Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'LA Galaxy' started by L.A. Native, Sep 3, 2019.
Aha!. So it doesn't say 5' in the rulebook, does it? I rest my case, your honor.
No way the unofficial rule is shoulder height. Try waist height. Any kick at chest level or above is only OK when there are no opposing players around. Only exception is if you're going for a spectacular bicycle kick goal, of course. Then anything goes.
Waist-high is the official rule I think, but it's more often enforced as shoulder height, IMO. I rarely see kicks at waist height given in 50/50 and like super-rarely in the box.
I was furious with the end of this game. Ref should be benched for some time.
I’m impressed that you could watch all these games back to back, if that is what you did.
Spaced out over a week, but I did it! And tried to stay away from any associated tweets.
Two incidents from the game make the VAR review:
Rescinded red card - Correctly rescinded
LA PK not given - Correctly not given
So bogus. This is just referees backing up other referees. The kick to the head was a textbook foul. It doesn't matter if it was 50-50 and they were both trying to play the ball. Rolf got to the ball, and the Col player was late, missed the ball and kicked Rolf. There is no way that this so called referee committee would say the ref had gotten it wrong had he called a PK.
If Rolf got to the ball first, then he should've scored. Awarding him a PK is just giving him another bite at the apple on a shot that he missed, which is why PK's are rarely ever given for those types of fouls in the box (a foul after a shot).
Soccer punishments aren't handed out just to compensate the victim. They are also issued and to help keep the game safe. The foot-head contact didn't affect the shot so no compensation needed but if ref thought it was a dangerous play he should have called it anyway, as a punishment for dangerous play. It's like getting a team being awarded a free kick due to an opponents late tackle. When the tackle is late the pass has already gone, so it doesn't affect that play. We still call it to punish the offender.
So to me the fact Rolf got his shot off doesn't rule out awarding a pk or ifk. It still just comes down to whether he thinks the COL player made a dangerous play. But I'm not sure the height of the kick reached that level. So like you, I have no problem with the no call, but for a very different reason.
You're correct and I agree, but like a late foul that occurs outside the box, the ref can choose to let play continue if there is an advantage rather than award a FK and still punish the defender. Since Feltscher has already gotten his shot away, no greater advantage can be given on the play, but the defender can still be punished if his actions were additionally reckless. Otherwise -- should Feltscher still get a PK if he scored, on grounds of...reckless play? In this case, though, it didn't seem the ref thought the defender's actions were reckless either way.
Edit: To that point, I've seen indirect free kicks awarded for something like that -- which is like super-rare (at least in my experience). Like, I've seen one or two in MLS,I think.
Yes, ifk is the correct sanction for dangerous play and is what should have been awarded if ref thought kick was dangerously high. Or he could have awarded an ifk for COL if he thought Rolf’s head was dangerously low. But this was an “in-between” height so a no call was fine here.
And like you say offensive ifk’s in box are seldom seen. I remember awarding one in a rec league game I reffed and the players looking confused. But it’s the proper call and I’ve seen it awarded in big time games. It’s hilarious when the ball is spotted only three or four yards from keeper and everyone on both sides trying to figure out where to stand and what to do.
Just want to point out that if this play in question wasn't a PK, then neither should have LAFC's last night....