Gooch Ejection Questions\Observations

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by mclip_66, Nov 18, 2004.

  1. mclip_66

    mclip_66 Member

    Mar 5, 2001
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Couple of questions\observations on the Gooch ejection as it seems he it getting burned on these boards for it.

    Observation: #17 for Jam(sorry no names on the shirts and I was at the game) was not given a second yellow for an obvious tackle from behind earlier in the game.


    1. Was Gooch given the second yellow for an intentional hand ball?
    2. Assuming 1 was true given that the targets for this handball were clearly offside wasn't that a bit of a harsh call? (This is what Sanneh was arguing I'm sure since he went to the A.Ref and asked him and then came back to the Ref.)
    3. If that was a hand ball what the heck was the arm trap in the Jam box?

    Granted the handball was not the brightest of moves and this wasn'this best game but it seems he is getting quite the abuse for it.
  2. brianzappa

    brianzappa Member

    Oct 21, 2003
    In a big country
    I thought his first yellow was soft, compared to a lot of fouls on both sides that weren't carded. It probably wasn't the only soft yellow, though.
  3. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    One thing to note is perception. Gooch is by far the biggest guy on the field. He needs to be careful. Against these small central american and Mexican players, his challenges will be viewed differently. 50/50, a guy 6'4" collides with a 5'10" player it will always look much worse than it actually is. He will pick up due to this.

    That said, the ref was very inconsistent with his decision to award yellow cards. Before the one that led to the red, all his calls seemed a bit soft, while letting a few harder hits only end up as regular penalties.

    Looking at the grand scheme, Gooch did deserve two yellows. Prior to PK, he was burned and tried to recover by grabbing himself a handful of jersey. So that offsets his first card for a not so hard challenge.

    Was it an intentional handball? Probably not. Was his hand where it shouldn't have been (up in the air) yes. Tough call, but it appears right.
  4. cdin

    cdin Member

    Aug 23, 2004
    Waukesha, WI
    It all depends on the referee's perception of the incident. I agree that Gooch's first card look soft, but that’s with the help of instant replay. However, I have a hard time arguing with the second one though once the foul was called. The ball was being played through to a Jamaican player in a dangerous position. A card had to be given. I guess you could argue the intent of the handball, because it didn't look like he moved is arm into the ball. However, when you have your arm out like that it is hard to argue.

    Your number three is a much harder call to make. First the game was moving quickly and the ref might have been shielded. Second, and more importantly, his arm was at his side. If your arm is at your side and you don't make any obvious moves to the ball that will not be called nine times out of ten.
  5. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    First card was really soft, but then ref gave out a few like that.

    Second was a stupid play by Gooch. Was it intentional? Hard to say, but you can't run around with your hands up by your head and not get called when the ball goes there.

    Personally, this is a pet peeve of mine when playing. I hate the guys who run around with their arms out and then cry that they didn't intentionaly handle the ball or the ref doesn't call a handled ball when the guy has his arms stretched out at shoulder hieght and the balls gets blocked.
  6. Wahoo

    Wahoo New Member

    Aug 15, 2001
    Seattle, USA
    As others have said... the first goal was soft... rediculous really considering some things that were allowed.

    I think the first one was was in a stretch wehre the ref was trying (badly) to reel in the game. Gooch wasn't even fouling frequently.

    On the second... I've watched it a bunch and I think his arm was up before the ball was played for balance and once it was struck he tried to get it out of the way. I could be wrong, but that's what I see.

    Was his hand in a stupid place --- yes. But it's not like he stopped a clear scoring chance. There were 3-4 defenders and only 1 attacker behind him when it happened.

    I have turned it into an mpg file, though I have nowhere to host it. If someone wants to see it I can email it
  7. dchang44

    dchang44 Member

    Mar 27, 2003
    Portland MLS
    from the replay, i thought it looked like a classic situation of a defender using a cheap handball to prevent a breakaway. yellow card for that was deserved. the ref was close to the play.

    that said, if his hand was that high before the ball was kicked, then it might not be considered intentional and therefore not warranting a yellow, but that seems unlikely (i don't have a tape of the game).
  8. Bajoro

    Bajoro Member+

    Sep 10, 2000
    The Inland Empire
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agree with this, mostly. Although since his hand was up for balance, it's hard to say it was in a stupid position.

    I'm not a ref but I've played long enough to know that if someone blasts a ball into your hand, no matter where your hand is, there's not much you can do about it. No one runs around with their arms at their sides. Now that would be stupid.

    I'm not naive enough to think that every handball they call is actually "intentional", no matter what the law says. But if you can get a guy ejected just by blasting a ball at his arm, the law needs to be revisited.

    I would contrast this to the non-handball call on the German defender (Frings?) in WC 2002. In that case, his arm was not in a natural position -- it was taking up space for the express purpose of blocking the ball's path into the net.

    In this case, the defender was running and had no notion that the ball would be played where his arm happened to be. At least, it seems to me.
  9. voros

    voros Member

    Jun 7, 2002
    Parts Unknown
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually I thought both were legit.

    The first he came in late and from behind and whacked the guy right in the back of his calf. Though this ref hardly applied a consistent standard, that's a yellow in most leagues.

    The second was a deliberate handball on a potentially dangerous play.

    Finally, he had a third coming to him on the play where Jamaica got the PK as before he got whacked in the face (actually its why he got whacked in the face), he had a fistfull of the Jamaican's jersey from behind. That's usually an automatic yellow.

    Gooch made some mistakes and his distribution was poor. On the other hand not only is he big and strong, but Gooch has got some serious wheels for a guy that size. It was claimed that he gained bulk and lost speed so he couldn't play RB anymore. I certainly didn't see anything to suggest he wasn't fast[/i[ enough to play right back. Maybe not technical enough, but the speed appeared to be very much there.

    Gooch didn't do anything to warrant him not coming back and he's got potential that's for sure. I'd like to see him in most of the friendlies he's available for from here on.
  10. Craig P

    Craig P BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 26, 1999
    Eastern MA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not only from behind, but late and tactical. Personally, I think if he made that play after Onyewu was sent off, #17 would have gotten the gate as well.
  11. partycentral

    partycentral Member

    Nov 10, 2003
    My opinion: sloppy play and sloppier field conditions led to a lot of semi-accidental fouls. Players felt the ref was going to let them play so they got more aggressive. Ref loses control. Starts going crazy with fouls and cards. I think Gooch was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yes, it was a hand ball. I was about 30 yards away and had a really good view. I don't think it was intentional. I think Gooch was trying to pull his arm back into his body. But I don't think a yellow was warranted because they were a lot farther from goal than some think. They were really more like 35+ yards away, the ball wasn't being shot, it was being passed, and there were equal numbers (roughly) of US and Jamaican players in the path of the ball so there was no clear advantage, even tho it was in Jamaica's possession at the time. If Gooch were the last person in the path, except for the keeper, then definite yellow. That just wasn't the case.

    I didn't read the FIFA rules, so if they're different than my understanding (yellow is only deserved if it were intentional and the player is the last person in front of the goal), so be it. But all this is just based on what I remember, and what I saw.

Share This Page