http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-06-20-col-v-sj/highlights?videoID=189420 Looks like Stoica got fooled (unless my Rapids fan blinders are clouding my judgment). The first replay shows pretty clearly that there wasn't contact. I sympathize with Stoica, though, because it sure looked like a foul from his perspective. Unfortunately, it the PK resulted in a game winner for San Jose. Maybe the disciplinary committee will take a look at Gordon's dive.
Well that is wrong for two reasons. First, I can guarantee that you would not call a PK every time the keeper slides but misses the ball, even if that qualifies as an "attempt to trip." Second, and more significantly, the "attempt to trip" did not cause Gordon to fall; he flopped. Also, based on your response, I assume you agree there was no contact. If so, and you still think it was a foul, you are going to be calling a lot of PKs, because there is regularly a lot of sliding but missing in the box and I am fairly sure Stoica thought there was contact and wouldn't have called it otherwise.
Actually it does because he has to jump over the keeper to avoid him, and then he fell. I can understand the frustration but I think there's a case for a penalty here, regardless of how you ref.
Cant blame the ref for this call. Pickens does two really dumb things. First he slides in with his hands extended, which makes it look like hes creating contact. Even if he doesnt get Gordon, hes opening himself up by keeping his hands out like that even when he cant get the ball. Then, he manages to slide in such a way to screen both the AR and the CR. They end up calling the body language of both players, which points to foul and PK. Since Pickens is the one hiding the play from the ref, its not a surprise to have the call go against him.
I absolutely agree. As I said, I sympathize with Stoica. From his vantage point, it surely must have looked like a foul.
Can't tell if that's a PK or not. No decent camera angle and the distance is too far. I will say that this is not going to fit under "attempt to trip." Advocating a PK for that is just silliness. There is no GK in the world who is going to "attempt to trip" an opponent in the penalty area in a tied match during stoppage time, unless he wants to prevent a clear goal and is willing to take the DOGSO red for the benefit of the team. To do otherwise would be insane. After watching the entire match, I'll say that Stoica's decisions on cautions were very odd. He issues three to San Jose in the first half--only one of which was probably deserved, then he lets at least two clear cautionable actions during the 2nd half go without cards (blatant shirt hold by SJ defender on long goal kick--foul called by the AR & a SJ player kicking an opponent in the ribs). Bizarre choices. If I were a player in that match, I wouldn't have had any idea what would draw a card and what would not.
If, by that, you mean it's a tough decision (close call, stretched positioning in transition...), I agree. If you are suggesting that the players are responsible for being aware of the positioning of the referees and modify their play accordingly, I disagree. If, by that, you mean the CR guessed (I don't see him checking with the AR in the video, well...YUK. From the video, I am not sure if CR is unsighted at the critical moment by the defender in front of him. If he was, and he guessed, YUK. OTOH, maybe he had a good look, and maybe the keeper made contact. In which case, I think the CR is off the hook. Ultimately, having seen the replay from multiple angles, I would say no call or dive would be closer to the "truth".
As a Rapids fan I can't get too upset about the call. Pickens put himself in a bad position to get that call against him. That kind of setup seems to result in the PK what, 90% of the time? Its not the right call, but its the expected one.
The guy is respectfully asking for other referees opinions...please list the acceptable topics for discussion on a thread and we will proceed accordingly.
Thanks; appreciate it. I was simply trying to start a discussion, and SimpleGame6's comments raise interesting points: attempting to trip is a foul under Law 12. So this is a discussion worth having, I think, because there are many attempts to trip in a game that don't result in contact, and where we draw the line on which "attempts to trip" constitute a foul is important. Hopefully I wasn't too blinded by the fact I am a Rapids fan (which is, of course, why I disclosed that in my first post). But I really didn't come here just to bit#$; I am genuinely interested in other peoples' views. And I hope it's also clear that I didn't come here simply to sh#$ on the referee. As I've said twice now, I completely understand why the foul was called; he was fooled, IMO, but he's hardly to blame.
I was shocked the shirt grab didn't draw a card. Hell, you could make a case (though probably not a strong one) for ar ed there considering Cummings was in on goal if he hadn't been pulled back. I think there was another defender who could have covered, though it would be a weak case for ar ed, but no card at all?
For "attempted to trip", not in my book. Yes it is a foul under law 12, but I am of the view that you can trip without attempting -- a valid attempt at the ball that results in a trip. In this particular case I am of the view that he was making a legit play for the ball, not attempting to trip, so for me, no call for attempting to trip. For the video, can't see good enough, but I don't see contact there
I don't have a foul here either. Even if there is contact, the keeper doesn't make a move to trip him and goes to ground well ahead of the path of the attacker. To me the onus is on the attacker to avoid the keeper here.
I didn't really care about the start of the thread because there's obviously a legitimate discussion to be had here. Then suddenly a SJ fan pops up saying that the Colorado fan is as wrong as wrong can be. You can see where it was headed.
I don't think they are "responsible" for adjusting their play based on the location of the referee. I definitely did it when I played. I knew where the ARs were and if the CR would have a good chance of seeing what I did. Players modify their plays quite a bit due to referee positioning.
Yeah, but you are talking about sneaky guys trying to get away with stuff. In context, I took it to be a suggestion the keeper shouldn't make his attempt at the ball for fear that the ref might not see the challenge properly and award a PK. That would be one helluva burden.
That is a great shot. I had this written off as a dive till I saw this. Obviously the refs angle. Someone should email this to sorrin, as the replays on the MLS highlights don't helpmhim out.
If a player dives in, and doesn't get the ball, then he has to know he is taking his chances. If a defender dives in the PA, they should be confident they are going to get the ball, or they are going to be able to pull out of the tackle. If they cant, they are taking a large risk. My point was that if defenders are going to take big risks inside the box, they are putting a lot of onus on the referee to get the call right. No ref is going to get it 100% right. In the case of Picken's play, the player is inviting the referee to make a difficult decision. I think players have to be aware of when they are making the job very difficult on the referee.