Salazar had a good game up until he missed that DOGSO. Nice playing advantage calls. In full control of the match but he missed that one. Not just the arm on Agusto, which depending on is angle can be missed, but the scissors action could not be missed. Hopefully he Keeps calling the game the way he called the rest of it.
I'm surprised AR2 didn't spot it, as he had a perfect angle for both, but maybe he was deferring to Salazar? I was surprised by the no call with Salazar following just behind the play.
If you saw the beginning of the second half, there was an explanation on why it should not have been DOGSO.
And he emphasises no call. Waving both arms. FWIW Peter Walton says it's not DOGSO due to the defender coming back into the play, if it's a foul. Thx, Jay!
Last highlight showed Hainault wasn't the last defender involved in the play. Per USSF directive, that play didn't meet the 4 Ds.
It was at least a foul. The other defender being close enough to make a play is dubious. They got this one wrong
Completely. Any defenders in the area were arriving late, at best. And even if you could argue that it wasn't DOGSO, you simply can't argue that it wasn't a foul at all. Salazar just seemed to want to get to halftime and figured if he called nothing, he wouldn't have to deal with any DOGSO distinctions. Pretty weak.
With any due respect to Peter Walton, that is complete and total BS. That particular defender was never going to be back in the play before a shot occurred. He's just covering Salazar's butt. And the fact that the guy who should have seen red happened to score Houston's first goal was just more salt in the wound.
I'm biased, but a question: The supposed "last defender" on the non-call looked like he was way too far out to the side to be involved in the play. For DOGSO, does the last defender just have to be closer to the goal, like offside, or do they have to stand a chance of actually defending the play? It's all moot, because Salazar blew the call anyway, but I was surprised that the head official said that DOGSO would not have been in play.
Sorry but it is opinion that the defender could get back into position. It is the same as passive offsides in my book. I don't feel that the defender keeping it from being a DOGSO was passive.
It was something. I can't argue it was nothing. I don't agree, but I can argue it was not a send off.
AR2? Its in the opposite quadrant, right in front of Salazar, and the contact happens BETWEEN the players, obstructing the ar's view. They're going to have a hell of a time selling an ar's obstructed view call 40 some yards away, IF he raises the flag.
IMO, it could be one of three things: 1) Foul on the DC attacker for the forearm shove which preceded the takedown. DFK Houston. 2) Foul on Hainault and yellow card caution for tactical foul, IF Salazar determines the DOGSO criterion are not met. DFK DC United. 3) Foul on Hainault and red card send off for DOGSO. DFK DC United. What it can't be is nothing...way too much going on there. IMO, if Salazar didn't want to send off or even card Hainault he could have called a foul going out. Calling nothing was the worst possible alternative.
Watching the replay again, the attacker's push with his right arm is a bit stiffer than it looked on my phone earlier. Perhaps Salazar felt that the two players both fouled the other around the same time and it wouldn't be fair to award a free kick to either team. Augusto pushed, Hainault pulled, and the end result was the two players hitting the turf.
Yeah, you have to be a complete moron to buy that explanation. I can think of other reasons why it might not be DOGSO, but the notion that the RB was going to stop the shot is completely retarded. In the words of Detective Munch, when you lie to me, lie to me with respect. I AM NOT MONTEL WILLIAMS! Anyway, what happened was a textbook example of a referee choking under pressure. He was afraid to make the big call. He didn't want to decide the game, but in making that decision, he decided the game anyway. And as the game played out, well, if it was DOGSO, he probably cost DC the tie.
Fixed it for you, period. Nowhere in the rest of the soccer playing world is that (a) Not a Foul and (b) Not a RED for DOGSO. All the rest is just sucking up to cover for the ref's blatant bad miss. Horrible (and yes, Tie changing).
If you are even a little serious about this, all I can say was: Were you watching the same game as we were? Not even close to DCU foul. While I can't believe that #2 is real, at least if that was the answer, we could debate it. Your last part (in BOLD) is the essence of what happened here. I can't wait until later in the week when MLS tells us that the call was wrong and he should have called it. (sorry, can't keep a straight face on that one - we all know the league office will NEVER say anything of the sort, even though it is clear as day).
No, I'm not serious, I'm pulling your leg...and I'm deaf, dumb and blind also. I thought this was a REFEREE forum?
Afraid to make the big call? Ricardo Salazar? This is the same guy who called a handling pk in the 82nd minute of a tied US Open Cup Final and then called keeper encroachment in KFTM in the same match. Missing a call is one thing, being scared to make it quite another. Good God, find something else....
Seems like Mr. "It's a red card anywhere else in the world" is working on his comedy routine tonight! Tonight I'm working on my "It's a red card anywhere else in the world" routine.
Never said anything about you being deaf . Yes, this is a referee forum, and I'm quite familiar with it. My comment was that there was no way that the foul could be called on the DC forward. I will stand by that comment and say that anyone here who would be playing the role of assessor would NEVER agree that the foul was by that attacker. That's why I asked to make sure you were watching the same game.