suspension. 10 games or a lock of his braided hair.

Pros let this stuff go, but the mantra of "unintentional" isn't helpful. Refs are taught (or should be) to judge results, not intention--we're not mind readers. The standard is "careless, reckless, or with excessive force" (generally corresponding to foul, yellow, red).

I watched it live on TV; this was a typical bicycle in the box. The result was unlucky for Vaughn, but I would have called it a foul for dangerous play, not a yellow card for reckless play on DeRo's part.

It's not in the League's best interest to suspend De Rosario for attempting a bicycle kick. Bicycle kicks are glamours, and when they are effective they're immediate highlight moments.

That being said, I don't know how a bicycle kick isn't considered a dangerous play when there are other players around. Why isn't it a high kick?

Vaughn was behind DeRo and the ball was approaching DeRo when he did his bicycle kick. It looked to me that Vaughn put his head in the way of DeRo's kick which had already started. If there was a dangerous play, it was committed by Vaughn.

Now the ball as passing by Vaughn and DeRo tried that kick I'd say he would be to blame.

If anything, Vaughn should thank De Ro, because now he will get all the sympathy from the chicks out in LA. They love when dudes have battle scars. Also the penalty levied against De Ro was just. Maybe Vaughn should wear the same mask as Rip Hamilton.

MLS got it all wrong and is obviously protecting one of its star players. All bicyle kicks are potentially dangerous plays both to the person attempting it and to those around that person. In this case, both players had an equal right to the ball. De Ro overran the flight of the ball and used his foot to reach backward to attempt to reach the ball, without regard to the increased danger he was creating for those in close range. Vaughn actually won the ball and headed it away from goal. De Ro made the contact and thus created the foul. Given its severity, De Ro should have been sent off and further disciplinary action taken. I have no issue with his suspension being equal to the time Vaughn has to miss.

Bicycle kicks are part of the game, but there is always the risk that it will turn into a "reckless play" or a play with excessive force. Thats just a risk the player has to take.

On the one hand, MLS doesn't want to discourage players from taking risks and thereby over-regulate the game. On the other hand, if you mess this up and severely injure another player, it should be straight red, but no suspension.

Yeah right. When Twellman scored off a bicycle kick last year against some team and his foot went right in between two players heads, no one cared. When Lawson Vaugh puts his head in the way of a incoming kick, everyone cries suspension. Ridiculous.

You should not be allowed to try bicycle kicks in traffic. Twellman should have been suspended for sure since if I remember correctly he had to have known the defenders were right there. At least De Ro could argue that Vaughn was behind him so should be suspended as long.

This was not a reckless kick in traffic - Vaughn kind of came over his back and I don't think DeRo really saw him. However, DeRo is so athletic that he can really get his feet up there on bicycle kicks, unlike say, a Bobby Boswell. I was at the game and you could tell it was bad even without the TV shots of his face.

Truth be told, as few bicycle kicks are converted, I could do with a rule that your foot can't go over your shoulders when kicking. They are tried way too many times for the situation.

Of course, if Balboa had connected on his bicycle in the '94 World Cup vs. Columbia, I'd probably want to see them banned since it'd be hard for anyone on US Nats to top that moment.

Overreaction on the internet? Well I never...

Come on, folks. If you suspend or fine De Rosario for this, you essentially outlaw the bicycle kick in MLS. That's not happening, nor should it. I think the ref and MLS got this one exactly right. Yes, it really sucks for Vaughn (and as a man with plates in his face, I especially sympathize), but De Rosario was entirely going for the ball.

Tim and Chest, you guys are right.

If some people had their way MLS would issue red cards and suspensions when someone takes a free kick and someone in the wall gets hit in the face with the ball and gets a bloody nose. Let's ban tag at recess, too.

Yeesh.

"bicycle kicks should not be allowed in traffic/when other's are around??" When is this not the case? BK's were a novalty when athletes were not as active as they are today. I think bk's are stupid given the physical nature of play over 90 minutes. Today, if you are not controlling the ball on the ground, you're not playing winning soccer. A bk is clearly a high kick and a dangerous play for those around the kicker and for the kicker as well. It is time for soccer to evolve by eliminating bk's and puting two referees within the playing field for each game for starters.

As much as I hate to see players get injured this is not De Ro's fault. He was already in the process for BK when Vaughn suddenly came behind him to put his face there. Everyone needs to be a little more smarter in terms of where an how you place your body in the play. And BK should always allowed. It's one thing that brings beauty in this game.

Vaughan's injury: This will happen again but hopefully it will be a star like Beckham, Landon or someone the league cares about next time. Then we will see a change. MLS is still a 4th tier league where this stuff goes unpunished.

As a ref - dangerous play on De Rosario but that is it - the defender did a good job trying to close him down. De Rosario could have stopped his kick.

Yellow perhaps, but nothing more.
I feel bad for Vaughn, but you can't blame DeRo

This was inevitable, I think, given how many bikes DeRo tries each season. Twice playing soccer I caught boots in the face, and both times my nose was broken. But Vaughn's injury sounds downright heinous. Feel for the guy.

Dead on Tim & Chest. If this was was reckless, so was Twellman's. I expect the agent to make the comments he did.

TEX, can't let it slide that you wrote MLS is a 4th tier league. If you wrote 2nd or even 3rd you might have an argument. But 4th? My 5:45 a.m. Tuesday morning futsal matches are at least 5th tier. I can't imagine that MLS is only one better.

I think the yellow and lack of suspension are probably the right move, but I don't get some of the reaction here. I'll fully admit to not having read the rules, but if your cleats are at shoulder level or above and there are other players right near you, how is that not dangerous play? Vaughn's trying to play the ball legally, with his head -- it's not like he was diving down for it or anything. DeRo has his foot way up high -- where's the controversy? It doesn't matter if DeRo knows he's there or not.

And in terms of Twellman's bicycle goal from last year, I remember the replays showing quite clearly that the defender was going for the ball and then flinched away from it when he saw Twellman's foot heading for his noggin. At the time I (and others I was watching the game with) thought that probably should have been disallowed for dangerous play and didn't understand why the announcers weren't talking about it.

The lesson from all this seems to be "no blood, no foul." As a defender you're kind of screwed: either you go for the ball and maybe end up with reconstructive surgery like Vaughn, or you don't go for the ball and maybe end up getting scored against and being accused of being too timid. Either way, it seems like a case where unless it's called tightly and consistently when it's dangerous, the defender is put at a disadvantage.

Fire away...

Under FIFA's Laws of the Game 2006 (the current laws), in the section "Additional Instructions for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials" there is a paragraph titled "Scissors or bicycle kick." It states, "A scissors kick is permissible provided, in the opinion of the referee, it
is not dangerous to an opponent."

The ref must have thought De Rosario's kick was dangerous because the ref gave him a yellow card. Therefore, the kick was not a permissible action, not because all bicycle kicks are dangerous, but because De Rosario's kick was dangerous. From there, it is on the MLS Disciplinary Committee to decide if De Rosario needed further sanctioning. They obviously thought the yellow card was enough.

Personally, after seeing the video, I'd suspend De Rosario a game or two. He was sandwiched between two Chivas players, one who was well within his rights to head the ball out of danger. The onus is on the player in De Rosario's position not to put his opponent in danger. He did so and should be punished more than just a yellow in my opinion.

I said it before - it was not intentional or malicious but it was reckless. Three game suspension.

Tim and all - Twellman's BK was against Chicago, and put the Revs through to the MLS Cup - game-winning goal. When I saw it go in I thought "that's a dangerous play" - but knew that it wouldn't get called bc 1) it was Twellman; 2) it was dramatic; and 3) the defenders backed away. And just because you start a BK doesn't mean you are laying claim to the ball. If a keeper jumps at the ball does that mean a forward can't challenge for it? No, not at all. The rule that governs BKs is dangerous play, not some imaginary rule that people want to make up about DRo starting his kick before Vaughn was on the scene. If it's crowded enough for Vaughn to get there in time to break the play up, it's too crowded to try a BK in the first place. Same with Twellman's last year. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should. The health and careers of other players are on the line - in this case it's the health and career of a much younger, poorer player, the kind who the league too often treats as a disposable commodity.

its quite simple if you read the rule book.

as per FIFA rule book:

a player is cautioned (yellow card) if he brakes any of the following 7:
1. is guilty of unsporting behavior
2. shows dissent by word or action
3. persistently infringes the laws of the game
4. delays the restart of play
5. fails to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick, or throw in
6. enters or re-enters the field of play without permission
7. deliberately leaves the field of play without permission

de rosario didnt brake any of these 7 rules. you can make a claim for "unsporting behavior" but that could be anything and the descriptions for what qualifies as a red card make things perfectly clear.

a player is sent off and shown the red card if he brakes any of the following 7:
1. is guilty of serious foul play*
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or anyone else
4. denies opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball.
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the players goal by an offense punishable by a free kick.
6. uses offensive or insulting or abusive language or gestures
7. receives a 2nd yellow card.

further description in the rule book:
* decision 4: a tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play. (and thus a red card)

at least suspend or fine the guy.

So, if you go with the "reckless play" interpretation and say it is worthy of a suspension, then what makes this play different from the one between Ryan Cochrane and Jay Ayres on April 30th (USOC match between SJ and Colorado)?

Ryan and Jay collided going for the ball and Ryan received a laceration on his head with 20+ stitches and Jay has multiple facial fractures (left and right cheekbones) requiring surgery with plates and pins. As far as I know, neither player was issued a card or called for a foul (correct me if I'm wrong pls).

How is this situation different from DeRo's BK? Is it not a foul if you injure a player on your own team? This seems strange b/c if Rico Clark had kicked the crap out of one of his teammates (instead of Ruiz), I think he still would have been suspended.

Is it not a foul if the end result is the same, but the ref thinks that the cause of the injury was a not unusually risky? That seems to be the case.

So, if the end result does not influence the ref's judgement of whether or not a foul was committed, then DeRo should not IMHO be punished more severely just because the end result was a serious injury, but could be punished if it is ruled that swinging his foot at shoulder/head level was a high-risk play worthy of further punishment.

Agree or disagree?

Is it me or is houston just a bunch of dirty players. I'm glad they are sucking a big fat horse turd.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.