If you watch the first chip into the penalty area, Lenhart does almost the exact same thing to Burch. So if that's not a foul, why is the second one a foul?
The Wallace handling call is shocking for it to not be a red. From a devil's advocate perspective, the only argument I could even see being made is that no opportunity was denied, because the ball went right back down to the attacker's feet. Now, I don't buy that argument whatsoever, but it's the only thing I can come up with as to why Gonzalez doesn't go red. What other explanation is there aside from just totally botching the call?
I tend to disagree. The "foul" has no measurable impact on the play, hence could be considered trifling. Nonetheless, if it isn't trifling, why not a caution as well?
Then he needs to not be doing professional games, because the Lenhart "foul" happened right where the ball was at and he was most likely looking, while the Burch "foul" happened off the ball.
I was thinking about this, actually. I may have jumped the gun in my analysis. Then again, like Kadlecik, if I only got one look, maybe that's what I would have done. I'll say this: it wasn't wrong. It might be a bridge too far to say it was right. Would have to have a feel for the entire match and the greater context.
IMO, its a foul...which I'm NOT calling, but if I am, I'm pulling plastic as well. What possible justification could there be for this type of off the ball activity for it not to be considered misconduct as well?
Maybe he thought Grabavoy may have miss-controlled the ball and wasn't sure that it was a clear goal scoring opportunity? Or at least not clear enough to make him comfortable pulling red out there.
For people saying that the RSL/PTFC play wasn't a DOGSO, please consider if the defender had tripped or grabbed the attacker instead of handling the ball with all else being the same. To me it is a clear send-off. Justice that RSL scores two late goals to win.
I'm an RSL fan and season ticket holder, so if anything, I should be biased the other way. If he had grabbed or tripped the attacker after the ball was past him, we'd have a better knowledge of whether or not there was actually an OGSO. The handling prevented us from being able to know for certain whether or not Grabavoy would've had an OGSO, especially if we were in Gonzalez' place with only one look at it. I wouldn't feel comfortable sending off a player without near certainty that the GSO denied was truly "obvious". Here, I'm not convinced that it was.
That's an interesting question about whether a caution was necessary, but I disagree with your "no measurable impact" logic. SJ had an open player at the endline preparing to send in a cross, and Lenhart was the most likely target of that cross. if Burch's foul preventing Lenhart from making his run (which is how I see it), then surely it was relevant enough to call.
Ask yourself why we have a DOGSO law. Then ask yourself Wallace handled the ball. Short of handling on the goal line, this couldn't be a clearer example of what the DOGSO law was intended to punish. He's by every defender, middle of the park, 16 yards out with only the goalkeeper to beat. It's a red card offence everywhere in the world. Gonzalez either blew it or he somehow reasoned himself out of it. And if it's the latter, it's another example of over instruction. This is an easy decision at the World Cup, for example. You don't give red here and you're going home. Why it should be tougher or more confusing at other levels is not something I understand.
In all seriousness... Sunday, April 1 7:00 PM EDT (Galavision) Colorado vs Chicago - Chris PENSO / Chris STRICKLAND / Mike ROTTERSMAN / Yader REYES Chivas USA vs Kansas City - Edvin JURISEVIC / Anthony VASOLI / Frank ANDERSON / Allen CHAPMAN
For the Timbers handball, I think the referee definitely should have given the red. However, I like the game as he called it. The game does not need a red in this instance. This is where I wish the LOTG would allow a little leeway - I'm not sure how you would do it, but this seems like a prime example of a situation where a PK call is sufficient. On the Lenhart foul, I think it is important to see where the ref was standing for the call. He was in the right spot, middle of the field, just outside the box. From his view, the Seattle player took a definite step towards Lenhart, stuck out his leg and tripped him. It doesn't look so bad from the view we got on TV, but from the referee perspective, I'm sure it looks much more blatant. In the same vein, the missed advantage call early against Portland was the same type of situation where the angle of the referee made all the difference. From the AR's perspective, which we saw on one replay, it sure looked like RSL was closer to the ball and the play was completely broken up by the foul. So the AR raised his flag. Wrong call, but from his perspective, can't say that I blame him.
It seemed to be a simple "trip". Why pull plastic? Just because it's off the ball doesn't mean it was misconduct.
Regarding: "IMO, its a foul...which I'm NOT calling, but if I am, I'm pulling plastic as well. What possible justification could there be for this type of off the ball activity for it not to be considered misconduct as well?" Sorry, I'm new and don't know how to use this place yet.
It was simply a "trip". Why pull plastic? Just because it's off the ball doesn't mean that it demands plastic.
100% agree...if you blow the whistle there, it IS a send off...no way around it. In other words, the only way you're getting out of it is if you deem the hand ball inadvertent, and thus don't blow the whistle.
In watching it a few times, I agree he missed the original foul by Lenhart, which is what Burch was retaliating for. However, if he didn't see the first one, it doesn't mean that he shouldn't call the second one. If you're Burch, you're pretty dumb for retaliating in your own box. Kadlecik is in his 2nd season, and has done well from what I've seen. In this instance, he at least had the balls to make what I'm sure he knew would be an unpopular penalty.
Between these and a couple others announced, the MLS DC handed out a half dozen suspensions this weekend: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...ommittee-suspends-three-after-weekend-matches
This is great, aside from the inconsistency. For example, Benetiz and MacDonald deserved red, so their suspensions are fine. But what about Ihemelu? He had a deliberate and violent kick that went unpunished. Is the Disciplinary Committee looking at everything, or just picking and choosing? Regardless, the takeaway from this, for referees, appears to be "those all should have been red." That should mean that MLS refs feel backed/encouraged to give more reds. So in a few weeks, when we start seeing 10 reds/weekend... then what are fans and the league going to say? Should be very interesting.
Is it true that the committee is telling refs these were reds, or is this a novel resolution of the 'orange card' type of foul? Given that a lot of the criticism last year stemmed from refs sending off players and 'ruining' games, this seems like a compromise and I could see the league preferring this resolution, in which case they may be instructing refs to not red card borderline plays. I have no idea, just a guess - I'm sure the technical aspects of this policy have been discussed on the board, but I don't recall reading them. It would seem that if the committee felt a player had escaped a clear red by ref error, a 2-game suspension would be a more fitting punishment.
Wednesday, April 4 9:00 PM EDT (MLS Live/Direct Kick) Real Salt Lake vs Montreal - Ricardo SALAZAR / Peter MANIKOWSKI / Jeff MUSCHIK / Allen CHAPMAN
Thursday, April 5 8:30 PM EDT (MLS Live/Direct Kick) Dallas vs New England - Juan GUZMAN / Ian ANDERSON / Adam GARNER / Baldomero TOLEDO