The card given Franchino was appropriate. The commentary about it was not. Although Franchino "got all ball" with his right leg, he got all player from behind with his trailing leg. This is unequivocally a foul. Getting the ball does not allow a free foul in the process. Just as you can't head a ball and elbow someone at the same time, or trap a ball and push someone away, you can't tackle with one leg and foul with the other. The confusion arises because if you play the ball first with one leg and the momentum of that leg carries into another player it is considered fair play. In other words if Franchino got ball first then man with his right leg its not a foul unless he did something extra like expose his cleats or exaggerate the tackle. But Franchino's choice to play the ball with his outside leg and take down the player from behind with his other leg has to be a cautionable offense or players would do it repeatably to intimidate and injure other players. The rules of soccer are clear about this and the misinformation propogated on the broadcast was regretable. Hopefully you will get a chance to correct this mistake on a future broadcast so young players don't start cutting each other down because of a misconception.
Since Doug does peruse these boards I hope he reads this thread.. I thought his description of the play bordered on ludicrous and was tainted with homerism.. The one underlying problem with his defense of Franchino is that the play occured from behind.. Villegas had no idea that Franchino was there and could have been seriously injured in the process.. The card was most probably because it was a reckless play, regardless of whether or not he got the ball.. Remember the Diallo red card incident on Petke last season? Diallo didn't come within a mile of the ball but the intent to go in hard and fast was right there for anybody to see and thankfully Petke was able to see Diallo coming at the last second and jump out of the way to avoid a serious collision.. Villegas didn't have that opportunity and was fortunate to walk away from the foul without serious injury.. With that being said, I also think Villegas should have been carded as well on his studs up foul on Twellman.. Don't even get me started on Twellman's tackle on Reyes late in the match.. If anything, that foul was much worse than Franchino's foul.. I just wish Chapman would have a teensy bit more objectivity in these matters as he is for my money a very good and concise color analyst..
i just want to comment on Twellmans card. Yes it was deserved but I think Twellman didnt mean to do that. I think he was assuming Reyes will still going to go forward and at the last second Reyes pulled back. Just a misinterpeted play by young Taylor Twellman.
Whether it was intended or not, it was a nasty foul and had to be dealt with.. You simply can't excuse a play like that because a player didn't mean to do that...
the criteria of "getting the ball first" while shouted loudly by many a player (most of whom have committed a foul) is not any kind of official criteria for the decision as to whether a play is fair or foul, much less whether a card should be awarded... at best, getting the ball first may be some indication that the player at least intended to play the ball (whatever else he does that may result in an infraction or card)... however, intent is not a consideration in deciding any foul except handling the ball (although it is certainly a criterion for deciding a card)... rand
I agree with everything here. Doesn't matter if he got the ball, it was dangerous play. I also agree on Twellman, both that it wasn't intentional and that it did need to be dealt with. Just sloppy overly aggressive play, but not intended to be nasty.
Who cares? Game over. Franchino got the card. DCU loses. Neither team probably makes the playoffs. Let Doug do his job for chrissakes...