Top Stories

Jermaine Jones sees red after latest controversial decision by Mark Geiger

Photo by Brad Mil/s-USA TODAY Sports
Photo by Brad Mills/USA TODAY Sports

Jermaine Jones had always been known to keep his temper on a short leash, and on Wednesday night, he let it get away in a hurry.

With only minutes away from elimination, Jones and the New England Revolution were looking for any way they could to pull even with D.C. United to extend their season.

They thought they got that chance in the second of three minutes of stoppage time when Jones’ first touch on a long ball into the box appeared to bounce off United defender Sean Franklin’s hand, but referee Mark Geiger made no call and allowed the play to resume.

Jones took exception to the decision and sprinted toward the Geiger, who was at least 20 yards away from him. The Revolution and U.S. Men’s National Team midfielder proceeded to get into Geiger’s face before making physical contact.

Geiger issued Jones his second yellow card of the game before sending him off with a red. New England went on to lose the contest, 2-1, in the knockout round of the Eastern Conference playoffs.

After the game, Geiger defended his decision.

“The defender’s arm was in a natural position because the short distance, there was also no time to react,” Geiger said in a statement. “Case of ball to hand.”

Jones, on the other hand, showed remorse for his actions, but not without doubling down on his disagreement with Geiger’s call and criticizing the referee’s judgment.

“This is an important game,” Jones said. “This is not only for the playoffs, this is for the clubs and everything, a really important game. So if you a referee who cannot handle it, and you have D.C. say they have a problem with him, we say we are not happy with him, so something is wrong there.

“Obviously I’m not happy with what happened today, the only thing I can say is I apologize for what I did after … But those who know me, they know I hate to lose and I would not go crazy if I’m not 100 percent sure that it was a penalty.”

Jones even went on to claim that Franklin himself admitted a penalty should have been awarded to the Revolution.

“Not only to me, you can ask a couple of other players from us to say the same,” Jones said. “I feel like it’s good that [Franklin] said it, so he is saying what he is feeling, but now we have to put it away and say it’s done.

“I can only say I apologize for what happened after. Sometimes something happens and I would put it away and I would say, man-to-man to Geiger, I would say I’m sorry for what happend after and it won’t happen again.”

Comments

  1. I watched the game on TV, and saw all the replays. Both calls could have been a case of “ball to hand” IMO, but Geiger made his justification for the non call on the second one. This does not qualify as “controversial,” unless you’re a writer trying get some clicks. Mr. Peng, instead of packing your lede with innuendo, why don’t you get a copy of the Laws of the Game and bone up. That way you won’t sound as ill-informed as you do now.

    Reply
    • It is reasonable to question both of them. I don’t consider either incident of being a hand ball but when a referee (Geiger) is calling the game that way, calls like that should go both ways. Same with calls for cautions/non-cautions.

      Reply
    • I watched the game on TV and saw all the replays too. It’s absolutely controversial because the second one was a more of a clear handball than the first. One player is trying to get out of the way, and moving his hand away from the ball, the other is moving his hand toward the ball with his arm in the place where it’s most likely to make contact. And yet he called the first one and not the second. Inconsistency, plus the fact that in both cases the decision favored the same team, makes it a controversial call. As the commentators immediately made clear on the broadcast.

      Reply
  2. people the voting should be cast mat Geiger playoff mvp. And mls cup yep it goes to none other than Matt Geiger. Every year it is the same story. Playoffs are great until you get this ref!!!!!!! Tired of the same old thing!!!!

    Reply
  3. so one USMNT player gets a red card and he’s the devil and another gets one and its not his fault etc….. just making sure

    Reply
  4. Neither was a penalty imo, but if one is called, the red should be consistent. Given the circumstances, I don’t think he should ref another playoff game.

    Reply
      • In the World Cup referees are graded and those with low scores are not permitted to continue on. They should apply this to mls playoffs as well. It seems pretty evident based on comments, articles, and my own viewing that the ref was subpar. Do you disagree?

  5. Posted this in the game thread too, sorry.

    Geiger: “The defender’s arm was in a natural position. Because of the short distance, there was no time to react. Case of ball to hand.”

    Sounds reasonable to me. The PK call had more distance/more reaction time, therefore don’t buy the argument that if one is a PK, then both are…too different.

    Personally, judging them separately, I don’t think either was a PK.

    Reply
  6. Jones may have overreacted, but I saw it as a handball. Franklin’s arm was out, and he actually moved it towards, not away from, the ball. Geiger was close enough to the play to see that.

    Reply
    • He was running. That’s what a natural position is when you’re running. The NE player cut the ball into his arm.

      This is a quintessential “unexpected ball” non-call, regardless of what Franklin was doing with his arm. It’s not controversial in the least.

      Reply
  7. I am a DCU fan and I have to say I thought that was a penalty. TV replays seem to confirm this should have been called.

    Having said that Jones cannot go after the ref. We had the experience of seeing Espindola do that last year and Fabbi was out for the first 6 games. That clearly affected his season. Unfortunately, Jones is going to have to deal with a significant ban for the start of next season and anything less than 6 games would be a surprise.

    Reply
  8. I hate inadvertent handballs in the 18 box. The rule needs to be changed. Only inadvertent handballs within the 6 box should be awarded PK

    Reply
    • How do you determine “inadvertent”? No one Refs included can know intent; they can only call what they see.

      The triggers to me on the handball is that the arm was away from the body and that the arm move to the ball despite what Geiger indicated. But again, if you have ever refed, you know that sight lines and angles are everything.

      This is one reason that I strongly support TV review limited to the following if contested: Goals; Red Cards and Penalties. This approach would ensure there was an opportunity if requested for review and this would not impact the flow of the game since in virtually all these instances the game is stopped anyway.

      Reply
      • You might be right. In that case I change it to only hand ball within the 6 would grant a PK. Any handball in the box would require a card and its color would be the refs interpretation of blatantness of the handball and its impact (ie prevented a goal, etc). A free kick would also be awarded at the top of the box.

    • According to the rules, inadvertent handballs are not a foul at all, anywhere on the field. In order for handling to be called, the referee must always decide that the contact between ball and hand was the result of a deliberate act (either trying to play the ball with the hand, or deliberately placing the hand in an unnatural position, one assumes to gain an advantage). If the answer is no, then it is not handling but simply inadvertent contact between ball and hand (i.e. no foul).

      Geiger’s bigger mistake was on the first call (it should not have been a penalty); once that (bad) call had been made, consistency might have dictated that the second call be made as well, and that is probably what (rightly) riled Jones.

      Reply
      • Consistency dictates nothing. If you make a mistake of judgement, you don’t persist in that mistake and intentionally misapply the LOTG.

        I might be convinced that the PK was harsh. I will not be convinced that given that PK decision, it is necessary to make an even harsher call.

  9. MLS has a serous problem with the season schedule if they don’t switch in 5 years or less to the August to May.
    Right now, everybody watches NCAA football from Thursday to Saturday and it’s all day Saturday.
    The NFL has Thursday and Sunday and the NBA has begun and is on mostly every night and MLB has their playoffs going on as well and espn or fox won’t give MLS prime time spots.
    Then if you add the NHL, it only gets worse for MLS
    MLS needs to do something fast and if MLS expands into warmer cities then it should help MLS change their season schedule sooner than later.
    Start in august, break from December and come back after the Super Bowl or during Super Bowl week with one game the Saturday before super Sunday.
    During the winter break, have a tournament in Hawaii and scrimmages versus ligaMX teams and NASL.
    I also read that NCAA plans to move march madness into April or May.
    Hopefully MLS expands into warmer markets after 24 like Sacramento, San Antonio, Charlotte, Vegas, besides st.louis and Indy.

    Reply
      • I hate to agree with Slow Left, but I will here. A Fall to Spring schedule doesn’t work because of our weather conditions AND competition NFL and NCAA Football on Saturday and Sundays. Would you go watch a Big Apple Derby in February?

  10. Anyone watch it and have an opinion on the call?

    Since MLS didn’t care enough to put this on a legitimate I couldn’t bring myself to search for Unimas on my cable listings to watch this match (or any matches).

    Reply
      • I agree with you Old School. Someday we may be as perfect as Slow Left who always knows how to find a channel, direct feed and has the correct outlook on every soccer issue.

    • Simon Borg (?) has a review on MLS.com.

      To me, it looks like a good no-call. Players have arms, and this arm was in a natural position. JJ tried to cut the ball back and touched it into the defender’s arm.

      If anything, I’d say that the handling PK against NE was harsh, but it’s not exactly analogous (as if anything is!) because the defender is further away and ends putting himself in an awkward position.

      Reply
    • There was a penalty awarded to DCU earlier in the match that was very similar. Given that context I thought it was a clear penalty call, at the very least it a penalty would have been the consistent call.

      Reply
      • It wasn’t similar. The Rev player was trying to move arm out of the way when the ball hit him. Geiger has really slipped since the WC. That was a clear hand ball against DC, he saw it and didnt cal it and it cost the Revs a chance to tie and maybe even win. If he’s going to call a PK for DC, he damn well better call one against when it happens. I believe the ball touched the DC player multiple times.

        Now I suppose Jones will get some big fine and suspension while Geiger gets to ruin yet another game with his no calls. There were multiple hacks during the game he let go too that should have been cards. He is really starting to stink

      • No. The second one isn’t. You don’t earn a PK by kicking the ball into a defender’s hand from a yard or two away. That’s not how it works.

      • Your opinion is wrong, tadpole. He’s running. That’s where his arm goes when he runs. Have you ever seen a player run at full sprint chasing a lofted through ball with his arms tucked tight to his sides or behind his back?

        No. You haven’t. Franklin’s arm was positioned naturally given the play, and the Rev’s player played the ball into the arm. That’s unfortunate for the Revs but it’s not a foul.

    • Jones absolutely has a case – I think Franklin’s was more of a PK than the one Rolfe missed – but you can’t go sprinting up to the ref like that and then start bumping them around.

      Reply
    • sup old school,

      after watching the highlights, i don’t think either handball really should’ve been called. the only difference between the plays was the distance between the kicker and the arm, but i thought both were inadvertent.

      Reply

Leave a Comment