I'm surprised that no one's questioned why the referee didn't play the advantage and allow Meier's overtime goal in the Founders Cup. That seemed to me to be a epically bad call (if Atlanta had won the match). Let the play continue, then give Augustinyak the red card once play ends. Instead, he blows the play dead and awards a free kick when it looked like Wambach was in the box. Yikes.
Hindsight is 20/20. It is the common practice to never apply advantage on a red card foul. If play continues, the opponents will have one more player than they would otherwise until the next stoppage. If Washington hadn't gotten that would-be goal, Atlanta would still be at full strength. Imagine the repercussion if Atlanta then scored and won the game before the red card could be issued. I thought the foul was in the penalty area as well, at least on the line.
I agree. From the camera angle it looked as if the ref blew it big time. However, if memory serves me correctly, the ref may have been to the left of the center of the field following the play. As the ball went towards the keeper, I could see how it may have appeared to the referee that the ball was going to be collected easily by the keeper. The Freedom player came from the right possibly out of the area of focus for the referee. Once the ref blew the whistle, he probably saw the other attacker win the ball and "score." If he could have, I would bet that the ref wished he could have sucked that whistle back in. I agree that with our hindsight, it was a bad call. But if I had to make that call tomorrow (in a game of 12 year olds), I probably would make the same call. I just hope I would have the courage to give the red card. Not everyone would.
From the slow motion replay I thought that the foul actually occured just outside of the 18 and by just outside it was realllly just outside the 18. I was not at the game and therefore do not when the whistle occured. It seems that maybe he went to the whistle hard right at the foul and that maybe Brianna pulled up a little and therefore not going in really hard for the stop. Not sure but just a thought. Either way it was really a bang bang play. Might have been a little more difficult to issue the red had he allowed advantage and thus he stopped the play immediately. I thought it was the appropriate call though.
Thought Augustiniak deserved the Red. Was glad that the ref pulled it out and used it. Watching my tape, I believe that Augustiniak did a good job of making the foul right before the line giving her and the Beat a chance at avoiding a PK. I fully expected the foul to result in a PK. I believe the contact initially occured outside the box, Wambagh didn't go down until she was inside the box. Where does the foul occur? at initial contact? or where the victim finally lost her footing? I think the ref made the right call in retrospect. In real time, I would have sworn it was a PK. The worst thing for Augustiniak is forgetting who the Beat had in goal. I mean, is Scurry chopped liver? I wish Augustiniak had stayed on Wambaugh's shoulder and given Scurry the chance to save it.
Since it was a bang-bang play, it's hard to criticise the ref's decision. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and a referee on the field doesn't have the luxury of a replay. He had the guts to give a red card. You have to respect the call. It may be common practice, for the reasons you mentioned, but I'm not sure it's necessarily a good practice. I think most teams would rather have a goal than have a player on the other team sent off. Imagine the contoversy had Atlanta won, after Washington had apparently scored a golden goal. Standard disclaimer (required in this forum): I am not a ref, just a fan for over 40 years so, in the opinion of most referees, I don't know anything and you should entirely disregard what I say. (On top of that, if form holds true, and based on the low opinion refs have of fans who, in many cases, pay their salary, you should probably insult me in some way.)
Yeah, I was confused, too. Obvious advantage to Meier and the Freedom, with the ball bouncing in front of the goal. Ref muffed the call. Think about it. No whistle and the game is over. Whistle, give the red card, and reward the Beat for delivering a professional foul. Refs shouls always be slow on the whistle, and not worry about handing out cards after the fact.
The reason I brought it up was because my first thought, before the replay was even shown, was, "Why on earth didn't he play the advantage?" The red card was certainly appropriate, though.
Both women did what they had to do. I'd love it if they were on my team! The ref, on the other hand....
The ref on the other hand made a judgement call based on a number of factors including but not limited to retaliation factors, severity of the foul, positioning of the ball and the like. His decision at the time was to stop the play immediately. Whether or not that was a bad decision is very easy for those who have Tivo or video recorders to slow time down and bend it to their will. Unfortunatly, the game is played at and refereed at normal speed, and the referee does not have the curse of instant replay (which, might I add, instant replay is a horrible thought for reasons I might discuss in another thread). There is nothing procedurally the referee did wrong. We will never know if the advantage would have been a goal or not. The whistle went, and Scurry relaxed. The ref did his job when he showed red. RC-Leopard
My second reaction was "advantage!!!". But that was as a Freedom fan. My initial reaction was "red card"--and then the play developed. I agree that hindsight would say play the advantage...but in the heat of the moment for that kind of foul I think the natural instinct is to pull the card immediately. I really have a hard time giving the ref grief over that, even though I was crying out at the time that the game should have been over.
I think we all agree it was a foul. And I think what some are forgetting is a few things. 1) if he plays the advantage then he can not send off Augustiniak since she then did not stop a goal scoring opportinunity. 2) we all say that there was an advantage there , but someone stated, that Augustiniak should not have fouled then let scurry handle it, Well whom says that she would not have stopped the shot and then we all would be saying why did he not call the foul. 3) in regards to the PK no PK the AR helps with this and I think Mr Vaughan used the AR to help him with this. 4) And at this level coaches and players say they do nto want the advantage on PK'S since they feel if they cannot score from 9.1 meters then they do not deserve the goal
I'm amazed at some people's desire to give referee's the same deal as the pope - infallibility. While certainly the call stands once it's made, and certainly people are fallible (I'm sure the CR is a great guy, etc.), this was a REALLY bad call. The guy blew it (particularly after awarding a rather dodgy PK to the Beat against the run of play) and rewarded the Beat for a professional foul. As for the "play on" deal, the referee CAN look up to see if the defender has truly prevented a scoring opportunity and THEN blow the whistle - this guy just popped off. It happens a million times a year and it's tough to resist, but that doesn't make it the right call. We ought to be training our supposed "best" refs to a higher standard.
As much as I might not like to say this, a WUSA final is . . . well.. From my observation of the league all year long in my studying to be a better referee, the WUSA havent' really strived for excellence in their refereeing, and haven't really held referees to any standard. I've seen some horrid calls come out of that league, and I've heard a lot about good refs who just want nothing to do with the WUSA. Too much politics in that league right now. Jarrod
Are you insinuating that 'the run of play' should have something to do with whether or not a referee calls a penalty? Also, I would question this statement. I know the 'million' figure is hyperbole, but to even claim that this play is commonplace at all is stretching the truth. Such a play is extremely rare and is equally extremely critical. It's always a split-second decision that can lead you to be damned if you call it or damned if you don't, as hindsight (as was stated earlier) is always golden in such a case. In this particular case, Vaughn himself might want the call back. But then again, maybe he doesn't, because you can't be 100% sure Scurry wouldn't have stopped the shot if she didn't let up for the whistle. But to claim or suggest that calling the foul and giving the red is the 'easy way out' is just wrong. Giving a red card--in any match, nevermind the championship of WUSA--is never the easy way out for a referee. Barring a game-deciding penalty, or possibly a tough goal/no-goal decision by an AR, it is the toughest call for a referee to make.
This is not true. The attacking player had an obvious goal scoring opportunity; the defending player denied that particular goal scoring opportunity. It is a sendoff offence. If a subsequent scoring opportunity should arise, it does not mitigate the first misconduct in any way within LOTG.
This was probably the most difficult call Terry will make in his career. Think of the factors: 1) Championship game 2) Golden goal overtime 3) Player guilty of DOGSO-F 4) Foul just outside the area (evidently) 5) Streaking attacker with the potential game winner. If you play advantage, the shot could be blocked and the Beat play with a man up for who knows how long. Not to mention the dissent from the Freedom, or even the psychological impact a no-call would have if the goal didn't score. They would be completely disillusioned, probably lose their concentration, and the game. On the other hand, Terry could stop play and issue the card. We all know the final outcome of that decision. It may have delayed the win by a minute, but it didn't cost anything to the Freedom in the end. Given all of those factors above and the eventual outcome of the game, Vaughn made the correct decision. Think of the pressure he was under! The art of refereeing has a foundation in keeping things simple. Don't try to overcall a situation or rationalize the perfect restart. Just go with the simple stuff you see and the let the players do the winning. Terry sees a red card foul right outside the 18 denying the game winner. He stops the game, sends the player off, and restarts with a free kick. A few minutes later that team wins the game. Nothing complicated, very little controversy -- stopping the game couldn't be a bad call. Applying advantage just as easily could be a disasterous call. Why take the chance?
I was at the game, seated at about the midfield line, on the side away from where the ball went to when Abby went down. The foul definitely looked to me (in real time) to be outside the box. And I didn't see the ball go free to another Freedom player, and thus didn't realize that there might have been an opportunity for giving an advantage. The ref might have had the same sight line. So at the time I was happy with the red card and free kick (I'm a Spirit fan ). The only thing that bothers me now was how willing the ref was to indicate advantage earlier in the game. There might have been a dozen times earlier in the game where Beat players grabbed Freedom players by the arm when that player was breaking by them with the ball - the attack timing being broken up, the player stumbling forward and trying to keep control of the ball. And as far as the thought "A few minutes later that team wins the game," I've seen a team get a red card in the first 8 minutes of a game and then not allow the team with the extra player to get more than a handful of opportunities to shoot the rest of the game (Spirit game last year, ended in a tie.) So hoping that a team will be able to use the 'man-advantage' doesn't seem so good an idea...
Tame Lion how do you figure that if a goal resulted in the situation the it was not denied??? or did i miss something in the wording of DENYING OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTINUNITY... Tsunami great to hear someone opinion that was at the game and had the same view the the referees did
I understand what you mean here.. but... here's the problem. How many oppurtunities exist in a given play? If advantage is given, and the play continues, and a goal is scored, the giving advantage (ie, allowing play to continue under law 5) is allowing the OGSO to progress. The oppurtunity was not denied because you chose to allow it to continue. If a goal is scored off of that, or not, the player committing the foul really didn't end up denying the oppurtunity, did they? As for why the ref stopped it quickly, I've been looking all day, and I think I got the answer. http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/OGSO_Denied.pdf states that a DOGSO MUST be called swiftly.
That does not apply in this case, since no PK was given. If a player is fouled while shooting, do you blow the whistle send a player off, or do you wait to see if the shot goes in the goal? There's no way of knowing what would have happened had the whistle not blown, but there's a chance the game would have been over. If that's true, then the too quick whistle rewarded the defense for committing the foul.
I believe that in this situation, we had an OGSO for Wambaugh. She was taken down and so DOGSO existed. However, the ball bounced in such a manner that ANOTHER opportunity existed. Advantage could have been played to allow that opportunity to complete. Then come back and send off Augustiniak for DOGSO. All I am saying is that Vaughn COULD have done this -- not SHOULD. In my opinion, he did the right thing for many of the reasons already listed. I do have one question for the higher level or more experienced referees here on the board. Suppose that you allow advantage but the Meier's opportunity is stopped by Scurry. There is no immediate action one way or the other. Can you stop play at that point to issue the send off to Augustiniak? Since you can stop play at any time to deal with misconduct, why can't you go ahead and stop play once the followup to the DOGSO is finished? To follow that up -- I once had a single sequence of events that resulted in 2 SFP send-offs and a goal scored. A player is attacking through the center circle when he is taken down with a violent 2 footed tackle studs up. Ball bounces directly to an opponent still streaking toward goal who is then violently taken down from behind. Again, the ball bounces fortunately to another attacker who dribbles in and scores. I had signaled and yelled play on both time. After the goal was scored, I came back and issued the 2 red cards and signalled for the medical attention required on the first tackle. What if the goal hadn't resulted? In this case, I had an injury that I could have stopped for, but if no injury, could I just have stopped play to issue the two send-offs?
Perhaps you did. DOGSO-Free kick pertains to an individual victim. In the case at hand the attacking player lay sprawled on the pitch - she definitely lost her OGSO! If another attacker gets a subsequent advantage, that does not negate the first misconduct. I am not a higher level referee, but I got this from one. A topic similar to this was discussed a month ago on a different board. A FIFA AR gave two ways to proceed in that [similar] case. ("Apply advantage" means that the referee can see that it will accrue.) #1. Apply advantage. Wait until the ball goes out of play, then send off the culprit. #2. Apply advantage. If the advantage does not immediately produce a goal, then stop play, send off the culprit, and award an IFK to the attackers (for the misconduct) at the point of the trip. A DFK cannot be awarded since the advantage accrued. Obviously #2 is much the safer. I do believe that any referee who gives advantage would believe that the advantage has to be awfully good to do so.
Well, as much as I respect FIFA refs, I believe his interpretation is incorrect. If somebody is fouled, the restart is a DFK. If you are punishing the misconduct, you have to punish the foul too. If you aren't punishing the foul due to advantage, you CAN'T then stop play solely for the misconduct. Advantage means the entire situation is being noted but play allowed to continue. You can't apply advantage to the foul and not the misconduct, for it is the foul that is also the misconduct. This is the precise reasoning as to why we are able to punish misconduct at the next stoppage of the game. If we could stop the game with an IFK restart for the misconduct in this situation, there would be no need for this power under Law 5. That is why it is very tricky to apply advantage on a red card foul. If the goal is not scored, the game could continue for 20 minutes before the ball goes out of play. Then you have to go back and send-off the player for the original offense, even though they have been playing for an extra 20 minutes. Would it have not been more advantageous then for their opponent to play down a man for the rest of the game rather than getting a mere chance to score? Again, you cannot stop the game for misconduct and restart with an IFK if the misconduct occured alongside a foul with advantage applied.
Advantage and misconduct can be a deadly combination. I absolutely agree. In fact, by allowing that individual to remain on the pitch, I think you put yourself into no-man's land under the law. Once you decide that you are going to send off the player, technically you have done it. If you permit him to remain because you want to give the offended team the opportunity to play their momentary advantage, and that miscreant then steals the ball and scores a goal, what are you left with? Was he still an eligible player? Is the goal valid? What if he commits another act of misconduct, or an act of misconduct is commited against him? What a mess, not to mention that it will take your entire game fee to pay for the postage to submit the match report.