In game, it was yellow (for the tackle), then straight red. Looked like Shea said something to the ref, the ref asked him "did you just say X", and Shea responded "Yes, I did", then the red came out. Interestingly, the box scores report 2Y->R, with the 2nd yellow being for "dissent", as does the game report. The video highlight shows the initial yellow, then the ref going straight for red after whatever Shea said.
I liked the Brek Shea red card. A friend told me about it, and I saw the same when I watched it. Elfath gives Shea the yellow for the challenge. Shea says "f*** you" to Elfath. Elfath says "did you just say 'f*** you' to me?" Shea says "yeah, I did." This is exactly what needs to happen in this kind of situation, at all levels.
Where did you see the game report? If it's on the MLS website, the "reasons" for cards are not to be trusted - they often don't use the official terminology. I think MassRef has it right.
Yes, he is correct in what happened in "real life". And I noted that in my post too. In the game, it was a yellow, then a straight red. MLS posted their box score (who else puts out the official box score?) and match report, and both of those (as I noted above) stated Y for tackle, then second Y for dissent, and then the R. My point was SIMPLY that the MLS site said that it was a second caution, whereas in actual happening, it was a straight red.
Pass was perfectly weighted. Attacker was easily going to beat GK to the ball. Forgetting the 4 Ds and just going with your gut and the absolute cynical nature of the foul, it was red. Difficult call for sure and I honestly thought he'd go the easy way out and go yellow, but I thought red was ultimately correct for the play.
I agree the second was a clear red, as for the first, I agree with the given call. It looks to me (and Birnbaum said afterwords) that he got a touch on the ball first, before wiping the attacker out. The touch, which was legal, dispossessed the attacker before the foul, so when the foul came it no longer met the criteria for DOGSO.
I think this is a very dangerous splitting of hairs. It's all the same challenge, and "challenging" is now explicitly a DFK penal foul in the Laws. Unless you can point to two separate and distinct actions (like a fair tackle with one foot and then a trip with the other foot, well after the ball is away), I don't see how you can justify such a call. Not sure why you would want to, either, as it would allow "but I got the ball first" to be a defense against almost any DOGSO call. Video is below, and quite frankly, in addition to disagreeing with your assessment above, I just don't see what you apparently did. The attacker touched the ball with his right leg to keep it away from Birnbaum. If Birnbaum touched the ball (it's hard to tell with certainty, but agree it's possible he did), he went through the left side and across the body of the attacker. A foul is committed before any touch on the ball occurs. http://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/ma...nited-vs-columbus-crew-sc/details/video/98102
I would agree you could easily argue this is interfering with an opponent. Unfortunately it probably also falls under the professional soccer standard of "Don't you dare take away that highlight real goal for something like that".
Pretty much. I'm interested to learn if PRO rules it a good call or not. Yes, you can argue he interfered with the opponent by being in the line of vision. But you can just as easily argue the position of the defender was of zero consequence regarding whether or not the ball went in the net. It's a question of practical versus technical here; is there enough latitude that allows the "line of vision" question to have some degree of subjectivity, or is it a rigid "yes/no" question regarding whether or not the player in the OSP ever blocked the line of vision? In the past, from what I've seen, interfering with the opponent via the line of vision clause has been taught in a pretty black and white fashion, which would lead to this goal being ruled out. But I find it hard to imagine that's what PRO really wants and I know with near certainty it's not what MLS wants.