If you don't think that's a red card you're either a bigger homer than LA announcers or you're mentally retarded. Think of it this way, if Rolfe had the ball in that position and wasn't hacked down he would score. That's clearly DOGSO. If that isn't, what is? Baky playing keeper?
If Rolfe had the ball in that same spot, he would've been caught from behind, would've tried to cut back, and would've shot wide if he wasn't dispossessed. And that's clearly DOGSHIT. Way to bloviate though. Think of it this way: Like every single thing in this life, I can do that better than you. Like it? The truth is, you're not actually saying anything...just putting a bunch of words together in a semblance of sense. And to anyone else: I'll ********ing argue this shit all day long. It's not even like I care about the foul...just the abject stupidity coming out the mouths of those talking about it.
I agree. Richards is quite a bit shorter than Segares, no way that whack was accidental. Agree about the weather, too- a nasty cold day, had to be tough to play in. Only saving grace was it didn't rain like the original forecast said it would- Anyone hear the attendance?
The replay clearly shows that Thorrington got the ball first. So "last man" or "intent" don't even factor into the decision. There was no foul. The ref was not in a position to see the play, seeing as he was trailing 30 yards behind it. He also did not check with his linesman at all,which is terrible reffing when you know you were totally out of position to see the play. Weyland guessed, pure and simple and, as usual with MLS's shitty refs, he guessed wrong. Also, the ref was completely inconsistent all game long and, of course, missed the handball that started NY's counterattack, should have red carded Richards for the elbow, etc. etc. the list goes on. But that's par for the course in MLS and has been since 1996 because USSF is perfectly OK with producing crap officials and couldn't care less about improving them no matter how embarrassing they are. Which is why MLS and USSF will do two things to this ref after such a crappy performance: jack and $hit. So ******** you, USSF. ******** you, MLS league office who won't demand better. ******** you, Weyland, you incompetent piece of crap. We got three points and Mrs. Osorio froze her ass off for nothing! --------------- That said, kudos to the team for an excellent and deserved win despite the idiot with the whistle. We didn't give up, we kept attacking them, we didn't try to totally bunker for 75 minutes and Denis made good adjustments at halftime and good subs. I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen when the howling wind took away our ability to over-rely on longball. It turns out, we can really move the ball through midfield, even a man down. Fancy that! Our whole team should be proud of themselves.
I want to give the fire the benefit of the doubt but thorrington hit the man first then the ball and it was clearly a breakaway so yes the red card was justified.
I completely disagree with the red...for the reason stated on MLSnet. It is questionably "denial of a goal scoring chance", but it isn't unreasonable. It was definitely a tackle from behind where zero ball was gotten. People went crazy the minute the official pulled the red, but the second Thorrington went to ground I turned to my brother who was at the game with me and said, "straight red." It was pulled and I wasn't the least surprised.
What replay? The one I'm seeing on MLSnet is clear as day - he didn't touch the ball. I was sitting in section 109 on the West side of the stadium and I called a straight red the minute Thorrington hit the deck. I don't know how the ref could have missed it being that much closer. He was terribly inconsistent, and that elbow from Richards definitely flirted with the back pocket plastic. The Fire moved the ball quite well on the ground all over the field today. Am I the only one who is more impressed with Tim Ward each game. He's quite solid on defense, I think he played well when Hamlett pushed him forward to give Pause some help in the middle and jam things up, and he's got phenomenal footwork for a defender and very good footwork in general. I really like that the Fire grabbed him.
Only if there's a foul. If Thorrington had missed the ball or gone through the man first to get the ball, then yeah, of course it's a red. But he came in from the side and got the ball, which clearly changes direction when Thorrington hits it. I've seen that same tackle made under those same circumstances plenty of times and it doesn't get called. As there was no foul, there's justification for any card, let alone red. Watch the replay. Thorrington got the ball.
I just watched it again for the fifth time. It was from behind and he doesn't even touch it. Edit: Just watched it for a sixth time. The movement of the ball is consistent the entire time until the RB player touches as he stumbles. You can see the markings on the ball never jar or slow or even twitch. He missed the ball. Edit 2: The second angle reply from above at about 1:16 on the MLSnet video confirms it as well.
I wouldn't say, "I am impressed with Tim Ward." But, I do think he's played well. Of course, I thought he was downright horrible when he was moved to the midfield today. And that, I'm not even exaggerating. Horrible.
So the German handball was simply a bad call that stole a WC semifinal appearance from us? Most of the world seems to remember that as a borderline call that could have gone either way. You're wrong about last man, too. The point is to eliminate the bad fouls in those situations by giving stern consequences, not forcing ref and player to evaluate a dozen criteria to determine what the consequences will be. It's idiotic to think that a player who commits a cynical, dangerous foul thinking he's the last man is let off the hook by the fact that a ref thinks that someone else MIGHT have gotten between the attacker and the ball, or that the attacker MIGHT have had a hard time getting the ball past a goalie. In fact, by your interpretation, a ref could actually decide that it wasn't a cardable offense because the attacker wasn't particularly good and the keep was excellent, so the goal opportunity wasn't as certain. The rule is pretty clear, though often refs are too gutless to follow through.
Denis disagreed with the red card. From the press box, and in the final replay angle, Soumare was about 10 yards away to Kandji's left and slightly ahead of him. Could he have caught up, eh, maybe. Regardless, it was a win and now Rolfe or Blanco will start next week. http://fire.american-soccer-news.com/?p=309
I recorded the game from Telefutura. I've run the tackle frame by frame. According to the Telefutura replay I saw, he got the ball. Maybe mlsnet has some different angle that shows otherwise. Where is it on mlsnet? All I see are "Pappa scores off post" and "Cepero save reel". I'm open to an alternative angle replay. Until then... I also sit in Section 109. I also thought I saw the thing you did - until I got home and watched the game again. Yeah, it was close, I'll give you that. But from what the replay I saw shows, you, me and Weyland all made a mistake watching it live. Again, I'd like to see the angle you're seeing just in case. Even if seeing another angle proves Weyland accidently -and it would have been strictly accidental, see below- got that one call right, that doesn't change the fact that he was utter crap the rest of the game. Strictly for the sake of argument, though, let's pretend Weyland did happen to guess right and it really was a foul. Weyland still guessed. From where he was well behind the play, there's no way on earth Weyland knew if Thorrington had gotten the ball or not. He should have checked with his linesman. If his linesman had said it was a foul and then Weyland pulled out red, I'd still be pissed off but I could understand how it happened seeing as it was close enough for me to have use slow-mo to review it when I got home. But he didn't, even though he could not possibly have been 60% sure, let alone 100% sure, of the call. That's not acceptable refereeing, even if the call goes the Fire's way. No. He's been a stud. The starting right back position is his to lose. Prideaux is now 2nd on the depth chart there.
OK, so I went back and rewatched the play frame by frame for the 10th time. I wish I could post screen shots of the frames. Are there any Zapruder descendents who filmed the game? Kandji obviously feels the pressure from behind so he leaves his feet before Thorrington touches him or the ball. Thorrington's outstretched leg goes under and slightly to the right of the now airborne Kandji and... well, I see Thorrington tap the ball which seems to change it direction slightly to the right. But again, let's say you're right and he missed it completely. Even if Thorrington did not get the ball, Kandji had clearly decided to dive before any contact was made. Thorrington doesn't touch Kandji until Kandji is already crashing to the ground, having decided to leave his feet and dive before Thorrington even got there. And there's still no possible way Weyland, trailing 30 yards behind the play (which would not have happened at all if Weyland correctly calls the handball that sprang Kandji in the first place), had any angle by which he could tell what happened. From behind the play he saw Thorrington start to slide and then Kandji try for his pilot's license. Unless he's got superhero x-ray vision and could see through Thorrington, then he simply assumed that Thorrington barrelled into Kandji and sent him flying. And we all know happens when you assume. That's still poor refereeing by Weyland and the rest of the game just adds more proof to how poor he was all game long. Seeing as how I cannot change what happened during the game and given my views on how Denis should be using Thorrington as an attacking midfielder and not a second d-mid, I'd actually prefer to be able to say that Thorrington DID make a clumsy tackle deserving of a red card. That would just be more evidence to support my belief that Denis is misusing Thorrington who should not be playing a defensive role. But until I can find the video from mlsnet.com -which I really don't use to pull video so apologies that I'm frustratingly not seeing it easily- you're looking at, I still have to say that I disagree with Weyland's decision, especially in light of his many other screw ups. Finally, as Tobin said, it's a win and we're so deep at attacking midfielders that we should be fine against the unimpressive E-quakes.
You've been basically posting the same 2 complaints over and over. 1) "Thor got the ball." He clearly, clearly CLEARLY, did not get the ball. The replays from different angles and speeds all show the exact same thing I saw live: not close to getting the ball, clear foul. 2) "The ref was in a bad spot to make the call and didn't check with his lineman." a) The linesman immediately flagged for the foul, so there was no reason to go over and ask him if it was a foul, the guy was swinging his flag like it was on fire. b) The refs and linesmen are all miced together, so he doesn't have to walk over to the linesmen if the linesmen wants to tell him "obvious red" And to anyone claiming that Baky had a play on the guy, you are completely wrong. Baky was behind the play AND 10 yards east of the ball. The only one stoping a goal was Busch. Completely, 100%, no question, right call.
Was in 105 today, basically looking straight on at the play. This was really my only issue with the call, in that Weyland was so enthused by the prospect of authoritatively pulling out a red card that he didn't for a second consider that he should perhaps check with the man looking directly at the play. For what it's worth, the linesman didn't start waving his flag until after the whistle had blown...
You know... it's amazing that for someone who posts so much on here that you don't even know the rules of soccer. And if you don't know them, which you clearly don't, you should keep your mouth shut and not rip into other people who are correctly describing the ACTUAL rules of the game. To: Chair, State Referee Committee State Referee Administrators State Youth Referee Administrators State Directors of Referee Instruction State Directors of Referee Assessment National Referees National Instructors From: Alfred Kleinaitis Manager of Referee Development and Education Subject: Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity Denied (The 4 Ds) Date: September 16, 2002 Law 12 provides that a defender whose violation of the Law prevents a goal or denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity must be sent off and shown the red card. The "professional foul" which is taken in a cynical attempt to prevent opponents from scoring requires a quick, firm response by the referee. Such misconduct by the defender overshadows the severity of the foul itself. In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present: • Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul • Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal scoring opportunity • Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball • Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed If any element is missing, there can be no send off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Further, the presence of each of these elements must be "obvious" in order for the send off to be appropriate under this provision of Law 12. However, the foul might, by itself, warrant a card -- a caution for unsporting behavior, for example, if the challenge was reckless or a send off if the challenge was violent. If the foul by the defender is both violent and qualifies as an obvious goal-scoring opportunity offense misconduct, the referee should include both facts in the game report but must only list one official reason for the red card. Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goal-scoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include technical fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. --------------------- So lets review: Number of defenders between attacker and goal? 1. Busch. Baky wasn't even close to being able to make a play on the ball. CHECK Distance to goal? Very close, just outisde the box. CHECK Distance to ball? Attacker was dribbling it. CHECK Direction of play? Directly toward goal. CHECK Result: Red card. Note: There is no intent mentioned in the 4 criteria. It doesn't matter if he was trying to foul him or trying to get the ball. It doesn't matter.
First of all, that has nothing to do with this. Just because I mention in passing that your mother is a whore, that doesn't mean you can start using the gap between her legs as proof that ice cream is made of pancakes. Secondly, yeah, that was a blown call... If your hand just happens to land in your mother's crotch, that's fine...but leaving it there when she starts grinding on it isn't. No, I'm not. Actually, that's precisely what the rule asks the referee to interpret. I have long ceased to wonder how people can say shit without thinking on the internets...but come on. If the ref isn't supposed to interpret intent on that call, how the ******** is he supposed to decide whether it's cynical or not? You don't see this? Seriously...forget that lame-ass line about reading what I wrote...try reading what you write before you post it. But let's start with mine anyway: And that's the gist... It's ridiculous to say that the ref shouldn't have to interpret intent and then turn right the ******** around in the exact same ********ing sentence and assign intent to the player's actions in order to justify the punishment. Like I also said, it's not the call itself that pisses me off, so much as the ridiculous lack of introspect inherent in most of BS-land. Also, MLS refs should be randomly punched in the face in supermarket parking lots.
Soumare was about 10 yards East but definitely not behind the play. He was even with Kandji. Just look at the final replay from the long shot. The field lines will show you that. The foul also happens about 35 yards from goal. This is why some feel it wasn't a straight red. I can see why the red card was given based on the situation. It was just silly for Thorrington to actually slide as his pace allowed him to catch up to Kandji after he had passed Conde. He had the angle on him but made the wrong choice to go to the ground.
sinksore, you might want to read my post after yours, and take it to heart. I may have a high post count after 6 years or so...but I rarely post anything other than the random **********-fart joke around here anymore. I don't think you really want to know why.
Fire played better then the Deadbulls down a man. Hamlet, Mapp, and Pause were all fantastic today. I'm waiting for the BS Fire board to implode at the thought of that. 3 points is 3 points.
Neutral observer here and dude, you need a reality check! Go to Mlsnet.com and click multimedia, and check out the highlights for the game. They show multiple angles. This was a clear red card. Kandji was not diving on this play. Thorrington most definitely makes contact before Kandji starts going down. Hit pause at 1:15 and see Thor making contact from behind, Kandji in mid stride (not diving), and Thors foot with plenty of green grass between it and the ball. Thors foot never made contact with ball. This was right at the top of the box with only Busch to beat. Only way thats not a goal--either Busch makes incredible save or Kandji royally f's up. Baky had NO chance whatsoever. clear cut red.