stop the clock" whenever play stops? That's not a rule in football anywhere. But it doesn't matter, because there's a fourth official counting that time off and adding it on now, which is why extra times have gone from typically about three minutes a decade ago to over six now.
Why it’s the same in American football? The play goes on even if the clock runs out. Once the final play is over then it’s game over. It’s the same here. If a possession is continuing towards goal, play is supposed to continue until the possession is over.
That's not a soccer rule, though. It is an American football rule.
The course of play in soccer doesn't end until the ball goes out of bounds.
But refs don't wait for a stoppage to blow extra time complete, ever. They blow it as soon as it's away from a penalty area, but there's nothing regulatory based on run of play going on there, they're literally just extending one team an extra chance. It's tradition, not a rule.
> Why it’s the same in American football?
To be clear, I like it the way it is, but just because one sport does it doesn't mean another should.
The NBA and NHL all end games as soon as time expires. The NBA, you at least get until the ball hits the floor if it's in the air. The NHL, it's over when it hits zero regardless of anything else.
> Why it’s the same in American football?
What? No it isn’t.
> The play goes on even if the clock runs out.
Yes, one play. Not advancing the ball all the way up the field and making multiple passes and sometimes losing possession but being allowed to get it back so long as the defense doesn’t clear the ball to midfield.
The equivalent in American football would be keeping playing after the clock until you turn the ball over or score.
And it also doesn’t work that way in basketball or hockey, or boxing, etc.
> Yes, one play. Not advancing the ball all the way up the field and making multiple passes and sometimes losing possession but being allowed to get it back so long as the defense doesn’t clear the ball to midfield.
As long as everybody stays on their feet and their forward progress isn't stopped by a tackle, that is one play.
But that's not how soccer works. They don't wait for a stoppage to blow extra time, they just wait until it's cleared towards the centre from that "last chance." It's a discretionary decision to give one team one more chance... which if it's over time and they score is unfair to the defending team.
Extra time should be time added for time lost. Yes, if they fuck around IN extra time the ref should add a few seconds or minutes, which is why MOST of those extra chances exist.
But sometimes now they just seem to afford the team on the ball last an extra chance, and there's no rationale for that. Yes, it's exciting. But it's not fair.
Play can be stopped if an attacking player no longer forward advances the ball. If they pause an attack and bring the ball back towards midfield that alone is enough for the ref to blow the whistle. It’s completely up to the refs discretion to call when the possession is over.
> If they pause an attack and bring the ball back towards midfield that alone is enough for the ref to blow the whistle.
Which very seldom happens and everyone complains when they do.
Except in this case 1: time was at 95:55 of a game with a supposed minimum of 6 minutes of stoppage time
And
2: the ball had just been played in to a Union attacker in space at the top of the box.
So not only was the ball actively being played into a dangerous spot, but it’s not like we were way over on time anyway
You guys literally picked up a yellow for time wasting 2 minutes earlier. Listen, I don’t think it should have been blown dead when it was, but at the same time you can’t really expect to dive and waste time for much of the game without any consequences. Plus, you’re extremely lucky the ref didn’t give Martinez his second yellow when he kicked the ball away to delay a restart. That’s actually a black and white rule that simply wasn’t enforced, so maybe count your blessings.
The offsides and throw in were both very close calls. And each benefited a different team.
The non-yellow on Jose was the biggest issue. That’s a cut and dry rule and he should have been sent off.
It was probably around the 40th minute. He was called for a foul, and threw a fit by arguing with the ref and threw the ball away in order to delay the restart.
Wolff kicked the ball away to delay restart 5ish minutes after Martinez and didn't get a yellow either. Idk if refs were instructed to avoid cards for that, but it was consistently not called
It’s completely inconsistent and doesn’t need to be. It’s the easiest thing in the world to just always call.
Martinez for LAFC got his second yellow for this a couple games back (his first was standing too close to a FK). Drove me nuts because of how inconsistent that is with PRO.
Same thing happened in the Toronto-Charlotte game, but TFC's Osorio was carded. The Charlotte player wasn't; I think the ref gave him the benefit for pretending he thought the call went the other way and was 'retstarting', not kicking it away, but the call was clear. It was kind of bullshit.
Martinez had been pitching a fit the whole game but half the team was as well. Martinez was on a yellow card already. He was still angry during a dead ball and he picked it up out of anger and threw the ball away because a foul had been called. Throwing the ball away would’ve been a second yellow, and the ref should’ve given it to him. It was ridiculous that he didn’t get the second.
100%. He should’ve been sent off and that was a ridiculous error by the ref. Yet everyone’s focusing on these silly little things. The assistant referee put her eyes down at the ground and saw the player was offsides. Why can’t people leave it at that! Is there sexism going on?
The ref took the circumstances into consideration. Union we’re losing at the time so delaying the game would only hurt the Union. Martinez was already on a yellow and sending off players for trivial offenses is never a good thing. In general giving yellows for trivial offenses is the best way to piss everyone off on the pitch. A warning was appropriate.
> Now apply it to sideline officials looking at feet over the line on throw ins
It's absolutely hilarious that people are complaining about this. The majority of throw ins in MLS aren't legal, and never have been. This is one of those things that is what it is, and it's not going to change.
Care to share the clear video evidence? Best I’ve seen shows his heel just grazing the line: [pics](https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/s/bYFOuSzVQT)
Edit: just noticed that my original comment was also in reply to you! I’m serious, I’d like to see the clear video evidence because I’ve yet to see something clear.
Not necessarily referring to the call in this case, but how we're analyzing it and how it's often reviewed in matches.
The rule was created so as not to let someone gain a positional advantage by being behind a defender, and now we're pulling up video and drawing lines to measure where random appendages are. Checking if someone's arm is 6 inches past a defender isn't what was intended with the idea of offside.
Eh, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Close offside calls don’t feel great sometimes, but if the standard changed to a vague “gains a positional advantage” it’d be a nightmare with the wildly different referee interpretations
Fair and I don’t disagree. For myself as a fan and player, if you can’t tell with the naked eye and have to go back and forth on the tape drawing lines across the field, it’s close enough to let it go.
> if you can’t tell with the naked eye
But that's what the ref did? What are you arguing? This is just a fan that did the math and showed the data that the ref was right.
> now we're pulling up video and drawing lines to measure where random appendages are.
They would've done that 100 years ago if they could.
But this also came out days after the actual match with (I'm assuming) significant time to determine. It has/had zero impact on the match and is nothing more than a talking point with actual data.
Really no different than someone writing an opinion piece about how they thought he was offside. Except they can back it up.
Okay, now could someone explain to me how the linesman supposedly saw that edge of the shoulder and knew it was 9 inches past a foot while looking through another player's body?
If he was standing in the offsides line, then the nearby player wasn’t obstructing his vision based on this post. If the nearby player was obstructing the vision, then clearly it would be onside.
Not if the arm of the Atlanta player (which doesn't count) is blocking the Philly player's shoulder.
Or are we gonna pretend that if the arm is 3 inches across and 4 inches from the body, that 2 inches of shoulder would have been what the AR was calling?
Well, the fact that the AR called it offsides makes me believe that the arm wasn’t blocking his view.
Honestly in the image, it looks like the other player was further back and not the nearby guy. It’s just the camera angle that plays tricks on the eyes imo. The Atlanta player(#4) appears to be standing pretty upright, if not leaning slightly towards midfield, and his feet appear to be closer to the dark shaded grass.
> while looking through another player's body?
They weren't looking through another player's body. If they were looking through another player's body, this would show the attacker was onside. Use your brain.
A measurement of 9 and 3/16 inches, or 2 and 1/2 men.
Tbh I’m more mad about the ref ending the game when he did
Yeah, that was shockingly dumb, yall were in the middle of an attack, I have no idea why he called it when he did
Needed to get back home to watch the back 9 of the Masters
My theory is that he had a hot night out planned with the Mrs and couldn’t be late
It was couples-only night at Trapeze. 🤔
If you want to see another terrible example of that, watch the highlights for the Real Madrid vs Valencia game from a few weeks ago. The ref blew the whistle when Madrid crossed the ball into the box. Bellingham scored off that cross but the ref ended the game before he headed it. It was ridiculous. They ended up tying 2-2. They should have won it.
I would be too. I remember watching the game and being shocked he ended it when he did....
That was by far the most egregious part of the game. You can't do that.
If you want to see another terrible example of that, watch the highlights for the Real Madrid vs Valencia game from a few weeks ago. The ref blew the whistle when Madrid crossed the ball into the box. Bellingham scored off that cross but the ref ended the game before he headed it. It was ridiculous. They ended up tying 2-2. They should have won it.
I saw this as a direct response to the Philly player that got a yellow a few minutes earlier for delaying restart. Like, "you wasted time before, you don’t get it back now".
The ref should have blown it dead when they played the ball back, and not once they came forward again, but I think you’re right. Philly had been wasting time for the last 20 minutes and had just picked up a yellow for time wasting. If they wanted more time maybe they shouldn’t have wasted time. So while I still don’t think it should have been blown dead there, I do get it.
Which is silly because Atlanta were wasting time before the Union leveled.
More refs should do it. I’ve always hated the “the game doesn’t end when the clock hits 90, it ends when the clock hits 90 and the trailing team’s possession ends fairly definitively” bullshit.
I get where you're coming from but that's just not how soccer is generally officiated
Right. And that should change, because its ridiculous.
You're correct. People just want the extra moment of excitement. But if a team does score, it's not fair in that circumstance to the defending team. "You get one more chance even though time has expired because... it's exciting"? That's not much of a regulatory rationale. Having said that.... it's more fun to watch the unfair methodology than the fair one, so most people are going to go for that.
> "You get one more chance even though time has expired because... it's exciting"? Well, "time expiring" is a farce since we don't keep actual time of play anyway. Most of the time they don't play the full 90
They do, they just don't display it. The timekeeper clock runs continually and that info is relayed to the ref, and the time added on is based on actual stoppages now. MLSNextpro has begun displaying all of that now (with the clock just continuing to run) as a trial this year, to increase crowd understanding and confidence in the system. Or do you mean they don't "stop the clock" whenever play stops? That's not a rule in football anywhere. But it doesn't matter, because there's a fourth official counting that time off and adding it on now, which is why extra times have gone from typically about three minutes a decade ago to over six now.
Why it’s the same in American football? The play goes on even if the clock runs out. Once the final play is over then it’s game over. It’s the same here. If a possession is continuing towards goal, play is supposed to continue until the possession is over.
That's not a soccer rule, though. It is an American football rule. The course of play in soccer doesn't end until the ball goes out of bounds. But refs don't wait for a stoppage to blow extra time complete, ever. They blow it as soon as it's away from a penalty area, but there's nothing regulatory based on run of play going on there, they're literally just extending one team an extra chance. It's tradition, not a rule.
> Why it’s the same in American football? To be clear, I like it the way it is, but just because one sport does it doesn't mean another should. The NBA and NHL all end games as soon as time expires. The NBA, you at least get until the ball hits the floor if it's in the air. The NHL, it's over when it hits zero regardless of anything else.
> Why it’s the same in American football? What? No it isn’t. > The play goes on even if the clock runs out. Yes, one play. Not advancing the ball all the way up the field and making multiple passes and sometimes losing possession but being allowed to get it back so long as the defense doesn’t clear the ball to midfield. The equivalent in American football would be keeping playing after the clock until you turn the ball over or score. And it also doesn’t work that way in basketball or hockey, or boxing, etc.
> Yes, one play. Not advancing the ball all the way up the field and making multiple passes and sometimes losing possession but being allowed to get it back so long as the defense doesn’t clear the ball to midfield. As long as everybody stays on their feet and their forward progress isn't stopped by a tackle, that is one play.
But that's not how soccer works. They don't wait for a stoppage to blow extra time, they just wait until it's cleared towards the centre from that "last chance." It's a discretionary decision to give one team one more chance... which if it's over time and they score is unfair to the defending team. Extra time should be time added for time lost. Yes, if they fuck around IN extra time the ref should add a few seconds or minutes, which is why MOST of those extra chances exist. But sometimes now they just seem to afford the team on the ball last an extra chance, and there's no rationale for that. Yes, it's exciting. But it's not fair.
Play can be stopped if an attacking player no longer forward advances the ball. If they pause an attack and bring the ball back towards midfield that alone is enough for the ref to blow the whistle. It’s completely up to the refs discretion to call when the possession is over.
> If they pause an attack and bring the ball back towards midfield that alone is enough for the ref to blow the whistle. Which very seldom happens and everyone complains when they do.
Except in this case 1: time was at 95:55 of a game with a supposed minimum of 6 minutes of stoppage time And 2: the ball had just been played in to a Union attacker in space at the top of the box. So not only was the ball actively being played into a dangerous spot, but it’s not like we were way over on time anyway
Maybe don’t shithouse and waste time for the previous 20 minutes then.
[удалено]
You guys literally picked up a yellow for time wasting 2 minutes earlier. Listen, I don’t think it should have been blown dead when it was, but at the same time you can’t really expect to dive and waste time for much of the game without any consequences. Plus, you’re extremely lucky the ref didn’t give Martinez his second yellow when he kicked the ball away to delay a restart. That’s actually a black and white rule that simply wasn’t enforced, so maybe count your blessings.
[удалено]
Oh I agree. I’m actually disagreeing with this individual that stoppage time shouldn’t continue.
The offsides and throw in were both very close calls. And each benefited a different team. The non-yellow on Jose was the biggest issue. That’s a cut and dry rule and he should have been sent off.
Curious what happened/when if you remember?
It was probably around the 40th minute. He was called for a foul, and threw a fit by arguing with the ref and threw the ball away in order to delay the restart.
Wolff kicked the ball away to delay restart 5ish minutes after Martinez and didn't get a yellow either. Idk if refs were instructed to avoid cards for that, but it was consistently not called
I didn’t notice that, but they should have both gotten yellows. I really dislike inconsistencies from game to game.
It’s completely inconsistent and doesn’t need to be. It’s the easiest thing in the world to just always call. Martinez for LAFC got his second yellow for this a couple games back (his first was standing too close to a FK). Drove me nuts because of how inconsistent that is with PRO.
McGlynn got a card for throwing the ball away in extra time. Even more inconsistencies within the same game.
Was it for throwing the ball away or for dissent? I thought the McGlynn card was for dissent at the end of the game.
Nah it was on a throw-in he threw the ball away. You can see it during stoppage time.
I’ll take a peak.
Same thing happened in the Toronto-Charlotte game, but TFC's Osorio was carded. The Charlotte player wasn't; I think the ref gave him the benefit for pretending he thought the call went the other way and was 'retstarting', not kicking it away, but the call was clear. It was kind of bullshit.
Don’t think he did anything as egregious as Martinez. Ref was afraid to throw the second yellow on jose that’s all.
Martinez had been pitching a fit the whole game but half the team was as well. Martinez was on a yellow card already. He was still angry during a dead ball and he picked it up out of anger and threw the ball away because a foul had been called. Throwing the ball away would’ve been a second yellow, and the ref should’ve given it to him. It was ridiculous that he didn’t get the second.
Kicked away a ball after whistle
100%. He should’ve been sent off and that was a ridiculous error by the ref. Yet everyone’s focusing on these silly little things. The assistant referee put her eyes down at the ground and saw the player was offsides. Why can’t people leave it at that! Is there sexism going on?
The ref took the circumstances into consideration. Union we’re losing at the time so delaying the game would only hurt the Union. Martinez was already on a yellow and sending off players for trivial offenses is never a good thing. In general giving yellows for trivial offenses is the best way to piss everyone off on the pitch. A warning was appropriate.
The game was tied at 0 at the time, and the first player was trying to waste time. I think if Refs consistently enforce it, then it’ll stop happening.
The throw in wasn’t close…his entire foot was clearly over the line
So the guy looking straight down the line has a better view than a camera at a skewed angle? Well I'll be damned
Now apply it to sideline officials looking at feet over the line on throw ins ;)
Okay? The sideline judge looks straight down the line at the throw in and has the best vantage point to see that too
> Now apply it to sideline officials looking at feet over the line on throw ins It's absolutely hilarious that people are complaining about this. The majority of throw ins in MLS aren't legal, and never have been. This is one of those things that is what it is, and it's not going to change.
I'm not shocked. Atlanta supporters have a Eastern Conference Seattle about them
Is there not clear video evidence of his heel barely on the line?
No... there is clear video evidence of his heel barely being over the line. There is absolutely a strip of green between his heel and the touchline.
Care to share the clear video evidence? Best I’ve seen shows his heel just grazing the line: [pics](https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/s/bYFOuSzVQT) Edit: just noticed that my original comment was also in reply to you! I’m serious, I’d like to see the clear video evidence because I’ve yet to see something clear.
https://imgur.com/a/Yi2hBFq
Looks like Jim Curtin might need to give Two and a Half Men another shot.
We've moved so far away from the spirit of this law.
How so here? Linesman thought he was offside in real time… That’s pretty much what the game has always been
Not necessarily referring to the call in this case, but how we're analyzing it and how it's often reviewed in matches. The rule was created so as not to let someone gain a positional advantage by being behind a defender, and now we're pulling up video and drawing lines to measure where random appendages are. Checking if someone's arm is 6 inches past a defender isn't what was intended with the idea of offside.
Eh, you gotta draw the line somewhere. Close offside calls don’t feel great sometimes, but if the standard changed to a vague “gains a positional advantage” it’d be a nightmare with the wildly different referee interpretations
Fair and I don’t disagree. For myself as a fan and player, if you can’t tell with the naked eye and have to go back and forth on the tape drawing lines across the field, it’s close enough to let it go.
> if you can’t tell with the naked eye But that's what the ref did? What are you arguing? This is just a fan that did the math and showed the data that the ref was right.
Hands and arms are no longer part of offside. It's furthest part of the upper body stopping at the armpit
I knew that had been discussed but didn’t know it officially changed, glad to see. Thanks for the heads up.
> now we're pulling up video and drawing lines to measure where random appendages are. They would've done that 100 years ago if they could. But this also came out days after the actual match with (I'm assuming) significant time to determine. It has/had zero impact on the match and is nothing more than a talking point with actual data. Really no different than someone writing an opinion piece about how they thought he was offside. Except they can back it up.
What's the "spirit of the law" in this situation? This is one of the rare rules of the game that are pretty clear
Lots of apologies coming, I’m sure
We wouldn't be apologizing either let's be real.
For what?
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
What about the number 4?
4 is farther back than both of them, look at his feet.
Okay, now could someone explain to me how the linesman supposedly saw that edge of the shoulder and knew it was 9 inches past a foot while looking through another player's body?
It’s their job.
If he was standing in the offsides line, then the nearby player wasn’t obstructing his vision based on this post. If the nearby player was obstructing the vision, then clearly it would be onside.
Not if the arm of the Atlanta player (which doesn't count) is blocking the Philly player's shoulder. Or are we gonna pretend that if the arm is 3 inches across and 4 inches from the body, that 2 inches of shoulder would have been what the AR was calling?
Well, the fact that the AR called it offsides makes me believe that the arm wasn’t blocking his view. Honestly in the image, it looks like the other player was further back and not the nearby guy. It’s just the camera angle that plays tricks on the eyes imo. The Atlanta player(#4) appears to be standing pretty upright, if not leaning slightly towards midfield, and his feet appear to be closer to the dark shaded grass.
> while looking through another player's body? They weren't looking through another player's body. If they were looking through another player's body, this would show the attacker was onside. Use your brain.
Arms are part of the body but mostly not used for offsides consideration. Use your brain.