A lot of grit, a little luck, and a ton of controversy....Matchday 5 (Houston @ Colorado) Analysis

Before we Begin…

           Who am I kidding. We are all interested in one thing and one thing only related to this game. So, without further ado…

Let’s Address the (Giant) Elephant in the Room...

I would be a bad fan to bury the lead and not start with the (controversial?!) ending of the game. So, let’s start there. But first, just in case you weren’t able to watch the game, let’s set the scene for dramatic effect. Entering the sixth (and final) minute of stoppage time in the second half, the Dynamo and the Rapids remained tied nil, nil after a rather tactical (or boring depending on your preference) matchup. The Dynamo parked the bus and seemed content with a draw, while the Rapids continued to push forward and grab the late winner at home.

During the 96^th minute, everything changed when Rapids attacked (sorry I can’t help making a nerd reference when the opportunity presents itself). Apparently, that is when the soccer gods (who are apparently chaotic neutral) decided to introduce themselves to the game. And in true chaotic neutral fashion, the soccer gods decided that predictability and organization is a bit too overrated for their liking. In the final minute of the game, the Rapids earned a throw-in deep in Dynamo territory. As expected, the Rapids attempt a long throw-in into the box, and chaos (or controversy, depending on your perspective) begins. As the ball enters the box, the Dynamo clear the ball out. During the clearance, Artur makes contact with the Rapids defender Maxso in the box. Maxso stays down injured in the box; however, the ball is cleared to another Rapids player. With Maxso still down in the box, the Rapids continue to play on (keep this in mind) and continue to play the ball until it is sent back in the box to try to score. The Dynamo were able to clear the danger, gain possession, and the counterattack is on. With that said, Maxso is still injured in the box with an obvious head injury. However, since the Rapids continued to play on with Maxso down, the Dynamo have no obligation to play the ball out. Artur passes the ball to Sebas Ferreira who is drifting wide to separate the Rapids Center Back pairing. Ferreira gets one of the Rapids defenders to close him down, creating a space even I could successfully play a ball through. That’s exactly what Ferreira does by playing the ball through the Rapids defense into open space down the left-hand side. Alert to the counterattacking possibility, a streaking Brad Smith sprints to chase the ball down successfully. Smith takes a good first touch to set himself up and beats the keeper for the game winner at the death. Cue the chaos and outrage by the Rapids and you get quite the dilemma here (that may be just enough, with some of the other controversial calls around the league this matchday, for MLS to strike a deal with PRO).

Before we do a deep dive of The International Football Association Board (IFAB) laws of the game for the 23/24 season in true El Profe fashion (#IYKYK), let me give you my personal opinion on the series of events. I believe that the Dynamo did nothing wrong and deserved the goal (and yes, my Orange and Purple glasses may be on right now). Let me walk you through my logic and the ultimate dilemma the referee and VAR were faced with from my perspective. During the long throw-in, Artur did clear the ball and did get an elbow shot (intentional or not) on Maxso who then goes down. There is no question or debate in my mind about that fact. However, since the clearance went back to the Rapids, AND the Rapids continued to play on with Maxso on the ground, in my opinion, the ref could not have stopped the play for a serious head injury since the Rapids already sent the ball back into the box before the referee had a chance to stop play upon realizing the injury. Now, here is where it gets tricky in my eyes. When the Dynamo won possession, there was a clear counterattacking opportunity in play. Since the Rapids had the chance to stop play for Maxso but chose to play on (not allowing the referee the chance to stop play without disrupting the Rapids scoring chance), AND the Dynamo had a clear counterattacking opportunity, in my opinion, the only fair thing for the ref to do is see if the counterattack leads to a chance or if it is successfully stopped. If the attack was successfully stopped, then the ref should have stopped play for the injury. Unfortunately, the counterattack was not stopped, the Dynamo capitalized on their opportunity, and Smith had a fantastic finish to take the lead and seal the win. The reason I say this was the only fair thing the ref could do is because, let’s say that hypothetically the Dynamo failed in their defensive efforts and the Rapids scored on their cross into the box with Maxso down. With that hypothetical in play, in my opinion, the Rapids goal would (and should) have stood since the ref did not (or could not) stop play for obvious head injury to Maxso prior to the ball being sent back into the box. Consequently, since the ref allowed the Rapids a chance to score (since they chose not to play the ball out for their own player), AND the Dynamo won the ball with a chance to score their own goal, in my opinion, the ref MUST allow the Dynamo their opportunity to score before stopping play.

Now, here is where things get even more complicated, chaotic, and controversial. Since the Dynamo won the ball and started a new attacking phase of play, in my opinion, VAR could not (NOR SHOULD NOT) review the foul that happened on the throw-in. Even if VAR would have considered the clearance and the second ball as one attacking phase of play, and since the Dynamo did not win possession and initiate the counter because of the foul, then all VAR could review was the attacking phase of the Dynamo to check for offsides. Therefore, I believe the referee and VARs hands were tied and they had to allow the goal to stand. I know it is a hard pill to swallow (and if it were the Dynamo I would be livid too); however, I believe the correct decision was made based on all the facts listed above (assuming they are correct). Now that I have laid out my beliefs…

Let’s Look at what the I.FAB Laws State…

According to the IFAB laws of the game for 23/24, there are 17 laws that define the rules, regulations, and responsibilities of every aspect of the beautiful game. For the sake of brevity (and all our sanities), I will only reference the laws that may or may not be applicable in the situation that occurred Saturday night. For those of you who want to take a deeper dive into the rules, fact check my reporting, or check to see if any other laws may be applicable that I did not cover, you can find the link to the laws here. With that information aside, here are the laws that I believe are applicable to the fiasco of Saturday night.

Law 5. – The Referee

First subsection under this law to consider is 5.2 – Decisions of the Referee. This law reads in its entirety:

Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. However, if at the end of the half, the referee leaves the field of play to go to the referee review area (RRA) or to instruct the players to return to the field of play, this does not prevent a decision being changed for an incident which occurred before the end of the half.

Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply.

If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play.

Next subsection under this law to consider is 5.3 – Powers and Duties. This law reads in its entirety: 

            The referee:

enforces the Laws of the Game

controls the match in cooperation with the other match officials

acts as timekeeper, keeps a record of the match and provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, including information on disciplinary action and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the match

supervises and/or indicates the restart of play.

Advantage

allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

Disciplinary action

punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time

takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable and sending-off offences

has the authority to take disciplinary action from entering the field of play for the pre-match inspection until leaving the field of play after the match ends (including penalties (penalty shoot-out)). If, before entering the field of play at the start of the match, a player commits a sending-off offence, the referee has the authority to prevent the player taking part in the match (see Law 3.6); the referee will report any other misconduct

has the power to show yellow or red cards and, where competition rules permit, temporarily dismiss a player, from entering the field of play at the start of the match until after the match has ended, including during the half-time interval, extra time and penalties (penalty shoot-out)

takes action against team officials who fail to act in a responsible manner and warns or shows a yellow card for a caution or a red card for a sending-off from the field of play and its immediate surrounds, including the technical area; if the offender cannot be identified, the senior coach present in the technical area will receive the sanction. A medical team official who commits a sending-off offence may remain if the team has no other medical person available, and act if a player needs medical attention

acts on the advice of other match officials regarding incidents that the referee has not seen

Injuries

allows play to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is only slightly injured

stops play if a player is seriously injured and ensures that the player is removed from the field of play. An injured player may not be treated on the field of play and may only re-enter after play has restarted; if the ball is in play, re-entry must be from the touchline but if the ball is out of play, it may be from any boundary line. Exceptions to the requirement to leave the field of play are only when:

a goalkeeper is injured

a goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided and need attention

players from the same team have collided and need attention

a severe injury has occurred

a player is injured as the result of a physical offence for which the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless or serious foul challenge), if the assessment/treatment is completed quickly

a penalty kick has been awarded and the injured player will be the kicker

ensures that any player bleeding leaves the field of play. The player may only re-enter on receiving a signal from the referee, who must be satisfied that the bleeding has stopped and there is no blood on the equipment

if the referee has authorised the doctors and/or stretcher bearers to enter the field of play, the player must leave on a stretcher or on foot. A player who does not comply must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour

if the referee has decided to caution or send off a player who is injured and has to leave the field of play for treatment, the card must be shown before the player leaves

if play has not been stopped for another reason, or if an injury suffered by a player is not the result of an offence, play is restarted with a dropped ball

Outside interference

stops, suspends or abandons the match for any offences or because of outside interference e.g. if:

the floodlights are inadequate

an object thrown by a spectator hits a match official, a player or team official, the referee may allow the match to continue, or stop, suspend or abandon it depending on the severity of the incident

a spectator blows a whistle which interferes with play - play is stopped and restarted with a dropped ball

an extra ball, other object or animal enters the field of play during the match, the referee must:

stop play (and restart with a dropped ball) only if it interferes with play - unless the ball is going into the goal and the interference does not prevent a defending player playing the ball, the goal is awarded if the ball enters the goal (even if contact was made with the ball) unless the interference was by the attacking team

allow play to continue if it does not interfere with play and have it removed at the earliest possible opportunity

allows no unauthorised persons to enter the field of play

The final subsection under this law to consider is 5.4 – Video Assistant Referee (VAR). This law reads in its entirety:

The use of video assistant referees (VARs) is only permitted where the match/competition organiser has fulfilled all Implementation Assistance and Approval Programme (IAAP) requirements as set out in FIFA’s IAAP documents, and has received written permission from FIFA.

The referee may be assisted by a video assistant referee (VAR) only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:

goal/no goal

penalty/no penalty

direct red card (not second caution)

mistaken identity when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team

The assistance from the video assistant referee (VAR) will relate to using replay(s) of the incident. The referee will make the final decision which may be based solely on the information from the VAR and/or the referee reviewing the replay footage directly (‘on-field review’).

Except for a ‘serious missed incident’, the referee (and where relevant other ‘on-field’ match officials) must always make a decision (including a decision not to penalise a potential offence); this decision does not change unless it is a ‘clear and obvious error’.

Reviews after play has restarted

If play has stopped and restarted, the referee may only undertake a ‘review’, and take the appropriate disciplinary sanction, for mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct

The only subsection under this law to consider is 12.3 – Disciplinary Action. For the sake of brevity (and redundancy) I will focus on serious foul play and violent conduct definitions. These laws read in its entirety:

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Violent conduct

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

Additional Applicable Section – VAR Protocol

The only subsection under this protocol to consider is subsection 1 – Principles. For the sake of brevity (and redundancy) I will focus on the one law I found related to Saturday’s incident. The law read in its entirety:

10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

After a VAR Review…

            …I have no idea what the correct option was for the referees. The laws I found did not state anything about a new attacking phase from an IFAB perspective. I will leave the ultimate decision of if the right or wrong call was made up to you and those who have much higher paygrades than myself.

Stoppage Time Thoughts…

            Overall, as a Dynamo fan, it is tough to feel good about this win. While I am happy a referee decision goes in favor of the men in orange for a change, and while I believe the correct decision was made, I do not feel good about taking all three points based on the controversy and no clear rule (I could find through IFAB) that was missed. I feel bad for the Rapids. I feel even worse for what feels like stealing the 3 points. I would be devastated if these 3 points made a major impact on making the playoffs for either team. From the on field reaction of Ben Olsen and Chris Armas, both managers seemed unsure about the refs decision and uncomfortable with how the game ended. Ultimately, I pin this one on the league and the owners. As the popularity of MLS has increased over the years, MLS Owners (or maybe just the non-present owners who are in it for pure profit since they own other professional teams) have chosen revenue over tradition, integrity, history, and fan experience. This is no exception with the PRO referee lockout. While Don Garber is the collective face for the owners, I hesitate to blame him entirely for this fiasco. What hurts the most is that we are at the beginning of a time where the US will be the center of Soccer around the world until 2028 (assuming the joint US/Mexico Women’s World Cup bid is accepted). This is an excellent time to grow the sport from a youth development standpoint, league standpoint, and ultimately fan interest standpoint. Yet, MLS and its owners are choosing revenue over all else, severely limiting this growth. Hopefully MLS gets it together and USSF can capitalize on being the center stage of soccer for the next several years. 

Signing off for now, “El Profe”