McDonald's challenge in 39th minute. No call from referee but it looked little nasty, did anyone see it as a foul, possible booking?
Might be wrong, but I watched it live and I don't think that still photo does the incident any sort of justice (as still photos typically don't). The DC player looked like he just totally slipped (you can sort of see his right ankle bending awkwardly in the photo), and it caused him to misplay the ball and his foot went over it. The Colorado player had time to prepare and avoid most--if not all--contact. Colorado player didn't go down, but did seem to halfheartedly appeal for a foul. That's the way I remember it, at least. There was no injury and no subsequent complaints. And they never showed a replay because of that. If you're suggesting this was a yellow or even a red card offence, I think you need to say why and also likely need to show video. Starting a public thread about this based on one photo seems grossly unfair to Foerster, who had a great match from everything I witnessed. EDIT: you updated with additional frames while I was typing, which helps some--but I still think it makes it look worse than it actually was... really feel video is necessary here.
I am not suggesting anything, I am simply interested in other's opinion. The reason I brought this up is that DC will be looking at this situation, that's all. I do agree that Foerster had a great debut and I was very happy for him. He may the the most talented rookie whistle as of yet this season.
I'm a die-hard Rapids fan, and I don't see a lot there. There have certainly been worse challenges that have gone unpunished. The pictures are also slightly misleading because they make it seem (to me, anyway) that McDonald is coming in with speed from right to left, but he had actually been backing up, then stopped and made this tackle. He has no speed coming into this tackle, so there's not a whole lot of force in it. I'm a bit surprised to hear that the DisCo might be reviewing this, but considering McDonald was already suspended once for a rash challenge, maybe his tackles are facing a higher level of scrutiny.
It is reliable, however I would like to not to disclose the source. I also agree that the still shot does not do a justice to this situation. I find it interesting that DC will talk about it, that's why I posted this. I think you could raise the argument for a simple call - dengerous play, IFK. It is possible that McDonald's reputation comes to play with this.
Those stills make it look like he's about to commit a vicious over-the-top tackle. Can anyone share a (legal) link? Edit: spelling.
Although the video isn't 100% clear, I'd say it's just a foul if anything at all. Don't see any reason for a card here and certainly no reason for the DC to review it.
Going over the top of the ball...cleats up into a players leg is a red card in EPL games. Just a foul in the MLS?
You genuinely believe that tackle is a red card in the EPL? I'd disagree strongly. This goes back to the box-check refereeing I've talked about. Yes, he went over the ball. Yes, there was a straight leg. Yes, his studs were exposed. We are taught that all those things can be a sign of a red card. But did he really endanger the safety of his opponent? Was there excessive force? You can have some of the warning signs present yet still not come close to the threshold for SFP. I really think that's what occurred here. Looking at this and seeing a red card is, in my opinion, missing the forest for the trees.
That I don't know, but I find it interesting that what most of the referees here (including myself) see as "nothing" or a "simple foul" is a reckless challenge in the eyes of DC. Question is: do we caution the player on such challenge during our games now?
Considering you're the only person that's heard this officially? Probably not. Look, it's obvious you've got a well-placed source or two, which will often be helpful here in getting referee-related news ahead of time. But at the same time, collectively as referees we can't rely on behind-the-scenes pronouncements or discussions to facilitate the way we officiate. Moreover, it's been publicly established that 4 out of 5 of the DC members aren't referees, therefore not trained in the Laws. So, A) it shouldn't be too interesting that their interpretation differs as it really only means one top referee disagrees if they are indeed unanimous and B) that reinforces the fact that--even if or though your information is good--the DC is not a source for referee instruction.
Agreed to certain extend with you. Their opinion should not change the way we ref. However I would like to think that we should consider their opinion. If pro players, coach and a referee are certain it was a reckless tackle, shouldn't we officials at least think about that? After all we referre games for the players and theis fans. If they see it a a dengerous tackle then maybe it is something to consider? I thought that idea of DC being placed was so both players and referees can learn something.
I think the idea of the DC is to form the game into the product that MLS wants to present to the public. Given that about .01% of referees in the federation will ever officiate in that competition, I don't think it's the standard that should be held out insofar as referee instruction. Also, I certainly consider their opinion. But I don't think it's right--nor 100% wrong, either. I think there are cases to be made for going yellow on very similar tackles. And certainly cases to be made to go red on tackles that look like this but with significant more force. The point I'd make is that re-refereeing the match and trying to pin down every single incident as "oh that should have been yellow" is not helpful*. In this game, no card worked (again, I might fault Foerster for not calling the foul, but that's the only fault I'd put on him here). A card in this match, for that tackle, would have been way out of place. *I'd note further that--apparently--the DC isn't seeing fit to make its opinion public and would seemingly agree that giving out their opinion when not issuing discipline is not helpful. So I think that makes the whole discussion moot as to how we should view their opinion.
