Orlando City fumes after calls don't go its way on Rooney goal

A week after its first win of the season -- and just its third in 21 games under head coach James O'Connor -- Orlando City dropped a 2-1 decision at home to D.C. United in a game that turned on a sensational goal by Wayne Rooney.



The Englishman scored on a free kick from an impossible angle to give United a 2-0 lead after 30 minutes. The Lions dominated the match with a 16-4 edge in shots but could only manage one goal from Dom Dwyer in the 63rd minute.

O'Connor and Dwyer fumed about the Rooney goal.

O'Connor said the goal should have been called off for a foul by D.C. defender Frederic Brillant on Brian Rowe as Rooney's ball curled over the Lions keeper. Dwyer argued he didn't foul Rooney on the play that led to the free kick, terming the decision by referee Armando Villarreal "unbelievable."

O’Connor criticized the refereeing crew for not going to VAR -- and then ticked off games when Orlando City was on the wrong side of controversial calls since he took over.

“The foul on Brian Rowe was so obvious,” O'Connor said. “It goes to VAR, everybody can see it. For some reason, we don’t… what’s the point in having VAR? He didn’t even go and look at it. Yet, everyone can see that it’s a foul. For us, we’ve had it, since I’ve been here, we’ve had it in game after game."

Rooney put Dwyer in his place, saying it didn't matter that didn't get him.

"I see him coming and I got out of the way because if I didn’t, it could’ve been a serious injury,” he said. “As the referee said, it’s intent. I’m not stupid enough to stand in there and let him try to take my knee off.”

advertisement

advertisement

>
6 comments about "Orlando City fumes after calls don't go its way on Rooney goal".
  1. Wooden Ships, April 1, 2019 at 9:43 a.m.

    I agree with Wayne, dumb attempt by Dwyer. Needless, unnecessary. Unfortunate, sure was. 

  2. Kent James, April 1, 2019 at 5:15 p.m.

    While the foul on Rooney was not inappropriate, the foul on the keeper was egregious.  I don't have a horse in this race, and Rooney's strike was nice, but it certainly seemed like the keeper was going to have a play on it until he was taken out by a player who was not close to playing the ball...

  3. Bob Ashpole replied, April 2, 2019 at 8:07 p.m.

    Kent the player jumped straight up and the ball passed over his head. He didn't foul the keeper. I looked at it closely on the clips before all the complaints. As for Dyer, he is lucky he wasn't carded for showing cleats.

  4. Craig Cummings, April 1, 2019 at 8:35 p.m.

    Yes  inttent is a foul even though no contact was made according to the laws of the game. I believe the ex LA Galaxy Rowe was fouled and the play should have been looked at by VAR. But hey, You have a FIFA ref doing the game. I believe we are short on our limit  of FIFA Refs. Maybe Randy knows.

  5. R2 Dad replied, April 2, 2019 at 12:03 a.m.

    The referee is allowed to card even though no contact was made, though generally officials want to see some contact before issuing. I don't think I've ever seen an MLS card given for a non-contact foul like this. I'm not opposed to it, but I also think it's not a conincidence it's a high profile DP (Rooney) as the beneficiary. Intent has largely been written out of the laws of the game. Curious on Randy and Ian's take as well.

     

  6. Randy Vogt replied, April 2, 2019 at 7:18 a.m.

    Since I was asked for my two cents: I'm surprised that anybody is questioning the foul by Dom Dwyer on Wayne Rooney. Not only was it a foul for attempting to kick an opponent, but it was reckless and I thought that it should have been a caution for unsporting behavior. Before the questioning for allowing the goal, I saw it and thought it was a charge by Frédéric Briilant on Orlando GK Brian Rowe. Looking at the replay a few times now, I understand why they did not go to VAR as allowing the goal is not a "clear and obvious error." You could make a case that Brillant and Rowe both come together in both trying to play the ball and therefore the goal was rightly given. But at first glance, I thought it was a foul, and looking at the replay a few times (albeit from the same angle), the decision to allow the goal could have gone either way.

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications