MLS Weekend Red Cards [R]

[MassachusettsRef]

Something tells me there is going to be quite a discussion in the weekly review regarding the send offs that have occurred this week. Four games yesterday and there were seven red cards (in three of them). I've only seen the highlights, so I can't comment on the context of the games and what else might have gone on, but from what I saw:

COL:LA - Stott nails the two red cards for violent conduct. Unfortunately for him, Erpen stayed down and he had to show Burpo the red first, so it wasn't as smooth as one might like, but there's no question Stott made the correct decisions. Will be interesting to see if USSF has a position on how the cards should have been administered.

SJ:CLB - From what I saw, I have no real problem with either send off. Riley's first yellow was a bit soft, but the second was pretty awful (and his team was a man up, so it was extra stupid). Evans card was definitely borderline, but it could be sold as a red--I'm interested to hear what USSF says about it. From the commentators--who can't always be trusted--there seemed to be a question of consistency. Either way, I wonder if Evans' clear and direct foul language after the card was shown will get him in more trouble, because it should.

DC:CHI - Namoff can have no complaints, as both his cautions looked warranted (and the first is listed as PI). The Gallardo-Prideaux incident is another that I'm looking forward to hearing from USSF on. You can't tell from the replays, but I'm assuming the AR called it. If so, why didn't he call it immediately (it appeared that they waited until the next stoppage)? And, for those that saw the game live, what was the restart? I'm guessing they restarted with the next natural stoppage. But if the AR saw the incident and said Prideaux deserved to be sent off, then wasn't a penalty kick the correct call? He pushed Gallardo and then--apparently--stepped on him before Gallardo reacted with the head butt. Unless something is missing from the video, I can't find any justification to send off Prideaux without also giving a penalty kick.

At the very least, the weekly review will be interesting. I've got a feeling that not all of the seven red cards are going to be praised.

[PVancouver]

At the very least, the weekly review will be interesting. I've got a feeling that not all of the seven red cards are going to be praised.On the contrary, I am quite sure all seven red cards will be strongly supported. That has been the MO.

In the DC-Chicago match, Baldomero Toledo saw the original tussle in the box but decided to turn around and follow the ball. Prideaux rolled Gallardo over while he was on the ground in the PA. You could call it pushing but to call a PK for that would be a miscarriage of justice. Gallardo got up and head-butted Prideaux, which clearly could/should have been called a foul. Prideaux responded by grabbing Gallardo's arm, Gallardo violently pulled away and headed upfield. It is unlikely that Toledo saw anything after Gallardo got up. He turned around to head upfield as Prideaux was rolling Gallardo over.

In my opinion all four of the double reds were harsh, but I can pretty much guarantee US Soccer will say they were not.

[GlennAA11]

I believe it was the 4th who was consulted on the Gallardo-Prideaux situation.

And to clarify the LA game it was Alan Gordon for LA who was sent off and then Erpen for Colorado after he stopped rolling around on the ground. Burpo just happened to be there for some reason, I suppose to be a peacemaker. Not sure how Stott could have dealt with it differently. The guidance seems to be not to show cards to "injured" players until they stand up or are carted off the field. He got there quick but just had a little trouble getting the card out of his pocket. For sure he needed to show he was on top of it and that he was handling it.

I think Toledo went to the cards a little too fast, especially the one on Martinez early in the match for a minor foul against Blanco that may have been the first foul against him in the match so you can't sell that one as persistent infringement or anything like that. It was especially harsh after he let Thorrington off the hook for a much harder foul on Moreno earlier in the game. But Namoff can only blame himself. He let old man Blanco get past him and made a stupid challenge when he already had a caution.

[reFnCoach]

And to clarify the LA game it was Alan Gordon for LA who was sent off and then Erpen for Colorado after he stopped rolling around on the ground. Burpo just happened to be there for some reason, I suppose to be a peacemaker. Not sure how Stott could have dealt with it differently. The guidance seems to be not to show cards to "injured" players until they stand up or are carted off the field. He got there quick but just had a little trouble getting the card out of his pocket. For sure he needed to show he was on top of it and that he was handling it.
Well I was at the game and I think it will be interesting if they clarify the sequence of events leading up to Erpen getting his card. It seemed that Stott only saw Gordon's retaliation, he red carded him immediately. Gordon pleaded his case with both Stott and the AR who was only 15 yards or so away and both seemed to giving him the "sorry, only saw the retaliation" shrug. When the kick to the groin that started the whole fracas was shown on the big screen the crowd was incensed and all the Galaxy players were pointing at the screen. At this point the AR from the far side of the field ran onto the field to get Stott's attention, he had a few words with Stott and then Erpen was red carded.

I would be surprised if an AR from 60+ yards away would have had a clear enough view to insist that a player be ejected... could the replay have influenced his confidence in what he saw from so far away? In the end both players deserved to be shown straight reds but now I think Colorado is making noise about the referees using the big screen video to eject Erpen. Interesting.

[Citiref]

Well I was at the game and I think it will be interesting if they clarify the sequence of events leading up to Erpen getting his card. It seemed that Stott only saw Gordon's retaliation, he red carded him immediately. Gordon pleaded his case with both Stott and the AR who was only 15 yards or so away and both seemed to giving him the "sorry, only saw the retaliation" shrug. When the kick to the groin that started the whole fracas was shown on the big screen the crowd was incensed and all the Galaxy players were pointing at the screen. At this point the AR from the far side of the field ran onto the field to get Stott's attention, he had a few words with Stott and then Erpen was red carded.

I would be surprised if an AR from 60+ yards away would have had a clear enough view to insist that a player be ejected... could the replay have influenced his confidence in what he saw from so far away? In the end both players deserved to be shown straight reds but now I think Colorado is making noise about the referees using the big screen video to eject Erpen. Interesting.
No. And the AR wasn't 60 yards away -- more like 12-15 from the incident. And Stott was at most 15 yards away looking and running right at it (if I remember correctly, as soon as the Rapids player started pushing is when the AR ran onto the field). The reason it took so long is because Erpen was on the ground for a long period of time. It's bad form to caution or send off a player on the ground. The crowd and replay had nothing to do with it.

[PVancouver]

No. And the AR wasn't 60 yards away -- more like 12-15 from the incident. And Stott was at most 15 yards away looking and running right at it (if I remember correctly, as soon as the Rapids player started pushing is when the AR ran onto the field). The reason it took so long is because Erpen was on the ground for a long period of time. It's bad form to caution or send off a player on the ground. The crowd and replay had nothing to do with it.

I guess it depends on which AR you are talking about. The the 2nd AR was closer to the play, maybe 20 yards. But he did not flag for a foul, and he did not have a good view of Erpen's contact with Gordon. The 1st AR had a better view of Erpen's contact, but from much farther away. Stott had an excellent view of the whole thing. It is interesting that he apparently chose to go a different route than Prus did during the Robinson/Saragosa/Rocha incident, carding Gordon immediately and carding Erpen when he got up, instead of waiting to issue all the cards at the same time. For some reason Prus wanted Robinson and Saragosa to make up. Personally, I prefer Stott's route.

[reFnCoach]

I guess my seats are 30 yards from where this all happened. Of course I don't know what was going on in Stott's head, but it looked pretty clear to me that only Gordon was going to get a card. Stott was shaking his head "no" to the protests from Gordon and others. I'm pretty sure the book was back in the pocket at that point. It was only after a minute or so when the replay was shown that the far side AR ran across the pitch to consult with Stott that he sought out Erpen to give him the card. In my view they were two very separate decisions. Here's the comment from the Colorado coach that seems to confirm my recollection of events:

"I thought it was very illegal first of all for the Galaxy to show the replay on the big screen which is a mandate by the league not to do that. I thought they took about five minutes for the red card to come out after the red card," Clavijo said. "But again it's given ... I did not know what happened on the play. I don't justify if Facundo Erpen did something but it's very obvious that the referee did not see it."

I read another article MLS.net that said the fourth official is the one who saw Erpen's kick. In the end they got it right, but what's interesting to me is how the referee team worked together on the second card.

[PVancouver]

It was only after a minute or so when the replay was shown that the far side AR ran across the pitch to consult with Stott that he sought out Erpen to give him the card.When you say far side official, do you mean the 2nd AR who was nearer the play or the 1st AR who was nearer the fourth official?

[MassachusettsRef]

I don't know how they reached the decision because I haven't seen a full clip of the entire incident. But watch the highlights on MLSnet (start at 1:37)--it seems pretty clear that Stott doesn't make any movement to blow his whistle--or start his sprint--until after the Gordon kick.

I don't know who saw it, but I'm pretty sure Stott didn't. That said, they definitely got the cards right.

Question: what was the restart?

[reFnCoach]

Question: what was the restart?
Great question. I think play was restarted by Colorado, but I honestly don't recall how it was restarted.

When you say far side official, do you mean the 2nd AR who was nearer the play or the 1st AR who was nearer the fourth official? The 1st AR on the touchline with the technical areas and the fourth official. This incident happened near the corner of the penalty area on opposite side of the field (near the 2nd AR).

In thinking about this some questions come to mind:

1) with no headsets, if the fourth official sees something in an incident like this, how does he work with the others to get information to the CR. Does he communicate through the 1st AR?

2) If play is stopped to administer a caution against one team, is this what determines the restart, even if additional cards are issued as a result of further incidents or additional information that arises?

[PVancouver]

Just because he didn't stop play doesn't mean he didn't see it. He may not have been fully aware of the "severity" of the contact. Beckham reached the ball and Stott may have been considering advantage, when Gordon retaliated.

The restart should have been LA's of course but again that would have been sorted out later. There is no way to know what restart Stott himself acting alone would have given. I did not see any interaction between Stott and other officials. The actual restart wasn't shown but Colorado had the ball shortly thereafter.

[Citiref]

Great question. I think play was restarted by Colorado, but I honestly don't recall how it was restarted.

The 1st AR on the touchline with the technical areas and the fourth official. This incident happened near the corner of the penalty area on opposite side of the field (near the 2nd AR).

In thinking about this some questions come to mind:

1) with no headsets, if the fourth official sees something in an incident like this, how does he work with the others to get information to the CR. Does he communicate through the 1st AR?

2) If play is stopped to administer a caution against one team, is this what determines the restart, even if additional cards are issued as a result of further incidents or additional information that arises?
I misunderstood you. When you said far side AR I thought you were talking about AR2. I didn't know AR1 and the 4th also helped with the decision. It is interesting on how they worked together to get the decision right.

I have the game recorded, I'll have to check and see what the restart was. But I remember Beckham was getting ready to take a throw in when it all happened.

[PVancouver]

2) If play is stopped to administer a caution against one team, is this what determines the restart, even if additional cards are issued as a result of further incidents or additional information that arises?Yes. But a) I can't believe Stott did not see any of the contact by Erpen, and b) if he was told by someone else to award a red card for the Erpen foul, I think he should have given LA the free kick. Unless he had already signalled direction. Of course, technically, he had to award the restart for whatever he stopped play for (which would include disappearance of advantage).

[NHRef]

Depends what Stott originally called, he may have called a foul against LA that put the defender on the ground prior to any of the kicks.

[PVancouver]

It's possible.

[Untroubled by Reason]

"I thought it was very illegal first of all for the Galaxy to show the replay on the big screen which is a mandate by the league not to do that. I thought they took about five minutes for the red card to come out after the red card," Clavijo said. "But again it's given ... I did not know what happened on the play. I don't justify if Facundo Erpen did something but it's very obvious that the referee did not see it."
I always love this defense. "My guy may have been guilty as hell, but I swear the refs used the JumboTron to see it." Did the refs get the call right? If the answer's yes, end of story.

[Jasonma]

I always love this defense. "My guy may have been guilty as hell, but I swear the refs used the JumboTron to see it." Did the refs get the call right? If the answer's yes, end of story.

I don't know about that.

Just to clear the air, I am a Rapids supporter, Erpen was guilty as hell, and I don't think the replay had anything to do with the card.

That said the ref isn't supposed to use replays to make the cal AIUI. If he did, that's obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with. Just because he got the call right doesn't make methods used acceptable. It would pout the road team at an unfair advantage if this became common, even if it is against the rules.

[Untroubled by Reason]

I don't know about that.

Just to clear the air, I am a Rapids supporter, Erpen was guilty as hell, and I don't think the replay had anything to do with the card.

That said the ref isn't supposed to use replays to make the cal AIUI. If he did, that's obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with. Just because he got the call right doesn't make methods used acceptable. It would pout the road team at an unfair advantage if this became common, even if it is against the rules.
It sounds as though you're making the same assumption the coach did: that the CR got his information from the screen (as opposed to his ARs or the 4th official). Not necessarily a correct assumption, and that's what I was trying to highlight.

[PVancouver]

It sounds as though you're making the same assumption the coach did: that the CR got his information from the screen (as opposed to his ARs or the 4th official).No, it sounds like you did not properly comprehend what he said. He said he didn't think the replay had anything to do with the card.