Sporting KC
Was Rosero Fouled on the Game Tying Goal?
The game tying goal from Real Salt Lake has gotten a lot of attention. Was Sporting Kansas City on the wrong end of another call? Look at the video and decide (though I’m weighing in as well).
Let’s get this out of the way first, it was a bad play by Dany Rosero when he lost the ball for the game tying goal against Real Salt Lake. He had a safe back pass to Kendall McIntosh or an easy outlet to Remi Walter that could have easily gotten him out of trouble. Sporting Kansas City squandered a two-goal lead and a spot (albeit with a bunch of games in hand) above the playoff line. This one play is simply one moment in a season full of bad moments. I’ve got a reputation (fairly or not) of “blaming” the refs. It’s a factor, but there is plenty of blame to go around. I don’t think that precludes a discussion of this play.
Last night, I was sitting in the South Stand with my family after “playing” in the media game. I was sweaty, tired and distracted. But live, I thought it was a foul. When I looked to Twitter to see the reactions, most of the prominent accounts that Tweet about Sporting KC didn’t seem too upset. I started to think maybe I was wrong. In stadium the team showed a slow-motion replay that seemed to show a foul, but maybe he got the ball first?
Once I got home from the match, like a psycho I sat down to rewatched the game because I had missed so much, I’m a glutton for punishment and I had missed the first three goals in the match running around the stadium to get to the media game. I had a lot to catch up on. After my rewatch was over, I checked Twitter and saw this slow-motion view of the play (attached to a full speed version for context).
— sportingkcnation (@sportingkcnati1) July 13, 2023
It seems clear Anderson Julio, who broke Sporting KC fans hearts in the 2021 playoffs too, makes contact with Rosero just before he gets the ball. It’s absolutely a bang-bang play and at full speed it seems like it’d be easy to miss. Also, look at the first replay from RSL, Rubiel Vazquez, the center ref, is really far from the play. Maybe he swallows the whistle knowing the video assistant referee (VAR) would tell him if it’s worth looking at.
In the stadium, I remember saying to my podcast co-host and wife, Sheena, VAR is going to overturn it. When they blew the whistle to restart play, I was stunned (though I probably shouldn’t have been as this same crew had PRO admitting they blew a call in this past weekend’s New England Revolution/New York Red Bulls game).
So, I went looking for other takes on this play. In the stadium, I actually asked two RSL fans and one said it wasn’t a foul and another said they may have gotten away with one. I appreciated the candor. However, many prominent SKC contributors, including members of this very website, said it’s a soccer play. It’s not a foul. It’s a contact sport. Plenty of others agreed that it’s a foul. Look no further than the comments on the above Tweet or this ReTweet (15,000+ views, really?!).
What about Kansas native and Instant Replay host Andrew Weibe?
The SKC/RSL content starts around 6:18. Weibe says, “I think I’m okay with no call, good goal. Be stronger Dany Rosero or get rid of the ball.” However, on Twitter, he says, the “contact comes after.” But it doesn’t (though I’m not disputing it’s super close). Also, the simple fact that the league website needs a show analyzing referee calls every week shows the problem and the impact these plays are having. Then again, Weibe agrees with the refs a lot this week.
I already gave the take on IR, but I’ll sacrifice my mentions too I guess…
To me Julio wins the ball and contact comes after/is part of the game. Not all contact is a foul. Rosero, it seems to me, doesn’t complain much.
Completely fine with this being play on. https://t.co/EyACSPqNhU
— Andrew Wiebe (@andrew_wiebe) July 13, 2023
For me, this gets called a foul all the time. Much softer contact gets called a foul and Rosero isn’t some forward who flops ever. He plays physical on a consistent basis. For me, it comes down to these three points (though I’m sure I’m forgetting some):
- The contact with the man happens before the ball.
- It’s contact to the back by the forearms of Julio, not shoulder to shoulder.
- Even if you get the ball first, if you barrel through a guy, I thought that was still a foul.
But what do I know? I’d like you all to weigh in. Is this a foul? Let us know in the comments below.
Sporting KC sign 24-year-old Angolan winger Capita Capemba
Match Preview: Utah Royals at KC Current
KC Current Season Preview
KC Current Trade for Penelope Hocking from Bay FC
Preview: Sporting KC Takes on the LA Galaxy
6 Takeaways from Sporting KC vs San Diego FC
Sporting Kansas City falls 1-0 to San Diego in a chippy affair.
Sporting Kansas City vs San Diego FC Match Thread
Sporting KC Lose, but Keep Showing Promise in 2026
I think technically a foul, but I don’t mind it being not called.
to me, this is so much like the fowl that was called on Shelton in the lafc game. player with ball makes a move, defender pokes ball away, but hits original ball handler during follow through. I can’t say for sure weather they both should be fowls, or neither should be fowls, but for them to be called differently is the consistently inconsistent that that Peter always takes about, and it cost skc one point (lafc) if they shouldn’t have been called fowls, or 2 points (rsl) if they should have been called fowls
I think when someone kicks someone, as Shelton did why Long, it always looks worse. The issue I have with that Shelton call if VAR went back like 23 seconds to overturn a “clear and obvious” error, when the ball was passed around a bunch after.
This is direct from contact to the goal seconds later. If the Shelton foul is “clear” then this is too.
Although I think 23 seconds is excessive, isn’t the wording “attacking phase”? Like it or not, the attacking phase before a goal goes all the way back to possession change or stoppage in play. Which unfairly affects possession teams, of course. Maybe they changed this. I haven’t looked at the rules recently, but I think that’s why, strictly speaking, they are able to justify going back so far.
Steve – I disagree that these two fouls were similar. To me, not even close. Khiry didn’t mean to do it, but he fully kicked Long like he was an extra in the Bloodsport training montage.
Attacking phase is probably a bit of a muscle misnomer tbh. It’s more about “is this part of the same created chance”?
The APP (attacking phase of play) is also inconsistently applied.
I think of the St. Louis/SKC game where, IMO, two fouls from St. Louis led directly to the first two goals and they were seconds apart from the foul and not called.
It’s a long time on the Shelton/Long encounter, but by my understanding of the rule it was applied correctly. It just feels (and I’m obviously biased), that KC don’t get the calls other teams get.
When they were on their run in May/June, they had a lot of luck. It’s run out.
Is the fowl thing a joke?
I’m gonna guess autocorrect is failing him.
I don’t see much of a foul, much as I want to. To me, Julio is clearly pulling up, he doesn’t barge through Rosero. He brings his arms up, not to shove, but to buffer the coming impact. You can see on the slo-mo there’s no follow through with the arms. Rosero is in a bad body position and the physics transer-of-energy takes over, sending him dramatically flying. Honestly it’s a great sequence from Rosero and were he on my team I’d be very happy with him.
The fact that it leads directly to a goal makes it feel worse, but that shouldn’t be part of the calculation. SKC have been on the end of some bad non-calls, but I can’t see this as one of them. I mean, the Apple announcers literally said, as Julio came on, that he’d scored in something like his last three relief appearances. If they knew he was dangerous, so should SKC players, and not put themselves in such a position.
So as long as you dont extend your arms you can blow through anyone. Got it.
Soccer players collide all the time. The point about not extending the arms was in response to Chad’s description of this as a “shove”, which I don’t see.
Also, terrible typo by me above, wish I could edit. Meant to say “great sequence from Julio”, not Rosero.
I was questioning how Rosero was great. 🙂
I’ve just seen WAY LESS contact in the back called. Even if it’s not a shove, as you say his energy transfers through him.
Look at how his head whips back when the impact happens. Sure, he’s not expecting it and it’s a fail on his part, but when you get hit from behind, it’s usually a foul. Even if you don’t shove and just “body” a guy.
But once you lose control of the ball the standard changes. And there’s no question Rosero panics and takes a bad touch. At that point, it’s a 50/50 ball and (imo) you have to be ready for contact.
By the way, Rosero is a big dude and he knew that Julio was there. How in the hell does he go down like that? I guarantee if he were ushering a ball over the endline he wouldn’t have fallen over. I think he flopped looking for a call, which was a bad decision hot on the heels of his previous bad decision. I think if he’d have gotten the call we’d all be saying how lucky he was.
I don’t see that as a 5050. They don’t both have equal opportunity to get that ball. Julio has to run into Rosero’s back to get it, so but 5050
Yeah, I’m with A&W, I don’t see it as 50/50 either. I think he’s trying to cut back to his left to beat the defender he knows is coming.
That’s not a collision though. It’s one guy running into the back of another guy. Getting the ball or not shouldn’t matter. You can’t run directly through a guy’s back to get the ball. It’s a foul
If you need to “brace for impact” when you’re coming at someone, that is a foul. Yes Rosaro should have done better, but that’s not the point. That ‘he was asking for it’ defense is always reprehensible. The point is Julio crashed into him while attempting to get the ball. Not only did he NOT get it first, but he certainly sends the player flying after making contact with the ball. You can’t come through someone’s back to get the ball. Seems obvious to me.
I view the play differently than you. Rosero’s sloppy touch doesn’t put him in possession anymore. I think Julio wins the ball and goes shoulder to shoulder rather than shoulder to back. If it’s to the back, it’s much more of a foul than hard shoulder to shoulder contact while going for a 50/50 ball.
Regardless, this is an awful play by Rosero. Careless and casual. While i always want SKC to get the 3 points, we’re hoping to get bailed out for Rosero’s sloppy play by a foul call and I’m not sure that’s great.
I don’t understand how so many people are calling it shoulder to shoulder. Am I blind? It seems so clearly in his back with the forearms of Julio.
I think of shoulder to shoulder as side to side. But it’s Julio’s front into the upper back/shoulder blade of Rosero. I have literally never seen the shoulder blade referred to as shoulder to shoulder.
Only because Rosero contorts his body at the end. It’s a shoulder to shoulder challenge but Dany channeled his inner cirque performer to twist. Still not a foul.
I just don’t see it. In the slow motion above, his body is the same direction when Julio is out of frame, then he barges into his back.
In full speed, you can see he takes a touch to turn and go up the field, trying to fake out the attacker (failing of course).
I’m going to let this go, but trying to be completely objective, it feels like a foul.
But Rosero was asking for it by being careless. He sort of gives up possession of the ball. When I view it as an open ball it becomes much less of a whistle-worthy play.
I also want the MLS to stay more physical, even if it comes at the expense of SKC (which isn’t having a very costly season anyways!)
Yeah, he was asking for it. Rosero thought he could outplay the opponent and got the answer he was[n’t] looking for.
Reprehensible? Ha! We’re not talking about sexual violence.
#VermesOut
Full speed, it doesn’t look like a foul. When you slow it down, you can see that he makes contact first, but I think it makes the hit look worse than it actually is. I think Rosero changes direction in a way that Julio wasn’t anticipating so he goes for the ball and braces for impact. Rosero is already off balance so he takes a tumble while Julio keeps his feet. At full speed, it looks like Rosero actually turns into Julio.
Honestly, I think calling it either a foul or no foul is fair. I know we hate reffing gray areas, but I think we’re all kidding ourselves if we said we wouldn’t be pissed if the same thing happened with one of our forwards and we got the goal called back. In the end, there was no call on the field and I don’t think it’s a clear and obvious error.
Probably the fairest argument is that the ref should have been asked to VAR it given the consequences.
I could be blinded by this being SKC on the “wrong” end of it, but I feel like if this was called a foul, I wouldn’t say it was “soft” as much of the internet is calling me, Rosero and anyone associated with the play. Weibe acted like a dick and called a guy soft for thinking it was a foul.
You hit him in the back, even lighter contact than this is often called.
I don’t think I’d be upset if a goal was taken away from KC in this situation. But again, it’s hard to say for sure when I’m obviously biased towards KC at times. I try to call it like I see it though and sometimes in the moment I react fiery (and incorrectly), but with hindsight I pride myself on being reasonable.
I think the most important piece to focus on is that right before contact, Rosero starts turning his body to go upfield and tries to dribble around/past Julio’s left side. I see the call as a spirit of the law over letter situation. Does Julio get Rosero’s back in the collision? Yes. But is Rosero using his body to shield Julio and then is run over from behind? I say no. If Rosero had swung his left leg and fully put his back to Julio then that’s a foul 9/10 times if he continues into Rosero and runs through him. In this case, the turn and attempted dribble make this more of a “shoulder” challenge. You can see that the point where Julio makes contact with the ball is well away from Rosero’s feet and (importantly) he intercepts it with his left foot, which is outside Rosero’s space while his right foot does not go through Rosero’s legs to win the ball. In my view, Rosero almost runs into Julio as much as Julio runs into him, which I think is why there’s little argument to the call among others.
This would have been a perfect place to show off McIntosh’s “better” ball skills, but that’s a different matter lol. I hope this makes sense and gives a more concrete reason other than “it’s just not a foul”.
Lesser contact than this is called a foul several times every match in MLS. I don’t know that that makes this a foul. But I am certain this is not called because Rosero has 4 inches and 20 pounds of Julio. Shelton is called for at least a foul a game he’s in purely because a smaller guy on the ball goes down. Appearances matter, so when the shorter guy here hits Rosero with his full body weight at full speed, Rosero “has to be stronger.”
Absolutely a foul. You don’t get to shove a guy in the back when challenging for the ball. That has to be called, especially since it leads to an easy goal scoring opportunity. That VAR didn’t review it is a travesty. Yes, SKC needed to do better there, but that was a foul. No question.
It wasn’t a shove and it was arguably in the shoulder and not the back.
VAR DID review it and didn’t think it was a foul.
It’s definitely a foul but a physical, black center back is never getting that call.
But…a physical, black forward got the call. Not seeing what race has to do with this.
Yeah, I agree. I don’t see what race has to do with it. Particularly when they are both black (but in general I would give refs the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn’t factor that in).