Disciplinary Committee tracking thread

Yep. And if MLS is willing to take on the role of guinea pig for new goal line technology, why not make it clear that what has become the norm in the box on corner kicks will no longer be tolerated. Make a statement that other leagues can follow. And if my Quakes pulled the same crap that Marquez did in the box, then line up the PK.

 

What make this more than a 3-5 game suspension is (a) the ball wasn't anywhere near the play, and (b) it was a concluded with an intentional kick near the head. The injury could have been much worse than it was.

The DC is making MLS a joke.

 

Well, thanks for all of the attention, Stan. Let's go to that "back tracking"...which must have taken a lot of time...

Superdave was replying to one sentence in my post: "Giving Salinas a beag hug on every corner WOULD have been a red card HAD the ref properly warned Marquez to cease and desist."

He said: "This is factually wrong. Such an infringement could NEVER be a straight red.
Now, it could have/should have been a yellow. And two yellows make a red. But that's not what you're saying"

So, Superdave "knows" what I'm saying and thankfully you tracked back to verify what I was "saying". Gawd, I love the gotcha nature of Big Soccer and the net in general! Can you perhaps question the meaning of my ... or ; in the context of a post to know whay I may have been thinking? Should that be two ?? or three ??? for dramatic effect?, ??, ??? (you can choose which of three would be best for editing purposes).

In that one sentence that Superdave cut/pasted, I alluded to the ref properly warning Marquez and in the same post mentioned that the Q's wanted something done about the constant infringement. So had the ref done his job, that would have been a second yellow and buh-bye Rafa. Of course, the ref was gutless and would never pull a yellow card out of his pocket on a corner kick as that would have awarded a PK to the offense.

My two yellows not equating to an automatic red that would not be reviewed by the DC doesn't smell correct; can you explain why Chavez' yellow turned into a one game suspension, or basically a retro-red card if yellow cards are not reviewed--or are yellow cards they deem "red card offense" allowed?

And to your second cut/paste that the "point" was agreed upon by the person I was "arguing" with, that the kick to Salinas was a red card offense, which person are you alluding to? I can't locate that post and you track back so well. Seriously, I must be missing a post somewhere. I don't see Superdave making that comment unless that's what you "think" he was "thinking" as I made that comment TO Superdave. Can you help me out on this??

And to your third point, if we as fans go along with the gutless non-calls in the box during corner and free kicks, then we are as gutless as them.

 

Again, one incident brings calls that the sport is terribly flawed and that things must be changed!

I don't accept the supposition that there are blatant fouls that should be called such as the Marquez one at every set play or that the sport is so terribly flawed in this regard that something must be done.
The Marquez foul would of been called a pen in most leagues by most Refs.

I'm not saying either of you or any other particular member of BS is actually suggesting rule changes to stop contact in the box at free kicks but I'm sure some are so let's break it down to how things are in reality instead of some false BS soccer reality and explain how and why things are the way they are and why rules don't need changing.

Firstly, it is only on set plays (free kicks and corners) where the ball is dead that this occurs.
This is important because referees will not award other free kicks/penalties while the ball is not in play though they may delay the taking of the kick to take disciplinary measures, such as warning players or even cautioning or Red carding them if they feel the incident is serious enough.
So, to make it clear - a penalty can only be awarded if the ball is in play.
It can be as far as you like from where the ball is but the ball must be in play.

Okay, so now let's look at why the jostling is happening because again there seems to be a very limited understanding of this.
For one the ball is dead so every player will attempt to gain position in readiness for the ball being played - surely nobody seriously expects there to be no contact when 15+ players are all vying for the same piece of real estate?
No, this is a perfectly natural part of the game and so I also hope nobody is seriously suggesting making new rules disallowing any contact before a freekick is taken. - though it wouldn't surprise me if I had to explain why that is so dumb as well but for now I will just describe how hard and farcical it would be trying to implement such a rule.

To start with the idea that only defenders feel for an opponent, jostle tug and grab prior to the ball coming into play is entirely wrong.
Both attacking and defending players are seeking to gain a positional advantage and this is important because 99% of the time both players are being physical in this way which means you have to determine who was the first person to make the supposed illegal contact.
Remember you will have 6 or 7 separate challenges happening at the same time like this in a crowded space so good luck with that.

Strikers will often use their own players to shield their runs, even pushing their own player in front of a marking defender or a player may simply be used to block off a channel, making no attempt to play the ball but just standing his ground in an effort to stop defenders or the goalkeeper having a run at where the ball is supposed to be served.
There are endless tactics and tricks that are used by defence and attack and it is all worked on in the training ground - it is an authentic part of the game.
If anyone can't get their head around it think of it as a mini sub-game of American football if it helps.

So that hopefully explains why, before the ball is served, the jostling occurs, why it is not a foul and why rule changes to prevent it are not only unnecessary but would show a completely lack of understanding of how it is a natural and worthy part of the sport.

Now how about once the ball is kicked and comes back into play.
This is where we get shades of grey because the reality is that all the stuff that began before the ball was played in will still be in various stages of its evolution.

To paint a picture;
Some players that are blockers will be adjusting their positions slightly to ward off the runs of defenders attempting to attack the ball (because the ball rarely arrives exactly where it is supposed to) hoping to stay just the right side of the law and not get called for obstruction.
The defender will be trying to muscle him out of the way again using as much force as possible without being called.
Pairs of players will be grappling with each other to get ahead of their opponent - maybe the attacker briefly grabs the defenders shirt because just prior the defender managed to get his arm across him and gain ground or maybe it is the other way around.
The point being that all the contact at the moment the ball is played will be a consequence of what has gone a moment before and again this occurring between many sets of players.

So to determine a foul is a penalty for example a Ref would need to be clear that from the moment the ball was played a defender is not only clearly fouling an attacker but also that the foul is not a consequence of a previous foul committed by an attacker, even if that foul began before the ball came into play.
eg, An attacker blocks the defender illegally (moves across his run without intention to play the ball) just the moment before the ball is played knocking him off balance and causing him to handle a ball in desperation that he would of headed if not impeded.
But wait, didn't I just say a foul can't be called before the ball is in play?
Yes and this is where referees earn their corn.
Being able to make these snap judgements that are literally impossible to call 100% accurately because there is so much cause and effect in motion he must consider and much of this happens in a split second.

With all that in mind I think we can still make a very strong argument that the Marquez foul should of been called and a penalty awarded as well as a Red for Marquez.
The argument that referees should call a foul the moment they see contact is superfluous in that regard and the idea that players will adjust (after how many farcical games with multiple penalties and endless controversy) and the game somehow be better for it is asinine and I'm not being facetious.
What makes people think there wouldn't be controversy for what constitutes a penalty still anyway?
What would it even look like if no contact was allowed?
Lot's of players running around in circles, like demented penguins with their arms clasped by their sides, frantically trying to avoid bumping into each other?
Give me a F****** break!

 

This is completely different than an arm hold or a shirt tug; I personally wouldn't care if those got called PKs consistently either. I wouldn't hate it because I prefer an open free flowing game if you do things to impede that style of play; something that is against the rules you should be punished for it in the hope it would stop. This was far worse than one step over hand-fighting this is like six steps over; if someone grabs someone as blatantly as this during a corner kick I don't care about frequency of importance ie: it could be every corner kick or for the championship yes it should be called. This is so blatantly against the rules and against the spirit of the game that yes it should be called every time not matter which player or which team is on either end of the call.

 

I think it would be rare for a referee would give a persistent infringement yellow card on top of a yellow card for a reckless foul, meaning two yellows -> red in one foul. And at the time of Salinas's injury, according to MLS's commentary, he had committed one foul about 25 minutes earlier. Yes, he was grabbing players on corner kicks, but he's not going to get a yellow card for persistent infringement when the referee calls it for the first time.

Also, referees do give yellow cards when PKs are given. It actually happens more frequently than it should.

The DC will only punish incidents they feel are straight red cards. So, if a referee misses a foul that should have been a second yellow, the DC will not punish the player (unless the DC thinks the foul should have been straight red, of course). If a referee gives a yellow and the DC thinks it should have been red, then there will be punishment. Chavez's yellow turned into a one game suspension because the DC thought it should have been a straight red card, and given the tackle, IMO, Chavez is lucky it was only a one game suspension.

 

Not sure you read what I posted. IMHO, the ref should have warned Rafa the first time he grabbed Salinas. He should have carded him the second time. When Salinas was mugged by Rafa and had his collarbone shattered, Rafa would have been carded AGAIN for the foul (let alone the ref missed the kick to the face which should have been an instant red). Your reading of the MLS commentary does not take into account the constant "tussling" in the box by Marquez before the incident. Watch the video, listen to the NEW YORK announcers complain about Marquez consistent actions during the game before the incident in question.

And your last comment that refs do give yellow cards when PKs are given...uh, yes, I know that. I wrote that the "ref was gutless and would never pull a yellow card out of his pocket on a corner kick as that would have awarded a PK to the offense". Meaning, if he awards a yellow card in the box for actions during the run of play, he has to award a PK. Please take the time to reread what I posted...

 

Why did Mullan get ten games last year for his breaking the Seattle player's ankle but Marquez only gets 3 games for snapping Salinas' collarbone into 4 pieces? How did the league determine intent? What criteria did the league use to distinquish and breakdown the two incidents. So some of us are not going to drink any kind of poison; we want to see consistency from the league.

I still can't believe Rafa only gets 3 games for a flagrant foul which leads to a severe injury and intentionally kicks at a fallen player while another player curses at a ball boy and gets the SAME penalty (which was picked up by a mike for national TV--no mike, no suspension for embarrassing the league). CONSISTENCY.

Enjoy the shower, maybe it will wash away some of the condescension along with the "hate".

 

You won't see it. We have to live with that fact or prepare to be unhappy every week or two by the DC committee. I don't think they are necessarily trying to be inconsistent, its just very hard to reach the level of consistency the fans want. Different people will also be unhappy with different decisions based on the teams they like and based on the plays themselves.

 

Is there more to it than that? Where is the transparency in the decision making? We the customers, the fans, should know what critieria the DC is using to make what are obviously subjective decisions. Mullan deserved the 10 game ban, if not more, but where did that number come from? X games for this, X games for that equal 10? Was the end result, the shattered ankle, the reason for the 10 games? If his tackle had been "violent, reckless, brutally bad..." but not resulted in an injury, would he had gotten 10 games? IMHO, no. End results of actions are obviously part of the decision making process. If Rico Clark gets NINE games for his kick, why did Rafa not get NINE for his? Because one kick was more obvious than the other?

The answer "that's why" is not exceptable.

 

I think your adjectives are clumsily placed. Marquez's "tackle" was neither awkward nor clumsy. It was dangerous with reckless disregard for Salinas and clearly premeditated based on the two previous incidents in corners. The injury was far from fluky when you do what he did. The "tackle" was also followed by a kick that could have easily connected with Salinas' face. The hairs you are splitting are far more thin than you think.

 

For my part I think we're going on way too much about consistency. First I have to note that we're not consistent in how we view fouls. And of course situations in which fouls occurred are never quite the same.

And if retroactive video suspensions enter into a player's mind at all, I really, really don't think the fact that the DC might miss it too (or, even more, might not give me quite as many games suspended as I scare-quote 'deserve') is going to encourage me or meaningfully lessen their cautionary value. It would be extremely difficult for such a committee to be so inconsistent as to reduce my 'odds of getting caught'

I think some of it is a little bit of what I'll call the "gnat/mosquito phenomenon", where we give more attention to the thing that visibly annoys us than to the more pernicious phenomenon because the former is more 'in your face.' We think more about that's confronting us at the moment than what the insect's actions portend.

With respect to Marquez, as someone who thinks 5 games would probably have been more appropriate, mostly on the 'well, 3 didn't seem to make an impact on you last time' theory, 3 and 5 doesn't make a whole ton of difference. You're still putting your team in a spot if you're going around getting 3 game suspensions--you've still become a player your coach can't rely upon. If guys are getting 3 games for that, it's going to either make most of them think twice, or get their coaches to take them off the field. For Marquez, a multimillion dollar DP who is there as much to sell tickets and promote product as to play soccer, it may not apply as well, but in that case it's the former that's the problem, and there are always going to be consequences to that.

 

i couldn't quite figure out whom you're calling a mosquito.
but i say squash the mosquito in any case.

hang on... why would a suspension for post-game antics affect how he plays on a corner kick?
i say this because imo this whole discussion is assuming way too much (about behavior and about the way the (soccer player's) mind works).
punishment in general is an atonement for a previous action. that's what 'justice' means. all this stuff about remodeling behavior is much more iffy, and yet that's where the dc's grandiloquent mission statement rests.

 

Why did Mullan get ten games? Because it was VERY obvious he was pissed off because he didn't get the call just seconds before and then he sprinted, jumped in the air and purposefully took out Zakuani's legs. His intent was to commit a hard foul that the ref couldn't over look.

Zakuani's ankle wasn't broken. The TWO bones in his leg were broken and his leg was flopping about. He actually had a chance of losing his leg because of compartment syndrome. He had multiple surgeries on his leg.

Salinas will be back in 8-12 weeks? On April 22nd it will have been a full year for Zakuani. Zakuani has played in one reserve game against a College team, not even an MLS team. Although rumor is he is set to play against Chivas USA in the next reserve game. Zakuani's career was seriously close to being ended because of Compartment syndrome. Salinas broken clavicle? Sorry, not comparable.

Marquez was holding Salinas in a hug. I have actually seen players get away with that before. It isn't as uncommon as some of you may want to believe.

Marquez did not purposefully take Salinas to the ground. It was a yellow card offense at worst and should have been a PK. The kick was 3-5 game suspension in my opinion. I am perfectly fine with 3 games, I think I would prefer 4 or 5.

What Marquez did isn't comparable to what Mullan did. Just compare the two videos. It is pretty damn clear.

Collin Clark was punished for different reasons.

It isn't hard to understand why this happens. Players will get punished for saying intolerant, bigoted crap like that which will make the league look bad if they just ignore it.

All the incidents are in different columns. The amount of punishment for one doesn't relate to the other. You look at certain criteria to determine where the incident belongs. Each type of incident has its own punishment scale. So you could only compare what Collin Clark did with a similar incident. Same with Mullan, If another is clearly making a retaliatory tackle you can start comparing based on the severity of the situations.

With Marquez, you need to look at incidents where players are cheap shotting each other with kicks and punches etc. Compare it to when Henry purposefully dropped his knee into the back of the head/kneck/shoulder of a player last year and was punished.

 

If you've only "seen it before" that doesn't sound very common.
He did seem to purposely take Salinas down or at the very least seemed indifferent to whether he went down. I'm not sure how you can say that you are sure he didn't do it on purpose. If you listen to Nelson Rodriguez's interview he makes it clear that on your direct point about the kick being the only reason. It was NOT the only reason for the suspension. I agree about 4-5 games, but not about your reasoning behind it. I think tackles like it are far less common and more deserving of punishment when they injure.

 

Because half the key is the kick-out afterward. Notwithstanding the clock running, that falls into 'antics', not 'how he plays a corner kick.'

The league's point with punishment is future behavior modification. I get that one can debate the extent to which that's feasible, but some sort of abstract moral absolution is way beyond the scope here. Rafa can go see the priest for that.

 

imo that way of drawing the line halfway across the marquez incident is not tenable, and tbh i assume you realize that too (you actually misquoted me to make your point).

i didn't say anything about moral absolution. i was thinking more of 'scales of justice.' it's not for the benefit of the offender, but for the benefit of the general sense of fairness.
i'm glad you can accept the debate about behavior modification, but i think i'd still end up more skeptical than you. look at the nhl and all the suspensions they keep dishing out. (btw, i wish mls would do a video presentation of suspensions like the nhl's, which are excellent. i'd recommend everyone to view a couple).

 

Don't be a dumb ass. I never said it was very common and you know that. If you didn't know that, then you need to read more carefully.

Why am I sure he didn't take him down on purpose? Because I can't think of any reason why he would, even considering Marquez's temperament.

I would agree that he was indifferent if it wasn't for Marquez lashing out with the kick after they fell. Marquez seemed pissed for some reason, I doubt it was because Salinas allowed Marquez to tackle him. More like he was pissed because he felt that Salinas went down easy or on purpose trying to get the call in the box.

I really have no issue with the DC looking at the whole incident from start to finish. And when doing that you do take into account the hold, the fall/tackle and then the kick. But if the fall was the only thing that happened? I could easily see there being no punishment from the DC. The KICK is the main factor in the punishment.

 

I didn't say you did. I think its you who misread my post.
What we witnessed in Marquez's tackle is remarkably uncommon in that we see it very rarely. It is "not very common" as in it "doesn't sound very common".
I can see how you misread it, but to be clear. We both agree that type of tackle is supremely rare. I've watched thousands of hours of soccer and can count on one hand all tackles that are similar to it.

 

Reasons to take Salinas down don't have to be logical ones, just ones good enough for Marquez at the time. As I've posted before, anger, frustration, malice are all possible. Thinking he can get away with more given what he'd already done twice during that game could have played into it. Just because you can't find any reasons that make sense doesn't mean it was an accident. What you said about why he kicked is plausible, but who knows given what Marquez has done in the past.
Disagree on your overall point and the quotes from Nelson Rodriguez seem to back me up if you listen to his interview. I think it absolutely would have been reviewed and he would have been given a suspension due to the tackle and the driving of his body hard down on top of Salinas and the resulting injury. The kick may be the main factor that got it from 1-3 games or from 2-3 games or perhaps it was the injury itself or the perceived intent of the whole play. Rodriguez seems to lean toward the last in that list in his interview.

 

Well, the DisCo sure has a lot to look at after tonight ...

 

I'm curious if they'll do anything with Morales for kicking the ball into the stands in anger after the halftime whistles. I think the yellow card he got in the game is enough for game. But taking one's frustrations out on the fans in stands would seem to be one of those things that warrants a bigger fine than just a regular yellow card fine.