I assume you meant "refs" as in the team of refs which officiated that game. You're right - they DID do a pretty good job, didn't they? Tough game for them to call but they actually get the big decisions right.

I get what you're saying, but it's the 5th minute, you only get three subs and he doesn't know if it's an injury which can get worse or not. Turn it around and say he comes out immediately at that time but is feeling just fine by halftime he'd be hurting his team by limiting their ability to make subs on top of the fact that his replacement is not ready, probably not going to come in as sharp, etc. If it happened in the second half, I'd totally agree with you and if he had said he couldn't go back out then I would've been good with that too, but he went back out there to try and help his team.

You could see he was in pain when he hobbled off initially... but I agree to your point that it may not have been as bad as I imagine. I'm just terribly upset about the whole thing though - he hasn't always done everything that I wanted him to.. sometimes would be lazy and had missed chances, etc... but the last part of the season he's been doing _everything_ I have wanted to see from him. Pressuring, getting behind defenses, scoring (with his head once, even). In a way, one might consider whether he would've pulled out of that challenge a year ago...

Teal Bunbury should get honorable mention for sacrificing his body to set up KC's goal and then playing on a torn ACL and damaged LCL for 10 more minutes. Sure, you could downplay the sacrificing the body thing - it's not like he knew he was going to get injured when he flicked that ball on, but the commitment to go back out there when he must have been in considerable pain is commendable.

Not saying your wrong, but am interested in hearing your justification for Kei over CJ. (SBI-Sunday's game was technically in April. If that game was in March, you'd definitely have a better argument of Sapong over Kamara. That being the case, I went with Kamara.)

Disclosure that I am an SKC fan, so I may be wearing sporting blue glasses, but I do try to be as objective as possible. I understand that many people saw SKC's play in COL to be overly physical, but I think that you gotta take a step back for a second and consider that A) we are a physical team, for sure, but being physical alone isn't a crime and B) this was the first (MLS) playoff game that any of these players had played since at least '08 (for Kamara and Arnaud) and most had never played in one before - they were amped up and over-zealous at times, but getting stuck-in because you're over-excited is different than because you're being malicious or dirty. Case-in-point, last night's game included a lot of questionable conduct by the Rapids players... pushing players to the ground or sometimes coming close to striking SKC players. I didn't _like_ that because I'm an SKC fan, but I can understand that the Rapids were putting it all out there and were also getting frustrated at times - it wasn't malicious (well, I haven't reviewed all of the incidents but... I'm giving the benefit of the doubt), it was just the emotions and excitement of playoff soccer. I know that not everyone is a huge fan of having a playoff system, but we have one and we might as well appreciate the nuances of the playoffs - that means that players are going to be more emotional and pushing their limits. So it's not like any of the players are really out there, calmly assessing the situation and deciding to making questionable tackles. Basically - if you can't get over how SKC played in COL bearing in mind that this is the playoffs we're dealing with, maybe you're not ready for MLS playoff soccer.

Something I hadn't realized until recently, but apparently they can open up an additional 1.5k "Standing Room Only" tickets. So I suppose the theoretical capacity is 20k, but probably only in special circumstances.

There are a few, but mostly because they have a history with the name "Wizards" and, while most would agree it isn't the best name in the world, it is the one they grew to love and is the one that we won our silverware with. In addition, the ones who do prefer "Wizards" also tend to really not like "Sporting Kansas City" as well. Really, we will still call ourselves the "Wizards" but it won't be our club's name. I think it's win-win b/c those who want to hold onto the past can, those who hate "Wizards" can and the team can separate themselves from a troublesome name and brand.

If it were a dirty foul, whatnot, then I would say Red every time. But this was DOGSO, Serious Foul Play, so it would've been nice if the ref didn't kill the game like that. I mean, sure, by the letter of the law, that was a red card... but according to Davy even the Man U players were telling him not to give a red and destroy the game. Nobody wanted to see that card being red, and it would've been nice if he'd given yellow instead... but what can you do. Wasn't the wrong call, just an unfortunate and harsh one.

I dunno - if you have your studs up in a challenge on any other part of the pitch, you're gonna get something. Seems that goalies deserve some level of the same protection, if not more so. That said, I'm not really lobbying that a card _needed_ to be given, but I think it's def. worth a foul. If Heskey had gotten ball then that's one thing, but if he doesn't then it's hardly fair to kick the GK in the ribs (which could result in him not being able to get up and defend a follow-up shot). In any case, if refs _are_ going to allow this kind of contact with keepers, perhaps keepers should get to wear a bit more 'armor' - nothing crazy, just something to give a little more protection to the ribs and vital organs... I'm sure GKs wouldn't want anything too substantial anyway - wouldn't want to lose mobility. Just seems that a GK is gonna get seriously injured this way... Basically, either they have to step up and protect GKs from this type of stuff, or they have to make sure that it won't seriously injure them.

Kamara was trying to argue that the ball was already over the line before he missed it... I don't think he was complaining about the handling call at all.

I think that Auvray with KC was at least worth an honorable mention, but I suppose I do have a bit of bias - anyone else agree with me?

You'd have to think that part of it has to do with Chicago having tied their bid in with the Olympic bid too much - for instance, Japan was tying their bid with the assumption that a +80k seat stadium would be built for the Olympic bid, but when that didn't happen they probably took a hit on their WC bid. Chicago probably considered the Olympic bid to be more important, worked hard on that and was expecting to ride that 'win' (should it happen) in order to get the WC bid. In the same respects, realize that the bidding process wasn't about which city is the best for tourists... if anything, from a tourism perspective, it makes more sense to make the cities the ones with less tourism b/c the event itself is a built-in draw. Chances are good that many of those who go to games in KC or Indy will consider stopping by Chicago while they are in the area.

While I am a Wizards fan, I do think, due to the nature of the camp, that Arnaud might have deserved a spot. Sure, he didn't have a great end to the MLS season, but I think he does have the potential to provide something and the worst that could happen is he attends camp and watches the WC from home.

For those involved and interested: http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13721.html A pretty good description of a business's right to refuse service. http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C200-299/2130000065.HTM The Missouri statute related to discrimination. Also of note that while Missouri does not protect sexual orientation, Kansas City does (according to http://dolir.mo.gov/hr/faq.htm). --- It seems to me that the law is already in place to protect discrimination based on race... and that, if the current codes were implemented in such a way that they were intending to discriminate against race then there is no need to debate on the matter - simply file a lawsuit instead. On the other hand, if the dress codes are not overtly discriminatory against protected classes, implemented fairly and consistently across protected classes and is done for a particular business interest (which is not very restrictive) then there is nothing wrong. Now, the business interest bit basically means whether the particular code is arbitrary or not. Arbitrary can easily be vastly different from one business to another, depending on the type of business. Honestly, some of the codes seem very arbitrary ('Wearing of ball caps or the manner in which they are worn.') while others might actually make sense for certain businesses ('Length of sleeves or pants being too long.', 'Type of shoes worn.' - I could see both of these being enforceable within a dance club, again - as long as it is done consistently). What I truly don't understand is why there is any talk about 'publicly subsidized city developments.' Especially when you consider that the business owners are probably not getting public monies, the developers are, unless you consider the public funding to the developers is passed on to the businesses. Still, discriminatory practices are discriminatory no matter who paid for the place... if it's discrimination, it doesn't matter who pays for it. The best that I can see is that businesses that are not 'open to the public' can discriminate, even along protected classes in many cases... and that there should be such businesses in a publicly funded district. But that's not what this is really about, so the whole publicly funded nonsense seems rather idiotic to me.