http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-05-05-rsl-v-ne/highlights?videoID=184762 Very interesting incident. Gantar calls the fall, pulls out a yellow card, has second thoughts (possibly based on the reaction of the players), puts the yellow card away, talks with his crew on headset, eventually confers on the field with the SAR (Rockwell?), and issues a red card. Ultimately the right call, I think, but how he got there is a bit troubling, given that Gantar was seemingly in good position. What do you all think, both about the call and the way Gantar got there?
Not sure we need three threads for this. But I think both of the red cards were correct. I do agree that it took a bit too long to get to the end result in this case. Why not use the headsets? And it was basically right in front of him so it's not clear why he didn't go right to red himself.
You are quite right about the three threads; the server froze when I posted it, and it posted three times. I've asked the mods to delete the other two.
He got the call right and I guess that is what all the matters, but that looked really bad all around. Having the yellow out looked really bad. Johnson has a right to be pissed. If you are a FIFA ref and you don't have the confidence to give a yellow or red, then maybe you shouldn't be doing games at that level. I'm sorry, but as an AR I would be telling him "you are right there and you need to make that call." What took so long? If he didn't see the incident and Corey Rockwell saw it clearly, just say "get him out of there." What's the point of conferring? Just adds more fuel to the fire and uglies the game up even more with Johnson throwing expletives at Rockwell. I'm really curious what was said in the post match evaluation with the match inspector.
The red seems right, but aside from the fact that he pulls the yellow initially, I don't understand why Gantar has to consult with his AR. This foul occurs right in front of him, maybe 5-10 yards, and he has a clear view. What is there to discuss? Not that it will happen, but Johnson should get an extra game on his suspension for the foul language he used towards Corey Rockwell after he was sent off. There's a clear "Eff You" there. You can be upset with how it went down, but that wasn't "Eff off," there is a pretty obvious "you" in that comment. But of course, this is the pros and people just say bad things sometimes...
Meet the refs after the game. Gantar said his reflex led him to pull out the yellow but then he got thinking that it should be red so he put the card away as quickly as he could and conferred via headset with Rockwell, Garner, and Okulaja to ask their opinion and the crew was unanimous for red. Rockwell's story for running on the field was that after he saw Gantar pull the yellow he felt he needed to run on to bail him out. Still looked pretty bad IMO.
Gantar looked awful on this incident and pretty poor all-around. He just does not exude confidence. It's wonderful that the crew got the Johnson red card correct, but the mechanics and optics showed that Gantar was not in control. Even at the point where he accepted Rockwell's input, Gantar's body language looked like he was being forced into a decision that he did not want to make. While discussing the red card, consider this: how was Rose's tackle in Seattle any different? I think both are reds, but I just don't understand how we get two referees both wanting to initially go yellow. In Utah, Gantar's crew saves him; in Seattle, Salazar only gets one shot. In the end, though, at least this decision was correct. But he had other poor decisions. The Tierney card, from a body language perspective, just looked weak and forced. The Olave yellow card, unless there was PI or dissent I was unaware of, looked to be one of the softest I've ever seen in MLS. And I hate to say it, but the Cardenas decision to go red was atrocious. I can understand what he thought he saw. And I can understand the desire to make it 10 v 10 if such a decision presented itself (that's different than looking to even it up). But there's just no red card there. Gantar had two big decisions to make and he got to observe both from close up and without interference. His gut instinct was wrong on both.
I agree with your take about the big decisions, although I'd add that the Tierney card was good call, even if not sold well. As for the Olave yellow, I'm quite confident that Gantar's gesture was meant to indicate PI. He pointed back to the spot of the previous foul by Grabavoy, which may have deserved a caution in its own right. In retrospect, a yellow to Grabavoy would've made his life easier. In view of the assignments Gantar receives within Concacaf, I find it uncomfortable watching the way he has struggled in MLS. If his international assessors watch his league matches, I can't imagine they'll come away impressed.
I havent had a chance to watch much this weekend, but I'm surprised there isnt more talk about Cardenas. IMO, that's the first red that gets overturned this year. I cringed big time. It was just a bad game. The missed Lozano shove on Espindola, the Sabo shove on Lozano on the first RSL goal, the misshandling of the Johnson red, and potentially the worst send off this season on Cardenas
The red was definitely correct, but what the hell took him so long to make that when he had the absolute vantage point on tackles like that? Looking indecisive on a major call doesn't bode well for game management, but he fortunately he really never lost control of the game.
The first red. Pardon me, it was a pre-coffee post. Second red was overcooked. He knew he blew the first one so he overcompensated for the second by rash decisiveness. For someone repping on two word for the above post , where is my rep nsa?
Well, he got thrown into a very difficult match for his first of the season. I disagree that the Cardenas red was a bad call. the replays that I saw were poor. But it looked like he came through with quite a bit of speed and force and came down on his opponent's foot. I don't believe there is any possible way that gets overturned. The league seems to want the referees to be tougher and dangerous tackles, not more lenient. They need to back up the referees when they make a call unless there is a case of misidentification or an unbelievable dive. Neither of which is the case here.
Actually, Olave's foot was on top of Cradenas' foot. Cardenas had his front foot planted on the ground before any contact occured. IMO that was a cautionable offence on Olave.
I think Gantar gets in trouble here because he goes to the front pocket/yellow so quickly....no need to. For the most part, the only time I go to a card that quickly is when I'm going back pocket and I need to show red for game/player management purposes. In this instance, he could have inserted himself physically in the play, as he did, to avoid confrontation.......and buy some time while sorting it out via headset with the crew. Alternatively, he could have written up Johnson FIRST (the recommended procedure) while once again buying himself some time...and THEN shown red. I also can't understand why a simple look over to Rockwell for a front or back pocket tap wouldn't have sufficed? Why the prolonged discussion via headset...and why the need for Rockwell to come almost to midfield for a conference? Very sloppy, IMO.
Here's the issue... As LongDuckDong noted, Cardenas actually plants his foot on the ground and then gets stepped on. Yes, he came in with quite a bit of speed and his foot raised, so he risked a bad result. But the bad result did not materialize the way we might expect or the way Gantar probably thought it did. I know we are supposed to punish the nature of the challenge, but when Cardenas gets his foot on the ground without making contact first, is it really a "challenge?" If we're giving red cards for every time a player raises his foot off the ground and comes within the vicinity of an opponent, we're going to be in a lot of trouble. There just wasn't enough for this to be a red card--it may not have even been a foul on Cardenas (though, I think for game control, you would have to make that call against Cardenas... even if, technically, it might have been more of a foul going the other way). That said, I'd be shocked if it gets overturned, too.
After looking at the replay, yes, Gantar blew the Cardenas red card. Olave sold what Gantar thought he saw, which is what led to Gantar's mistake IMO. But after the game, Gantar told us that he immediately thought red on this challenge (perhaps because he was upset with his instinct to pull yellow on the Johnson red?) and when he asked everyone on the crew what they thought of the challenge, no one was sure. So he stuck with his instinct for red on the challenge. Watching this game live, my opinion was that Gantar's style just isn't right for MLS. He seemed to have a hard time gaining the players' respect and the players seemed to dislike his tight foul selection. However, listening to him after the game earned him tons of respect from me. While it doesn't change the fact that his first several games in MLS have been pretty rough and he seems to have a hard time fitting on this level, I honestly believe that as he gets more comfortable with the MLS style of play, as he loosens his game up a bit, he's capable of developing a strong rapport with players. Though his on-field confidence and charisma seems to be lacking, off the field he comes across as extremely confident, eloquent, and charismatic in every way. I believe that Gantar can develop into a very strong referee.
I have to believe that the Disciplinary Committee, after passing out plenty of additional suspensions, may be coming under some pressure to "call one the other way" when justified. I believe that if the committee gets a reputation for the arrow pointing in only one direction, it will undermine its credibility and effectiveness. Nothing may be said in public, but Garber will be hearing about it loud and clear from all directions. This is quite arguably a bad red card, and a good place for the committee to demonstrate that they will call things both ways.
I'm not sure the committee has that power. There's a lot of Twitter speculation that the Revs are considering challenging the call after arriving in Boston and Reviewing the footage. I think the Revolution have a good case, but who knows. Jeff Lemiux, an employee, posted this image on twitter:
Watching this again, I don't think it's so much that Olave sold anything. If you look closely, Cardenas' momentum takes him through Olave's leg, even though Cardenas plants his leg first. The contact is Cardenas' shin into Olave's ankle, it appears. Freeze-frame it at 0:47 and see how awkwardly (and seemingly painfully) Olave's foot has turned. It's an interesting case study when you really examine it. No, Cardenas did not come in and stomp on Olave or go over the ball or anything like that. But he did challenge with a head of speed that led to a lot of force being exerted. Olave plays the ball away first, so Cardenas is the one that is "late" even though he aborts the tackle. The problem is the momentum he already generated made it so that a collision was inevitable. This is really a difficult one upon review. I don't think it should be red but, then again, Olave's safety was definitely endangered. The question is whether or not the safety was endangered due to Cardenas' challenge or if it was endangered due to a natural coming-together that had just as much to do with Olave's follow-through as it did Cardenas' actions. I think the replay makes the case for the latter. But in real-time, particularly if Gantar saw how the ankle got rolled, I can see how one might view it as a send off.
They are not going to rescind this card. No way, no how. SFP means "endangering the safety of the opponent" and if that is what Gantar wrote on the match report, Cardenas is shit out of luck. I think the red was harsh, but I can see why he carded Cardenas.
How did Cardenas endanger Olave's safety? If that incident is SFP, then the average MLS game should have 5-6 sendoffs. The collision certainly caused both players to fall dramatically, but neither of them were in danger of serious injury. Perhaps Cardenas endangered his own safety, but that's not SFP.
MLS implemented a new red card appeal system for this year. As far as I know, no one has filed an appeal of a red card yet. We should probably save the "this will never be overturned" comments until we see a red card get overturned to see exactly what they are looking for.
With the stipulation that, per my above posts, I don't think this is a red card, let me try this shorter explanation in an attempt to justify the red: Cardenas came in with a ton of speed and his foot raised. He was always going to get there after Olave, who played the ball so early and cleanly that Cardenas actually had time to abort the tackle. Nonetheless, a pretty nasty collision still occurred, which included Cardenas shin rolling Olave's ankle with some significant force behind it. Olave's safety ended up being endangered and it all began from the run and attempted tackle, from distance, that Cardenas started to execute. The still photo you posted is about a half second too early. It shows that Cardenas planted his foot first and that Olave's follow-through took him over Cardenas' foot. But just because one person steps on the other doesn't mean that's the foul--particularly not when just Olave is naturally kicking the ball and Cardenas is flying in from several yards away and stumbles underneath Olave's foot when he tries to change his action. Cardenas had started by making a very foolish challenge from a good distance away. It's great that he recognized he wasn't going to get there and aborted the challenge--that shows he had no malice and no real intention to hurt Olave. That's the reason that I'd be reluctant to go red. But I think it's still definitely a foul on Cardenas and probably has to be misconduct, given the result; Cardenas actions prior to aborting the challenge certainly show a degree of recklessness. A red seems too far of a stretch for me, though, given the totality of the incident. And, yes, though I still say no red, I've definitely evolved on this incident.
Endangering the safety of the opponent doesn't require broken bones. The action of the play is what Gantar got him for. I have said I don't think it was a red, but I can see why a red was given.