No, there was even shoulder arm play and then the attacker dipped his inside shoulder and extended his forearm into the defender to create separation and the defender hooked the attackers arm as he was losing his balance and took the DC player down. The legs have very little if anything to do with it. The attacker was already on his way down before any scissoring action took place (look at the last two photos and then the video).
Notice how Salazar didn't make any post match comments about the scissoring of the legs.....because that wasn't the issue.
Exactly. <sprinkles powdered sugar> At that point there was no goal scoring opportunity of any kind.</sugar>
In the screen shots I posted to me it looks like Hainault's arm goes in front of Augusto's chest first (pic 1 and 2) then Augusto's arm comes under into Hainault's chest which knocks him off balance. The last step from Hainault appears t obe an attempt to kick the ball away and then the legs are entangles. I don't think Hainault was trying to scissor and probably wasn't trying to kick the ball, he was falling at full speed with both players legs entangled. It could well be that Hainault made no contact first although it appears to me he did. From the referee's view (from behind play) it looks far more like shoulder to shoulder simultaneous contact. He did not have the view from the goal and did not have the ability to then freeze each frame to evaluate it. Even with the freeze frames we can't agree.
^^^^^ I agree with your assesment, and your interpretation of the facts. Nonetheless, not every bit of contact constitutes a foul. Our inquiry isn't as to who made first contact (IMO Hainault) but rather who committed the first foul. My suggestion is that the DC attacker committed the first foul by pushing off. I can accept, however, that people may not agree with this assesment. What I can't accept is when people make things up entirely, like suggesting that Hainaults arm was draped over the DC attackers shoulder.
I agree with Andy here 100% no call or red card and nothing in between. i can see why/how Salazar thought it was just a coming together and in real time I thought so too. It's a big call and Salazar knew that if he blows the foul there he has to send him off. Make no mistake that weighed in on his decision making. The guy wasn't sure and he just took the path of least resistance. Can you imagine if he called the foul and he didn't send him off? This board might have shut down. I have no idea why Walton commented on that an at half-time as well.
I'm guessing that as Peter was at the stadium and people would've know this, someone put him on the spot and stuck a microphone in his face and then paraphrased his response. Kyle Martino said that Peter said..... It wasn't Peter giving an explanation himself.
As to the foul that's why I presented it as I did - just what I saw with no comment on foul. So many are saying one contacted or didn't or the other pushed and pulled and scissored or what ever they happen to see. Not only have I never refereed anywhere near this level, I never will (as someone mentioned in the hate the board thread being a grade 8 etc etc) and I wasn't there. The games I referee that would be a foul for the attacker but not sure on the DOGSO - older ages I hope I would recognize such and red card, younger there is a harder time justifying a send off when the attacker may trip over the ball on his next touch although O pportunity is just that, not a certainty of a score but an O bvious O pportunity. Definitely an area I need improvement on as older levels are better at simulation and younger levels go down with less contact. I have no concept of dealing with this level of sophistication and judging what the players want and expect. Watching professionals I am constantly calling FOUL, or That's got to be a card - with no whistle and everyone getting up and playing with no comment or obvious complaint. As I tell our parents and other referee bashers, it is WAY different out there than it is on the sidelines.
Looking at the angle from behind the goal, to me, it's pretty clear that both players put their arms on each other at pretty close to the exact same time. The difference is, Hainault clamps his hands around the attacker's extended arm and pulls him down. And then he sweeps his leg for good measure. There's no doubt in my mind that that's a foul and a DFK to DC United. I think the reason Salazar called nothing was because he wasn't behind the goal, and wasn't able to see what was going on with the arms. He was behind the players, looking at their backs. And from that angle, it probably looked like two guys going shoulder-to-shoulder, followed by an inadvertant tangle of legs. I think it's absolutely a foul on Hainault, but I don't think there's any way Salazar could have known that. As for the question of which card... that's red seven days a week, and twice on sunday. The only way that LB has any kind of a chance to break up the attack is if the forward dribbles around the keeper and tries to go all the way to the six-yard-box before shooting. It's extremely unlikely that he's getting involved. Red card: DOGSO. As for the guy from PRO saying it's yellow because there's a defender back there... people here are saying it's rubbish, or crazy, or whatever. While I'm absolutely convinced that it's red, I can't go THAT far to say it's outrageously wrong. While I certainly think that other defender is too far away from the play, I can actually see why someone might think he MIGHT have a shot to get back in there, even though I strongly disagree.
I have no problem with this type of reasoning, although I think the leg sweep is more a function of Hainault losing his balance and falling akwardly. If you don't think the DC attacker initially pushed off, that's OK too. What I can't for the life of me see is where Hainault drapes his arm around Augustos shoulder. I agree with this also...100% I'm with you on this as well. I can't really justify a yellow. Even if the outside backs were a step or two closer to the goal line than Augusto, they're far too wide to have made any difference.
I'm glad you posted the FACTS exactly as they occurred, not as you (or someone else) wanted them to have occurred. As for the last sentence of your last paragraph, AMEN. The overwhelming majority of people have absolutely no idea how different it is on the field, when you're the guy with the whistle and YOU'RE the guy that has to make real time decisions, especially at the pro level/pace.
Yeah, I held my breath for a minute on that one. I do think that Parke had a legitimate chance of coming into the play given that he's very fast for a center back and the play was so wide and Donovan would be coming toward the center as well as Parke coming out to him. That said, I could see that being DOGSO. I know I wasn't sure what color Maruffo was going to pull when he came running over...
It's a little odd to see DOGSO when he's coming from the top corner of the penalty area, but we only have to go back to Slovenia in the 2010 World Cup to find a memorable example of Donovan scoring from a far worse angle. And, I don't know if Donovan was "expecting" to see a red card, but I definitely thought he was looking for it. It's tough on the ref to be put in this situation in the first 15 minutes of a playoff game, but I'm finding it difficult to justify as a yellow when you really break it down. Here is the video of the foul on Donovan, with the play showing at 13:48-13:51 on the game clock (around 1:14 on the video): Fair play to hold your breath tog. I thought this sitting at the game at the time, and even more so looking at it now -- this is DOGSO. As the 1st image shows, the defender who committed the foul was the last defender. The central defender was nowhere to be seen in the subsequent screenshots, and by virtue of his not being in image 2, it actually looks like he is even further behind the play by that time. In any event, by the time we get to the foul at image 4, even if he's a fast central defender (or a fast Olympic sprinter for that matter ), he's still nowhere to be seen and I'm not buying that he's got any chance of cutting off Landon Donovan, who has turned the corner and is heading directly at goal at full speed. 1 2 3 4 5 If the defender makes the foul at image 1 or 2, you've got a direction argument, but by image 3 Donovan has made the cut to head to goal and direction is satisfied. Looking at images 4 and 5 when the foul actually occurs, and considering the distance to the goal and the absence of anyone else yet in the photo (and the distance they would need to cover to get involved in the play), there is a very strong case here for DOGSO. We don't get an explanation, but I'd be curious to know if he justified the yellow rather than red on the angle or on the central defender (or something else).
For Landon Donovan, I think you can easily argue that this is a goal scoring opportunity, particularly in MLS where he is up to 2 or 3 steps faster than most MLS defenders. It's not an easy decision though and while the TV view shows a vast empty space to the left, on the field, the referee probably sees the angles differently.
Another one of those "at this level" - didn't seem anyone was overly excited that it was immediately yellow, Donovan kinda had the smile like "really? only yellow?" or could have been just the reaction to a tactical foul (which is what I guess the card was for). The other side of at this level, it was a good opportunity for Donovan who is fast and highly skilled and sniffing a goal kicks it into yet a higher gear. Wow, so much to consider in a very few seconds especially in a fish bowl knowing in the back of your mind there are multiple angles in super slow motion being shown all over the nation immediately (with dubious commentary as well).
Philosophical question: Is the question supposed to be "for Landon Donovan" or "for an MLS player"? Which is the same question many of us face in a less public way "for #10 blue" or "for the level of player's in today's game"? (I've always thought of it as "a player at this level," rather than "this particular player" -- but I can see arguments both ways.) And perhaps the follow up is, is the answer (i.e., level vs. individual) the same for MLS (or any professional league or international) as it is for grass roots level games?
It's an interesting question, but since a referee should have more experience and the players a larger body of work on which to judge, I think you can judge the player individually rather than on a curve. There are similarly fast players in MLS, Antoine Hoppenot from Philly may be the fastest MLS player I've seen, but from that position I think a scoring chance for him is, at best, 50/50 because his touch isn't great. Donovan, on the other hand, will almost certainly create a chance. You can probably start to develop this sort of knowledge of players in amateur leagues as well. The more you work with and see players, the more familiar you are with the way they play and what they can and cannot do.
true on what the referee is seeing here, and with the play developing quickly from a long pass, he had a lot of ground to cover as fast as he could while trying to process it all. on the other hand, the AR is right there, with very good position to determine last defender and as a clear a view as one can hope on direction.
For those of you who keep insisting it shouldn't have been a red card: after viewing the film, Peter Walton clarifies earlier comments, says it should have been a red card after all.