I think they had to resume one the following morning due to weather a few years back but don't recall one replayed, although the incident in Dallas a decade or so ago would have been a good candidate (ref failed to send off a player with 2 cautions).
Many, many moons ago I was AR for one of the best referees I ever worked with. It was a youth match, probably U15 or U16 boys game. There was a shot and a bang-bang play on the goal line where it was stopped by the defense and the attackers got the rebound and scored. Unfortunately the referee blew the whistle because he thought the first shot had gone over the line and he was signalling for the goal. I had to tell him he blew the whistle before the actual goal on the rebound. He was not a happy camper...mad at himself for blowing the whistle. But we had to disallow the ensuing goal and restart with the dropped ball. The team that scored was not happy of course, but there was no option. He was still very upset about it after the match. Of course that was a little different than a professional match. I would guess MLS will sweep this under the rug as is their way.
So how do you think Kadlecik explain his decision to not dissallow the goal to his "bosses"?: 1) "I didn't think my whistle was heard by the players or had an impact, so I stuck with the goal". 2) He tells a white lie and says "I blew my whistle to signal the goal" (even though it's clear he points to the corner flag and the whistle comes well before the goal). 3) I can't think of any other explanation he could possibly give.
Is anyone willing to argue that the PK was actually a fair challenge, shoulder to shoulder? It didn't really look like a push, but I'll g rant the ball was not within playing distance. Still...
Well there's fair charging and foul charging. What he did I believe is a foul, and yeah it's hard to call because it's in the area but I'd agree it's a foul. MLS and Americans in general are used to a more physical game though, in the NCAA this probably wouldn't be called. In my opinion that hurts the game.
To me the key was that the defender didn't even make a token effort to play the ball, his only thought was to shoulder Thompson out of his line.
No comment about Marshall's 2nd yellow? I thought that was a bad call, too. Watching the match on MLS live, I thought I heard a whistle, then came here to confirm. This story will be interesting to follow, I'll tell ya that.
Marshall is leading with his elbow/forearm, and puts it into the side of the guy's head with moderate force. No, that's a pretty clear cut yellow. The only thing that surprised me about that call was the advantage. If someone is walking, I'm probably not playing advantage unless there is a breakaway. That being said, it was a second yellow, not SFP or VC, and the attacking opportunity was decent. In a controlled professional environment it make sense, but I wouldn't risk it on a local men's match.
Thanks for pointing that out. Watching the replay I was looking at the feet and missed the elbow. without it I thought it was a case where a yellow might not have been necessary but also not uncalled for. With the elbow its pretty much a yellow.
Too early, plus today is a holiday. If they say anything, which I personally doubt, I expect it tomorrow or later this week.
Regarding the third Colorado goal, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention the magic fix-all for such things -- the spirit of the game. Goals are very hard to score, you shouldn't disallow one by mistake. Also if the Colorado player had headed the ball out instead of scoring would anyone have been calling for a drop ball or even going with the original (incorrect) corner, I'm guessing that the answer is no and it would have been a goal kick. The fact that it changed a draw to a win for a sometimes unpopular team shouldn't be in the decision. Overall the CR in this match was observably too harsh at times and too lenient at others to me that is worse than the mistake of blowing too early for the corner, if you can't be good at least be consistent.
Well in his defense... the corner is in the direction of the goal . I also like what Dom said above... there is a "spirit of the game" argument to be made here, but its awfully weak. Thompson's foul that drew the PK was deserved. As Jason said, the defender that initiated the contact didn't even attempt to make a play on the ball.
The "Spirit of the Game" goes out the window when you realize that you blowing the whistle has stopped the defense from defending and likely caused the goal. The Spirit of the Game argument would be stronger if the ball was on its way in with no one around and the whistle was accidentally blown. When the whistle effects play though, nah you gotta bring it back.
The Spirit of the Game never goes out the window. If the whistle has stopped the defense from defending, and likely caused the goal, the Spirit of the Game would required that the goal not be awarded. When the whistle affects play, the Spirit of the Game would required that the goal not be awarded. By the standards you have described here, the goal should stand.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post. I'm saying the goal shouldn't stand because the whistle affected play by signaling to the defense to stop. At least that's what I was trying to say. Usually the Spirit of the Game is the end all be all, not here.
to me at least, it looks like Sutton paused for a split sec before trying to scramble to the front of the net.
