DCU v SJ

[stillgreyhound]

Just wanted to liven things up a bit.
Watched the game this weekend and I have to think that while Kevin Stott had a tough time on the field......it only got worse in the post game assessment.
Two obvious advantage situations that he stepped on with an early whistle that completely frustrated the playersand might have cost two goals. The DCU players really let him off light though. If I pulled that in a local U19 game I dont know if I would make it to my car.
He made a big show of waving our illustrious 14 year old up after Jeff Agoos stoned him....Kind of funny because he was so lenient the rest of the game.
In fact his game management and unwillingness to deal with reckless play added to the frustration and .........bingo two red cards for sfp. Too bad that all of those people who tuned into their first soccer game got to see such an average performance by both the reff and freddy.

[propes]

I quite enjoyed his performance. I think yes, there's a good arguement for the first "missed" advantage. However, if you watch the second one, Ernie Stewart pulled up just prior to the whistle - Stott had to decided then and there if there was an advantage - there was a delay before he blew that whistle.

I'm also encouraged by the pair of reds - maybe MLS is going to let our refs actually enforce the Laws this time around.

[stillgreyhound]

I quite enjoyed his performance. I think yes, there's a good arguement for the first "missed" advantage. However, if you watch the second one, Ernie Stewart pulled up just prior to the whistle - Stott had to decided then and there if there was an advantage - there was a delay before he blew that whistle.

I'm also encouraged by the pair of reds - maybe MLS is going to let our refs actually enforce the Laws this time around.
The best performance is one that noone notices. He clearly apoligized both times to the DCU players for his mistaken no-advantage calls and earlier cautions for increasingly rough play could have prevented the reds. Earnie Stewart didnt pull up........he is just getting old and that is as fast as he can still run. :)

[Craig P]

My lay opinion...

As I recall, ABC never replayed the plays where Stott didn't make an advantage call. I really wish there had been a replay, because both times I was left with the impression that at the moment he blew the whistle, it did not appear that the advantage was going to develop. Considering how roundly the decisions have been criticized, I suspect I was mistaken, but I didn't get a chance to review the plays.

I thought that the wrong San Jose player got ejected... Ian Russel's first-half challenge looked much more egregious to me than Waibel's, yet he wasn't even cautioned for it.

[MassachusettsRef]

and earlier cautions for increasingly rough play could have prevented the redsThis is one of the common complaints from MLS fans that irritates me the most. Waibel committed an atrocious two footed tackle with excessive force against an opponent who had already released the ball while Kovalenko violently elbowed his opponent in the head for apparently no reason. Do fans honestly think that yellow cards earlier in the match would have prevented this? Do they believe Waibel and Kovalenko would have said to themselves 'well, Stott's actually been showing cards today, I probably shouldn't do this'? Or, conversely, do they say 'wow, he's being really lenient, I think I'm going to go commit a red card offence and expect to get away with it'?

The reasoning here is beyond me. I understand that if a referee is not keeping control of a game than frustration can boil over. But that was not--and typically is not in MLS--the case here. Stott had allowed a physical game and had been calling the careless and reckless fouls. Nothing in the first half or earlier in the second half was that bad (save the Russell challenge, which I'll talk about in a minute). People say "maybe if he had thrown a few more yellows earlier...". But do they really believe that? If they do, then point to situations. Say exactly when Stott should have given a yellow earlier in the match (again, besides Russell, which I'll adresss) and he didn't. I guarantee that if Stott had been flourishing yellow cards earlier, the same people that are complaining now would be complaining about how Stott was 'drawing attention to himself' and 'ruining the game'. The fact is that this wasn't a dirty game littered with yellow card challenges. It was a tough and physical (and, might I add, enjoyable to watch) match that was going along nicely until Waibel and Kovalenko committed acts that are outside the bounds of any game. Waibel's tackle and Kovalenko's elbow cannot (and should not) be explained inside the context of this game or justified based on how Stott was calling the game. They were two unfortunate, isolated incidents that Stott dealt with harshly and correctly. For the sake of free-flowing and exciting soccer, the everyday MLS fan should only hope that the league's referees are going to follow the precedent set by Stott this year.

Anyway, for a more general assessment of Stott's performance:

I think the biggest mistake Stott made was on the Russell challenge. I think it--too--was a red card challenge, as bad as Waibel's. If you watch what happened in the immediate aftermath of the tackle, you can tell from Stott's body language and his reaction to the DC players' reactions that he probably didn't see the entire challenge (think about it...if Stott was willing to send of Waibel, do you think he left Russell in the game because he likes him better? the only explanation is that he didn't see it as clearly as he saw the Waibel tackle). I firmly believe that Stott was partially obstructed and could only tell that a foul had occurred--not how bad it actually was. I guarantee Stott is upset with himself for not sending off Russell; if anyone thinks he actually saw that tackle in its entirety and decided to leave Russell in the game, you are wrong. The responsibility here, though, in my opinion, lies with Michael Kennedy, the fourth official. He was right there. He saw the whole thing. It's his job--duty, even--to inform Stott that he didn't see it completely and that it was a terrible, terrible challenge, worthy of a red card. I think that, in the assessment, Kennedy and Stott will both hear it for the Russell tackle. Also, I predict that the first MLS conference call notes will say something about involvement of the fourth official when activity occurs in his immediate vicinity.

As for the 'advantage' calls. I think the first one was a small mistake by Stott. But Stewart did still have a man to beat and the free kick from 20 yards did end up directly on net, so it's almost a tossup to say which (the kick or Stewart with the ball at his feet) is truly the advantage. The second alleged 'non-advantage' call is, in my eyes, a figment of Wynalda's imagination. The whistle had gone WELL before Stewart was streaking down the right side. You could tell because the San Jose players had all stopped--it was only Stewart who hadn't heard the whistle. If the San Jose players had continued to play like Stewart had, there was no advantage to speak of. No one else noticed that Stewart dribbled by three San Jose players who were effectively acting as human pylons?

The Adu play in the box. In my eyes, this is a case of good for Stott and good for Adu as well. First, by being there and waving him up, Stott showed that he was no more than 5 yards away. Not only is he demonstrating his considerable fitness, he's showing that--despite what some in the fans may want to see--Stott was the closest person to the play other than Adu and Agoos and that he knew it was clean. It was really an impressive bit of refereeing. Also, the 'wave up'. This wasn't Stott 'showing up the 14 year old' as I'm sure some think it is. First, Stott always uses that motion when he turns away penalty, so, if anything, it was Stott treating Adu like everyone else. Also, call me crazy, but I think it's a good thing that the first time Adu went down in the box he didn't get a penalty. I'm not accusing Adu of diving (he didn't, he was fairly charged), but he did look up for the penalty after contact was made. If he quickly gets used to the fact that all contact in the box is not a penalty in MLS, it will curb any habits towards diving that Adu may have, or may think about developing.

Finally, the penalty--though not discussed here yet--was an appropriate decision. Rimando came off his line, made a calculated risk, got beat to the ball, and collided with the attacker. Whether or not the attacker could play the ball is irrelevant. Rimando commited a penalty. If he wanted to avoid the contact, he shouldn't have taken that risk.

[stillgreyhound]

This is one of the common complaints from MLS fans that irritates me the most. Waibel committed an atrocious two footed tackle with excessive force against an opponent who had already released the ball while Kovalenko violently elbowed his opponent in the head for apparently no reason. Do fans honestly think that yellow cards earlier in the match would have prevented this? Do they believe Waibel and Kovalenko would have said to themselves 'well, Stott's actually been showing cards today, I probably shouldn't do this'? Or, conversely, do they say 'wow, he's being really lenient, I think I'm going to go commit a red card offence and expect to get away with it'?

The reasoning here is beyond me. I understand that if a referee is not keeping control of a game than frustration can boil over. But that was not--and typically is not in MLS--the case here. Stott had allowed a physical game and had been calling the careless and reckless fouls. Nothing in the first half or earlier in the second half was that bad (save the Russell challenge, which I'll talk about in a minute). People say "maybe if he had thrown a few more yellows earlier...". But do they really believe that? If they do, then point to situations. Say exactly when Stott should have given a yellow earlier in the match (again, besides Russell, which I'll adresss) and he didn't. I guarantee that if Stott had been flourishing yellow cards earlier, the same people that are complaining now would be complaining about how Stott was 'drawing attention to himself' and 'ruining the game'. The fact is that this wasn't a dirty game littered with yellow card challenges. It was a tough and physical (and, might I add, enjoyable to watch) match that was going along nicely until Waibel and Kovalenko committed acts that are outside the bounds of any game. Waibel's tackle and Kovalenko's elbow cannot (and should not) be explained inside the context of this game or justified based on how Stott was calling the game. They were two unfortunate, isolated incidents that Stott dealt with harshly and correctly. For the sake of free-flowing and exciting soccer, the everyday MLS fan should only hope that the league's referees are going to follow the precedent set by Stott this year.

Anyway, for a more general assessment of Stott's performance:

I think the biggest mistake Stott made was on the Russell challenge. I think it--too--was a red card challenge, as bad as Waibel's. If you watch what happened in the immediate aftermath of the tackle, you can tell from Stott's body language and his reaction to the DC players' reactions that he probably didn't see the entire challenge (think about it...if Stott was willing to send of Waibel, do you think he left Russell in the game because he likes him better? the only explanation is that he didn't see it as clearly as he saw the Waibel tackle). I firmly believe that Stott was partially obstructed and could only tell that a foul had occurred--not how bad it actually was. I guarantee Stott is upset with himself for not sending off Russell; if anyone thinks he actually saw that tackle in its entirety and decided to leave Russell in the game, you are wrong. The responsibility here, though, in my opinion, lies with Michael Kennedy, the fourth official. He was right there. He saw the whole thing. It's his job--duty, even--to inform Stott that he didn't see it completely and that it was a terrible, terrible challenge, worthy of a red card. I think that, in the assessment, Kennedy and Stott will both hear it for the Russell tackle. Also, I predict that the first MLS conference call notes will say something about involvement of the fourth official when activity occurs in his immediate vicinity.

As for the 'advantage' calls. I think the first one was a small mistake by Stott. But Stewart did still have a man to beat and the free kick from 20 yards did end up directly on net, so it's almost a tossup to say which (the kick or Stewart with the ball at his feet) is truly the advantage. The second alleged 'non-advantage' call is, in my eyes, a figment of Wynalda's imagination. The whistle had gone WELL before Stewart was streaking down the right side. You could tell because the San Jose players had all stopped--it was only Stewart who hadn't heard the whistle. If the San Jose players had continued to play like Stewart had, there was no advantage to speak of. No one else noticed that Stewart dribbled by three San Jose players who were effectively acting as human pylons?

The Adu play in the box. In my eyes, this is a case of good for Stott and good for Adu as well. First, by being there and waving him up, Stott showed that he was no more than 5 yards away. Not only is he demonstrating his considerable fitness, he's showing that--despite what some in the fans may want to see--Stott was the closest person to the play other than Adu and Agoos and that he knew it was clean. It was really an impressive bit of refereeing. Also, the 'wave up'. This wasn't Stott 'showing up the 14 year old' as I'm sure some think it is. First, Stott always uses that motion when he turns away penalty, so, if anything, it was Stott treating Adu like everyone else. Also, call me crazy, but I think it's a good thing that the first time Adu went down in the box he didn't get a penalty. I'm not accusing Adu of diving (he didn't, he was fairly charged), but he did look up for the penalty after contact was made. If he quickly gets used to the fact that all contact in the box is not a penalty in MLS, it will curb any habits towards diving that Adu may have, or may think about developing.

Finally, the penalty--though not discussed here yet--was an appropriate decision. Rimando came off his line, made a calculated risk, got beat to the ball, and collided with the attacker. Whether or not the attacker could play the ball is irrelevant. Rimando commited a penalty. If he wanted to avoid the contact, he shouldn't have taken that risk.And liven it up I did.....There are MANY things a reff can do to calm a game down. This year at the state recert clinic Sandra Hunt did an excellent presentation that contrasted Noel Kenny and a first year reff both doing a dirty match. Kenny immediately stepped on the incidences and after a couple of yellows and stern words including two times he held up a restart for more then 20 seconds to make a show of talking to a problem child he ended the match with 22 men and a few yellows . The other guy wasnt asked to do anymore pro games because of all of the things that went wrong. If you dont think the reff can prevent misconduct then you must hold yourself to a lower standard then I do. Especially with respect to professional players. They most certainly think about the job the reff is doing and adjust the way they play. With respect to the advantage calls I would put to you that anytime a signifigant number of players appeal for a call of that nature then you need to take a long look in the mirror and evaluate your performance. Any player(or former player) would have seen those two calls as too quick and as mistakes. I didnt even bring up the penalty because I have no problem with his foul recognition. It was a straight forward foul that anyone could call. Basic foul recognition is grade 7 stuff, I would expect better game management from a FIFA referee.

[GlennAA11]

I won't argue too much with the PK either. I hope every ref makes that call the same way all season though. We'll see. And I didn't have a good view of the red cards in the stadium, but when I watched the tape I think he was spot on. However, in Dema's defense Mullan was pulling his shirt and otherwise harassing him at the time. A quick foul call there might have prevented the retaliation, but Dema was holding possession OK before he lashed out. He didn't lash out "for no apparent reason" and he didn't make contact with his elbow, it was his hand to Mullan's face, who made sure it looked worse than it was. But still worthy of a red card.

Another couple of problems with the whole Russell thing in the first half were 1) happened right in front of the DC bench as well as the 4th, and 2) was Russell's second at least reckless challenge in the space of about a minute. While Kennedy should have stepped in, Stott also ought to confer with him if he thinks he didn't see everything.

I couldn't hear the whistle at all in the stadium. This is always the case with Stott, and when the place is full and there's so much other noise going on it probably doesn't matter who the referee is, I'm not going to hear it. So it's hard to judge exactly when he blew the whistle on the non-advantage calls. I think the first one was a bigger mistake since it occurred right on the edge of the PA and happened to go right to Stewart who would have been in with only the GK to beat. But given how well Earnie shoots it's likely he would have missed anyway. The second one was a good 40 yards from the goal and I think it was somewhat lucky that the ball happened to go right to a DC player. Again I didn't hear exactly when the whistle blew. But surely everyone remembered the play in the first half. While it wouldn't have been a clear cut scoring chance he was attacking the goal with several players in support and the SJ defense discombobulated even before the foul got called. The free kick gave them plenty of time to get back and get organized.

On the whole I thought he let too much kicking and hacking go. Moreno and Olsen were both tripped on more than one occasion with no foul called. Jaime has a diver rep to a certain degree, but I never really thought of Olsen as a diver...a whiner maybe but not a diver. However, there were several upper body touch fouls that were called. Seems to me that the tripping fouls are the more important ones to be on top of.

[MassachusettsRef]

If you dont think the reff can prevent misconduct then you must hold yourself to a lower standard then I do. Especially with respect to professional players. They most certainly think about the job the reff is doing and adjust the way they play. But that's not what I said. I know that we can prevent further misconduct by using the yellow card appropriately (an excellent national assessor/instructor I know says 'yellow cards are remedial, red cards are punitive). However, we can only do that when yellow card offences are occurring. My argument is that--aside from the Russell tackle--there was no one play in that match where a yellow card could have been justified and Stott chose not to give it. Further, there was no PI until the end, when Stott recognized Olson's 4th foul and booked him for it. If you can present an instance where a yellow card was just and warranted, please do so. It's much easier to say "Stott should have given more yellow cards" than to say "Stott should have given yellow cards here, here and here".

I don't disagree with your underlying thesis. In fact, I firmly believe in it. I just think that in the context of this game, it doesn't apply. The acts committed by Waibel and Kovalenko were both opportunistic and were not products of Stott's allegedly 'lax' officiating.

With respect to the advantage calls I would put to you that anytime a signifigant number of players appeal for a call of that nature then you need to take a long look in the mirror and evaluate your performance. Any player(or former player) would have seen those two calls as too quick and as mistakes. Again, I agree with you somewhat on the first call. I bet Stott was disappointed with himself in that case. I myself had a similar situation last week, and I immediately apologized to the dissenting player (kind of caught him off guard when I responded to his dissent with 'you're right'). However, ultimately, the free kick was probably just as dangerous as the advantage. And, moreover, I think the only reason that Stewart and DC wanted the advantage in the second case is because they didn't realize how early the play had been whistled. The perceived advantage only developed after the play had been stopped.

[stillgreyhound]

But that's not what I said. I know that we can prevent further misconduct by using the yellow card appropriately (an excellent national assessor/instructor I know says 'yellow cards are remedial, red cards are punitive). However, we can only do that when yellow card offences are occurring. My argument is that--aside from the Russell tackle--there was no one play in that match where a yellow card could have been justified and Stott chose not to give it. Further, there was no PI until the end, when Stott recognized Olson's 4th foul and booked him for it. If you can present an instance where a yellow card was just and warranted, please do so. It's much easier to say "Stott should have given more yellow cards" than to say "Stott should have given yellow cards here, here and here".
Fair enough. As posted above I agree that there was a signifigant amount of holding against moreno and of the 25 total fouls I felt like there was a pattern of play that was beyond where I would have been comfortable with. The two fouls are listed as "professional foul" and "deliberate handling" both were extremely straight forward no brainer calls but would do nothing to calm the players down and give them a chance to think about what they are doing and what the consequences could be.


I don't disagree with your underlying thesis. In fact, I firmly believe in it. I just think that in the context of this game, it doesn't apply. The acts committed by Waibel and Kovalenko were both opportunistic and were not products of Stott's allegedly 'lax' officiating. Then we just disagree! No problem.

Again, I agree with you somewhat on the first call. I bet Stott was disappointed with himself in that case. I myself had a similar situation last week, and I immediately apologized to the dissenting player (kind of caught him off guard when I responded to his dissent with 'you're right'). However, ultimately, the free kick was probably just as dangerous as the advantage. And, moreover, I think the only reason that Stewart and DC wanted the advantage in the second case is because they didn't realize how early the play had been whistled. The perceived advantage only developed after the play had been stopped. We just view this one differently too. Fair enough.
By the way I am moving to Conn this summer. It might be fun to sit down with you over a cold one or two after all these years of banter.

[PVancouver]

It is my opinion that San Jose should have been awarded a DFK, not a gift goal, for the Rimando foul. No way is an almost sure goal to SJ a fair punishment for Rimando's crime. He came very close to making a "fair play" on the ball.

I didn't see the handball in Dallas, but I suspect the punishment didn't fit the crime in that situation either.

Only award penalty kicks for yellow or red card fouls in the box.

[Caesar]

It is my opinion that San Jose should have been awarded a DFK, not a gift goal, for the Rimando foul. No way is an almost sure goal to SJ a fair punishment for Rimando's crime. He came very close to making a "fair play" on the ball.

I didn't see the handball in Dallas, but I suspect the punishment didn't fit the crime in that situation either.

Only award penalty kicks for yellow or red card fouls in the box.
You don't have permission in this circumstance to decide what's "fair". You're there to apply the laws, and if that happens to seem a bit harsh in your eyes... well, so be it. A foul is a foul is a foul, and if it occurs in the area and isn't an IFK offence then it MUST be a PK.

I'm sorry. To say Only award penalty kicks for yellow or red card fouls in the box is just plain incorrect.

[Claymore]

I have to go with Greyhound on this one. I was at the game, and as soon as I saw that the Russell foul was going un-booked - right in front of Kennedy - I said to myself "that one's gonna come back and bite him later on".

Professional players (and even top-flight U16's) will do exactly what they feel they can get away with. They know how and when to push the envelope, and when to pull back if the ref establishes boundaries early on. By failing to card Russell at all, the signal was sent that a certain level of physical play was acceptable - in this case, the level was set way too high.

By the way, I was in a direct line of sight with Stott on the foul, and there is simply no way he was screened.

[stillgreyhound]

It is my opinion that San Jose should have been awarded a DFK, not a gift goal, for the Rimando foul. No way is an almost sure goal to SJ a fair punishment for Rimando's crime. He came very close to making a "fair play" on the ball.

I didn't see the handball in Dallas, but I suspect the punishment didn't fit the crime in that situation either.

Only award penalty kicks for yellow or red card fouls in the box.I can tell you as a former goalkeeper who played at a reletively high level AND who recieved more then my fair share of cautions for dissent, if I was romando I would have gotten up and walked to my line without saying a word. Every good keeper knows that either the ball OR the attacker gets by you but NEVER both. You do what you have to do and you take the punishment.
The reff didnt call that foul, the keeper did. One of the most frustrating things for me when reffing at the youth level is having to come behind a referee who has been lenient or decided that the LOTG are not appropriate and then fails to call something basic like a goalkeeper commiting a penal foul in the penalty area. I sent off a defender two years ago in a HS game for blatantly tripping an attacker from behind DOGSO. The coach agreed with me after the game that the kid committed the foul in the way I saw it but was livid because two weeks before he had done the same thing and only got a yellow. That frustration is the fault of the reff whose lack of fortitude only served to confuse that coach and that player. I felt for him but I can only do the best job that I can on a given day. While I know that the most frustrating things for a player is the wildly varying calls from reffs of differing experience levels I have to go with the LOTG(or the rules in this case) as I know them.

[MassachusettsRef]

By the way I am moving to Conn this summer. It might be fun to sit down with you over a cold one or two after all these years of banter.I didn't even realize it was you. Did you have to change your name after the site got updated? We very well might be able to get together--or do games--but the window opportunity would be small. I'm probably moving to DC/VA in the Fall.


By the way, I was in a direct line of sight with Stott on the foul, and there is simply no way he was screened.Fair enough, but I still stick by my claim that he didn't see it perfectly.

For one, you can tell he had no idea how bad the tackle was based on his demeanor with the players after the tackle--he had the look on his face of 'oh no, I must have missed something here' because he realized the reactions were too strong for a simple foul (Paul Tamberino has talked a lot about reading players reactions--even when you call the foul correctly--in the aftermath of a hard challenge).

Secondly, for any of us that have paid attention to MLS referees over the years (and a lot of us here have) we know that Stott--if anything--is overly strict on borderline challenges. I think people have come on these boards to complain about Stott being too quick the red 100% more than they have to complain about him letting a send off offense go. I'd say that 99% of the time, if Stott sees an 'orange card' tackle, he goes red. Every time I've ever seen Stott whistle for a tackle like the one Russell made, he's sent the player off. To me, that (his history and reputation) means that he couldn't have seen the challenge the way we saw it on replay. Maybe he wasn't screened, but perhaps he was too far away, or just didn't see where the contact was made. I'm not trying to say Stott's not at fault here--he missed it. However, if anyone's claiming that Stott saw the foul for what it was an chose not to issue a red card, then they don't know Stott.

[GKbenji]

I'm drifting from the main discussion a bit, but what's the league's stance on dissent and language this season? Weren't they going to be cracking down on it? At one point on Saturday (I think the first half), Eric Quill got called for a foul and unleashed a series of F-bombs directly at Stott that also got picked up quite well by the TV microphones. (Aside... where's that "Janet Jackson" 7-second delay?)

Sundays out at the amateur field, an outburst like that and the player goes home early. I realize the standards are different at the professional level, but isn't the league trying to clean things up?

[stillgreyhound]

I didn't even realize it was you. Did you have to change your name after the site got updated? We very well might be able to get together--or do games--but the window opportunity would be small. I'm probably moving to DC/VA in the Fall.


You are going to love the DC/NVA area. I think you will find the professionalism and development opportunities to be awesome! Let me know where you are specifically going and I can give you some G2 on leagues and assignors. You can also check vadcsoccerref.com.

[whistleblowerusa]

I'm drifting from the main discussion a bit, but what's the league's stance on dissent and language this season? Weren't they going to be cracking down on it? At one point on Saturday (I think the first half), Eric Quill got called for a foul and unleashed a series of F-bombs directly at Stott that also got picked up quite well by the TV microphones. (Aside... where's that "Janet Jackson" 7-second delay?)

Sundays out at the amateur field, an outburst like that and the player goes home early. I realize the standards are different at the professional level, but isn't the league trying to clean things up?
Referees have been instructed to take care of the dissent again this year. It is getting better but it's not perfect yet. Elbows are the big focus this year. We have been instructed to crack down on those.
My experience with Adu has been that he is a bit of a diver when he is in the penalty area. He is not good at selling it. When he doesn't beat his opponent he will dive. Continuing that behavior in MLS will surely shorten his season with an in jury caused by a seasoned veteran.

[PVancouver]

You don't have permission in this circumstance to decide what's "fair". You're there to apply the laws, and if that happens to seem a bit harsh in your eyes... well, so be it. A foul is a foul is a foul, and if it occurs in the area and isn't an IFK offence then it MUST be a PK.

I'm sorry. To say Only award penalty kicks for yellow or red card fouls in the box is just plain incorrect.Yes. I understand that it is incorrect. If I was the referee in that match, I would have to call a PK.

I do not suggest referees ignore the laws, or apply the laws as they see fit.

I suggest we change the law.

I just don't think Rimando was "doing what he had to do" to break up the play. However, if that is how Stott saw it, he should have yellow-carded Rimando.

In a sport that originally required THREE defenders BETWEEN the attacker and the goal in order to prevent EASY goals, it seems ODD that we offer up PKs for such MINOR fouls.

I'm not berating Stott in any way for calling the PK, technically, that is what he had to do.

I don't think anybody was complaining that the handball was an inappropriate call in Dallas. According to the game report, "the cross hit the trailing arm of a backtracking Darryl Powell, who was whistled for handling the ball inside the penalty area." As I said before, I didn't see the play. But he wasn't yellow or red-carded, so it unlikely wasn't too egregious of a foul. Yet this presumably minor foul allowed Dallas to tie the game 1-1.

Should Terry Vaughn have not called the foul because it didn't deserve a PK? No. A foul is a foul is a foul. But I would like to see the law changed so Terry Vaughn doesn't have to award the PK. It seems to me Colorado was unfairly penalized.

You make it sound like I am committing blasphemy.

BTW, I thought Abiodun Okulaja did a fantastic job in Columbus under less than perfect conditions.

[whistleblowerusa]

I just don't think Rimando was "doing what he had to do" to break up the play. However, if that is how Stott saw it, he should have yellow-carded Rimando.

In a sport that originally required THREE defenders BETWEEN the attacker and the goal in order to prevent EASY goals, it seems ODD that we offer up PKs for such MINOR fouls.

I'm not berating Stott in any way for calling the PK, technically, that is what he had to do.

Rimando clearly went after the player and not the ball. It wasn't breaking up play nor was it a minor foul. I think he got off lucky not being sent off. He was close enough to make a play on the ball and that's what saved him.

[GrillMaster]

Rimando clearly went after the player and not the ball. It wasn't breaking up play nor was it a minor foul. I think he got off lucky not being sent off. He was close enough to make a play on the ball and that's what saved him.I'm not sure what the proper etiquette is in this forum so as respectfully as possible I would suggest to whistleblowerusa that s/he look at the play again at full speed. Rimando's punch would have contacted the ball directly had the SJ player not redirected the ball with his calf. Clearly Rimando was going for the ball. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise. That a purported referee would say this is troubling to say the least.

GM