Though I conclude, like you, that a literal reading of the passage would make that seem so, I highly doubt that's really the case. Because a literal reading of those clauses would mean that the independent review board could only act on dynamic-play red cards when they determine something is not a foul. In other words, if we had a simple careless tackle that wrongly got a red for SFP, they couldn't act. Or perhaps more extraordinarily, if a referee gave a red card for a handling offence in the center circle with no obvious goal-scoring opportunity, they could not act (because, while the red card would be unlawful per question 2, the deliberate handling call would be a correctly identified offence, per question 1). I think someone over-lawyered the language here and it doesn't actually represent how this appeals process is going to work. But I could be wrong and this is just me speculating.
Well, here's the quote from MLS: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...spends-seas-gonzalez-nes-cardenas-wins-appeal I think what LDD posted is the author's interpretation of what the vote was. Even though the author writes for MLSSoccer.com, I wouldn't take what that person writes as being directly from MLS.
I think it comes down to how you view "correctly determine the offense". Is the offense the foul, or the SFP? and then is the red valid for what the offense was? I think the offense is the SFP and the correct is red card. this might matter if for example they view a foul as reckless while the ref viewed it as excessive force. They agree on the foul, but they are looking at the level. this really blurs the two, but.... if the ref viewed the offense as VC and the committee viewed it as SFP then they could "change" the discipline to SFP which may have a smaller fine/suspension. Then again I could be reaching to try to explain something that can't be explained
Why don't you keep watching MLS games, and just stop watching MLS' DisCo meetings. That way you'll miss out on what pisses you off, and only that.
