Re: Wednesday, April 04 , 2012 No. The player only has to worry about challenges that would be worthy of a red card. They better be thinking twice about those challenges to begin with. Clearly not all players worry about the safety of their opponent.
How does this... ...and this... ...go together? If you're going to open that door at all, aren't you then just opening it up for everything?
I'm amazed that MLS decided to suspend McDonald and yet nothing happened to Beckham when he went studs up, just below the knee to a DC United player just two weeks prior.
Re: Wednesday, April 04 , 2012 You don't have time to think twice in a competitive game - you think the ball is there to be won, you react and make the tackle. That is how the game should be played competitively but some seem to think the game is played in some weird soccer nirvarna where the laws of physics allow players to pull out of challenges after they have committed, that allows for a slide challenge to win the ball yet magically avoid all contact with an opponent thereafter and where challenges are never mistimed and thus every foul is a deliberate attempt to cripple the opponent and worthy of a red card Tackling is an integral part of the game and like any other skill it does not always come off. Why would I as a player play all out if I thought there were a risk of being fined retroactively if I mistime a tackle I thought I could win? I guarantee if you privately (off the record) asked the players, referees and coaches, all of them would say this is a bad idea.
No. That is precisely what MLS are doing and I am arguing against it. I am saying that in cases where the referee missed an incident then a review system could be used retrospectively without causing many of the issues I have outlined. That is a very clear distinction of when and how the review system could be used without causing some of the problems the current system is sure to induce.
But you said they should use it when the ref either missed it "or self evidently got wrong". Missed it is easy, you ask the ref if he saw it and if he did you make a judgement. Fine. But if you open the door tot he second half of the statement you're asking somebody other than the ref to judge if he "self-evidently got it wrong". What's obvious to one person may not be obvious to another and that will send teams scrambling to find other occasions that MLS missed, just as you feared. I actually agree with you that this is a slippery slope, but my concern is less about opening that door or not and more about making sure that its fairly applied, open door or no.
I have to admit two things: 1) We haven't seen the other shoe drop, which is how both refs and players will change their behavior due to changed incentives; it is possible that this design will degrade ref performance without changing player behavior--I'm betting strong against it, but it's possible. 2) In a case like McDonald, where the ref assigns a yellow and the DC is basically going back and over-ruling him, saying no, it was a red, MLS is violating FIFA rules in all but name (they are vitiating the principles of ref discretion that are in the Laws of the Game). I wouldn't be surprised if FIFA winks and nods at it, since technically McDonald is not being given a 'retroactive red card' (and FIFA gives wide latitude over suspensions and fines as tournament regulation and not game Law), but the Rodriguez interview makes it clear that is, in spirit, exactly what they're doing. That is, whatever you think of the outcome, a gutsy call.
Given the principle of unanimity among 5 'jurors' that Rodriguez laid out, I think in theory that it will come out 'fair in its unfairness'--that somewhat like the criminal court system (is supposed to work), the guilty are institutionally more likely to walk free than the innocent are to be punished. In practice, I don't foresee a whole lot of 4-1 decisions, because I'd bet the panel will be pretty collegial, and there will probably be a marked tendency for a solitary viewpoint not to turn into a 'holdout.'
FYI, the committee has to be unanimous (5 people) to take these actions after the fact. As far as I'm concerned, their intention is to make sure this doesn't happen regularly 10 times a weekend. If it does, then we've got a big problem with referees and players and/or all 5 people on the committee.
presumably the plays that warrant a suspension from the committee have to be of the egregious sort. remember, unanimity is required. but if the game referee pulled out a red card you wouldn't need to review anything, in the sense of (by whatever name) overruling the game official's call. the cases where the ref misses the play entirely and made no call are far rarer and video review exists for them already in some leagues. here, unfortunately, we're talking about going way beyond that. the only positive in this move by mls will be if it motivates referees to issue straight reds on their own more than they do now. personally i doubt it will. referee education would be a better path. failing that, referee turnover. what's the point of keeping referees who, in the committee's official judgment, miss so many important calls? reviewing on-the-field decisions opens the door to jokes about how mls games are refereed. game calls made by committee on three days' tape delay. in early days american soccer referees used a (blank loaded) gun to signal the end of a half. then there was a 35-yd offside line. talk of making the goals larger. shootouts to avoid tie games... american soccer has come a long way. in the cockles of its little heart, however, it can't quite put to rest the urge to reinvent something about this game.
Re: So, where's the Disciplinary Committee? it's a good thing you've earned your reputation amply elsewhere. this 'here's why refs suxk' analysis is nonsense. especially the bit about that players' 'incentive,' which is not nearly as primary as you may believe. let's not invent a distorted picture to justify a lousy 'solution.' for example, the cases where players go to ground looking for a call almost always happen when there has been contact. they're still annoying, but usually the player is looking for a call he feels he deserves (and sometimes the move backfires). dives without any semblance of a foul are much rarer and actually fairly comical. seems to me you're being an mls 'advocate,' working back from the league's move to try to justify it. which can make for some awkward reasoning. not the least of the awkwardness being that you've got mls referees (in fact almost all referees *worldwide!) down as basically a bunch of stiffs. *of course as mls 'advocate' you couldn't say that only mls refs suxk, but had to add that this is par for the course, everywhere.
Re: So, where's the Disciplinary Committee? Well, I'm sure the thought put into this rebuttal will convince the undecided.
Re: So, where's the Disciplinary Committee? honestly, i think even the early succinct form you quoted had as much substantive thought as your (if i may) boilerplate sociology and universal generalizations. my edited version goes well beyond. the 'undecided' are not relevant to me in this context, tbh.
Well, it really didn't take a genius to see this coming. I'm an NHL fan. Pre-lockout, fans were complaining all the time about how the game had been drastically slowed down and stifled by obstruction, clutching and grabbing, and the trap. When the rules were changed/more tightly enforced, the same people who were complaining started complaining about all the power play time. In 2006, FIFA announced pre-World Cup that they were going to tighten down on diving, dissent, delay, reckless tackles and guys getting away with murder before getting a second caution. Fans and commentators around the world shouted praise from the rooftops. Then what? A record number of cards and send-offs, and the same people bitched about referees "ruining games." Fans complained over and over and over about not getting what they wanted only to turn around and not want what they got. And here, last year, people got tired of awful challenges being not dealt with swiftly enough and cried out for the brainless twits at MLSHQ to do something. Now, the disciplinary committee is doing just that, and people still want to tell them how to do their jobs. It's just like the complaints about the referees themselves -- most people wouldn't know a good referee if they got fellatio from one. They just start at the conclusion that they're awful, and then look for ways to prove themselves right. And as Stan said, it's hard to be really, really good when there are 22 of them and 1 of you, and the 22 are working really hard to dive, deceive, manipulate and cheat. Some people just aren't happy unless they're miserable.
Yes you are right, any extension where referees decisions are overturned is going to be controversial so perhaps I shouldn't of added that. I was really only thinking of very high profile cases where there is clear evidence the referee was wrong and there is no subjectivity involved - so for example overturning a Yellow and making it a Red would not be an option. Still, it would be better to have a very clear distinction about what can and can not be reviewed and the more limited that is the better IMO.
Gutsy or maverick? You do not really make a case either way and while I agree with your musings I feel quite strongly that this is a bad idea. No, we can't be sure of the impact it will have on players, referees or coaches at the moment but I have made a case as to why the impact is more likely to be negative than positive. Even if we considered the players will modify their behaviour what are we really talking about? Are we saying that the hot heads will suddenly become cool heads and never make another rash decision - that seems unlikely. How about defenders and midfield players who need to tackle as part of their job, what would be a favourable modification to their behaviour? Have them not tackle? Have them make no slide tackles? The thing is a tackle isn't a tackle if you are 100% sure to gain possession of the ball - it is an interception. And why should the ball winners in midfield be discriminated against as they are surely more likely to be the victims of the review system as they simply have to make many more tackles than a forward. No matter how many fines and suspensions are dished out players will still lose their temper, make bad decisions and mistime tackles (assuming they bother to still make any) because the game is played by Humans and not robots As for Ref behaviour, I don't see how this can possibly help them make better decisions on the field but I can see how it can make them worse ones. "I think that's a yellow but wait MLS overturned that other decision I made and decided it was Red. I had better give a Red. Anyway they are not concerned with making a Red a Yellow" So let's consider this in the McDonald case. If the review panel are 100% correct and it should have been Red then surely the game should be replayed as Dallas should of been playing 10 men. Where is the justice there? And if I am in the DCU organisation I am scanning through the video to find every incident and infraction of Dallas players that have gone unpunished. If I am the Ref I am worrying about whether I give the right card in the next incident according to some faceless MLS panel regardless of what I believe was the correct decision at the time. If I am McDonald I am thinking very unpleasant things about MLS right now. I just don't see how any of that is helpful to the game or lessens controversy. As I wrote before it is not just the cards that need to be reviewed it is every minute of every game otherwise this will just be a random witch hunt.
stan didn't say that. he was far more careful than to make such an over-the-top comment, and toed the line as well as might be done (although your exaggeration serves to point in the direction of the problem with certain of his claims). did you ever play soccer? in the sense of, were you including yourself in that description?
A take on PI calls at NSC: http://www.noshortcorners.com/2012/04/mysterious-injury-dossiers-of-three.html
mls needs better referees just like it still needs better players, coaches, broadcasters, announcers, marketing staffs, etc... the problem with this committee is that it seems a rube goldberg contraption in the sense that it includes no direct plan (that i've heard) for instruction and development of referees, which is what is needed. it merely seems content to imply that mls referees aren't very good and, perhaps, suggests a wish by the league to generate a new talking point leading to increased 'relevance.'
Such a plan exists - just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2012/03/US-Soccer-MLS-Create-PRO.aspx
very good. i'd say scrap the dc's stepping in to 'overturn' calls and let 'pro' do its thing. this is the way to go. 'pro' launched last monday, btw. and i assume walton isn't (yet) on the dc. communication is essential.
You could see though that the two could easily work together to improve things for referees and for everyone.
yes, i could. but imo the dc's stepping in to 'overturn' in-game decisions as much as it has of late, wouldn't be part of it. right now i see the dc acting a bit too eagerly and possibly overstepping its own mission statement.* *3.Where the referee sees an incident and either does not act, or rules only a foul or only a yellow card (i.e., anything other than a red card), the Committee will not in general issue a suspension, unless: *The play in question is, in the unanimous opinion of the Committee from all available video evidence, a clear and unequivocal red card; AND *The play in question is of an egregious or reckless nature, such that the Committee must act to protect player safety or the integrity of the game. *− In determining whether a play is egregious or reckless, all factors are taken into account, including the fact of injury to any player. Where there is no injury, the Committee will not act except in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.