Dr. Joe indicates on Twitter that Petrasso was cautioned for UB - lack of respect for the game. Are we missing something here?
Attacking possession phase (APP) – the ‘starting point’ of the reviewable period of play for a goal, penalty incident or DOGSO offence. It is the start of the attacking move which led to the goal, penalty incident or DOGSO offence and, if relevant, how possession of the ball was gained at the start of that phase of play (but not a restart which began the attack)
Determining the APP is not that simple. Rather than try to parse it myself, the full language is below. But I would argue that the defensive play in the match in question was "a clearance that does not reach or is not controlled by a teammate," and that, therefore, the entire sequence in the penalty area was part of the APP.
I don't actually think it does. An indirect free kick can result from a yellow card offense. According to the Laws of the Game an indirect free kick can be awarded if a player "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player". So he can issue a yellow there for something like unsporting behavior and have it not result in a PK, which could only happen if it is a direct kick. Now, if that was his rationale I surely don't know; I just know that you can issue a yellow card for something and not have it result in a PK.
That would be an interesting theory if an IFK had been awarded . . . but a DFK was awarded against the Galaxy, so this is a non sequitur. Any in any event, I'm utterly lost at how you would caution for contact and not call a foul.
Kicking or attempting to kick (stepping on someone would fall under this) is pretty explicitly mentioned in the Laws though You get an 'A' for effort and an 'F' for logic.
Also, the way this thread has gone I guess we did confirm the ball was indeed in play when this occurred? Has an MLS game ever been protested? Kind of moot since LA pulled out 3 points anyway, but I can only imagine the fall out if they hadn't. Certainly a pro-testable offense.
The ball was in play. The YouTube video MLS put online showing the incident clearly showed that the ball was in play.
There was a protest, I believe, by Dallas in 2003 that was not upheld but absolutely should have been. I figure the cost of a replay, even for part of a match, far out-weighed the competition concerns considering how bad Dallas was that year.
I should clarify for the younger folks. DC had a player shown 2 yellows without being sent off against Dallas, and Dallas ended up losing but were denied any sort of replay.
There was also the Montreal @ Colorado game in 2014(?) that I was shocked was not protested. Cross (corner?) came in for Colorado, was tipped onto the cross bar, bouncing on the cross bar going out, ref blew the whistle for the corner at the same time the wind blew the ball back into play (without ever having gone fully out of play) and Colorado headed it in. Goal stood, turned out to be the winning goal.
Yeah that was definitely a protestable incident, as well. Would have been 2012 if I've got the referee correct in my head, and I usually do.
That would indicate that the caution was for something else, embellishment perhaps? Seems mighty harsh though.