Portland @ Houston [R]

Commentator said later it was a throw in. I could have sworn I heard an immediate whistle upon the contact, so that doesn't make sense. Give me a minute to rewatch that sequence on MLS Live.

I would have thought the best option was a drop ball ostensibly to attend to the injury followed by a foul on Portland with no card.

Edit: Restart was a Houston throw-in, so the keeper must have deliberately thrown the ball out off camera. The whistle I heard could have been people screaming.

 

But "he got his toe on the ball"

 

That's a foul above and below. No that's a horrible miss, it's even on the ARs side so at least he has to catch it. I see Penso sitting a week or two for that one.

 

To me the location of the foul (meaning potentially DOGSO) and the arm to the shoulder that's a red. I wish we had a view of the AR when it happened to see if he reacted at all.

 

That is a fouls and penso is too far behind play to catch it the AR has only one thing to watch that is the fouls he chickened out "strickland" chickened out

 

for an ex-player Eddie Robinson is certainly very well-informed and did compliment a lot of the officiating. Maybe he studied the laws to figure out how much he could get away with when he was playing. I think Glenn Davis is pretty good generally when it comes to the LotG.

 

I think the missing of the infraction is moreso on the AR than on the HR. I've been looking at pictures from the game, and it's apparent that the AR was watching the play the whole time. How that doesn't get called a foul, I have no idea. Even by getting a slight touch on the ball, he was a few steps behind and brought both legs through in a DOGSA situation. I would've given a yellow and a stern warning. That was a "professional" foul, IMO. He knew what he was doing when he did it.

 

I find this inexplicable. It's a "man-and-ball" tackle for sure; whether the tackler gets the ball or not he's always taking his man down. It's also a stonewall red for DOGSO (though I don't agree that it's anywhere near SFP). The AR should be able to see the fact that it's a OGSO, the raised arm of the tackler and the follow-through of the second leg (the one that didn't contact the ball). How was this missed?

 

Good no call. Getting the ball and then taking out the man in a non dangerous manner means play on.

 

Don't put words in his mouth. He simply states that "he got his foot on the ball there" and goes on to say that a Portland supporter could make an argument for no foul. He did not say once that it should not be a foul because he got a touch on the ball. So, I think your'e being really unfair here.

 

I have to ask: at what point do you believe "I got the ball" is no longer an excuse? For me it doesn't excuse the pullback (horsecollar?) and the dig at the player after the first leg contacts the ball.

 

But it's not irrelevant -- if he didn't get a play on the ball, it can make it pretty obvious it's a foul. Often touching the ball is necessary for contact with an opponent to not be a foul, but is not sufficient to prevent all contact with the player from being a foul.

 

I hope you're either A) not serious or B) not officially certified as a referee. If I'm an assistant ref at a game and I see a play like that commence, I flag it down and let the ref know that it was a dangerous tackle during a DOGSO(Deny an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity). It's understandable for a ref to not dictate the tempo and flow of a match; however, egregious foul play should not go unpunished. Getting a toe on the ball does not excuse all fouls. (This is over-the-top but for effect) If I have my foot on the ball in a trapped position, I can't start punching people in the face because I've got my foot on the ball. The foul on Carr was a dangerous play and should have been called, thusly. He was approximately 2 yards outside of the box and heading towards goal with no other player(aside from the goalkeeper) between him and the goal. That is a foul at the very least.

 

When the contact is dangerous or poses a significant risk of injury. Here's a good example of a properly awarded yellow despite getting the ball:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-03-24-chi-v-phi/highlights?videoID=180116

 

That clip is a very good example of what you described, however, that foul is in no way similar to the foul being discussed. Had the Chicago player brought his opponent down with his feet AND with his arm I'm sure the referee might have thought differently about his color choice. The bottom line is the AR should have caught this.

 

Here's the thread on this forum from the Chicago-Philly clip. The main differences between this and the Portland tackle is that it was A. Gibbs's tackle was more dangerous and B. Gibbs kicked the ball farther away. The consensus for that one seemed to be a reckless yellow was correct, with no DOGSO because the ball was kicked away before the infraction.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/chi-v-phi-r.1923118/#post-25413299

I disagree that the Portland defender pulled Carr down with a hold, it looks more like the heel of his hand contacted Carr's shoulder. If he had grabbed him, it was trifling because Carr was going down anyway.

The best argument for DOGSO to me is that Danso did not kick the ball far enough away to deny the OGSO. I disagree with that, but it's a reasonable argument.

 

Danso suspended one game. The explanation is that the DC felt the swinging hand was a blow to the head which constituted SFP. I don't agree with that at all, but I guess my position in this thread was proven wrong.

 

And while I'm admitting I was wrong, if you accept the DC's findings as fact, this wasn't anyone's finest hour in this thread. No one here cited "blow to the head" as a reason for a red or even felt Danso had hit Carr in the head .