Most of the comments about this game stem from the penalty kick decision at the end of the game at 4:44 of the highlights: http://web.mlsnet.com/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A//mfile.akamai.com/11504/wmv/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2009/open//mls/2009/05/30/mls_lesari_4799703_400K.wmv&w_id=1107847&catCode=mls_game_tv&type=v_free&gid=2009/05/30/dcumls-nermls-1&_mp=1 But more interesting for me is the play at 4:21. 50/50 ball on the far side of the penalty box, the GK Wicks beats Twellman to the ball and cleanly knocks it away, but them pushes him to the ground. It appears that the ball is still in play when the push down occurs. No foul is called, but the ref went back to give wicks a yellow card. So why wasn't this a PK to NE? The only reason to caution wicks was for the foul that wasn't called as farr as I can tell. What am I missing?
if the ball was out of play at the time of the "push", then the only violation can be misconduct. the card for ub/misconduct would not change the restart (gk).
This intrigued me as well when I saw it. I think there are only two explanations. The first, as you suggest, is that the card is for the push and Grajeda judged that the ball was out of play when it occurred. Replays would show that to be a pretty incorrect call on the technical merits. Moreover, even if the ball had been slightly out of play, it really wasn't the sort of blatant push that you would think would rise to the level of misconduct in the referee's eyes there. I think (or hope) that the more likely explanation is Wicks and Heaps were both cautioned for game disrepute for what occurred after the collision with Twellman. MLSnet has them both incorrectly listed as "dissent." But there were several replays shown of the incident as Heaps came in to get himself involved in the situation--other than those in the stadium, we didn't get a chance to see everything that happened in real-time. I can totally envision a scenario where Heaps came in to mix things up a bit, Wick took some (even minimal) exception, and Grajeda opted to pull out the card for both in an effort to cool things off. The second situation to me seems likely and, quite frankly, good refereeing (even if you have to spend one "cheap" card to do it). If it was the former, well, then unfortunately you'd be right about there being disconnect in the call because the ball definitely seemed to still be in play when the incident occurred--didn't even seem that close, in fact.
I was at the game. Pretty sure the one on Wicks was for dissent. The ref was talking to Wicks after everyone else had cleared the PA and it looked like he was telling Wicks to put the ball down (DC had the restart so not sure why Wicks needed to put the ball down) but Wicks continued talking (and holding the ball). The ref then pulled the card. Wicks put the ball down. The ref ran up the field and when Wicks got ready to kick it, the ref whistled and made him move the ball to the 6 yd line. Weird really.
Ah, so of my "only two" options, it seems like it was actually Option 3! Thanks. Yeah, that part was actually discussed (intelligently, no less) on the DC broadcast. When Wicks first put the ball down they thought maybe they had missed an offside flag on Twellman. When Grajeda made him move it into the six, everyone was happy because it confirmed it was a goal kick. A small, but important and helpful decision from Grajeda to insist on the relocation.
But dissent for what? What could he possibly be arguing about? He got the calls...both the non-foul on Twellman and the goal kick.
With the way the ref fell apart in the last 30 minutes, who knows, it could have just been random I actually have another question from this game. New England has a guy who can throw the ball in a LONG way. I noticed that pretty much every time he threw it in, he was stepping on or over the line. I'm pretty sure that this would be triffling if it were an ordinary throw, but given the offensive nature shouldn't there be some attention paid to that, or is it still considered a minor offense (or is the ref cutting him a break because the signs are too close to the field to give him a decent runup?)
Well, as long as he's ON the line, he's okay. Stepping over the line would be a foul throw, and I would expect the AR to spot that since he's got the best view.
Stepping on the line is fine on a throw-in as long as neither foot is completely over the line. It's not like a basketball freethrow. I will always get a bad taste in my mouth when I remember this game and the penalty kick that was the decisive factor in awarding the win to New England. Have any of the refs here ever heard or given pre-game instructions discouraging the ARs from calling fouls for things the CR is obviously letting go as trifling incidents? Like in most MLS games, there were probably 50 to 100 greater infractions that did not get whistled than Namoff's supposed foul for grabbing Twellman's shirt. There was a significantly greater foul (a push) in the penalty area at the other end (normally that probably would have been a good no call) that probably DID prevent an attacking player from having a chance to play the ball in front of goal. I hope the favorable treatment Twellman received (the yellow cards after the collision w Wicks and the game-changing PK) weren't the result of some subconscious concern by the officiating crew for a veteran player coming back from injury. The laws of the game need to apply equally to all players.
Looked to me like a pull on the arm, not the shirt, by Namoff. A lot of the contact was screened by Twellman himself in the TV playback---the assistant probably had the best view of anyone (barring possibly a player or two on the field). (I have no opinion on the later non-call, as it wasn't part of FSC's highlight package for the game.)
My guess, sort of along the lines of what Craig P is saying, is that this is one of those "Baharmast 98" cases where we just don't have the replay to see the true foul. You can definitely see a pull on the arm from the replays we do see, but admittedly it doesn't look like much and that Twellman is falling back to start. I'd be shocked if that's it, though. ARs are this level don't call penalties to begin with unless they feel they absolutely must--I'd be shocked if a FIFA referee wanted to insert himself into such a controversial situation (in the middle of the penalty area, no less) at such a critical time unless he saw a clear and blatant pull that we can't see on replay. It's unfortunate that we don't have the angle Belleau had because, ultimately, that's the only one that mattered here. The basic television angle we all see is essentially the same one Grajeda had, just from a higher perspective--and he didn't think there was a foul there, so it's not like it's helpful analysis to say, from that replay, that there was no foul. Even the referee thought that, from the angle we all see, there was no penalty--what we need to see is an angle from the opposite touchline.
I was sitting along the AR side on that end. Didn't look like much to me, I was shocked when he called the penalty. (Looked like Twellman was falling back already, though there was some "hands on" it didn't seem anything that would normally get called for a foul let alone PK) However, I am a DC fan and all of the NE fans around me where absolutely positive it was a foul. so you know.... Some one mentioned a foul at the other end. Not sure if he was talking about the same one, but a minute or two after the PK, Reis just leveled someone from DC (can't remember who). Haven't had a chance to see it again (DVR'd it). Which at the time I thought, geez if you are gonna call the PK for TT, what about this?
WiR for Week 11 is up... Hall/Tamberino express disappointment in the AR decision on this call. Say AR should not have gotten involved, referee is in good position, and the contact is too iffy to give a PK. http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_14745602.html
With this release, DCU is now up to five points lost this year directly from refereeing decisions considered bad enough as to merit public upbraiding by the USSF. Five points. That's over a quarter of our current total.