Agoos should have been sent off!!!!

[aevange8]

In sunday's Metrostars vs. Chivas USA match Agoos committed a fould denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but for some reason he was spared a red card, and was only cautioned. While analyzing the replay you can debate whether or not he made contact with the attacking player, however Kevin Stott blew the whistle and decided he had done enough to award the free kick and be booked.

I would love to know what logic was used to issue a booking. The LOTG and advice from USSF would say that your hands are tied as a referee and the player must be sent off. I would like to know how the post game conference covering the assesment went on the game. I am hoping Kevin feels another foot shorter after the verbal abuse he must have taken.

[Claymore]

I agree. The ball was played past Agoos on his right, and he went purposefully to his left and behind the player to trip him up. No doubt he was the last defender.

[trmtrm]

FYI, they have some pretty good shots on the video highlights reel at mlsnet.com:

4:20 play starts, taylor plays ball forward, runs to follow ball
4:21 the contact, ~35 yards from goal
4:23 ball crosses the 18, wide of the the penalty arc, headed for the corner
4:44 close up of contact

This should help discussing the 4 criteria for DOGSO, especially "foul was committed close to the goal" and "attacker was moving directly toward the goal."

[NHRef]

I think he didn't get the red cause of the distance left to go, the trip was clear and he was the last defender and it was heading towards goal, however he was still at least 30-35 yards out.

[kevbrunton]

There is not that much distance left in my book.

I think this probably should have been red. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Kleinaitis says about this one.

[Claymore]

This is where I have a problem with the "distance" prerequisite, at least at the pro level. A pro running at full speed covers that 30 yards in the blink of an eye, and the Chivas player had nothing but open space between him and the goal.

[refontherun]

After viewing the clip, I'm trying to see Scott's logic on this one.

1. It is quite a way to the goal, but, as has been stated, noone else was anywhere close enough to challenge.

2. Agoos did take due care in attempting to avoid the defender. Notice that his front leg (which snipped the defender's foot) was bent in an almost unnatural position trying to avoid the back leg of the attacker.

3. I don't think the intent was there to commit the foul. If he had made no attempt to avoid the contact, that would be another thing. I know we are not in the business of reading players' minds, and I know players at that level are sneaky, at best, but that's what it looked like to me. Also, I don't think it would have any affect on game control other than getting the Chivas players off Scott's back at the moment.

4. It's Jeff, man! ;)

[MassachusettsRef]

Look, Stott is not exactly known as a referee who has historically shied away from giving red cards. Why did he this time?

If you want to try to find a reason that Stott might not have pulled a red, I'd look no further than the USSF memo that was posted on MLSnet a few months ago, chastising Terry Vaughn for pulling a red when it wasn't--in USSF's opinion--really DOGSO.

If you watch the replay, the Chivas' player last touch is not "directly" towards goal. As he falls to the ground, the ball rolls towards the goal line, but on a trajectory that takes it between the goal post and the corner flag.

The USSF memo was VERY clear that all 4 D's have to be present and obvious for a red card for DOGSO to be warranted. Under the USSF's 4 D's interpretation of DOGSO, there's definitely an argument that this situation doesn't warrant a red card, as, under a strict interpretation, the Chivas player is not going DIRECTLY to goal. This is just further evidence why I feel the 4 D's memo is a bad interpretation. Any person knowledgable in the game knows that the foul was a professional foul and that the scoring chance was, indeed, still "obvious". Further, with his next touch, the Chivas player would have cut back and then been going directly to goal. With the rigid guidelines that USSF has laid down, however, you can see that referees are now over-thinking the decisions and not going with their guts. The memo effectively encourages referees to justify the yellow card rather than a red card.

Quite frankly, I believe that Stott would have pulled a red on this foul in previous years, and he would still pull a red on it if it was played in an international match (outside the jurisdiction of USSF). I may be wrong, of course, as no one can be inside another referee's head, but it certainly looks that way to me.

[aevange8]

4. It's Jeff, man! ;)

That is the best argument for no send off I have heard.


I was trying to think of some recent weak fouls that led to dismissals. The one that sticks in my mind is the WCQ match between the US and T&T. In this case Mexican referee Marco Rodriguez correctly sent off the defender for a miniscule grab of LD.

What upsets me the most is that if I had to show a red card in this situation, I would probably be berrated by 11 players, 7 substitues, 3 coaches, and 36 parents, because they dont understand why its a send off. This makes our job so much harder, when at the highest level (in the USA) sets a poor example.

[NYfutbolfan]

I asked the senior guy from my neck of the woods and he said that the distance to goal should be equal to where they can score from, NOT if they have a clear path to the goal. (In other words, the ability to sprint from 35 yards is not the consideration).

From that, I'm guessing that he believes that from 35 yards out, Taylor might be able to get a shot off, but that it wouldn't be a threatening shot on goal. Therefore, at that distance, the "distance to goal requirement" is not met.

As a fan, I don't like it. As a ref, I like it. As alot of things go in this game, it comes down to the opinion of the ref. Alot of people thought the send off was required, but I could see Stott's point of view on the distance.

[MassachusettsRef]

I asked the senior guy from my neck of the woods and he said that the distance to goal should be equal to where they can score from, NOT if they have a clear path to the goal. (In other words, the ability to sprint from 35 yards is not the consideration).This is absolutely and completely incorrect.

[aevange8]

I think sometimes we need to break this down to the basic law.

A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

-denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

Forget the 4 D's for a second, and use common sense. The 4 D's are a tool, they are not a replacement for the LOTG. They are a useful tool, but we need to remember the spirit of the game.

[Statesman]

I think MassRef has the best explanation. It was a red card DOGSO no doubt, but USSF has made it quite clear they want the 4Ds followed as precise as possible (in MLS at least).

I wouldn't be surprised if the ball was heading only 2 inches to the right of the goal that USSF would still say this doesn't qualify. I don't think it matters that it was Jeff Agoos or Kevin Stott or any of that. Al K has just tightened the rope too much on this issue, and the manner in which it was done has the referees cautious to send-off for anything that is even the slightest bit questionable on any of the 4D bullets.

[Claymore]

This is a perfect example of how the 4Ds can completely muff the intent of the law.

[uniteo]

This is a perfect example of how the 4Ds can completely muff the intent of the law.

Really? Is the intent of the law to penalize a team for contact that was very likely not intentional, with the defender possibly even trying to avoid contact with the attacking player?

I am far from a Metro's fan but the call seemed just to me.

[Claymore]

Really? Is the intent of the law to penalize a team for contact that was very likely not intentional, with the defender possibly even trying to avoid contact with the attacking player?

I am far from a Metro's fan but the call seemed just to me.

Agoos knew exactly what he was doing. It's an age-old trick at the pro level.

[NYfutbolfan]

Forget the 4 D's for a second, and use common sense. The 4 D's are a tool, they are not a replacement for the LOTG. They are a useful tool, but we need to remember the spirit of the game.

The 4D's are a tool. But, the ATR was designed for the refs to follow, not to implement when they arbitrarliy decide to follow them.

If you take the same foul and move it back 15-20 yards, would you still think of it as a red?

I think that the disagreement over the color of Stott's card should prompt FIFA to review whether or not more restrictions should be placed on the 4D's. In the absence of such restrictions, calls like Stott's are ultimately ITOOTR.

[MasterShake29]

The USSF memo was VERY clear that all 4 D's have to be present and obvious for a red card for DOGSO to be warranted. Under the USSF's 4 D's interpretation of DOGSO, there's definitely an argument that this situation doesn't warrant a red card, as, under a strict interpretation, the Chivas player is not going DIRECTLY to goal. This is just further evidence why I feel the 4 D's memo is a bad interpretation.

Why would the USSF issue an interpretation of this law? These are worldwide laws, shouldn't FIFA or IFAB issue the clarifying memo? Is it left for each FA to interpret, and doesn't that cause uneven rules across the world?

[MassachusettsRef]

Really? Is the intent of the law to penalize a team for contact that was very likely not intentional, with the defender possibly even trying to avoid contact with the attacking player?While I agree with Claymore that Agoos knew what he was doing, that is, of course, irrelevant. The intent of the law is to punish ANY denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity--intentional or not.

When the law was adopted in the early 90s, there was argument over whether or not to limit red cards to "intentional" professional fouls. There was also argument as to whether or not the DOGSO clause should apply only outside the penalty area. FIFA and the IFAB came down with the decision that all such fouls warranted red cards--intentional or unintentional, inside the penalty area or not.

The yellow card here may seem just to you and others, but IF you believe an obvious goal-scoring opportunity was denied, it has no basis in law.

[KCbus]

I think everybody's missing the even bigger point on this play...

Metros need a win and nothing else to qualify for the postseason.
Metros lead 1-0.
Taylor goes down.
Ball rolls into the path of another Chivas' attacker.

WHERE'S THE "PLAY ON!!!" To hell with what color the card was... if Stott keeps the whistle out of his mouth for another second, the trailing attacker gets (at least the opportunity for) a clear breakaway, and the Agoos foul is possibly moot.

Pooch Screw. Double pooch screw.