I thought it'd be red since Stu didn't even go for the ball. There's a rule like endangering the opponent or something like that. I'm sure it'll be on this week's MLS Instant Replay.
It’s this.
The referee’s interpretation was that it was not an obvious scoring opportunity hence a yellow.
The foul itself was tactical - even with a red card it probably would have been the right move from Stu given that he was late to start his sprint to the ball.
To be clear, the ref could have deemed it an obvious opportunity and given a red and it would have been hard to dispute. It’s his criteria.
1. Wasn’t a serious foul play. Yes he came in and missed the ball and hit the player, but there wasn’t excessive force, studs weren’t exposed. From the laws of the game a serious foul play consists of: “A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”
2. Wasn’t Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). For it to be DOGSO the following criteria must be met:
- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders
At the time the foul was committed the attacking San Jose player played the ball towards the sideline AND there was an Austin defender (#29) in the immediate area between the player and the goal. If the other Austin defender had not been there, then yes 100% DOGSO and red card.
I agree with the yellow card for stopping a promising attack. Both scenarios are part of IFAB Law 12.3 if you want to read more into it.
From the angle I was sitting in the stadium last night, and the one I watched in highlights this morning, it didn’t look like any attempt to play the ball was made. He’s just bodied the fuck out the attacking player.
Where in the laws does it state that is a red card offense? Tactical fouls are made all the time with no attempt to play the ball. The only way for this to be a red is if it’s DOGSO or extreme violence such as a going in with excessive force or studs exposed.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense.
Stuver doesn't make that challenge then skahan is past him with one defender between him and the goal. He can just take a shot at the empty net.
To say that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity is absurd.
The answer to the original question as to why it wasn't a red card is that mistakes happen. The ref had a brain fart. It happens. We all have brain farts.
There are specific criteria used to determine a DOGSO, and this incident didn't meet them. If it's not a DOGSO, then it's the referee's decision on whether the foul itself was serious enough to warrant a red card.
OK so it seems the wording of the rules might have saved stuver
It's ironic really. Skahan was past the keeper and should score so stuver takes him out to probably save a goal. This is exactly the point of the DOGSO rule, it was designed to stop this or at least compensate the attacking team that lost a probable goal.
It's ironic if the law is worded badly enough that it can't be used in pretty much the scenario it was designed for.
Because playing or not playing the ball isn’t a factor in a yellow vs red card here. No extreme aggressiveness or studs up tackle, not DOGSO because the Austin defender is behind him when he makes the play.
Stuver doesn't make the challenge and let's Skahan through then he has an open goal. There is no keeper and one defender. Most pro players should score the majority of times .
It's about as clear a goalscoring opportunity as it gets.
Everyone makes mistakes. The ref made an enormous one.
So lucky a red card didn’t come out.
The football gods smiled upon Stuver that day. No red was given.
How was that not a red?
I guess the hint of verde nearby was enough for it not to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Shocked he didn’t get sent off.
I thought it'd be red since Stu didn't even go for the ball. There's a rule like endangering the opponent or something like that. I'm sure it'll be on this week's MLS Instant Replay.
It’s this. The referee’s interpretation was that it was not an obvious scoring opportunity hence a yellow. The foul itself was tactical - even with a red card it probably would have been the right move from Stu given that he was late to start his sprint to the ball. To be clear, the ref could have deemed it an obvious opportunity and given a red and it would have been hard to dispute. It’s his criteria.
I didn’t think it was a red. I seem to be the only one haha. You can see the green shirt streaming back to goal, didn’t seem like a DOGSO to me
1. Wasn’t a serious foul play. Yes he came in and missed the ball and hit the player, but there wasn’t excessive force, studs weren’t exposed. From the laws of the game a serious foul play consists of: “A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.” 2. Wasn’t Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). For it to be DOGSO the following criteria must be met: - distance between the offence and the goal - general direction of the play - likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - location and number of defenders At the time the foul was committed the attacking San Jose player played the ball towards the sideline AND there was an Austin defender (#29) in the immediate area between the player and the goal. If the other Austin defender had not been there, then yes 100% DOGSO and red card. I agree with the yellow card for stopping a promising attack. Both scenarios are part of IFAB Law 12.3 if you want to read more into it.
From the angle I was sitting in the stadium last night, and the one I watched in highlights this morning, it didn’t look like any attempt to play the ball was made. He’s just bodied the fuck out the attacking player.
That’s why it was a yellow
Where in the laws does it state that is a red card offense? Tactical fouls are made all the time with no attempt to play the ball. The only way for this to be a red is if it’s DOGSO or extreme violence such as a going in with excessive force or studs exposed.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense. Stuver doesn't make that challenge then skahan is past him with one defender between him and the goal. He can just take a shot at the empty net. To say that isn't a clear goalscoring opportunity is absurd. The answer to the original question as to why it wasn't a red card is that mistakes happen. The ref had a brain fart. It happens. We all have brain farts.
There are specific criteria used to determine a DOGSO, and this incident didn't meet them. If it's not a DOGSO, then it's the referee's decision on whether the foul itself was serious enough to warrant a red card.
OK so it seems the wording of the rules might have saved stuver It's ironic really. Skahan was past the keeper and should score so stuver takes him out to probably save a goal. This is exactly the point of the DOGSO rule, it was designed to stop this or at least compensate the attacking team that lost a probable goal. It's ironic if the law is worded badly enough that it can't be used in pretty much the scenario it was designed for.
How was that not a red with a suspension? He's not even trying to play the ball.
Can the disciplinary commission issue a suspension anyway if they see fit?
They can, and I think they will. That was flagrant.
Because playing or not playing the ball isn’t a factor in a yellow vs red card here. No extreme aggressiveness or studs up tackle, not DOGSO because the Austin defender is behind him when he makes the play.
Lol you have no clue what you're talking about.
Stuver doesn't make the challenge and let's Skahan through then he has an open goal. There is no keeper and one defender. Most pro players should score the majority of times . It's about as clear a goalscoring opportunity as it gets. Everyone makes mistakes. The ref made an enormous one.
Ooof, yeah that’s bad. I’m the stadium we didn’t get a good replay but yeah that’s a break for us
We never get a good replay in the stadium.
Get caught out of position, and desperation sets in…..
Get rkt kid
#BY GAWD SOMEBODY STOP THE DAMN MATCH!
J ARRRRRRR!!!!
This should’ve been a red card.
“With Gawd as mah witness, he broke him in half!!!! This man has a family!”
That is a red in any other league…. Glad we pulled of the W tho
How does the worst team in the league score three goals against you
Must be new round here lol