I'm so very glad we have you to butt in with ignorant, sarcastic comments that add absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand.
Using SketchUp I determined he's onside by roughly a foot. At the time that this capture is taken he is roughly even.
Have to wonder if the Seattle player having his foot (mostly?) planted played a part here, because otherwise Red definitely seems pretty harsh. To my untrained eyes at least.
Right. When you slow it down, the case for yellow is there. But in real-time, you can really hear and almost feel the amount of force that was in the tackle. You might even say there was an "excessive" amount of force.
The deal though is that the pool reporter is supposed to be ID'd before the game, with his info on the wall in the locker room. This is to keep just any reporter--but especially a home town reporter--who is hacked about a call coming to the ref's locker room for answers. And the home town rep showing him a picture of the form on his cell phone obviously doesn't count as being posted on the wall. I bet--and I think its a safe bet--that Guzman called someone from PRO to ask about what to do with the question. I seriously doubt he ignored it on his own initiative. I"m not trying to defend his call (obviously) but the reporter can't declare himself to be the pool reporter in the 83rd minute of the game.
But that excuse stinks from 100s of miles away. "I'm sorry but you only put your first and last name on your test paper. You omitted your middle name, your score on this test is a Zero."
Regardless of who decided not to address the question, I hope it's clear what a terrible idea that is.
Back to CLB/DC I'm OK with Gonzalez only getting yellow. I don't agree with it, but I understand. Parkhurst (and credit to him for hustling to make this the case) was closing quickly, and he was close enough to put just a little bit of doubt in the referee's mind. Gonzo was the LAST man, but he wasn't the ONLY man. It's red for me, but it's not as bad of a miss as it's going to be described to be.
And by the way, I really don't like that the referee is being blamed for the massive epidemic of team stupidity there. Yes, it was taking frustratingly long for the decision to be made. But when the skirmish started, he was reaching into his pocket for his card. The decision was coming. DC was trying to spot the ball for a penalty kick. It was never going to be that way. But clearly, play was not going to restart right away anyway, because the referee was still sorting things out. So I just don't understand the reaction of the Columbus players. In addition to the fact that it's not their ball, what's the harm if it does sit at the penalty spot for a few seconds before the referee straightens things out? And for DC, it's not like there's a quick restart penalty kick option. Let Columbus screw around with it and let the ref straighten it out later. Basically, I don't know what anyone in that skirmish thought they were going to gain.
We're not supposed to read intent or get inside the heads of the players when we make decisions. But, to be really good referees, we do sort of have to do those things to understand why certain events transpire. For me, this one is easy. The Columbus players fully expected Gonzalez to get sent off. By messing around with the ball and provoking a confrontation, perhaps they can prompt a DC player to do something stupid enough to make it 10v10. You're absolutely right. They know it's not their ball. But that doesn't make them all suddenly stupid and mean their actions have no purpose. They can use the ball to provoke a confrontation. Broken record time for me, but this is another reason why the referee should secure or be in immediate proximity to the ball for any potential prolonged stoppage.
From Wash Post's Steve Geoff's tweet: @SoccerInsider: On DCU-Columbus play, "This is a clear case of DOGSO," PRO training & development manager Paul Rejer tells me #mls
Was surprised the Columbus keeper wasn't cautioned for instigating the confrontation. He reached almost between the DC players legs to provoke a response. That's unsporting to me.
I've never quite figured out why Guzman got a FIFA badge in the first place over guys like Elfath or Villarreal.
It goes to my point that the PSRA refs are no better than the third tier "scabs" that we saw the first two weeks. I kept hearing just how good the union guys were and they are making very obvious mistakes, with seemingly little accountability. And then someone will chime in with the "well you never reffed and you don't notice all of these subtle things, blah, blah, blah, LOTG , etc.". What I notice is the refs butchering calls and games - which everyone notices. Blunt reality is the MLS refs are not very good as a group and are not improving.
Here's what I don't get. I understand why Guzman may have thought yellow - Michael Parkhurst WAS closing. Ok, fine. But the reason he took so long to produce the card was because, presumably, he was waiting for help from his assistant, who would have had a better view of where Parkhurst was in the play. The AR seemed to have a pretty good POV -- how did he come up with yellow?
You should check out the EPL referee thread. Some of the best refs in the world work the EPL and they've had some mystifying games of late. I suspect fan complaints about their refs are interchangeable for any league in the world except for who they point to as the example of good refs.
Here's one of his posts on another forum. "It wasn't excessive. Just a ref with a small dick trying to make his mark on the game" Just a bitter Houston fan that can't get over the fact his team makes stupid decisions.
And nobody in that forum seemed to have an issue with it. I'm glad we're in a forum with a much higher level of discourse, where people who threaten to derail discussion are dealt with properly.
What makes you say the scabs were "third tier"? Two were foreign FIFA refs who moved to the U.S. (and are doing games post-lockout), two were current FIFAs for another federations, and a fifth was a former MLS referee. Say what you want, but PRO worked very hard to make sure the men in the middle of the field had experience during the lockout.