with DC reviewing all the games now, just saying that Buck Shaw isn't setup for having a lot of different camera angles. Makes it kinda hard sometimes to overrule/overturn the field Ref when the camera angle in not ideal!
Watch at about 0:48 of this video and it's clear who initiates contact. Not sure how anyone could possibly dispute it.
Yup. There is no argument that the camera angle isn't sufficient. That shot from behind shows exactly what happened on the play.
ya, there really is no question. in no universe is that a red card, in no universe did olave foul lenhart, lenhart completely set that up and he knew exactly what his dive would do. if there is any justice in the soccer world olave will have his red rescinded and lenhart will be suspended.
I'm sitting on the other side of the field mind you. Plus, the Ref is behind the play as it is progressing. when the ball is played forward, Lenny shoulders are clearly ahead of Olave & Lenny is clearly trying to maintain this advantage on Olave. The video you show clearly shows Lenny initiating the contact but I'm sure there are other places/times where Olave is making contact. Should Olave be allowed to fight back Lenny when he is clearly in front of Olave at the start of the play?
olave has just as much right to a ball that is not at lenharts feet than lenhart does. lenhart plays the man, not the ball, he reaches across olave and grabs him to pull olave into his body. that is the first contact made, all subsequent contact is inconsequential as lenhart is ensuring that olave fouls him. the initial foul is on lenhart for grabbing olave and pulling him.
He might be in front at the start of the play, but he wouldn't have been at the end. Olave was clearly going to get to the ball first. He had absolutely no reason to foul SpongeBob. The only person with any motive whatsoever to create contact was Lenhart. SpongeBob initiates contact by reaching in front of Olave and grabbing his shorts. He then kicks his left leg out awkwardly to draw contact so it will look like Olave tripped him as he proceeds to pull Olave down on top of him. All of that is on SpongeBob. It's all right there in the video I posted above. See for yourself.
I dunno. I'm not convinced it was a dive. It's definitely a foul on Lenhart, but I'm just not sure Lenhart meant to trip on Olave's legs after pulling Jamison into himself. Stupid? Yes. A blatant dive? Maybe not. I'd be surprised if the DisCo overturns the red and/or suspends Lenhart.
Sounds like your FO does not agree. "It was not super clear cut" according to a RSL spokeperson. The FO will not fight it. Why? Because they can't win.
that and there is no point, olave was probably going to rest anyways and with chris schuler as a more than capable backup there is no point in the extra risk. did you read the article? teams can lose $25,000 for not winning the appeals and players would be suspended ANOTHER game. that is a huge amount of risk, something not worth taking when there is no precedence for an appeals process AND you have a quick turnaround game just a few days later. it's already tuesday afternoon and the committee barely ruled perez suspended, there is very little chance they rule on olave before the game tomorrow. it's very unlikely that the committee would have been able to rule on something that isnt clean cut very quickly. something like borchers red card last year against new england would have been completely different and easy to over turn.
That the Olave/Lenhart issue wasn't as clear cut as most posters on this board said. Most folks were pretty definitive that Lenhart took a dive and/or it should not have been a red. If the FO thought that was the case, they would have fought it (even with the high risk) BTW, my personal opinion is that it was a 50/50 ball and there should have not been a card. But there was, and there is not enough evidence to say otherwise. Good luck against Dallas....I hate those guys.
Well... since I haven't seen the play you *think* 15 is talking about it's hard to say one way or another but if you're remembering it and I don't know it - it can be whatever you want it to be. However, it's not like offside fundamentally changed in 2005 because I watch it all the time on TV and there is never any confusion on my part or the announcers or the refs... I can't recall a *dispute* or confusion around an offside calls (what is and isn't) other than did the linesman see it properly - not some question about interpreting making a play on the ball from an offside position only counting if you touch it. YET, in youth games I get refs explaining to me all these *nuances* that seem to justify what is otherwise poor calles... OR... they sometimes call it one way and then other times another. All of them ready to explain their interpretration at that moment as the only way, or they were told in a class, or saw a special video, or whatever. Ultimately, I can't argue with you about a play neither of us are sure is the one you are talking about and I don't know what play you're talking about. Why do I see games on TV every day where if the player makes a run to play the ball from an offside position he gets called offside? Maybe you can explain when is this *special* rule that attempting to play the ball from an offside position doesn't count as offsides? If it's ONLY offside if he touches it or blocks the goalie's view - you and I should watch some games together on TV and you can explain to me why they keep getting called offside despite not touching the ball or blocking the goalie's view.
Agreed that it's not a clear cut or obvious play, but the volume and weight of the evidence suggests that it shouldn't have been a red card on Olave or that, if there was a foul, it should have called on Lenhart. There are a lot of reasons that the RSLFO may choose to not participate in challenging the red card, many of which have nothing to do with the merit of the cause, but rather, the cost of the process, time constraints, whether Olave would have played in the midweek game anyway, the availability of a quality 3rd centerback in Schuler, etc.
Holy ********. Are you kidding me? That describes you BS San Jose fans, you and Don gagliardi or WTF his name is in particular. You need to CTFO, and talk a little more like bsman if you come to our forum. Ismitje??? where's the red card on these douches? We have 2 guys, IBIK and UPinSLC who are consistently ridiculous, 15to32 as well though who usually has some substance, and an occasional poster here or there. Our forum is clogged up with you A$$hole trolls coming over here. GTFO already. God.
this is the thread that never ends it just goes on and on... last time I was told I had some substance I was being ducked into the back of a cop car, fanboy, so keep it quiet!
of all the bullshit this thread/game has produced, we have our diamond in the rough what a brilliant nickname must spread rep
Is the biggest factor against Olave that he was the last defender? If Borchers were closer, is there a chance it was just a yellow or even, given that Lenart popped up and got a shot on goal that Rimando saved, a simple advantage played?
Agreed. It SEEMED as though most of the RSL responses were adamant that it was an obvious dive by that "cheat" Lenhart. I think the evidence is pretty murky on who did the fouling....probably both players, and in this case the ruling leaned in Lenharts favor. I think the strong defense by us SJ fans also came from the fact that there WAS very clear evidence last year that Sabo took a dive. Good luck with the rest of the year.
Absolutely incorrect. Lenhart created the contact. I don't think he was trying to dive. I don't think he was trying to get Olave ejected. Lenhart fouled and the ref blew it. Stop being a ********ing idiot saying that Olave fouled Lenhart. Lenhart fouled Olave and caused the tussle. Now GTFO.
But a ref doesn't see the game in slow motion from many different angles, and the players don't re-enact plays however many times the ref needs to see to make a decision. In baseball, the ump doesn't use instant replay, either, to call a strike or a ball, and many times they're wrong. We the viewers at home get to watch it in slow motion as many times as we want. Players watching the games at the stadium don't even get the benefit of the jumbotron for controversial plays. The alternative is to have a review process like they do in the NFL, but that would totally ruin the soccer experience.
What in the world does last year have to do with this? Seriously. Lenhart is a cheat because he deliberately fouled by grabbing Olave's shorts and pulling him to the ground. Had the douche simply run next to him (and played the ball) and fallen because of the contact he would have been fine... but... he's a no-class, cheating HACK who rather than play soccer and score when he has position on the defender he has so little faith in his own ability that he has to reach his arm across Olave's body (a foul) and grab his shorts (cheating) and drag him to the ground (cheating). THAT's why he's a classless cheating hack. Sabo diving and Lenhart shorts grabbing is both cheating. You (fans) who keep coming on this board going on about last year (?!) and who shorts grabbing/dragging someone to the ground isn't "cheating" because Sabo dived last year. It's like you're retarded... just keep repeating yourselves on our boards and maybe you'll get the validation your mother apparently denied you.