I don't disagree, but I think retroactively punishing Jozy for a ref's miss is bad policy. ...so he'll probably get 2 games for it.
This is where you lose me. A ref's miss doesn't give players carte blanche to met out their own discipline.
To issue a punishment for VC ignores that the VC didn't occur in a vacuum, and Jozy's post suggests retaliation as well, so you highlight the failure of the CR to call the dangerous play. Of course players shouldn't mete out their own discipline, but that's exactly what happens when a CR fails to manage a game properly.
Camera angle is not on the back of line but middle of line and therefore needs to be adjusted. Cheers, Mi3ke
The only high foot in this clip that could possibly be considered playing in a dangerous manner is the first one that makes Jozy slightly flinch, and it's not even from Abubakar.. That said, it's too far away from him to make that call at the professional level. When Abubakar raises his leg, there's no immediate reaction from Altidore to indicate that he senses any danger from the boot. I think it's much more likely he was retaliating for a previous foul or perhaps for his shirt being held just prior.
I'm all for more red cards than anyone else, but that's never a red card at the professional level or really any competitive level. It's a dirty and cheap play, but no where does it cross the line of violent conduct or serious foul play. The fall was unfortunate, but a yellow card is just the appropriate decision.
Well it can't cross the line for serious foul play because he's very clearly not challenging for the ball. I think it's closer to VC than you think.
I don't know how you can watch that video and NOT think he was trying to hurt the other player. The fall wasn't unfortunate...it's was the only possible outcome from Jozy's play. If he's even slightly making a play on the ball, you can think YC...but he's not. Total disregard for the other players safety. Clear RC for me.
Where is Jozy Altidore in relation to the boot? What was Jozy Altidore's reaction to the high boot? He doesn't even flinch from it. No foul.
It’s no use. The DCU fans will only see what they want to see. I tried to make this exact same point in a different forum, and some doofus fan couldn’t get my point and resorted to personal attacks. They see one camera off-kilter and think it’s gospel. It’s been a disappointing season for them, and I think this is just a convenient release for that frustration.
You're responding to a DC United fan and you are making personal attacks in this comment. Sporting KC is going to miss the playoffs. DC United likely will be in the playoffs.
What's this comment have to do with ref discussions at all? Please save that stuff for the team/league NON-REF forums.
Smith’s tackle, sweep and kick should have been a red. But it is an interesting one for VAR. A caution is not COE, but I think that if there is an OFR, a red would be issued.
I think he's referring to your cheap shot at me that doesn't have anything to do with refereeing. I'll take the high road and just leave things at that.
I'm going to respond here because I am surprised you reported the post in question. Hopefully this public reply puts a stop to this side conversation. First off, fans regularly come in here with an attitude of "all you refs defend each other" or something along those lines (we see it above). When a particular group of fans come in complaining about the same incident and don't truly want to hear the alternate viewpoint (especially when it's a uniform viewpoint from the regular posters), I'm okay with that attitude being called out. If you feel aggrieved because you're also a fan of that team, I'd either invite you to develop slightly thicker skin or not associate with your tribe on every single matter. When he (or I... or anyone else) categorizes fans generally, of course it should be implied that it's not all fans. But more to the point, this isn't the field of play--people aren't acting as referees here. If some might have a belief that every referee poster here should act just as they would while refereeing, I think they should reconsider. It's a discussion board with lively debate--it's perfectly reasonable for there to be some bite in the commentary here, so long as it doesn't truly push boundaries. I think there's a much higher level of discourse here compared to most sections on this site, but it doesn't mean the regular posters need to be deferential angels 100% of the time and not pushback. And on the "personal attack" issue... he referenced a person in another forum by using a pretty benign, albeit childish, name. No one here was personally attacked. It was an "attack" in absentia. I think we've seen third parties--from fellow referees to administrators to league authorities to players--referred to as worse. Again, I'd reference back to the thicker skin or not associating with the tribe 100% of the time. I don't think anyone here was injured by the off-hand use of "doofus." And, without even going into the forum, I'd guess @RefIADad directly got called worse in response to his posts! Now, with all that said, you are correct in pointing out that he was responding to a DCU poster who had conceded the point of the debate (to an extent, at least) and the conversation had actually ended up in a good place. So, simply in that context, a lot of the post made no sense. Now he realizes that! And, despite the blip of frustration and somewhat heated rhetoric--including even from me--the conversation ended up in a very good place and people are engaging well. I think it speaks well of the forum, actually.
Jozy is right next to him in that clip. Just because no contact was made does -not- mean a foul wasn't committed, and a high boot in congestion constitutes a reckless play. Were I a ref I'd card that every day of the week, rather than risk a boot-to-face contact. I mean, isn't that the -point-?
I CONCEDE NOTHING! Well, I concede that VAR's implementation is bad, and that it really should have gone to review by the CR, rather than rely on the VAR official to say insufficient evidence for review...Meaning, I can see WHY it went the way it did, but that's not to say it was properly done.
@ManiacalClown has this covered, but I'll chime in to support his point. "High boot" is only a foul if it either: A) makes contact (in which case it's a direct free kick) OR B) "threatens injury to someone" and prevents a "nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" (indirect free kick) (A) obviously didn't happen here. @ManiacalClown 's point is that everything you see from Altidore indicates (B) didn't happen either. There's no flinch or pause or pullback. I'm with him here. There's no foul to call. Not all "high boots" are fouls. Also, no-contact "high boots" (meaning scenario B) are almost never cautions. Maybe a really dangerous bicycle kick in a crowd that makes no contact would get one, but even that's a stretch. You're only issuing a card on a high boot if it makes contact (and then, at times, you also have to consider red). As to the original question of what Altidore did, I'm ambivalent. Given the exact same scenario in a high level youth or amateur match, I'm probably going red. In a professional match and particularly given the player... it's just too weird of an incident for a referee to go red there, I think. And once you don't go red, there's no way VAR can intervene.