As a DC United fan, the call sucked. But it was a correct call. Bill Archer explained it accurately. The conference between the ref and AR/linesman is what confused everyone. IMHO, the ref was asking the AR whether it looked like an intentional foul by Warren to deny a goalscoring opportunity - in which case it would have deserved a red card. The refs decided, probably correctly, that it was unintentional. But it's still a foul by the defending team inside the penalty area so a PK should have been awarded.
I watched the play frame by frame, a luxury to be fair the ref does not have, and Warren had no chance to pull up. Unlike what Bill said........ Warren had no chance to pull up. He did not take two or three full strides. He took one and one half and West also kept coming. A call like that sets the precident that keepers cannot come out and challange a shooter for fear of a PK. Warren did not stand there watch West kick the ball and then take a flying leap at west and is being intimated. It was a 50-50 ball and keepers need to be able to challenge those without fear.
Warren Warren went for a 50/50 ball but he impeded West getting to the ball with his body. Hence the PK. I am not worried about that call though. Abie Okalja is a terrible ref. His card against Dema was awful. Just because Dema has the reputation as a rough player that means he can't slide tackle anymore. Also McBride was basically using Prideaux as pole vault on his last goal. What the hell was that? One thing we all have to recognize is that we can't keep blaming the officials. I know that I complain more than anyone about the lack of quality officiating in the MLS, but if we finish our opportunities this game does not come down to overtime. Bobby Convey really needs to learn how to finish. Also we need more balls played into the box for Martins. We are not using his abilities in the air very well. Those are the reasons we lost and not some BS PK call.
Shawn, the key is that Warren went for the ball and missed and then took out West. If Warren had gotten the ball, no problem. But, Dougie missed it and then knocked the opposing player down in the box. I mean, if you and I are field players and I go for the ball in box but instead of tackling the ball, I miss and take out your knees, that's still a foul on me and thus a PK. IMO, that part of it is pretty cut and dry. What was open for interpretation was weather the foul took away a scoring chance. Given that the ball was harmlessly trickling toward the endline as West was hitting the turf, odds are it wasn't an actualy scoring chance. But, and this is the key, because the ref had called a PK for minimal contact when Stoitchkov flopped, he pretty much had to call a PK after Warren crunched West. It was a makeup call and it Stoitchkov hadn't dived, I doubt seriously that the PK on Warren would have been called. Of course, if Hristo doesn't get his PK, then it's 1-0 at the time of this play. Given that United would still have needed to add a late goal, which they did, the PKs pretty much offset and didn't really impact the outcome of the game that much.
I watch the play several times too. It was almost a 50/50 ball, but West got to the ball first and then the two collided. All players need to challenge for the ball, but not getting to the ball, but to the player who does is a foul. For a less biased discussion of this play, check out the referee forum: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78267
I don't blame that idiot for the loss, I just disagree with that specific call. As to that call: West was just as reckless in his manner. He barley made contact with the ball. He put himself into peril by exposing himself in that manner. Warren made an attempt to pull up but he was too close to West and West was still coming at full speed. West did not have to commit at all cost to getting to the ball placing himself and Warren at risk. That is my problem with the call. Both are at fault, regardless of ball contact or scoring chance. If West had dribbbled the ball in then he would been absolved of that responsibility in my opionion. He was not in control of the ball so therefore he has to shoulder his share of the blame, no call. At this point Warren is being asked to be more careful that West because, "West is trying to score".
Another interesting situation occurred in either the second half or in the first OT. Galin pushed the ball around someone, or it was a wall pass, and then the defender stepped in front of him as he made his way into the box. Ref blew the whistle and I was almost positive Galin was in the 18 when the foul took place. No big deal, it would've been a VERY cheap PK, but it was definitely one of those situations where the ref called a foul that occured in the box but he instituted a little field justice.
That was one of the few calls he got correct. He called obstruction (the correct call in that case), which is clasified as a rules violation not a contact foul. Rules violations (offsides, ball out of bounds) result in a indirect free kick. Contact fouls (handball, tripping) result in a direct free kick. See for those of you who disgree with me on the Warren PK call (Not refering to you Bambule GK) I am not just talking out my @$$, I do know the rules. I just have a different intreptation of that one call.
For those people that still can't see that it was a clear penalty.. And if Warren would have gotten there first, and West's momentum would have completely taken Warren out? That would be fine too? No free kick?
I tried Splarg Forget it. Anyway, I'm waiting for them to start a "Moral Outrage" thread over this: This here picture was taken by none other than Andy Mead his own self; any rebroadcast or retransmission of these here pictures will cause him to send really mean people to your house, and nobody wants that. The best thing you can do about it would be to send him some money and subscribe to that "Emerald City Gazette" thingy. That way, he'll like you and send the mean people to some San Jose fans' house instead. Word
There are two separate questions: (i) was there a contact foul in the penalty box (regardless of whether it took away a CGSO) and (ii) was a clear goal scoring opportunity taken away by the foul. If the answer to (i) is yes (ii) is no, then a PK should have been awarded with no card. If the answer to (i) and (ii) is yes, then it is a PK and card. So the ref got the call right.
splarg, archer--who the *#*#*#*# are you? get the *#*#*#*# off this forum--take the photo and print it out, twist it up and shove it up your asses. *#*#*#*# you, this is the DC board, reality, photographic evidence whatever, shove it your ass. yes i have been at a bar all afternoon, yes nothing i am saying here makes any sense but *#*#*#*# off anyway. i love dc united and no matter if you have fact, evidence or the all mighty LOTG on your side, get the *#*#*#*# off off this forum.
No way should that have been a PK, it's a makeup call for the Stoitchkov flop. The ref should be fined for calling that a PK on the Hirsto Stoitchkov flop.
I dunno. I watched it about 10 more times tonight. I am more convinced than ever that you are half right. It was partly a Stoichkov flop. But it was also a foul in the box. Because of the latter, it was a legit PK to call, even if it wasn't the hardest foul in the world. Still, let's not forget, Stoichkov had him beat, so it was pretty serious to commit a foul in that situation. One other thing -- I have joined with many on these boards to bash Bobby Convey recently. But let it be said that the ball he played there to Stoichkov was a pretty sweet play. Nice job, Bobby Convey. AQ
Say, Bill. You should take a look at some of the other threads in this forum (like the post game thread.) There is quite a bit of moral outrage going on. I know it's unusual to be angry at your own players for diving, but many of us are angry. Knave - "The Crew deserved to win. I hate Hristo so much right now. His dive was so classless that it almost made me hope DC United wouldn't be rewarded in the end." Usula - "In the last three games we have score once in the run of play, and twice with flops in the box. " Sachin - "Stoich dove like a madman ..." And here's a whole thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78190 Overall, it's not very complimentary of Stoichkov's dive, nor should it be. I admit that there would be more outrage for a call like that against us. But you've got to admit, it's there. I think the league should take action after the game. That type of play is not what I like to see, even if he gets away with it.
I find this whole bit funny because people keep calling it a dive. A dive implies that Stoichkov was not fouled and went down by himself. However, that is not the case. There was legit contact not once, but twice. I think most people are reacting to Stoichkov's overdramatization after the foul. If he goes down normally (if he can do such a thing), then it's a bonafide pk. The fact that he embellished it way too much is what draws fans' ire.
I have seen these issues brought up in a couple of posts elsewhere so I thought I would comment on them. I will respon to the issues not the individuals who brought them up. West is fast but he was clearly not fast enough to reach that ball otherwise he would have gotten more than a toe poke in the way of contact. Lowered his shoulder??? Warren pulled up. He did not lower his shoulder or anything else in West. Not a 50/50 ball? Did I miss something? Was West dribbling the ball in the penalty box? No, so where does that give West possesion of that ball? He barely made contact with it. Is it becasue the ball was passed from a Crew player? No one, United or Crew, had clear possesion of that ball making it a 50/50 ball. Warren went for the ball as well. However as shown by the skiddish nature he had played the whole game he did not come out correctly after the ball. That and West's all out lunge created the contact ot some malicious head hunting expedition by Warren as some have suggested.
I have not seen a tape and the call may have been legit but there is no doubt that the ref saw the tape of Hristo's dive at halftime and was looking for a chance to even up the PK. I told my wife this around the 60th minute and it took him a while but he got it. On the Ivanov call, it was not for obstruction and not an indirect kick because Ivanov shot right at goal. If it had been indirect he would not have doen that. I sit right on the line of the box at that end and it was borderline in or out of the box but again there was no way the ref was giving us another PK if there was ny question.
It was because the ref had his hand raised to signify a indirect kick. Ivanov simply made another in his litany of mistakes by shooting on goal.
Red & Black, you rock! I feel another poem coming on, "Ode to Bill-Blow Baggy-nutz Archer"... oh, wait a minute, can't do that. And before the reprimands start the dig on crew-boy was because he still insists on coming here and spouting off. He agree's w/ the ref, fine, did I go to a crew board to check that out, hmm? Is this a neutral for referee's? Shawn, you should be a soccer lawyer, you make a excellent case against the PK, and anyway how long is this thread gonna go on? It happened, it SUCKED, and in 2 days we play KC.
Self-righteous, much? You seem to ignore the post that points out that many folks were annoyed with Stoichkov for the dive. You want to villify DC fans. Fine. Just don't expect people here to buy into it or be polite in response. Should I go do a search on Eggy's posts over the last few weeks and use that to define the level of class displayed by the "Columbus guys?" And yes, you should (and do) know better than to post over here and expect everyone to respond with level-headedness.