Why do you think referees say things like this? I just don't see why. There are ways to defend Salazar, the ONE THING I'm saying you CAN'T do is call a foul on Hainault and say the RB would have covered. That's just completely ludicrous. To bring it to another subject, there's political spin that brings your side's perspective to the discussion. It might by 50% spin or even 90% spin, but it's based in reality. When political spin is completely divorced from reality, you just undermine yourself as a surrogate/spokesman and your candidate, because everyone listening knows you're lying, you know you're lying, and they know you know you're lying. Baghdad Bob is a meme for a reason. That's how I see this argument by Walton. To me, as a fan, I see this and think he's bad at his job. So what is the point of having him talk about this if he's going to say something like this? It's not like when Logan moved Valderrama from Miami to TB because Valderrama was sitting on the bench in Miami, I don't want to be equally ludicrous. But to me, it's just bad bad bad for the league for Walton to say this. Here's my question...is he REQUIRED to say something? That being the case, maybe he's in a position where he HAS to say something and he's not allowed to tell the truth. In which case it's his boss's fault for putting him in that situation. If Walton is not allowed to call out his referee publicly, then he should be allowed to issue a "no comment." As to AEK's and NC Soccer's point...I do NOT subscribe to the notion that the league is out to get DC or anything. Why would they care? But from a DC fan's perspective...in midseason the tiebreaker formula was announced and it had been changed and the change favored NYRB. The the league moved the first leg and transferred the home field advantage from DC, which had earned it, to NYRB. There were some dicey calls in the first leg. I, personally, thought the only bad call was the lack of a backpass against NYRB late, and I thought it was an obvious call. I thought it was just one of those random things where all the 55-45 calls were 55% for one team; it happens. You with me so far? Once a person, as a fan, starts seeing things that are likely random, it starts to look like a pattern, so as a fan, you start to look for the pattern. Then came the 2nd leg when DC wanted to play because they're a gritty team suited to slogging it out in mud, but NYRB seemingly had completely inadequate snow removal capability and the league ended up postponing the match. Alot of DC fans seriously question the 2nd and 3rd games of Najar's suspension, given that it's the playoffs. My point is this...I think it would be better if the referees here understood WHY DC fans feel like they do. If you don't wish to engage the more overheated DC fans, that's probably a better option then starting a flame war. As for NC soccer United, when you try to argue that the covering defender negates DOGSO you're insulting the intelligence of everyone here. We saw the play. You're coming across as just as much of a blind "3rd team" partisan as any DC fan who has posted here. I like this forum because the level of discussion is so high. In general, fevered partisans of whatever team got the short end of the stick are allowed to vent, and then y'all move on to discuss the call in question. I don't think it's helpful when some of you act like fevered partisans of the 3rd team.
The more I think about it, the more I think Walton is doing a huge disservice to MLS referees. Because the next time a similar play like this happens and the referee goes red... what are fans of the aggrieved team going to do? They're going to point to Walton's comments here. And it really was unnecessary for him to say anything about the DOGSO implications, because Salazar's judgment was that it just wasn't a foul. If Walton needed to say something, he could have easily said, "Yes, it could have easily been a red card if it was whistled as a foul. But, in the referee's opinion, it was not a foul."
I don't think he's required to say anything, and I think, by and large, he's going to speak in support of his referees publically, and have words privately. That, of course, doesn't benefit the aggrieved team, and I suspect if the ref were any good he wouldn't let it colour his decision-making with that team in the future. But that still means I get to say I hate him as a ref. As for AEK and NC, I've just taken to ignoring them, because even with points on which we might agree in principle, they do so in such a way that's antithetical to discussion, which is my whole point for coming over here. I wish the forum would better address overall game management performance by a ref, rather than nit-picking a single call on which a technical violation could be argued nearly every time, but hey. Refs don't have the benefit of instant replay like we do, which is why I like trying to understand the official's perspective over the whole of the game. In this case, I think DC was disproportionately affected given the later call against McDonald when Salazar awarded a free kick off of which Houston scored, when the contact was initiated by the attacker. I don't understand how he could award something like that, yet wave off the potential DOGSO, which was far more evident and egregious.
I'll spell it out for you once, just in case you really don't get the point, but I'm not going further down this path. I said you and aek chicago had been on a crusade "of late" about fans coming into the forum. You responded by saying I should get off my high horse because the only thing you talked about in this thread was the 4 Ds. I responded by showing you your post from Friday. Friday is "of late." You made a post--unprompted, in fact--about the very topic.
I'm not so sure about that. I think you can argue no red there and give the foul. Walton himself said so. It's interesting to me, we see Geiger make three pretty huge calls, correctly mind you, and it produces sensational drama. We see Salazar shy away from the big decision and the game suffers. There's huge risk and reward to both approaches so it is interesting to see how it plays out when the match does/does not cooperate. I don't think calling it and not showing red would be very wise, but I think he at least had to call a foul.
I was wondering why he was talking with Arlo and Kyle at all, but either way, the soundbite that needed to be heard was, "What it comes down to is that in the opinion of the referee, there was no infraction." Salazar didn't think it was a foul or his brain didn't get the message to his whistle in time, or whatever. One way or another, Salazar's opinion is the only one that matters (even if it's wrong).
In general, I might agree with this. But do you really think the foul on Donovan was supposed to be red? Or that Geiger would have given it as red? I totally understand the point MrRC is making. I am just far from convinced that it applies in this situation.
That's fair, but I do think Geiger would have been more inclined to show a red just based on what I have seen from him, particularly over the last couple of years. It does not appear to me that Geiger is afraid to make an unpopular decision in a big game. He might get the decision wrong, but he is not afraid to make it and live with the consequence. It is probably more a style or personalty thing and it may not apply directly to Marufo, but I think many referees think about consequences before making a decision.
Oh stop yourself, will you? I'm not on a crusade to do anything but point out when people post FACTUALLY INACCURATE garbage, in most part fueled by their partisan bias. Look at the video yourself...do you see Hainault wrapping his arm over the DC United attackers shoulder? This is a REF forum. As refs its our DUTY to be UNBIASED. that's the way we have to view, and analyze, the game.
I think that the foul should have been red. I also think that the best angle to see it is from behind the goal. Salazar was in good position, but that was an unusual play. I mean, one player sliced the ball unexpectedly through a group of defenders, and ran through himself. That mean Salazar suddenly was trailing the play directly. He got close, but he just couldn't have been wide enough to see the grab. From the back it looked like shoulder to shoulder contact, and everyone went down in a heap...no foul. I do think it was red, but don't fault Salazar for missing it. Also, the score/time probably factored in as well. The foul was against the leading team, and a no call gets you in to half time, everyone happy. Just as long as that defender doesn't score a second half goal...
Look, you can say a lot of things about Ricardo Salazar, but him being afraid to make a tough, controversial, unpopular call is not one of them. This guy has a body of work in the MLS, its not like he just fell off of a banana boat. Granted, I believe he blew this call, not because he was scared, but rather because he was out of position and didn't see it. Look at the video. He's behind the players with a crappy angle. If he would have shown a bit more of a sense of urgency in getting an appropriate angle (either cutting in or getting wider), I believe he would have seen the pulling and pushing and called something.
You are making the assumption that Ricardo saw a foul and chose not to call it. He has stated that he saw no foul in this incident.
The fact that he missed it tells you he WASN'T in a good position...at least angle wise. From behind the goal its crystal clear...from where Salazar is it looks like nothing, or trifling conduct at best. When I saw it in real time, from the camera trailing the play, I thought it was a dogso red. Only when I saw the angle from behind the goal did I think it could have been a foul going out. If Salazar gets on his horse a little more and either gets wider or cuts inside, I believe he could have seen it. Look at how rather nonchalant he is in running behind a play that basically involves a breakaway.
I'm aware of his body of work, it's just an interesting contrast between two games close together involving decisions that changed games. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Salazar was also just burned by controversy in the Portland game recently. I don't think he did anything wrong there, but getting crapped on affects people sometimes. I also agree he had a bad angle. Whether it's because he was unlucky or poorly positioned depends on perspective.
Agreed 100%. Neither do I. I just don't like when people post factually inaccurate garbage, in all likelihood fueled by their club bias. We can debate our opinions all we want, but facts are facts.
Not a supporter of either club, but from what I see Hainault made first contact, followed by Augusto raising his arm and Hainault seemed to be knocked off balance and wrapped up Augusto's arm.
Salazar replies: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/11/12/referee-salazar-gives-his-take-disputed-play-hou-dc
So please, SOMEBODY help me out here...where oh where does anyone see Hainaults arm draped over Augusto's "shoulder"? Where? In fact, you see the Augusto shove/extended arm, you see Hainault subsequently trappping Augusto's arm and bringing him down, and you see that Augusto was already on the way down before any "scissoring" action was taking place (especially the last photo). In fact, these still shots basically confirm EXACTLY the way I described the incident.
From the video and the screenshots, I see pretty even shoulder and arm play as a result of which the defender gets beat, so he takes out the legs of the attacker. At that point the man getting paid the big money gets to decide - simple foul, caution, or DOGSO.