Looking at SFP, I wonder just how much danger the 6' 3", 210 lbs., Olave was in from the 5' 4", 150lbs., Cardenas. Yes, I know that little guys can commit fouls, too. Some of us are damn sneaky. However it was clear in this case that Cardenas saw that he wouldn't get to the ball and pulled out. I hope that the Rev do challenge the card. It would be interesting to see how the league handles it.
What does size have to do with anything? Using height and weight to determine SFP????? Are refs required to take AP Physics now because they need to calculate these fouls. Looks like a homer needs to quit coming up with more excuses.
Do you realize momentum is an integral part of physics? Mass times velocity. One of the most common formulas out there for daily use. I am trying to save you here.
Sorry, dude. I thought I was saving you by actually using a physics term like big mo' as opposed to "size". The more important part is my latter two points. Regarding "homer", while I am an avowed supporter of the Revolution, I believe that I have always conducted myself with appropriate decorum in this forum - clearly coming down on the side of ref'ing, not Revs (as many in the Rev forum with whom I have argued in the past will attest). This send-off was just flat out wrong no matter what colour-filter you use on your glasses.
Sorry buddy.....you are coming off as a homer. You are coming up with the size/weight excuse which is such a cop out that coaches love to scream about when it comes to fouls. Size/weight doesn't matter when it comes to SFP or fouls. A foul in the eyes of the ref is a foul, whether you agree or not.
Actually, size/weight does come into play when evaluating SFP. When looking at fouls, size weight is significantly less relevant. However when it comes to misconduct, size matters. Its much easier for a larger player to injure a smaller player. It is expected that a larger player will adjust his use of force so that it is not "excessive," as excessive force can vary based on the opponent.
I think this is the crux of the matter regarding any debate and analysis of this situation. Yes, Cardenas saw he wouldn't get there and smartly pulled up and didn't make a horrific challenge. However, the beginning of the challenge itself was with so much speed that he still ended up colliding with--and, I think most would argue, fouling--his opponent. Does the fact that he altered the challenge in an attempt to avoid fouling/hurting Olave absolve him of the most serious consequences? Or is he responsible for everything that happens from the moment he starts going into the tackle until it's conclusion? Lot of interesting ways to think about this. Still don't think red is the appropriate outcome, but it's not absurd as it first seems.
Leo Messi who is about 5'6" slide tackles me, 6'2" , from behind........so he is excused because he is a lot smaller than me???????
I can't even begin to fathom how this relates to the point LongDuckDong is making. He never said smaller players were excused from misconduct when it's committed. Not even close. He said larger players might be expected to adjust their use of force when challenging smaller players. It's an interesting point he's making and I'm not sure I totally agree--at least not on all types of SFP misconduct. But it really doesn't help debate when you just make up an argument and put words in his mouth.
We are in violent agreement. I don't think I've called for the card to be overturned, however I won't review my spume from the past few days to be sure. (In fact, I initially argued in the Rev forum that the red card was deserved.) I have expressed interest in seeing the MLS review the card. If they can retroactively suspend players, they should be able to "un-suspend" them, too. From a ref'ing perspective, the little guy throwing himself into the big guy, then falling to the ground and writhing in pain is a common ploy. The perception is that the big guy did something wrong and, too often, newer refs call the foul on the big guy. Others with more experience may see the little guy's foul as trifling, a gnat on an elephant, or allow advantage. The problem is that the big guy gets fed up with the abuse and eventually takes his frustration out on someone - the ref or an opponent. Those size mismatches (discussed in another thread on "shoulder to shoulder" are always fraught with danger.
It is amusing how one thread can contain such strong statements (perhaps by the same people, although I haven't checked specifically) made with straight faces over the fact that one big decision was made correctly but looked bad and another big decision was perhaps not made correctly. You can't have it both ways. If your goal is accuracy, then the referee's actions for the first red card should be held up as a gold standard. To be accurate you have to be deliberate, open-minded, willing to accept input, and willing to change your mind even if it might invite criticism. If your goal is to look good then the second red card should also be held up as excellent refereeing. Given that the referee has one look at it, and there is a plausible argument for serious foul play, then the immediate and stern reaction of the referee should be seen as a great virtue. He made the big decision and stuck with it even if it might invite criticism. So what is it you want, other than to complain no matter what happens, and for good refereeing to come down to little more than luck (in that all quickly given decisions happen to look correct at all available camera angles)? (The arguments against my statements will ignore the message and focus on weeny details of the decisions in question.)
But lemma, "being right" and "looking good" (I think the phrase is more appropriately "looking confident and assured") are both goals that shouldn't be mutually exclusive. And you can analyze two separate incidents with the goal of becoming better in both regards. For the Cardenas incident, after some initial doubt, I've come around to say I understood what Gantar saw and why he acted the way he did. I think it's still fair to say I doubt that it's true SFP and it is worth analyzing how we should be calling such incidents, because this was a very peculiar challenge/collision. For the first red card, sure, it's great that he took Rockwell's advice and that they got the call correct. But you don't find it a tad bit troubling that he didn't recognize SFP right in front of him and had to rely on his AR here? And I don't mean that in the way that every referee should get every call correct. I mean that in the sense that his failure to recognize it and the manner in which they arrived at the decision undermined his credibility for the rest of the match.
Nice straw man. Which is why when it comes to "careless" fouls, size really doesn't matter a whole lot. If a small player attempts to push his opponent and fails because of his opponents large stature, it's still a foul. However when looking at SFP or Unsporting Behavior, size definitely comes into play (at least that's what I've always been told). If a large player is using his size advantage to intimidate or gain an unfair advantage the opposition, that's unsporting behavior. Also, a large player at a slower speed will inflict the same amount of force (and thus damage) as a smaller player at a higher speed. This most certainly applies to SFP, a situation in which the referee is asked to judge whether an individuals safety is at risk.
The goal is both. The purpose of setting a goal is that it is a stretch to achieve. If had to prioritize (personally speaking) I think it is better to be correct first, look good second. I think its fair to say "yes, the call was right but it took too long/looked bad/etc" at this level. I still applaud a referee crew when they get it right, no matter the process. I definitely feel that getting the card wrong is a bigger mistake than taking too long to get the first one right. Something I'm sure the referee is reviewing and will learn from. Look, we've all been there. He knew that the first red card situation wasn't pretty. It's damn tough to get over that and let it go; maybe he wasn't able to do that and that led to the hasty decision?
Homerism has nothing to do with it. In fact, I've argued this point many times before. How about you actually build a logical argument in response to my post rather than acting like a cranky 10 year old.
Unrelated to this match, but I've got to love the line "in real-time it made it difficult for Geiger to judge," followed by the guy admitting that after the replay Geiger was right. Um... the instantaneous decision from Geiger didn't indicate, to me, that Geiger had any difficulty whatsoever. Just wow. As for the incident in question here with Cardenas and Olave, I think Wiebe might want to reconsider his liberal definition of "onrushing." Also... I had missed the Gonzalez incident in the Seattle match.
Cardenas wins his appeal: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...spends-seas-gonzalez-nes-cardenas-wins-appeal Probably not unjust in the end, but I am surprised.
I'm thinking the DC's decisions will also cause a lot of dissent on the field as players and coaches bring up these decisions to the referees while they're reffing.
Interestingly, the article indicates that a triumvirate of USSF, CSA and PRO overturned the card, even though the banner headline talks about the DC. Well, more correctly, it says an independent panel consisting of members of those three groups reviewed the card and said it was incorrect and then MLS rescinded the card. Regardless, no literal mention of the DC in the appeal process, which I find interesting.
As Mass-Ref mentioned, the DC really wasn't involved. The appeals process is independent of the DC. Early this week, the staff in New England took a sizable risk and appealed the decision. The USSF and CSA panel overturned the decision. If the decision had gone against the Revs, they would have lost a sizable monetary deposit.
So now there's more Committees reffing games? Why bother watching the MLS at all...it's not the game I love it's lawyerball.
To be fair, the CSA/USSF panel only assembles when there's an appeal. So far this season, there has been only 1 appeal. I also fail to understand how this affects the game we see on the field. Every league in the world has an appeals process and a post-match disciplinary process.
