Greg Lalas: "RSL probably didn't even deserve a draw". What game did he watch? IMO a draw would have been the 'most fair' result, but after we've lost points to teams we've outplayed, no regrets.
Lalas only watched the highlight package the way they made that thing makes it seem like RSL was on their heels the whole game and just finished the 3 chances that came their way
Furthermore, we don't know what mic they are using, nor where it was pointed. The camera and mic aren't necessarily in the same spot. I'd only believe Perkins said that if I also saw his mouth moving in sync to the words or a more specific phrase. I just started a thread in the refs forum asking about the handball incident.
seriously, there is no other explanation for that comment. did he not even look at the boxscore? RSL outshot and dominated possession. than again, this is greg lalas we're talking about here. he's barely an asshair better than simon borg.
the following quote reflects my feelings, and what I believe should be the feelings of refs, incredibly well in regards to this "triple whammy" avoidance:
Watch "The Daily" to see Lalas at his objective best. He's a big-city honk as it is, being chief editor and all. I don't take offense either - it is what it is. I doubt he can watch every minute of every match - he's probably just throwing the Portland fans a bone or something, or maybe he simply tuned in for parts of the 2nd half where RSL WAS getting overrun (early 2nd half).
I was there at the game and it was amazing. Portland's supporters group, The TA, is amazing, but I can see the North and South ends at the Riot there some time. The other parts of the stadium were normal fans that you would see at any given MLS game. It was great to see. The fans were very kind to us as well for the most part. It was one of the best games any RSL fan could have wanted to go to. Amazing to watch! Woo!
I like this one better: "Agree with the call. Handling and PK. As far as DOGSO goes under current USSF instruction I don't think we in the US are supposed to give a red here regardless of any of the 4 D's or any other criteria you want to consider. Currently we are told that DOGSO-H is only given if the ball would have gone into the goal if not for the handling. See Ask a Referee Feb. 2011 I think. While I personally don't agree and could see this as DOGSO I still am with not giving a red based on current instruction. I think a yellow for tactical is appropriate." In my opinion Grabs was not going to score, so the "scoring opportunity" argument doesn't really apply. Some folks in the referee thread feel that the MLS data is wrong and that the yellow WAS indeed given to the player who committed the foul. For now, that's what my opinion is, since this scenario makes the most sense.
Umm... Ned was going to score... Anyways, here are some happy guys in Portland. I guess they don't want their wood.
The ball would have ended up in the back of the net if not for the handball. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if Ned was going to take one more touch to put it there. The ball was dropping to his stronger foot in perfect position. The handball stopped it. It shouldn't be any different than if the player grabbed Ned's jersey and prevented him from shooting.
ding ding ding, we have a winner. what if ned had been fouled by the player instead of a hand ball. Would that have changed the situation? Explain to me how that is different than the guy swatting the ball out of the air with this hand.
Sorry, that is not how USSF instructs referees. The handling has to prevent the ball going into the net, not stop a player from shooting. I don't like it, but that's how it is.
It is different because they are different offenses. If he would have fouled Grabavoy then it would have been a red card for DG-F. But DG-F does not apply to handling and DG-H has different criteria, leading to a different result. Referees are expected to know the difference and make the call accordingly. (Whether or not the instructions given to US referees regardig DG-H are optimal is an entirely different question.)
hold up, let me get this straight. If a handling offense prevents a player from an obvious scoring opportunity, it's not a red? So the next time a through ball is being played to an attacker that is alone on goal, Olave or Borchers should just pull a Randy Moss and snag the thing out of the air? How the hell is this any different from fouling the guy? There has to be some sort of justification.
Is it just me, or does Brunner look excitedly interested about the wood. Only to have Nagbe snap and smack Brunner in the face with it. Spouting off something about how the wood means nothing because of Brunner's lack of defense.
Nagbe and Brunner are just reading the nice note Beckerman left on the back of it: "Here's your pity - KB5"
That is correct and I truly do not know what the justification is. When they first introduced DG-F & DG-H I thought they were different because DG-H has an exception for a 'keeper in his own area and DG-F does not, but apparently the USSF has another justification. I do not advocate swatting away a ball like you said. It is still a PK and it should also be a caution, and it is still a particularly egregious form of cheating.
You guys saw NotJasonKreis's tweet about Timber Joey right? I'm hesitant to quote it, but it's very good (follow ze link) https://twitter.com/#!/NotJasonKreis
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umtuSRRgzEE&context=C47c4b68ADvjVQa1PpcFMvdXao686M0C1BIs-Al1zKxGJ4q8cGrnY="]Fan Mayem - Real Salt Lake Away Fans Freak-Out in Portland ? by Maverik - YouTube[/ame]
yeah, somehow Grabs isn't going to score that... let me tell ya\ nice work on the video. I think we need more white people to support our club
Thanks. Only regret missing the "YOU BOUGHT CHEAP SEATS" chant at whiny Timbers fans who had confetti in their beer. And not having any Timber Joey footage to put "DEFORESTATION!" in context. But Andy Williams just said it was awesome so I'm happy.