Brian West Penalty? OK, maybe someone can clear this up for me. Everyone has been saying that late second half PK was a terrible call. I want to know why. When I got home I watched the replay of it probably 15 times. Warren nearly killed him. I could see it being different if Warren had gotten to the ball first. But he didn't. He never touched it. West touched it and then Warren sliced him in half. I am not a walking rule book, so perhaps someone can explain why that should not have been a foul. If that had happened anywhere else on the field, it would have been a foul, no? Doesn't it make a big difference who gets to the ball first? So why wouldn't it apply in the box? Just curious. AQ
I agree with you. When I first saw it, I was afraid it was going to be called a penalty, and I was scared that Doug might have been carded. What pissed me off (about that play) was the ref's wacky signals and long delay in making the call.
I watched the replays, and it looked to me that after Warren realized he wasn't getting to the ball, he tried to stop his forward momentum, and West crashed into him, not the other way around. Now, I'm not surprised it was called a penalty, West didn't alter his path, just kept going in the direction he was headed, Warren got into that path, and even though he was trying to stop, he did get there after the ball went by and got in West's way.
West simply pushed the ball around Warren and away from the goal. He continued into Warren's path. As a keeper I can tell you that because you have to leave your feet in order to make that save, unlike a a field player in a similar situation who can keep his feet. Once you commit you cannot stop or pull up. West was rewarded for kicking the ball forward and not being able to get it once he does.
My brother and I were at the game. We both are former players at relatively high levels and we both were paid referees in the DC metro area for a number of years, so we both have some idea of the rule book. Both of us had the same reaction at the game: that West had played the ball b/f Warren but he (West) played the ball too far (I am relatively sure he played the ball over the end line to the right of the DC goal) and then Warren crashed into West. (I am not saying that the ball went out of bounds and then Warren made contact; I am saying that West played the ball (which eventually went out of bounds) and then Warren made contact). In situations like these, it is possible to give a penalty, but "normally" a "good" ref (which we do not seem to have in MLS) would not call a penalty b/c the offensive player had no chance of scoring a goal. I know that the rule book does not differentiate between fouls when the offensive player is about to score or not, but you usually do not see a PK given with 1 minute to go in a game unless the player is still in possession of the ball (or, absent the foul) the player still has a good chance of maintianing possession of the ball. Now, it is possible that I am wrong and that West would easily have gotten to the ball absent the contact by Warren, but it sure did not appear that way.
People are saying that it was a terrible call because that's what the announcers said. I've been a referee for 15 years and I'm here to say that it's practiaclle the only call he got right all night. Warren came out for the ball. He bent over abd reached for it rather than go down for it which is what he shoudl ahve done. The ball skitted under his fingertips. At this point, with all due respect to the gentleman above, he seemed to make no effort whatsoever to "stop his forward momentum" but rather took two or three full strides, lowered his shoulder a bit more and simply tackled West. His intent was obvious: to keep West, a very fast guy, from getting to the ball. No way Warren can outrun him, even if he wouldn't have had to turn around first. He simply couldn't let him go. What the announcers were saying about how that is "rarely called" refers to your basic striker-and-keeper-both-going-for-the-ball collision. Keeper gets the benefit of the doubt virtually every time. As he should. In this case, even if he hadn't been obviously blocking West from the ball, he still crashed into him while going in the opposite direction as the ball, and with said ball probably ten feet away. Put another way, despite the description above, the basic facts are that West was going for the ball, plain and simple. Warren, for whatever reason you want to ascibe, was not. Not calling a foul would have been a gross malfeasance.
If West kicks the ball to a spot where he can't play it, then there shouldn't have been a penalty. Warren crashing into West is incidental contact if it didn't disrupt the play. I highly doubt that West could've played that ball making a pk call highly dubious. At worst, it should've been a corner.
"Incidental contact"?????? Where is THAT exactly in the LOTG??? This is not the NFL. You may not throw your body into another player and knock his ass down, whether the ball is a foot away or in the freakin parking lot. This is just not an arguable call. The only controversy is whether it was an OGSO which would have required carding Warren. You are right in that it was not, IMO, but whether or not West was going to be able to get to it and score a goal is completely, totally and monumentally irrelevant. And a foul is a foul is a foul. A foul outside the box is a DFK. A foul inside the box is a PK. Soccer 101. The rules are quite clear. Really. But if you want to look at it another way, fine. Think of it as a makeup call for the worst, ugliest dive in the history of MLS.
Explain the rule where it says that if attacker kicks ball, gets decked by goalie (who does not touch ball), and then ball goes over the goal line, that that equals corner kick. I missed that page. Only thing that matters is that goalie smashing attacker occured before the ball crossing the goal line, which it clearly did. If you don't like the call, why don't you suggest to Mr. Warren that he not flatten the opposition players. Can't comment on any of the other calls, but this one was exactly right.
People like Bill Fvcking Archer are why it sucks to lose to Cowlumbus. It's like getting mugged by Barny Fife. West had no play on the ball. Justifying the call because it benefitted the Crew is lame, Mr I AM AN OLD ASS REF. poop on you to, Mr MattBurlew
I think it was not the intention of Warren to run the striker over as someone suggested. I dont think West was able to stop either at the speed he was going and avoid the contact. The play was way too fast and Warren missed the ball completely. PK rightfully awarded. Painful call but arguably a correct one. It was bad karma courtesy of Stoichkov's first half dive. Regarding the rules of soccer: everybody knows the book does not cover every scenario like the NFL does with its rules. The idea is that the referee can use his/her judgement when making a call on what a foul is and isn't. Particularly penalty kicks. So this is not so simple as referring to the book. A collision between two players is not necessarily a foul. In this particular case, Warren never played the ball, and West did.
- There are no comentators in the stadium so I am not a midless drone influnced by Rob Stone or Ty Keough - With a straight face you are telling me that West could have gotten to that ball??? - at what point did West attempt to avoid contact with a keeper in a exposed postion??? That is what defines it as incidental contact. - actually it should have been a drop ball for both players fouling each other or no call
No not really. While not stated in the laws of the game (at least not that I've seen) a common consideration in calling a foul is whether an advantage was gained through committing the foul. Now I think the play was a PK, 'cause West may have been able to catch up to the ball. But I've seen collisions with goalies go uncalled many times because the player had already played the ball too far ahead and would have been unable to make a further play on the ball. Like it or not it is a common interpretation of the rules.
The facts are that West had the ball (at one point), and Warren took him out without getting the ball. It is within the parameters of calling a PK. Maybe toward the fringe areas of a PK, as West may have pushed the ball too far, but still, it's with in the criteria. I'm not happy with the call, and as stated above, most refs would have let that go.....but it was better than the various things that were happening all over the field.
Heck, it could have been a penalty and certainly it might have been a make up for Hristo's dive but this quote made me laugh out fvcking loud and spit coffee all over my monitor!
I wouldn't have called it. You have two players going for a 50/50 ball full-bore. There's going to be a collision one way or the other. Just because West was able to toe-poke it a fraction of a second before Warren got there doesn't mean he had control, or even a chance on goal. Warren, IMO, had no chance to pull up and avoid the collision.
I always wondered why people on the Metro board refer to DC fans with derision. Now I know. I could care less about which team it benefitted. So, if I can read this right (and that ain't easy), you disagree with the position that mugging the opposition is not a foul? As has been stated, it doesn't matter if he could have gotten to the ball or not. Perhaps he couldn't have, but after he got decked he certainly couldn't have. Whether he had a chance on goal is only really relevant to determine if Warren deserved a yellow or red card, I'll agree that he probably didn't. No, Warren couldn't avoid the collision perhaps, but whose fault was that? Warren decided of his own free will to make that play, he missed, and when you miss like that bad things happen.
Wow, what a stunning remark from the land of bland! "Refer to DC fans w/ derision"? I reply w/ a short composition Poop on you Poop in your hat poop on you because your probably fat FAT FAT FATTY! And you know who else didn't try to avoid any collesion? WEST! Warren has just as much right to the ball, it was close, not blatant, and truth be told technically it might have been a PK, but you & Bill are such SISSY BOYS that it makes me want to politic a little.
... mod's note ... Like most of you I'm really pissed off today. And unlike last night, right now I'm sober. The kind of crap that's been posted in this thread by certain posters who I will refrain from naming (you'll see 'em, just look up) does not make help my mood. If it continues I will start kicking butt and deleting posts because that, my friends, actually does make me happy. Jackbootedly yours,
I am watching the replay right now, in slow motion from the clip shown on COMCAST SportsNet Gamenite. Neither player had control nor could either player stop his momentum, so a no-call was clearly the best choice.
Well, I just looked at the replay on mlsnet.com. Here's how I see it. 1. Ball was bouncing toward the goal. 2. Warren comes out to meet the ball, West runs in to kick it. 3. Warren leans over to collect the ball, the ball is just a few feet from him. 4. Before Warren can touch the ball, West runs through and kicks the ball. 5. As the ball heads out of bounds, West runs through and hits Warren who is still bent over ready to collect the ball that is no longer there. How is this a foul? To commit a foul, you have to be playing the man somehow. But there is no LOTG that says you need to get out of anyone's way. The fact is that Warren was a fraction of a second away from catching the ball, and that West made a good move to poke it away. But no foul on anyones part there. After saying this, though, I will admit that I was watching replays from several angles, and that I can't really blame the ref too much. I can see how it may have looked like a foul if you only saw it once at regular speed, unlike Stoichkov's foul. I don't see how that is called no matter how you look at it. Oh well. Let's all show up Saturday for KC.
My biggest issue is that if the ref was going to call a foul and a PK, which he did, he also should have carded Warren. At least then everything would be consistent. Sachin
It was 50-50 whether this was a PK. Yes, clearly Warren clocked West and yes, because there wasn't an actualy scoring chance because West had pushed the ball out of bounds, that PK isn't usually called. But, as others have said, after the dubious nature of Stoitchkov's PK, this call had to be made. Stoitchkov went down on minimal contact and earned a PK. So, West getting laid out by Warren in the box was going to be one, too. If Stoitckov hadn't flopped I'm pretty sure, even with this ref, that the penalty on Warren isn't called.
With the referees I've seen in the center for at least 20 of our regular season games, the only way you can have a chance at guessing what they are going to do is to roll a pair of dice. Two people take the opposite view and roll -- highest 'wins'. If anything would surprise me from our refs, it would be a competently called game. I'm sick of it. I am proud to be a DC fan commented about derisively by mutt supporters. Anything less would be too close an association for my taste, considering the dead skunk smell that is metrostink. GM
My official position was that it was a questionable PK. When Crew fans come here & basically "wow, what a tremendous totally perfect call, best one the ref made all day" yeah, I want to argue. though probably not the most mature post I ever put up. Important to note the lack of swear words and general malice. Days of being Politically Correct at the office forced me to "push the envelope" w/ the "sissy boys" remark. BUT the point is taken and have retired from the poetry industry. Jack "No Poem Writing" Rock