Date:Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:58:33 -0600
Reply-To:Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Richard Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: FA is Friedel's Friend
Content-Type:text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
!00% agree Ed!
The keeper was entitled to stand his ground! The ball wsa in playing
distance. The striker Torres deliberately ran into the keeper to draw the
foul.Friedel not only tried to avoid the impact but pulled away. I was
thinking award the free kick out!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Marco" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: FA is Friedel's Friend
Look, what I saw live and in replay was Friedel down low to cut the shot
angle off as any good keeper would do. He did not charge out to Torres.
There was about 3-4 yards between Torres and Friedel and the ball was
heading to Friedels hands low. In fact, that ball looked closer to Friedel
than Torres. Friedel did his job to block the shot. It wasn't like Friedel
through himself down in front of Torres I was already in position waiting
for a small moment for a shot. The ball came to him and Torres ran right at
him. What could he do except try and avoid a collision. The contact causes
the ball to go to Friedels right and Torres gets caught up because of his
own action not because Friedel playing low or stooping as suggested by Mr.
I will take another look at it but that is what I saw first time and last
time I looked.
How can a keeper play a ball coming at him unless he is in front of the
ball? Why would a keeper feel compelled to move from his position to give
preference to an attacker attempting to play the same ball?
Torres is a smart world class player and saw an opportunity. He didn't try
an avoid Friedel. He ran right over him and was rewarded for this. Torres
did not play the ball to the right and then Friedel blocked his path. He
played the ball at Friedel and the ball went off his leg and wide and then
That is how I saw the play.
> Are you saying you don't believe Friedel fouled Torres?
> From what I saw, Friedel tried to avoid fouling Torres, but still did. His
> foul resulting in denying an obvious scoring opportunity. What other
> did the Referee have?
> I agree it is one of those red cards you hate to give, but have to....
> --- On Tue, 3/24/09, Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Ed Marco <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FA is Friedel's Friend
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 2:57 PM
> Although I don't like when the FA does this sort of thing it is the right
> thing to do. The call was wrong. Friedel made a good play of the ball and
> clearly before Torres ran over him. He even turned away from Torres.
> Ed Marco
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:21 PM, "Wickham, Dennis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Stag has argued that DOGSO red cards should require cautionable offenses
>> deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity. It appears that the FA agrees.
>> How else can one explain the reversal of the one match ban for Friedel
>> favorite keeper) who fouled and denied a goal during Liverpool's thrash
>> Villa on Sunday? It wasn't a cynical foul or a reckless foul. Friedel
>> and missed, Torres made a clever move, and Friedel blocked his path,
>> him down.
>> It appeared as a pure example of a foul which denies a goal scoring
>> opportunity. It also was exactly the kind of offense that in 2007 the FA
>> proposed to IFAB that the punishment should only be a penalty kick. A
>> proposal that failed.
>> How nice it must be to be an EPL referee. There is no need to consider
>> management" issues in deciding between cautionable and send off offenses.
>> Send them off! The FA disciplinary committee will let the contrite player
>> play next week if the laws produce a result that is too harsh (or less
>> commercially profitable.)
>> All the years we have been hoping the MLS would become more like the EPL.
>> Perhaps it has?
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed
>> the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
>> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
>> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
>> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
>> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this
>> communication (or in any attachment).
>> Confidential - March 24, 2009
>> This email and any associated files transmitted with it are confidential
>> intended solely for [log in to unmask] If you are not the named
>> addressee do not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email.
>> notify Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek by telephone at 619.685.3003, you
>> will be
>> reimbursed for any reasonable costs.
>> Warning: SCMV has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are
>> present in this email, the firm cannot accept responsibility for any loss
>> damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.