Workman with a great one-touch finish off a nice pass from Cooper just 7 minutes in.

 

Ross played a great ball through the defensive line and Snow beat the goalie for the second goal about 6 minutes into the second half.

 

The 3rd goal came off a PK that was awarded to Cooper when the goalie took Snow down in the box.

 

Great job by the Cooper defense tonight, they played well as a unit and really limited the shots that Conner had.

Ryle v Cooper should be a good final...

Congrats to the Jags!

Congratulations to the Cooper Jags. Good luck to your team in the district championship.

Workman with a great one-touch finish off a nice pass from Cooper just 7 minutes in.

 

Ross played a great ball through the defensive line and Snow beat the goalie for the second goal about 6 minutes into the second half.

 

The 3rd goal came off a PK that was awarded to Cooper when the goalie took Snow down in the box.

 

Great job by the Cooper defense tonight, they played well as a unit and really limited the shots that Conner had.

 

Curious if the GK taking Snow out was denial of a goal scoring opportunity and was a card issued?

....

 

Rooting hard for Cooper, with the exception of when they play my Colonels, this fall -- great job, Jags!!

Yes, it was a goal scoring opportunity and a yellow was issued.

 

After reading my comment "took Snow down in the box", I feel I should clarify a little more because others may point out that Snow never completely went to the ground, he was knocked off balance but was able to regain his footing before going down.

 

The ball had been played wide of the goal and Snow was able to get there before the goalie. The goalie went to the ground to make an attempt on the ball but he was a little late in getting there. Snow turned and took the ball back towards goal and was just about clear of the goalie when he reached out in an attempt to stop him, he got his legs and not the ball, stopping his run at goal.

 

Given the situation, I think the goalie probably did the right thing, if he had not stopped him he could have taken a shot on an open goal from about 10-12 yards out.

Yes, it was a goal scoring opportunity and a yellow was issued.

 

After reading my comment "took Snow down in the box", I feel I should clarify a little more because others may point out that Snow never completely went to the ground, he was knocked off balance but was able to regain his footing before going down.

 

The ball had been played wide of the goal and Snow was able to get there before the goalie. The goalie went to the ground to make an attempt on the ball but he was a little late in getting there. Snow turned and took the ball back towards goal and was just about clear of the goalie when he reached out in an attempt to stop him, he got his legs and not the ball, stopping his run at goal.

 

Given the situation, I think the goalie probably did the right thing, if he had not stopped him he could have taken a shot on an open goal from about 10-12 yards out.

 

Not that it matters but sounds like straight red to me.

I'd like to see video. There are a few factors in that description that would need to be considered for denial.

Not that it matters but sounds like straight red to me.

 

I think it could have been but really did not have an issue with it being a yellow. The attempt on the ball was aggressive... but not dirty at all. If I am Conner, I could also make a case that the trailing defenders might have gotten back quick enough to actually be between the ball/player and the goal.

I'd like to see video. There are a few factors in that description that would need to be considered for denial.

 

I think you are stuck with my slighted view... :lol2:

I'd like to see video. There are a few factors in that description that would need to be considered for denial.

 

I agree, hard to make a real judgment without video or seeing it but denial (which it sounds like) is really not up for debate and should be straight red. I've seen refs get that wrong a couple times this year, I'm guessing because they didn't want to give the red card. Again, doesn't really matter but given that I've seen this situation a couple of times I was just curious.

I agree, hard to make a real judgment without video or seeing it but denial (which it sounds like) is really not up for debate and should be straight red. I've seen refs get that wrong a couple times this year, I'm guessing because they didn't want to give the red card. Again, doesn't really matter but given that I've seen this situation a couple of times I was just curious.

Valid point. Doesn't help that they are going to catch 10 different kinds of grief from random people that don't know what is happening as well as grief from people who know just enough to not know anything.

Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity Denied (The 4 Ds)

 

Law 12 provides that a defender whose violation of the Law prevents a goal or denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity must be sent off and shown the red card. The "professional foul" which is taken in a cynical attempt to prevent opponents from scoring requires a quick, firm response by the referee. Such misconduct by the defender overshadows the severity of the foul itself.

 

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present:

 

Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul

Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity

Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball

Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed

If any element is missing, there can be no send off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Further, the presence of each of these elements must be "obvious" in order for the send off to be appropriate under this provision of Law 12.

 

However, the foul might, by itself, warrant a card -- a caution for unsporting behavior, for example, if the challenge was reckless or a send off if the challenge were violent. If the foul by the defender is both violent and qualifies as an obvious goal-scoring opportunity offense misconduct, the referee should include both facts in the game report but must only list one official reason for the red card.

 

Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goal-scoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include technical fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick.

Man I'm glad I started getting back into watching HS soccer. I watched both games at Conner last night and it was worth the admission.

The call you guys are talking about had me curious as well because my son plays for Holy Cross and at the Ncc game the ref issued a straight red for a defender taking out a player. My eyes are going bad but it looked to be the same ref that did both games, I'd like to know his explanation of things. I thought he called a great game so I'm sure there was good reason to not issue a red. I also saw a Cooper assistant get a red card and asked to leave the field, this happened after what looked like the ball was out of bounds and he attempted to catch it. From the way the other coaches were acting it seemed like the linesman wasn't paying any attention, I'd like to know the ruling on this as well. I've been away for a few years so let me ask you this, when I was taught to throw the ball in it had to go straight back then over the head, is it really legal to throw a ball from the side now, I see it all the time.

One more thing: last night confirmed that Snow if OPOY for me. That boy can flat out play. There were 2 other stand out in the late game for me. #4 for conner big strong fast has great vision and foot skill & # 10 for Cooper this young man is special, he sees the field so good and is so calm when in possession. One of the parents told me he was a freshman, keep an eye out for him.