Chicago postmatch

Nothing is as bad as the swindle in the swamp. The USA Today even called it that. When a national news paper talks about officiating in a college football game, you know the fix was in.

It's the gold standard of crappy, biased officiating against which all other such incidents are measured.
 
Two additional points.

First, did anyone see the possession stats? 65-35 Chicago, with the Fire winning every block but the first 5'. That did not match the game I saw. I thought we had good blocks of possession, including in the final third, for most of the first half and a good block of the second. I had neutral observers remarking that you couldn't tell we were down a man.

Second, did the referee call the Chicago goal on Accam's shot? Or only on the rebound? Accam's shot went in, of course, but I don't recall hearing a whistle. Callens basically gave up on the play, which really pissed me off at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Second, did the referee call the Chicago goal on Accam's shot? Or only on the rebound? Accam's shot went in, of course, but I don't recall hearing a whistle. Callens basically gave up on the play, which really pissed me off at the time.
I don't know what the ref called, but it confused a lot of people. The radio announcers thought it was not a goal until the rebound, and never corrected that. I was confused later when I saw that Accam was credited with the goal. Iain and Joe, especially Iain, realized almost immediately that the Accam shot went in. Credit to de Leeuw for following through to be sure. Callens started running immediately, but de Leeuw was quicker and had a better path. Callens paused midway, but not, I think, because he gave up, but because he realized de Leeuw had position on him and that caused a momentary hesitation to figure what was the best course.
 
I don't know what the ref called, but it confused a lot of people. The radio announcers thought it was not a goal until the rebound, and never corrected that. I was confused later when I saw that Accam was credited with the goal. Iain and Joe, especially Iain, realized almost immediately that the Accam shot went in. Credit to de Leeuw for following through to be sure. Callens started running immediately, but de Leeuw was quicker and had a better path. Callens paused midway, but not, I think, because he gave up, but because he realized de Leeuw had position on him and that caused a momentary hesitation to figure what was the best course.

From my angle, it looked like Callens could have gotten there easily if he had not realized the first shot was in and hesitated.

I couldn't tell from replay what the call was, except that on one angle the sideline ref is not in position and doesn't indicate Accam's shot was a goal.
 
I could have sworn I saw the ref give Johnson a yellow card...
they announced a yellow card at the stadium but i dont remember hearing or seeing it on TV. Also its not on the match report. Im assuming it was either a mistake or it got rescinded.
Radio also said he got a yellow. But apparently it was just yellow card theater.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seth and Kjbert
Radio also said he got a yellow. But apparently it was just yellow card theater.
It was called so early in the second half (if I recall it was before/around the 60 minute mark?) one of the peanut gallery may have had the sense to recognize the insanity of calling time wasting at that time in that circumstance. I had no indication that it had been revoked and was actually cringing every time SJ held the ball thereafter expecting him to get the boot for a second yellow in what would have caused a fan riot.