I was at the LA/Chivas match, in the press box with Andrea, and she was asking around the box what everyone thought of the ref. With one exception, everyone thought the ref did a poor job, myself included. Here's what could have been done differently by Weyland. First off, he started throwing cards too early. I've never been a fan of pulling out cards in the first 10 minutes unless the challenge is blatant. Nagamura's first yellow was pretty soft. What the ref can do is issue warnigs (they do that you know). Let players know that type of play isn't going to fly. Unfortunately he started throwing out cards early, and then later in the first half, started issuing warnings on blatant yellow card offenses because he suddenly didn't want to change the game by sending people off. Exhibit A: Shavar Thomas put Landon Donovan in a headlock after getting beat. Thomas was already carrying a yellow card at the time, but only got a warning for the second offense. That only adds to the frustration of the players on the field. Exhibit B: After Sacha Kljestan got a yellow card for throwing Tudela to the ground, he was all in the face of Weyland on more than one occasion. This was obvious dissent, but again, Weyland let it go so as to not send a player off in the first half. Exhibit C: Alan Gordon gets his first card for dissent. A soft card, especially considering what Kljestan was allowed to get away with in the first half. His second card was legit, but it was an act of frustration, which was built up by inconsistent refereeing. By all rights, Chivas USA could have, and should have been down to 8 men in the first half if Weyland had actually called a consistent game. But because he had thrown out too many cards too early, he was put in the position of having to either let things go, or completely change the course of the game by sending players off. He opted for the first choice, which only served to amplify frustration. He did a lousy job of controlling the match. There is no rule saying you can't pull the captains aside early and lay down the law. Or go to the sidelines and grab the coaches and lay down the law. If coaches and captains don't respond, then send people off. It was Weyalnd's inconsistancy in the first half that allowed the game to get out of hand.
And U-14 too. I have to agree with this comment and the one that talked about the college game and the amazing amount of contact that people get away with. In fact, I would argue that there is an American attitude at play here: that you do anything to win, including tripping, kicking and even injuring other players. And I would argue that attitude has been unfortunately built into the game at very early levels. In fact MLS fans tend to be the worst complainers in the world about people being "soft" and diving -- as if the game is supposed to be centered on clashing tackles and not skillful movement of the ball. If you got a chance to see the Seattle-KC game last week you would see that KC players were taking turns knocking down Freddie Ljungberg, very obviously, and on purpose, to send a message that they wouldn't allow him time on the ball. The same happened to Fredy Montero in the second game of the year, when RSL realized that he was a force that needed to be dealt with. In both these cases the players on the other team did everything they could, at every opportunity, to not only disrupt the player, but to hurt them -- including Montero being pushed into an advertising board head-first. Frankly I'm for more red cards in MLS. Let's create attractive soccer by removing the thugs from the game altogether.
Weyland was also noted in US Soccer's referee week in review for the New York/Chicago game in which I thought (and probably you thought, and Tamberino thought, but Weyland did not think) Dane Richards should have been sent off for a forearm shiver to the head of Gonzalo Segares (?). Also (since it may get lost on Dan's blog), I repeat a story told to me by Dr. Joe Machnik: He asked Landon Donovan why they (the players) play one way at the national team level and another way at the MLS level. Donovan said "Because you guys let us." Players will do what they're allowed to do. As officials, what you allow, you promote.
I don't doubt this. Do they listen to the broadcast in the press box? Not a bad rule of thumb, but Weyland didn't issue his first card until the 19th minute, to Miglioranzi. Nagamura got his first in the 25th minute. Well, it is a bit arguable about how "blatant" these second yellow cards actually were. If there was ever a time not to give a card, this was it. It would have been his second yellow, and Chivas would have gone two men down. Thomas' original foul wasn't tactical, he was going for the ball. LA, from what I could tell, was not in any great position to attack. Yes, you can make a case that a card was deserved, but do you really think the game needed Shavar Thomas to be sent off for that stupid play? All in the face? He has a very polite discussion with Weyland after getting the card, not appearing upset with the call in the least. He appears to try to explain to Weyland what happened. It was very strange play. There may or may not have been anything deliberate in Kljestan's actions, but Tudela did go down very hard. So he could have been carded for reckless play, and that is in fact what appears on the match report. Later, Weyland calls Kljestan over to have another very polite conversation with him when play was stopped for Thomas' first yellow, after Kljestan and Lewis exchange words (Lewis also had a yellow card). Certainly, there is NO reason here to give Kljestan a yellow for dissent. And Weyland gets chastized for slowing the game down to talk to Kljestan, in an effort to keep things under control? How can you possibly know what exactly Gordon said to Weyland, or how much warning Weyland had already given Gordon about dissent? You are talking like a homer. Donovan got his "frustration" satisfied on the Thomas non send-off with the Nagamura send-off. I don't think he is crying in his beer. If you think people are unhappy with his refereeing for this game, image the outcry if he had sent off 3 players for Chivas in the first half, all for second cautions? Weyland didn't have a choice about the Gordon and Berhalter send-offs, with Berhalter's being a straight red. I believe he could have kept Nagamura on the field, as he kept Thomas on the field. I think the card there, especially a second yellow, was harsh. But really we are quiblling here. Neither Gordon, Nagamura, Thomas (who wasn't sent-off) should have done what they did while already carrying a caution. Why is Weyland getting blamed for this? At least Miglioranzi was smart enough not to do anything stupid the rest of the game. "There is no rule saying you can't pull the captains aside early and lay down the law." True, there is no rule. But if cautions don't stop players from misbehaving, I am a little confused how you think pulling captains aside will.
First off, I'm not a Galaxy fan. So your "homer" comment has no merrit. I was talking about the card situation, but Weyland also missed what I thought was a pretty obvious penalty when Alan Gordon brought stumbled into Eduardo Lilingston in the penalty area. The offside call on Gordon's non-goal was pretty rock solid too. The simple fact is, there was inconsistancy's with the way that Weyland was handing out cards, which led to the game getting out of hand. The video is on, the audio is off You put a guy in a headlock after getting beat, that's pretty blatant. It's about consistancy. Weyland didn't demonstrate any consistancy, and by the letter of the law, Shavar should have been sent off. He threw out some cards via the letter of the law and other cards not. Inconsistent. That is 100% on the ref. Based on your argument, Berhalter shouldn't have even been given a card let alone straight red for doing to Eskandarian the exact same thing that Shavar did in the first half to Donovan. You need to read more carefully. I never said that Kljestan was all in Weylands face because of the yellow card he recieved. Later on in the first half, on more than one occasion, he was shouting right in the ear of Weyland. At one point, Weyland had to pull him aside from the action to tell him to calm down. He very easily could have gotten his second yellow for dissent. I don't know what Gordon said and perhaps it was a justified yellow. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making about consistancy. (Are you noticing a theme the second time around?) Weyland was letting Kljestan get away with some verbal "assault" in the first half, and then showed no hesitation in carding Gordon. At the time, no big deal because it was his first yellow. But Gordon got a second yellow three minutes later for a more justified foul. The first card should have probably stayed in his pocket on Gordon, or a second card should have been pulled on Kljestan. Either way, inconsistency ruled. So because one player gets sent off for a tackle on Donovan, every other player then should be able to bear hug him or drag him to the ground the rest of the game because the quota on sending off guys for fouling Donovan has been met. I'm not crying in my beer either over this, but if the game was called consistently from whistle to whistle, the yes, three Chivas players should have been thrown out in the opening 45 minutes. Call the game the same way in minute one as you would in minute 90. Because he let some players get away with stuff and then later in the game carded players for doing the same thing. CONSISTENCY. Captains and coaches are the leaders on the field. Before a referee puts himself in a position where he has to choose to let a blatent cardable offense slide because of the game situation he should be issuing warnings. If the leader on the team can't get his side to calm down and straighten out, you start issuing cautions. If that doesn't work, you start sending people off. Weyland got steps one and two backwards, which allowed the game to get more out of hand. p.s. I realize that there is no consistancy to the way I spelled consitency. I'm too lazy to copy and paste this post into word to spell check it.
I want to add to my above post. The Chivas USA media relations people were saying that Shavar should have been sent off at halftime. We agreed that Nagamura's second challenge was a yellow, but all agreed that the first one was pretty soft. They also agreed that Kljestan was lucky not to get a card for dissent and conceded that the only reason he didn't was because he was carrying a yellow already. I've said in print and in this thread (I think I've said it in this thread if not I'm going on record now) that I think the first Nagamura card was soft. Refs can only use the tools available to them to try and keep order in a match. Ultimately it's the players actions that matter. But when a ref misuses his tools, like Weyland did, it only serves to make matters worse. Weyland was guilty of this.
Well, I only said I was suspicious. Point accepted.[/quote] I can't quite follow this. When did the obvious penalty and offside call occur? The difference is Thomas didn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity. It wasn't clear on the broadcast if he even prevented any significant attacking play. However, clearly he could have been carded. I think it is debatable whether or not Weyland should have sent-off Thomas at that point. Those calling for consistency above all else have a good point that he should be sent-off, but on the other hand, you argued that no cards should be handed out the first 10 minutes, so you hardly qualify as a card-carrying member. It is quite possible that Kljestan showed a lot more dissent in the match than was televised. Apparently I have to add him to the category of stupid MLS players willing to goad the referee into sending them off. Since I wasn't there, I can't refute what you say. We never see him shouting into Weyland's ear, at least at the end of the first half. Well, Weyland apparently was consistent in that in his mind, the second yellow had to be a little more clear cut. But it could be that this resulted in Weyland appearing highly inconsistent on his yellow cards for dissent. Impossible to say just from viewing the telecast. What happened to no yellow cards in the first 10 minutes? "I've never been a fan of pulling out cards in the first 10 minutes unless the challenge is blatant." You aren't still trying to equate the grabs by Thomas and Berhalter, are you? If you don't card early, but only warn, and then card later, aren't you letting some players "get away with stuff" and then later are carding players for "doing the same thing"? Well, he did just talk to Donovan and Nagamura at 10:30 when Donovan (I believe) rather reckless clipped Nagamura and Nagamura complained about it. The yellow to Miglioranzi in the 20th minute was pretty justifiable, considering he came into the tackle with a high boot, late, with the bottom of his studs contacting Nagamura's foot and spinning him around. Should he have just given Migilioranzi a talking to? The first yellow card to Nagamura at 24:40 looked pretty clear cut to me. Do we really want to allow a player who has no opportunity to play the ball the right to charge into a player at high speed, denying attacking play at the same time? It's minute 25. At what time in the game is it going to be OK to issue cards? Maybe if Nagamura hadn't just gotten carded, Lewis wouldn't have gotten carded as well seconds later for fouling who else but Pablo Nagamura, who was leading attacking play by LA. While I would agree that this card was harsh, Lewis did disrupt attacking play. It isn't quite clear how much force Lewis put into the tackle, but it wasn't the force of the tackle that got him the card.
Well, I won't argue that all three players could have been sent off by halftime, although I have no idea exactly how much Kljestan dissented. It would have been interesting to read about that the next day.
The offside was in the 52nd minute, I do believe. Or the 32nd. Gordon was offside both of those times, but one of them was a disallowed goal that they didn't gripe about too much. As for the other, I don't recall exactly. One man's "obvious penalty" is another man's no-call. Such is soccer. Reasonable men can disagree about what is and isn't a penalty, that's what makes it interesting. I do agree that there are ways to control a match early on through your influence and communication without painting yourself into a corner with early cards. If you've given someone a yellow in minute 5, if they do something worse in minute 30, you're pretty much stuck. Now if something warrants a card, card 'em. It's called a "caution" for a reason. Caution = warning. But it's a tricky line they walk. I just think Weyland got into a bad situation and then tried to spend the last 45 minutes with no one seeing him at all. Until Berhalter and Gordon had to go and force his hand.
Which of the following cards do you think he should not have given? LA -- Stefani Miglioranzi (caution; Reckless Tackle) 19 CHV -- Paulo Nagamura (caution; Reckless Foul) 25 LA -- Eddie Lewis (caution; Reckless Foul) 26 CHV -- Sacha Kljestan (caution; Reckless Foul) 33 CHV -- Shavar Thomas (caution; Reckless Tackle) 36 CHV -- Paulo Nagamura (ejection; Second Caution) 45 Do you think he swallowed his whistle in the last 45 minutes? Should he have sent Thomas or Kljestan off before half?
Going from memory here because I watched the game in a hotel room in Denver at the end of a long day...One of Nagamura's I thought was soft, but can't remember if it was the second one...probably was. Thomas was the headlock one, right? Obvious one. I could go back and look at the others - off the top of my head, a couple of them I remember saying at the time "You have to be kidding me" and a couple others I said, "Yep." In between that, I was wondering what a game would look like if John Harkes reffed it. But I couldn't give you chapter and verse without looking at each one again. And I have to run, so I'm not inclined to do that. I believe Nagamura's second I thought was soft, Thomas' was right, and the Berhalter was obvious (I don't think anyone disputes that). It may have been just a feeling I got from having been in bad officiating circumstances (of my own doing and not of my own doing) that all you hope for is that you can get through the second half without a meteorite hitting you. If you looked at the fouls, maybe he didn't. The second half may have been normal and wouldn't have been out of place had the first half not been so bizarre. I'd have to look at it again. I did remember saying to my girlfriend before the end of the half, "This game is going to finish 10 on 9 or something." And it did. I look forward to the Fed's week in review on this one, though.
This is fun. The penalty came in the first half. Chivas had a free kick on the left side from about 40 yards out. As the ball was being played into the box, Alan Gordon stumbled and fell into Eduardo Lilingston, knocking him to the ground. Just becaus Gordon is uncoordinated doesn't mean it wasn't a penalty. The offside call came in the second half. Gordon scored what looked to be the game winning goal on a cross from Landon Donovan. Gordon was one or two feet offside on the play. It was a good call, but props should actually go to the linesman not Weyland. I'll get to the bolded part later in this post. As far as the Thomas foul, one benefit of sitting in the press box is that you get to see the entire field from a birds eye view. Watching at home, you are at the mercy of whatever the camera happens to capture. On the Thomas headlock, Donovan was isolated on the left flank with at least 30 yards of space in front of him. Given Landon's speed, and the space he had to work with, this was most certainly a scoring opportunity. Shavar knew this, which is why he put Donovan in a headlock. On the Berhalter card, the foul occured right near the center circle. Omar Gonzalez was off to the left (perhaps on TV you couldn't see this) and had 40 yards and an angle to try and close down Eskandarian before he was in alone on goal. That being said, I'm not at all surprised or shocked with the decision to show Berhalter a red card. However, Shavar's foul happened in open space, in his own half, after he was already cleearly beaten, with tons of space behind him and the most dangerous goal scorer in MLS about to be off to the races. There is no way you can say that one offense deserved a red and the other offense deserved no card at all. Weyland let one offense go and then later in the game showed straight red for a similar offense. Kljestan was definitely pushing the envelope, especially considering the fact that Weyland was handing out cards in the first half like candy on Halloween. Don't get it twisted. You're trying to get cute, just like you did above. I never once said that cards shouldn't be handed out early. If a chalenge is blatantly reckless with a chance to injure, then yes, a card is warrented. If it's a shoulder check, a warning. It's subjective, but it's up to the ref to understand the game situation. This was a rivalry game that has gotten more and more intense with each passing year. After Stefani's card, yeah, he probably should have pulled the captains aside and said, that's the precendent. Clean it up or you'll be seeing yellow all night. If that doesn't work, you start throwing yellows. If that doesn't work, you start throwing players. Weyland got steps one and two backwards. He started throwing yellow cards out and like a previous poster pointed out, painted himself into a corner where he couldn't send off Shavar for a blatent yellow card offense. Weyland probably realized he had lost control of the game and sewed his pockets shut hoping that the teams would police themselves at halftime and he could sneak out the backdoor. Unfortunaely, things got worse out of the locker rooms. He blew it, plain and simple.
Oh, yeah, that was it. He was half a body offside, but he was offside. Harkes said it was close. Yeah, but offside is offside.
Just spoke with Jesse Marsch for this week's Four At The Back podcast and asked him about the game. It'll be up later this week.
I'll give you that Thomas committed a tactical foul, although Weyland nor us realize how much of a hold he had on Donovan until he turned around. While Chivas had been pushing up, Trujillo was running back at top speed and Bornstein finally decided he needed to get back as well. With the ball so far from goal, I would hardly call this an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Assuming Gonzalez was the player on the right side of LA's defense, it didn't seem likely that he would have been able to close him down. You have gone overboard to label these as "similar" offenses. I have not heard anyone describe Thomas as denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. I find it difficult to disagree with the first yellows to Miglioranzi, Kljestan, Thomas, and Nagamura. It is certainly difficult to say a yellow couldn't be expected for any one of them (well, difficult for anyone but Harkes). The harshest card probably was to Lewis, but coming on the heels of the Nagamura card, it wasn't unexpected. I would like to see the play from a different angle. However, this is the only card I could describe as handed out like candy. Then we have Klestan and Thomas pushing for another card, practically on the heels of getting their first. We have Nagamura attempting an unlikely tackle through the legs of Donovan. Donovan is getting fouled repeatedly, some earning cards and some not, so Nagamura could have earned a card simply for team persistent infringement on Donovan. You can't blame the Gordon ejection on an early yellow to Gordon. He doesn't get his first until minute 68, and is ejected, for an apparently obvious reason that anyone who saw it says was clear cut, only three minutes later. So basically you have five people that deserved to be ejected, if I go along with your complaints about Kljestan: Nagamura, Kljestan, Thomas, Gordon, and Berhalter. Three of them deserved to go in the first half. And we have maybe one yellow card in the first half that shouldn't have been given, the one to Lewis. While the dissent card to Gordon isn't clear it occurred much later in the game, and Gordon couldn't hold his water for 3 minutes. How can Weyland be blamed for that? I am kind of at a loss to understand how it is Weyland's fault that the game got away. I suspect that Weyland very much considered it and, judging by the Nagamura send off moments later, certainly could have sent Thomas off. I wouldn't be surprised if the Thomas non-card influenced his decision to send off Nagamura. Gordon must have felt he was getting beat up in the second half. He certainly lost his composure. Other than the Berhalter red card, which can't be blamed in any way on Weyland, what went wrong? If Gordon was getting beaten up and Weyland wasn't protecting him, then Weyland, to some degree, can be blamed for Gordon's ejection. But I haven't seen any evidence of it. My solution for the Berhalter red card would be to award LA a penalty kick for the denied obvious goal scoring opportunity, even though it was outside the area. Then Berhalter will be less inclined to commit such a foul.
Thomas should have gotten a card for that second foul - it was about as blatant as you can get. Some referees might even have given a straight red for that, though I would have considered that a rather soft red. However, Nagamura had just been sent off, and I'm assuming Weyland didn't want to send off two Chivas players within the space of about 2 minutes. Kljestan's yellow and Thomas's yellow were both soft, as was Nagamura's second. The consensus in the Riot Squad after Nagamura was tossed was that we'd likely see a pretty drastic make-up call or non-call, because Nagamura should not have gotten a card for that foul. IIRC, one of the Galaxy's yellows in the first half was also pretty soft. In general, where Weyland erred was in trying to calm things down in the first half by issuing a lot of soft yellows. In general, fouls that a referee could have issued a yellow card for without really surprising anyone, but that most referees would have tried to handle with a verbal warning that early in the game. And it wasn't just one or two of that type of card, but most of the cards in the first half fell into that category. And that is exactly how a referee paints himself into a corner. Gordon's first yellow was an example of the same, even if it wasn't early. After one soft yellow, Weyland left himself with a hard decision to make. He correctly showed Gordon the second yellow, but that was the only time the whole game that a player with a yellow card didn't get away with doing something worse. None of the individual cards were necessarily surprising, but certainly a pattern emerged. No verbal warnings, lots of soft first yellows, followed by refusal to send off players when they did something worse later. I'd actually have a lot more respect for the way Weyland handled the game if he'd stayed consistently strict, started sending players off, and forced the teams to finish the game playing 9v8 or 8v8.
Really? Landon Donovan with 30 yards of space? One of the fastest players in the leauge? One of the most dangerous scorers in the league? One of the best passers in the league? You don't think a player of that caliber with that space could turn that situation into a scoring opportunity. If it wasn't so clear cut of a scoring opportunity, why did Shavar feel the need to put Donovan in a headlock so he couldn't run free? You're missing the point. Two fouls commited at midfield where a player is held up by the defender to prevent them from running free at goal. One is a free kick, one is a red card. I actually agree with Berhalter getting a red card. But there is no way on earth that Shavar shouldn't have gotten a yellow. I actually thought the first yellow card on Nagamura was too harsh. You either don't read that well or you're being intentionally obtuse. First off, you say that Shavar shouldn't have gotten a second yellow because it was coming on the heels of his first. Yet you have no problem with Gordon getting two yellow cards in three minutes. You're also trying to insinuate that I thought Gordon got a card to early. Nothing can be further from the truth. This goes back to the whole consistancy thing. Players were in Weyland's face all night, any one of which could have gotten a card for dissent, setting the precedent. Weyland set the precedent that you could get away with jawing with him, then changed his mind and gave Gordon a card You give out cards early. Then as the first half is winding down, and there are more offenses worth giving cards for, you decide to let them go, because you feel bad about having to send guys off. By letting things go you a) tell the players on Chivas that they can get away with fouling. b) you tell the Galaxy that they are going to get beat up, so they might as well start pounding away themselves. in consistant officiating causes games to get out of hand. It's not rocket science. I didn't get a chance to talk to Gordon after the game because he was long gone. But Chris Klein did speak about the incident. If you know Klein, he is pretty much the most straight up dude you will ever meet. He says that Chivas player (Cutler I think) that Gordon forearmed instigated the action by cleating Gordon's foot. I didn't see it happen, but like I said, I've never know Klein to be a liar. And it also makes sense, because it's always the second guy that gets caught. Gordon shouldn't have let himself be baited, but this goes back to the whole inconsistancy thing again. Gordon had just gotten a card, and frustration got the better of him because Chivas is getting away with everything. Now your just being stupid. At one point this was an intelligent conversation.
You can only "get a red for that" if he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. They didn't look all the soft to me, although I have already said the Kljestan yellow was very strange. I do agree that the second call was harsh, but he did go between the legs of Donovan from behind. One could argue a straight red. So you, too, feel Kljestan should have been given a yellow for dissent? You really think the Thomas foul not carded was worse than a two-footed, late, tackle from behind on Donovan that was carded? What did Miglioranzi or Lewis do that was worse than what they got carded for? Clearly, Nagamura and Gordon didn't get away with anything worse. I find it difficult to agree with your statements. And here you are referring to Kljestan and Thomas, I presume.
Probably because such a fast and skilled player might have been able to turn it into an obvious goal scoring opportunity. There has to be more to it than simply one team having numbers up. I don't disagree that Thomas' action was clearly cardable, but you are missing my point that one was a clear yellow and the other a clear red. However, there were some extenuating circumstances. It did appear that he initially Thomas fouled Donovan while making a reasonable attempt for the ball. It wasn't just a reach out and grab like Berhalter's. He also disguised it well, hiding it from Weyland's view until much later in his decision process. Had the hold been obvious from the start, he probably would have been sent off. Who knows? Thomas caught a break. Maybe if Thomas goes Nagamura stays on. Well, I don't. I would have a problem with Gordon's second yellow if I thought there was some way it could be reasonably avoided, but, not having seen it, I'm pretty sure that it was unavoidable. I wouldn't have any problem at all if Thomas was sent off, but, and I may have underestimated the poor position Chivas was in. With the ball being kicked so high, and boucing so high, I didn't really think Chivas would be in any trouble defensively. But perhaps they were. Does that change the fact that, ultimately, he committed a tactical foul? No. But I was thinking at the time that I didn't want to see him sent off. I saw it more as clumsy than anything. But I can't really disagree with others who feel otherwise. What I can't agree with is people who say Weyland painted himself into a corner. Thomas had already received a card only 10 minutes earlier. Yet he drapes himself all over Donovan, grabs him obviously, and doesn't even bother to let go when caught. Makes no sense to me. And why is he marking Donovan anyway? But Preki has been dealt a tough hand with all his injuries. Well, he either changed his mind or he decided that he had enough. Maybe Gordon didn't get a card for dissent so much as for persistent infringement (persistent dissent). If he was allowing a significant amount of dissent, that would explain why Kljestan wasn't sent off for dissent in the first half. Little of the dissent came through on TV. Well, I'm going to throw out the Kljestan dissent, since you claim many were dissenting and Weyland was putting up with it. That leaves the Thomas non-card. Well, Chivas got away with fouling and carte blanche to beat up on LA for all of two minutes, when Nagamura got sent off. Chivas played the next half hour a man down. Weyland has already given out yellow cards like candy and sent off a player, so I don't know how one inconsistent non-call on Thomas should all of the sudden make them think that they can just pound on LA the rest of the night, because Weyland won't do anything. That appears not to be the case. You say players were dissenting all night, but when Weyland cards one of them for it, you call it soft. Yet somehow you think Kljestan should have been given his second, not his first yellow, for dissent, in the first half. Well, Chivas had been playing a man down for 30 minutes, so they hadn't gotten away with everything. There isn't a Chivas player named Cutler. Maybe Trujillo or Stepanovic? You seem to be saying that there was stuff uncalled in the second half that should have been called. Well, why not explain to me why it is such a dumb idea? Of course, it should only apply to OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunities, not merely dangerous attacks. This was my more extensive post on the subject.
You need me to explain to you why you suggesting that LA get a penalty kick for a foul at midfield is stupid. That's even more stupid. Listen, you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult now. Notice how not one single poster in the last three pages has agreed with a single thing you are saying. You're getting more and more childish with your responses and twisting words to try and serve your point. Both acts are those of a desperate person who knows they are wrong. I'm done with you at this point. Not interested in having to explain the same thing over and over and over again. You watched the game on TV. I was there. You didn't talk to the coaches after the game. I did. You didn't go into the locker rooms after the game to talk to players from both teams. I did. I think I have you trumped as far as what actually happened and what didn't actually happen.
Having a player sent off for the same thing is pretty significant as well, don't you think? It was an obvious goal scoring opportunity that was denied, so why shouldn't it be restored? If there is foul in the penalty area, even if the foul is accidental, a PK is awarded. So I don't see what the great harm is in awarding a PK for a foul which denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity that happens to occur outside of the area. If the foul was only careless, I would not have the player sent off, but only cautioned.
I'm rewatching the game right now on my DVR. When I identified Cutler before as the player that Gordon fouled for his second yellow, it was Talley. Mixed up my non-descript blue collar MLSers. The first Nagamura card just happned. That was a complete joke. There is no way that is a yellow card. Stefani's yellow was legit and Lewis' card was legit. Nagamura's no freaking way. Oh yeah...in the 15th minute you catch a glimpse of Kljestan jawing at Weyland. I didn't even realize that he had started jawing that early until just now, which emphasizes my point about the dissent. Just saw the Shavar Thomas first car offense. It took Weyland a full minute to pull the card out for that foul. He played advantage and the Galaxy lost the ball 10 seconds later. First off, the foul wasn't a yellow card, and Weyland should have brought the ball back and awarded a freekick as soon as the Galaxy lost possession. So that soft yellow set up the Shavar no call minutes later. At this point, Weyland has lost control and handed out a butt load of cards, two which were pretty soft. Now in the 38th minute, Atiba Harris goes in with a tackle worse than what Shavar got a card for and equal to what Lewis got carded for and yet Atiba didn't get shown a card. The inconsistancy continues. The Gordon missed penalty call wasn't actually a free kick. It came in the 41st minute as the Galaxy failed to clear a corner kick. Still could have easily been called. The Shavar headlock just happened. There was a defender in the middle, level with Donovan as the play was happening and a Galaxy player (I'm thinking Gordon) to the right of the Chivas player. Pretty much, Shavar putting Donovan in a headlock prevented a two on one break and with Donovan's speed, he probably would have been able to get in on the keeper solo. Funny how Harkes, who didn't think that anything in the first half was a foul, was actually chastising Weyland for not handing out a yellow in this case. Nagamura just got his second yellow. I thought that was a legit yellow. So first half. Two yellow cards that were soft on Chivas players in the first 25 minutes. And then two clear yellow card offenses that were let go in the final 20 minutes of the first half. If you're a ref, you want that switched around. Like I said, Weyland let this game get away because he handed out soft cards early.
Now watching the second half. Chris Klein got away with a pretty late challenge on Trujillo right along the sideline. Now in a normal game, that isn't a card. But the way Weyland was calling the first 25 minutes of this game, it should have been a card. Again, evidence that Weyland changed the way he was reffing the game in the middle portion because he knew he had given out too many cards in the first portion of the game. Now in the 58th minute, Atiba Harris once again comits a very late hard challenge and gets no booking. This is the second time in the match that Harris has commited a foul much more reckless than some of the previous yellow card offenses in this match without punishment. So now here we are entering the final portion of the game and Weyland changes his refereeing style once again, trying to tighten the screws because he allowed them to get loose. Allen just got his yellow card for dissent. We don't know what was said, but he certainly didn't look any more demonstrative that Kljestan was in the first half. 69th minute...Trujillo goes two footed into Lewis, no call. Again, the two guys who have been arguing that nothing at all is a foul are calling for a yellow card. It's at this point that Gordon gives Talley a forearm to the chest off camera and off the ball. P.S. after the match, Talley admitted that he took a flop to accentuate the Gordon forearm. Upon second look, I'm not sure if Omar Gonzalez would have been able to catch Eskandarian on the Berhalter play. But like I said before, I have no complaints about the Berhalter card. But if that was straight red, Shavar Thomas should have gotten a yellow in the first for doing the same thing to Donovan. It wasn't as clear cut, but Shavar did indeed prevent a goal scoring opportunity. So yes, upon watching the game, with the benefit of being able to rewind and slow mo...Weyland was absolutely horrific in this game.
This is good. Is there really a need to denigrate players for no reason that have made it to the top level in US league soccer (Gordon, Cutler, Talley). Talley has been in the league since its inception and has won several championships as a starter. I have a different opinion about the Nagamura and Lewis cards. I know of some others that agree with you. However, Lewis certainly put himself in danger of getting a card even if he didn't quite earn it. That jawing was hardly worth carding. And as I said earlier, the "jawing" that we see later on is absolutely not worth carding. However, jawing with Marsch would put him in danger of getting a game disrepute card. The ball fell to an open Chris Klein, who then took a few touches and then attempted to get a cross in, which was blocked. Weyland fairly quickly goes off camera, but Dellacamera declares that there was an advantage call. Once Weyland signals (actually, decides) advantage, he is not supposed to call the play back. He is permitted to wait a few seconds to see if advantage develops. It was reasonable for him to decide, with the ball dropping to Klein, that LA did have an advantage, and play should not be stopped for the foul. That is only if you conclude that the Nagamura and Thomas yellows were soft. I don't. And even then, players should be on notice that he is calling a tight match. It isn't like he is making cards up out of whole cloth. There is at least something in every one of those tackles. I was wondering when Atiba Harris would finally enter the conversation. Unfortunately, I can't slow the ESPN360 video down to be certain whether or not Atiba Harris made contact with the ball before contact DeLaGarza. I deferred to Harkes analysis that he did. So rather than being a late tackle that deserved a card, I currently view this as a well-timed tackle that, regardless, was deserving of a foul call, as was given. And even if Harris is a smidgen late, I don't feel a card was necessary. While I don't have a closeup of the Thomas play, it doesn't seem that he gets anywhere near the ball and is very late. I fail to see how that tackle is any less worth of a card than Harris's. Lewis didn't play the ball either. Harris, at least, either very nearly comes in contact with the ball or actually does come into contact with the ball (as Nagamura had for his second yellow). I fail to understand how you repeatedly fail to take this into account. I agree with this (40:05). Gordon had actually recovered from his initial stumble. If players didn't so often go down easily with contact, this more likely would have been called. It wasn't a lot of contact from Gordon, but Lillingston was off balance, but in a good position to score. You still had Trujillo and Bornstein tracking back with pace, and Talley already back (although he had Gordon to deal with). It was certainly noticable. He failed to comment that this would have been Thomas' second yellow, and actually didn't have any idea why Thomas got his first. Because the foul occurred 1:10 before the card was awarded, the video replay team completely missed it. Unless you were paying 100% attention, I am quite sure most viewers missed it as well. He certainly couldn't argue it much. Did he need to be sent off for it? I don't think so. But if you feel Weyland had to caution him for that tackle, off he goes. Actually, the soft yellows by your account were at minutes 25, 33, and 36. Again, by your account, three Chivas players got soft yellows, and then all three should have been sent off in the first half for second yellows. So at least I see why you feel this way. You seem to have the opinion that if Weyland gives a soft yellow, he should send the player off if this player comments an equally soft second yellow, for reasons of consistency. I understand that, but I can't quite agree with it. Except I only saw one of the first half cards as truly soft, and you claim that card was legit, andI think that it could possibly have been legit as well. And we both agree that Klein didn't need to be carded. So I hardly see this as a change in style. The challenge was late but I wouldn't characterize it as hard. It may have been deliberate, however, and for this he should have received a card. It is all a matter of deciding whether it was a careless or reckless or a tactical foul. At least Weyland called the foul. Most people would have characterized it as a soft yellow, had he received one, IMO. Using this card as evidence of a change in style is extremely weak. I thought Weyland was clamping down, now. Trujillo goes in with a two-foot studs up tackle, but the contact he makes with Klein is insignificant. He stopped immediately when he hit the ground; he didn't have any momentum which would have caused significant damage had contact been made. So I hardly think this required a yellow, unless you want to eliminate all two-foot studs up tackles, which, I understand, many people wish to do. This is the first I've heard that Tally took a flop. Weyland didn't make the call, Toledo did. Donovan and Arena both seemed resigned to the fact that Gordon "knew what he did" and deserved the send off. Personally, I believe many of these types of send-offs are unwarranted, but at least it was a second yellow, and not a straight red. It is impossible to judge this incident without seeing it. Even the the match report says Denying Goal Scoring Opportunity, it has to be an Obvious goal scoring opportunity, and I will be highly surprised if USSF declares that this met the criteria. However, there is no doubt that tactical foul was committed, in addition to perhaps a careless one, and Thomas, could easily have been sent off, but for the good graces of Weyland. A summary of your opinions: LA -- Stefani Miglioranzi (caution; Reckless Tackle) 19 (legit) CHV -- Paulo Nagamura (caution; Reckless Foul) 25 (soft) LA -- Eddie Lewis (caution; Reckless Foul) 26 (legit) CHV -- Sacha Kljestan (caution; Reckless Foul) 33 (soft) CHV -- Shavar Thomas (caution; Reckless Tackle) 36 (soft) CHV -- Atiba Harris (caution; Reckless Tackle) 38 (should have been called) CHV -- Sacha Kljestan (caution; Dissent) 40 (should have been called) CHV -- Shavar Thomas (caution; UB/DOGSO) 43 (should have been called) CHV -- Paulo Nagamura (ejection; Second Caution) 45 (legit) CHV -- Atiba Harris (caution; Reckless Tackle) 58 (should have been called) LA -- Alan Gordon (caution; Dissent) 68 (soft) CHV -- Mariano Trujillo (caution; Reckless Tackle) 68 (should have been called) LA -- Alan Gordon (ejection; Second Caution) 71 (soft/legit, not sure) LA -- Gregg Berhalter (ejection; Denied Goal Scoring Opportunity) (legit) 79
You're clearly not much of a reader, because the rebuttals you make to my points are clear exagerations of what I said. You divide a game into three 30 minute parts. Early is the first half hour. The middle third (minutes 31-60), and late (the final thirty minutes). Weyland handed out TWO soft yellow cards in this early portion. (so one happened in the 36th minute, but it's close enough). This caused him to change the way he called the game in the middle third. The game got out of hand in the middle third so he started handing out cards again in the final third. That is the very definition of inconsistent. You say it yourself repeatedly. You concede that Shavar's headlock should have been a yellow card but given the circumstances he shouldn't have gotten carded. That's inconsistant reffing. Never once at any time did I even hint or suggest that Kljestan's yellow was soft. When you body slam someone to the ground right in front of the ref, you're going to get a card. I also never said that Kljestan should have been given a card for dissent. I said he could have (and the Chivas PR guys in the press box agreed). The reason I point that out, is that Weyland chose to not give a card for dissent in that instance, despite the fact that Kljestan had been jawing with him since the 15th minute, and then did give Gordon a card for dissent. He was letting players get away with it for more than an hour and then decided to hand out a card for dissent. Inconsistent. The other fouls that I pointed out were only to demonstrate that in the first 30 minutes, the game was being called vastly different than the second 30 minute spell. There were some challenges (both ways) that didn't get cards that were way more reckless than anything that got carded in the first 30 minutes or so. Why? I never said that the Atiba Harris fould or the Chris Klein fould was a blatant yellow card. What I said was, that those tackles were far worse than anything that was being given a card early, so why weren't cards being shown then. INCONSISTENCY. If certain offenses are yellow cards early, then why aren't they cardable offenses later? By your estimation, if a player is carrying a yellow card already, he should be allowed to get away with murder, so long as the foul is in the first half or the offenses happen too close together. You are wrong. Nobody here agrees with you. You put words in other peoples mouth to make your point. Let it go. You either don't understand the meaning of the word consistent or you are being obtuse on purpose because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. Either way, it's a complete waste to continue this conversation.