Why does GBS continue to play Skllchicj? I forgot at what point it was but we were defending and instead of him sliding over to cover the wing he stayed in the middle which made Gonzales run as a Hail Mary to catch the winger before he crossed into the box. Luckily Gonzales stuffed it but after he was yelling at Skelljic. We would be better with anyone else there. I want to like GBS so much but I don’t understand that choice.
I know this doesn't mean much, but statistically this season, we have conceded less goals with Skjelvik on the field vs anyone else starting at left back. The stats also say Gonzalez has been the overwhelming problem. Skjelvik-Polenta-Steres-Aruajo is stats wise our best defensive back line.
Of course it altered the attempt. That's the point of any challenge, is to impede / alter the attempt; I don't know why people are arguing that point. The question is was the challenge fair or was it dangerous play and therefore a foul? To determine that, the ref has to decide if it was reasonable for the defender to make the play with his foot or if it was dangerous play; I'd argue it was reasonable for the defender to make the challenge with his foot in that situation (although it's above the waistline).
Out of curiosity, would Galaxy fans think it was a "fair" result if the calls had been no-PK, yellow, no-PK? As a Rapids fan when I reviewed the video last night i felt like none of them should have been called or all of them. So either both sides get a PK and the red card stands (setting a low bar) or nobody gets a PK and the foul was only a yellow (setting a high bar). And yes, this is me admitting the Rapids got a beneficial call.
I thought the ref did not have control of the game. I don't think the Galaxy did themselves any favors. I thought they played well enough for a tie and it should have been
Yes, for me (and I suspect most other Galaxy fans) if neither had been called a PK it would have been much easier to swallow. And I think few of us would have complained about getting out of there with a 1-1 draw. But having both "pk?" call/no calls (plus a third "handball?" call) all favor our opponent and costing us at least one crucial point (and possibly three) was painful.
Side note on the red/yellow card: Watching the replay I think they got everything wrong on that play. Pavon looked like he was trying to play the ball, unlike Skjoiiuk's shove from behind. Skjkjku was lucky to not get a second yellow on the play. (The fact that he didn't means that call went against us as well.)
That play was ugly all the way around. I'm not sure what either Galaxy player thought they were accomplishing.
PK for Colorado was wrong in my opinion but I agree with the reasoning for no PK here. His foot was not 5 feet off the ground and your player is bringing his head down into a dangerous position.
Mostly losing-at-the-last-minute frustration. I hate when my team fouls in these situations since it allows the opponent to milk the clock by arguing and going to ground due to "debilitating" injuries.
Agree height of collision made this a borderline call between defensive player dangerous play and offensive player dangerous play. In my experience most good refs pick one of those two calls and go with it just because they don't find it acceptable for a kick to the head to go uncalled. Also note the choices weren't no call vs PK. An indirect free kick and a yellow were also options.* But like I said earlier I don't think most Galaxy fans would have much of a problem with the no call if the likely bogus PK for COL hadn't just been called. * On further thought I'm not 100% sure an ifk by offensive team for dangerous play is an option. Have to do some research. Edit: This is what I've found so far, written by a High School USSF licensed Referee: There are two fouls by field players that will result in an IFK to the attacking team in the Penalty area (or anywhere on the field): Playing in a dangerous manner that prevents an opponent from playing the ball (Dangerous Play as most fans will shout out) Obstructing an opponent from getting to the ball, when not withing playing distance of the ball or charging an opponent illegally (both players must have one foot on the ground, be within playing distance of the ball and “moving in general to play the ball”). The modern term for these two items is Illegally Impeding an Opponent
I checked Skjoijj's game log to see if there was an alternative explanation to this stat other than Jorgen's stellar play. Say for example strength of opponent. And indeed that was the case. Of the 10 games Skjjswq missed all but two were against playoff teams, mostly upper tier playoff teams (like @DC, @POR, @SJ, LAFC, @nyrb). The other two times we sent out a non-Skkjop lineup we allowed an average of 0.5 g/gm. Without adjustment for strength of opponent and game location its a comparison of apples to oranges. Stats don't lie but they can be tricky to wrest the truth from. And I suspect that if you compare the strength of schedule for Gonzalez you will find it also explains a lot. I say this because Gonzalez didn't play during our March and April early 6-1-1 run, mostly accumulated at home vs mostly softer opponents. Skjok played every one of those games, Gonzalez none.
The Rolf non-call should have definitely been a PK, IMO. And after looking at that one posted replay of the Colorado PK, it does appear the player's ankle was clipped. So that seems to have been the correct call (although I didn't think so watching the TV replays).
Then again... Those first 8 games (7-1 run) included Philly (2nd in East), RSL (2nd in West), Minn (4th in West) twice, and Dallas (marginal playoff team). So not really weak opponents on average. Quite balanced, I'd say. So perhaps the addition of Gonzalez is a pretty big factor in our horrible record since he joined the team.
Huh? You can tell from that photo Rolf's head is less than 5' above ground? And whenever your head is below 5', it is open game to get booted? I don't remember seeing that in the rulebook.
Location matters. In that 8 game stretch we only played one playoff team on the road. Good try though.
Well, you're free to believe that we are vastly improved since Gonzalez signed up, but the stats would not back that up...
Yes. I think I would been able to stomach it better if the "questionable" pk calls/non-calls had both gone the same direction. Either both pk or non-pk. Just looking for a little consistency I suppose.
If you lower your head too far not only is it open to getting booted but you will usually get called for dangerous play. You should know this if you watch soccer regularly. It’s up to the referee to decide what “too low” is though. This particular call is slightly tricky since high kicks and lowered heads are both considered dangerous plays. But based on refereeing I’ve watched over decades I think this head-foot collision height would usually be called against the kicker, especially on a goal scoring attempt where head lowering is required. The fact that the boot was pretty late makes a call against the kicker even more likely.
I usually see the foul given for dangerous play if the foot is above the shoulder. I feel like that's an unofficial interpretation. Unless studs are up at any height, then it's reckless play no matter what. To figure out how the law should be enforced, I always think of what it is trying to deter: Studs up is already covered, so if we deter the player from making a challenge for a ball that's roughly chest level with his foot, the defender has to go in with his...head? Is that better for Feltscher? We've also seen Zlatan uses his giraffe legs to snatch the ball out of the air at what would be chest-level of lesser men, so this would be a tough interpretation.