A couple bad misses in the AUFC v. ORL game that balanced out. Escobar passes to Jahn who is fouled twice in the box - once by the keeper (knee to his lower leg as he tries to play the ball past) then by the defender almost pulling his jersey off as he tries to get the ball back. Not sure how both, to me, very clear PK / DOGSO was missed. BUT AUFC should have been on 10 men and Escobar gone after a nasty, late tackle while already on a YC. Fair result - but no highlights of any of it on MLS
In this case, I think the only reason the goal was scored is because the whistle went and all of the DCU defenders stopped playing (other than the GK, because, let's be frank... GKs apparently never stop... ha). In this case, I think that this is a fair whistle to give, because that whistle doesn't go, I don't think that the other attacker has any chance at that shot.
Seems like Drew Fisher got a little lucky when NYCFC converted their 2nd PK after what might have been a quick whistle. At the 1 minute mark of the video at the bottom of this page (sorry for the shakiness if its shows up that way on your screen; going full screen eliminated that for me): https://www.blackandredunited.com/2...p-final-score-highlights-covid-19-coronavirus Even as I was supporting DC United, I was hoping NYCFC would bury the PK so it didn't become a massive talking point. Thoughts?
Like I said, I don't really blame Fischer here. But I definitely disagree on your assessment. All DCU players have over-run the ball. The "goal-scorer" is starting his volley as the whistle blows. It looks like it's a broken play that wouldn't have resulted in a goal because of everyone's position when the whistle goes. But no one is challenging that volley before the whistle and, like you said, the goalkeeper definitely attempts to save it.
I understand. But nevertheless there were some things taught at these clinics that were simply made up from whole cloth by one or other of the ghostwriters who contributed to the ATR. These were often challenged by very experienced referees, instructors and assessors in the audience who were unafraid to speak up. Usually there was not much defense and the subject was changed or a break was announced! And strangely some material was not the same as given at actual preseason clinics of the pro leagues or the annual National Referee camp. Probably a good thing they were discontinued. PH
I'm pretty sure that used to be a question on the national exam. Along with a question that I'm sure was on it 20 years ago that was unrealistic back then, but now is suddenly relevant in the VAR era--they used to teach in ATR and test this scenario: In an attack down the touch line, the ball went in/out of touch, and the flag was missed by the R, the defender then committed DOGSO, is shown red, then the R sees the missed flag... The red would stand because the R was penalizing the intended offense, even though now the restart would be a throw-in. In terms of craziness, that was right up there for the rebound being a new play for DOGSO-H.
I remember something like that, but not that exact scenario. If true (and, to be clear, I believe you--just don't remember it), that was as wrong then as it is now. Stating what I hope is the obvious, there need not be an "intent" to commit DOGSO. Perhaps more to the point, all instruction since then has established the principle that you can't punish someone for DOGSO if an OGSO didn't actually exist.
There's overlap with this thread and last week, since these assignments weren't posted yet and who knows what a "week" is anymore, anyway? Long way of saying this is already being discussed in Week 15 thread... I will just merge them to make it easier.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2020...share_button&utm_campaign=social_share_button Godoy did this on purpose, can't convince me otherwise.
There's no real evidence here to overturn the call on the field. Unfortunately, the IRP operates on politics and not evidence. The public perception is that Vancouver got two soft red cards, and because the Godoy red is difficult to understand for a layman, the league allows the appeal to go forward and encourages that it be upheld. Same as it ever was.
Sorry I'm so late to the substitution saga, but I have a couple of questions ... 1. When Dickerson makes reference to "Howard," is that Howard Webb? 2. When Stephen Glass says, "You're making it up as you go along," is that justification for a yellow for dissent? I remember being told that it's one thing to argue a call but another to question the authority of the ref. I'll admit that I'm a little biased on Ben Olsen's behavior. The guy has been an underdog ever since he shattered his ankle on a loan deal with Nottingham Forest that likely would've been a pathway to a European career. He reinvented himself as a midfield bulldog who inspired D.C. United to do better than it should have. Then he immediately became a head coach, earlier than he should have, and held an underfunded team together for years. The ax finally fell soon after this game, but United says it's going to find another role for him. Steven Goff had an amazing stat -- the last United home game was the first since the late 90s in which Olsen was neither on the roster nor the playing staff. So I can only imagine what's going through Olsen's head seeing yet another calamity unfold after two decades of devoting his life to a club that was once a dynasty but has struggled with intermittent dysfunction since then. As a ref, if I hear Olsen telling Glass to shut up and play the game, I know I'm supposed to tell him to calm down. As a historian of this league and a resident of the DMV, which the rest of the country hates and scorns even though the only horrible people are the ones the rest of the country sends us, I think telling one of those prototypical "I'm Scottish so I know better than you" coaches to shut up is a terrific final act.