Had to bite my tounge last nigt (USMNT vs MEX) [R]

Yep...easy send off. And stupid too.

 

Just remember that fans like that sit on both sides. Rose colored glasses aren't only sold in Mexico.

If I could tell you about the number of times I've gotten into arguments with my friends who are supporting the same team over calls that don't go our way... It's always comical how some people can see a particular call different ways depending who's it against.

For me, I was annoyed how that one offsides call wasn't made, which I believe came right before Timmy got hurt. It was when Mexico shot the ball in and hit the guy on the ground by the far post.

 

I was curious why that offside call was not made as well...must have been difficult to see from the AR's position since the Mexico player was flat on the ground...the interesting part is that the Marquez foul likely would have not occurred because the offside call would have halted play before the collision...shoulda, coulda, woulda...Batres called a good game IMO...

 

I only saw the first half, so did not see the cards (I will look them up online). However, I was very pleased by the level of play and the lack of whining and rolling around. Only once in the first half did a Mexico player roll around and embellish a simple foul (by Beasley) in what looked to me like an effort to draw a card. However, the ref made a fair decision on what was a simple careless challenge, and overall the game seemed to be called well.

I did not agree with the early Advantage call on the clear push by Mexico against a USA player at the 25. We kept possession at the 40 and had nowhere to go with it. Possession at the 40 with even numbers is better than a free kick from the 25?

The game did seem to be well-called and well-played. After the theatrics of the Olympics, it's encouraging to see an international match played so fairly.

 

here's some good news that might restore (or partially restore, at least) your faith in our game. it comes from Steve Goff's game story in The Washington Post and it heartened me that players still can show some class. So, congrats to the CR for the call (which was both easy and correct) and to Howard and Marquez. I'm guessing it will stand as an island of sanity and sportsmanship in an ocean of whining.

``The second half was uneventful until the 65th minute, when Mexico failed to convert a scramble in the U.S. box -- Israel Martínez's cross rolled past Giovani dos Santos lying near the goal line while goalkeeper Tim Howard was inside the net -- and Márquez was ejected for driving his cleats into Howard's leg,'' Goff wrote.
``Afterward, Márquez, who was also ejected in Mexico's loss to the United States at the 2002 World Cup in South Korea, publicly apologized. It was a 50-50 ball and he came in a little late -- no hard feelings," said Howard, who received a yellow card a moment later for delaying the game and must sit out the March 28 qualifier at El Salvador.

 

He probably didn't feel like traveling to El Salvador so he took the yellow on purpose.

I'm sure he and Batres talked about it beforehand.

 

I think the sendoff was an excellent decision, but I would not say it was an EASY call. Marquez tried to disguise it as part of challenging for the ball. The contact may have been easy enough to notice, but understanding the nature of it was not.

This is where Batres' skill came in. He saw what happened-- Marquez' foot made contact with Howard -- which most people watching on TV probably could see. But the type of contact and the way it was done, that's what was not easy to determine just watching it on TV from a far distance.

I can see how a fan might not really understand that, and therefore not understand that a sendoff was appropriate.

 

I had forgotten about the build up to the red card. Those rose colored glasses do come in handy. The reason the Mexican attacker was lying prone in an offside position was because he had been dragged down by the defender. Could have been a penalty.

I still think the red was an easy call.

 

This is an excellent point. I do have to say that at first glance I thought it was a yellow. When I saw it was indeed a red, I thought it was harsh, unless there was something I missed. After seeing the one replay with him kicking out his leg, there was no doubt in my mind. Excellent positioning from the ref.

 

Batres had a great view of the play and was pulling the card from his back pocket as he ran towards Marquez and Howard. He knew exactly what happened and showed no hesitation. Watching it live at home I was surprised it was a send off, but the replay showed what the wide field shot did not the raised and extended leg of Marquez la plancha applied on Howards knee. Great call and a very well called game by Batres.

 

Wouldn't the correct call be SFP since the ball was in play and contact occurred against an opponent?

 

Only SFP if the foul occurs whilst challenging for the ball.

This was so far removed from any legal challenge to render an SFP send-off inadequate. VC carries a stiffer post-game suspension - at least it does in the EPL. I think.

 

Yup - my thought, too. Also - why didn't the offside get called? Pretty obvious to me unless the AR thought the player laying on the goal line was not able to play the ball.

 

At first, I thought the red card was for something that happened in the scrum. When I saw it live, it looked like he turned his back and ducked out of the challenege.

From the player perspective, I think he was trying to win the ball and knock Howard to the ground. I think he thought there would be more players attacking the ball and he could hide what he did from the ref and assistant ref. But he got there late, the players did not swarm the ball and he got caught.

The ref had great positioning to see this. From the left and from behind. He was quick into the scrum and held the red card up for awhile for everyone to see. I think this is a great mechanism for showing the players, "hey, I am here, I took care of it, do not let this get out of control."

 

my thoughts too, especially since it looks like the ball hits him while he is down. I can understand not blowing for offside because he isn't active but that goes out the water once the player plays the ball

 

It is hard to see from this picture, but in my opinion...I do not think the attacker is offside. The general rule of thumb "Is there daylight between the attacker and defender?" comes into play. The defender is pulling out of the penalty area as the pass is initiated by the nearest player. Technically, the torsos can legally be deemed as being even at the moment of decision. Again, it may be difficult to tell...but I still think a good decision by the AR to keep the flag down.

 

But his feet (a playable part of his body) are obviously offside. No question in my mind.

From the ATR: "No part of the attacking player other than the arms may be nearer the opponents' goal line than the torso, head or legs of the second-last defender"

 

100% correct.

 

I agree. Surprised nobody mentioned it until now.

Live, it looked fishy -- kinda like there might have been some contact there. On the replays, it seemed to strengthen the argument that the US defender had fouled that attacker as the ball came in.

 

If this capture is at the moment the ball was played by a teammate (I assume it was), then I'll be at least the third to say it was clearly offside.

I know the ATR does not apply to an interntional game, but included it for additional clarity as it applies to most of us.

----------

Having just watched the video, I agree with those who say this should have been called as offside. The Mexican player's legs are ahead at the time the ball was struck, and the ball then goes off his legs as he lies there. I'm guessing that at speed, the AR saw the defender as even, though on replay you can see the defender comes up just ahead of the touch.

Can't see why that player went down, so it's hard to comment on him being dragged down, except that it was right in front of the AR and this ref did a very good job the entire game on seeing and calling fouls.

 

I watched the match in it's entirety. It was a well-earned win for the USA. Did anyone else notice how TERRIBLE the camera work was? Every time something was going on, they were on a close-up of something else, or the camera was 10 yards behind the play.

Based on the thread about the hexagonal appointments, I was expecting more in the way of misconduct in this match. I was floored to see how the players played, though. The match was fast-paced, and entertaining. There was virtually no dissent at all that I could see. I was really surprised about that considering the teams and importance of this game. I did think that one of the Mexican players should have been cautioned for his tackle on Pearce near midfield in front of the benches near the end of the first half. Other than that, I thought it was a well-refereed match. Even John Harkes, never a fan of officiating, even the good kind, was praising the referee for his decisions. Although I agree that there was a missed offside, there was no goal scored, so I'm not sure how much can be learned from the play. The AR missed one. I'm sure I'll miss at least one in my next game.

The send-off was fantastic. On replay, Batres could not have had a better view of things. The first time I watched the replay, it was from behind the goal. In addition to watching the foot, if you can see it again, watch his eyes. The attacker's eyes are fixed on Howard, not the ball. There was no way he was planning anything other than hacking Howard. I was also interested to see the technique used to avoid further retaliation. He was in the middle of the scrum, and held the red in the air for a considerably long time; 2 things that I have seen our MLS referees get chastized for. The result, a near mass-confrontation avoided (maybe we can use this situation as a "how to" lesson on dealing with "flash points"). The caution to Howard seemed to me to be a little ticky-tacky, considering that he had just been assaulted in his own PA, but I still think deserved.

I was a little disgiusted with Dempsey, though. While eveyone else was playing hard, he was walking around. He was also flopping all over the place. I would have liked to see him get at elast spoken to about that. He is one of the best players on that team, as long as he shows up. Bradley should have replaced him in the first half.

 

OK, I still had it on DVR and just pulled it up because the video player on ussoccer.com is so small. Here's my thoughts, working backward.

Howard's yellow card was deserved. He goes to kick the ball 90 seconds after the initial foul, with everyone cleared out, no reason to hesitate, takes a run up to the ball, and pulls up. I might not have given it without a warning - you've already chewed up a minute and half, most of which was spent pushing off the Mexican team - but it's understandable and Howard should know better. If he was hurt, he should have subbed out.

The red card was a great call. The attacker had no chance for the ball and made no attempt to play it. His leg up was clearly aimed at Howard.

Prior to that, the Mexican player on the ground was definitely offside. Not only is he off, but the ball does not just hit him - he actually tries to kick it in the goal. The ball comes across the goal from the kick that put him offside, and he lashes at it with his feet to poke it in... and by all rights, probably should have scored.

Prior to that, the contact between the US attacker and the Mexican defender is probably a foul. I say probably... depends on how the ref has been calling the game. I think it should have been called, but it is close. The attacker wasn't "dragged down", but he was hit from behind. I have a couple theories as to why the PK wasn't awarded. One, despite the contact, the attacker got his cross off. At this level, especially in the PA, refs tend to see contact that doesn't impact the play as trifling. Second, the ref played "PA Advantage", i.e. he didn't signal but simply held his whistle for second. The ball was played to a Mexican player with a great chance, who played it back to the original attacker with another great chance, and when that player (who is offside) misses his chance, it's too late to call it. I think this is a very reasonable thought, because where the ball was going after the possible foul, with the recipient having good control and a good angle, if the whistle was blown, there's a good chance they'd be pulling the ball out of the back of the net to award a PK. Tough break for Mexico though.

 

Just to to ussoccer's youtube page, the same video's are posted there. You can watch them Full Screen.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ussoccerdotcom?blend=1