Impulsive journalists produce idiots
Gary Fitz says he's an impartial journalist; I say he's a moron who tries to score points with his readers by mixing a legitiamte opinion with cheap shots again referees.The article is about penalty kicks during the run of play - most certainly a worthy topic to discuss! Penalty kicks have their own unique history in the game; initially thought an abominable thought; how could people commit an intentional foul to deny a goal - it's absurd, it's ungentlemanly, it's happening all the time. Skipping tons of context, it was decided that the special area where the goalkeeper can handle the ball should also be the same place extra penalties are exacted should infringments occur; it's that whole, keep the game simple thing.
But he sets up the article very poorly - it's clear he doesn't care about the game, he's more interested in meeting his deadline rather than proposing solutions like shortening the penalty area, making a separate area for penalty kicks, getting rid of the lot of them. No, he wants to whine.
Slur number one: "Now through the impulsive action of a game official, Sanborn was being given a chance to tie the game." No context, just (in an unquoted portion) a mention that it happened at the edge of the penalty area. If a foul occurs in the penalty area, anywhere in it, it's a PK - that's the rules as it stands, so learn them or shut up.
Ignorant statement number one: "When a player is tripped from behind in the box on a breakaway attempt, a penalty kick is awarded." Yes, but the player should also be shown the red card, given the accepted definition that a breakaway has the player running toward the goal (although there are exceptions, I usually give that one to the layperson and/or journalist).
Slur number two? I'm not sure, but here it is: "And this referee was determined to follow the rules to the letter. He saw what he thought was a foul. He saw that the player fouled was inside the penalty area and in his mind had no choice but to award the penalty shot." He even admits the ref is following the rules, but is winging anyway.
Slur #2: The context of this quote is that, a few minutes later, the keeper runs out and makes contact with a player with the ball - no mention of if the contact came first (making it a foul), or if it looked reckless (also a foul), just that the other referee in the dual was, " saying 'My partner gave them a questionable penalty kick, if there’s anything close I’m going to even things up.'" Bullshit, Mr. Fitz - referees learn to avoid makeup calls, especially in the PK variety, because it opens up a lot of diving, and can really cause problems. There's an old saying that the most dangerous time to have a goal scored against you, is after you score one yourself - you're disorganized and prone to do reckless things as overcompensation - so seeing something like this after a goal or PK goal is not uncommon. But if Mr. Fitz had actually watched enough games, he might have noticed.
Asshole statement #1: "Not only had one wrong been righted by a second bad call, but maybe the game would end in regulation after all." Just say you don't want to be there, you wanker.
Ignorant statement #2: You get the inevitable comment about how another official said the calls were poor, followed by "It was significant because officials rarely criticize their colleagues". Sadly, this is also bullshit. Officials tend to love to criticize other officials - makes us feel better in the short term, although it hinders us in the long term. This is just more cheap points.
Ignorant statement #3: "The game was eventually decided by another call, this one outside the box and legitimate." Someone get this guy a whistle; then maybe he can write about how the best people for reffing never do it! (end sarcasm)