Would have liked to see a no call here at 5:15. It's unfortunate that the ref didn't spot the defender pushing the attacker into the keeper: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-08-25-mtl-v-dc/highlights?videoID=197827 Penalty given. One could argue this was shoulder to shoulder, though I wouldn't argue that: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-08-25-mtl-v-dc/highlights?videoID=197817
On the contact with the keeper, there was certainly some contact by the defender but the attacker made a meal out of it. The way the attacker fell is what caused the contact with the GK more than the slight push by the defender so I agree with how it was called. At least, that was my thought when I watched it real time Did anyone notice the kick-out by the defender at the end of that sequence, right as the referee blew the whistle?
Can't see the argument for a no-call in the keeper situation. It would just seem like a total cop-out. And once the ball went in the net, how would you quell the dissent from the defending team? Either the keeper was charged/tripped, which Foerster called, or the attacker was deliberately pushed before the keeper ever got a hand on the ball, which is a penalty kick. It's not really an advantage situation (never heard the "you pushed a guy into your own keeper, so his inability to hold the ball and give up a rebound that resulted in a goal is justice"). It's either a PK or a foul coming out and totally up to the interpretation of the referee. Penalty looks like a great call. Are these the only debatable situations from this game (I use the term quite loosely on the penalty, as I see no reason for debate)? If so, I'd chalk this match up as another successful one for Foerster. From what I've seen this year, he's done quite well this season.
I'd certainly say the first one was closer to a PK than a DFK out. I said no call because I wasn't sure which way to point which makes any potential infraction doubtful imo. Game was pretty quiet. Not very physical.
Being unsure which way to point just means the referee has internal doubt. There's no doubt that some infringement occurred here. The term "doubtful" refers to potential infringements, not the referee's state of mind.
I thought the pk was correct seeing it from the opposite end of the stadium. Dudar looked like he ran into the guy pretty hard. Montreal no. 18 seemed to get away with a lot of fouls with no caution.
The penalty was the right call. In the second half there was a blunder: the disallowed DC goal for what the ref apparently thought was a challenge on the keeper by Chris Pontius. Reality was Pontius was fouled by his marker who pushed Pontius into the keeper. The defender was not trying to knock him into the keeper, only wanting to prevent Pontius from jumping to head the ball.