I agree. They weren't completely outclassed. Any one of those situations on there own and it goes here or there. But chicago had a few of those together in the first half. A couple inches here or there and RSL goes into the lockeroom at halftime down a goal or two. I'd still like to see them be able to better shut down opponents when it counts. That is, keep them from getting SOGs and those crazy goal mouth scrambles.
It would help if our defenders would clear the damn ball. All too often they barely clear it out of the box, right to the opponent, and another shot gets taken. Pope seems to be the only guy who can clear properly on a consistent basis.
And a quick note to defenders... It's ok to concede a corner rather than clearing it up the middle.... Our defenders are great on set plays, and poor in open play...
On the same note, we only missed a couple of goals by a couple of inches too. It's not like they were the only ones barely missing.
You read my mind. The have been countless times when I've thought "just clear it for a corner", Nope.... right up the middle to another attacking player.
oh sure when an outsider comes up with it it's a great idea, but when i try to start one i get shutdown
Do you guys think Kreis and Mathis were effective as wingers against the Fire? Have they ever played this position before?
I don't know if they've ever been wingers, but I do think there was a positive difference. I think it was more intimidation then anything. The opponents were probably asking themselves the same question.
First of all, Jamie wasn't in the box for 15 seconds, and secondly, the foul is called when it is initiated, not on the follow through. The foul was initially committed about two feet outside of the box when Jamie's shirt was grabbed. As I said before, Jamie played very well and is a very dangerous player but this was not a pk situation. Sorry, aosthed.
No, Frankie's first was on a PK. I am not sure if there were any goals on corners on RSL. Every where else though.
Well luckily the ref agrees with you, did you go to the same AYSO ref school? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. When one foul begins and another starts or if it is continuous is irrelevant. You assume that the ref saw the foul as a continuous foul and allowed it to carry into the box - that he even saw it. If the player is lucky enough to get away with something as they are entering the box and then CONTINUES to do it IN the box - it is a PK. Sure, assuming the ref saw it oustide the box he could have called it outside the box, but the defender maintains the grip/tugging while inside the box. Holding a jersey is a foul and doing it in the box is a PK situation. The ONLY reason this does not get called is either: A) The ref did not see it (most likely) as it was fairly close to the body and shielded, OR B) the ref allows defenders to tug jersies despite the rules.
I agree with this. The ref should have waited to see if advantage was developed after the initial jersey grab (some 30 -35 yards from goal). After advantage was not clearly gained, he should have whistled the first foul (again 30 or so yards from goal). The problem was that the foul did occur for so long, it made the referree look bad. If he whistles the freekick as I suggested, the fire team are saying "that is the latest call I have ever seen ref, what are you doing". If he doesn't make a call, then it appears he is simply ok with that kind of play, which I am sure he isn't. What he didn't expect was that he wouldn't be sure about advantage being established by the time Jaime made it into the box. But that is how it played out. Then though, if he awards the PK, everyone is wondering why he didn't call it before since it was the same foul. It really was a strange sequence of events.
This happens all the time in MLS. Watch closely next game and you'll see it happen atleast 2-3 times. The difference this time is that it happened on an isolation against a player with the ball in the box.
Thanks--you explained it much better than I did. The referee did put himself in a very difficult position by not making the call earlier but, like you said, I think he was waiting to see if Jamie could maintain the advantage.
Yeah, I know... but to see it so blatant on a forward in the box and for as long as he did - it just seemed offly brazen by the defender.
I don't know if there is the concept of a "continuation" foul in soccer - as it is called where it is committed (2-3 years outside the box initially). However, in this case it is STILL being committed in the box. It is not the same as a trip that occurs outside but the player stumbles and falls inside the box. The point is by calling NOTHING the ref robs the team of an opportunity. Most importantly, as another example if a defender impeded the forward (a foul) outside the box and the ref plays the "advantage" for the forward and then the defender impeds him again IN the box the ref could continue to play the "advantage" or call the foul. The foul isn't necessarily having a hold of the jersey - it's tuggin/impeding the player by holding the jersey. The foul is being committed continuously. Ray Hudson (and myself) believed that this constituted a PK and I personally think the only reason it didn't get called is because the ref didn't see how blatant it was - OR he's an idiot who's choosing to influence the game unfairly by his "non-call".
Well, since Cutler got carded for grabbing a jersey, the ref obviously thinks it is a foul. At least when it happens to a Fire player anyway.
Of course it's still a foul it's just not one that gets called regularly. I remember a few home games ago when Trembly had his shirt almost completely ripped off. It's kinda hard for a ref to defend a no-call when you're wearing a v-neck.
