[PVancouver]

Video Clip 2: Dallas at Real Salt Lake (69:45)

I don’t have many issues with what is said here. But far too much of what actually occurred was left unexplained. If the actual events were too embarrassing to discuss, perhaps USSF shouldn’t have brought the case up at all.

At 68:40 Salazar called a foul against Jamison Olave on Jeff Cunningham, three yards outside of the penalty area. In my opinion, this was a poor call, and if Jason Kreis was upset with the call, he had reason to be.

The wall takes up an inordinate amount of time to set up. Salazar remains at the spot of the foul until 69:22, when he finally begins to back up to set the location of the wall. The free kick is taken at 69:46. No explanation is given for the delay.

When the free kick is taken, Salazar correctly calls Chris Wingert for a rather obvious “make yourself bigger/don’t bother to avoid contact” handball in the penalty area. Presumably, this is when Jason Kreis got really upset, either because he was still upset about a free kick having been awarded in the first place or that Wingert’s arm was extended due to “natural movement” and shouldn’t have been called as a handball, or for some other dubious reason. Mathis had been the far right member of the wall from the kicker’s point of view.

The penalty kick is taken in a fairly efficient manner at 70:47 by Jeff Cunningham, and Nick Rimando saves it. Kreis, who was silent and seated before the kick, jumps up and pumps his fist after the save. The next thing we see live is Will Johnson walking back from an apparent tackle of unidentified Dallas player, at 71:20. Mathis was about 10 yards from the tackle but on the opposite side from the benchs. Salazar for some reason has a word with the Dallas bench, and then walks over to the fourth official, Tyler Ploeger, at 71:45, unzipping his back right pocket in the process.

Finally, after writing a virtual book while conversing with Ploeger, he begins to beckon Mathis over from the far side of the field at 72:21. After Mathis gives a dumbfounded what-for look after receiving his red card, and after much apparent headset communication with Salazar, Salazar waves off the red card to Mathis at 73:22, shaking Kreis’ hand and sending him off. Kreis exists quickly and quietly, thankful that his player Mathis has been allowed to stay on the field. Will Johnson later says on camera that he offered up that it was “coach”, not Mathis, that had uttered profanities. But no explanation if offered as to how Mathis could have been confused with Kreis, or how there could have been such a long delay between the supposed utterances and the actual send-offs.

“1. Get a second opinion from the AR"
This is not a bad idea in principle, but the AR was nowhere close to the RSL bench. If the 4th official doesn’t already have “confidence that his decision to dismiss is correct”, then he shouldn’t be sending people off.

“2. Clear, succinct and specific communication with the referee”
Numbers, names, does it really matter if the fourth official has confused a player with a coach??? Salazar should have enough time to draw a police sketch of the perpetrator given the long conversation he had with Ploeger.

“3. Indicate the culprit
If need be, after communicating the information to the referee, the AR can point to the individual to be dismissed or sent off to ensure the correct person has been identified. This is especially true for non-playing personnel who may not be familiar to the match officials.”
Is Fabio Tovar being blamed here? Or does “the AR” refer again to Ploeger? Certainly Ploeger should know who the two coaches are. And all match officials should be able to distinguish between players and non-players.

“4. Reconfirm the information”
It appeared that Salazar double-checked, triple-checked, and filed forms in quadruplicate before sending Mathis off. What were they chatting about, where to meet for their next golf outing?

I don’t have any real issues with much of this advice, but little of it seems to pertain to this case. If it does pertain, then more explanation needed to be given about how it pertained, because as it is, little of what apparently occurred makes any sense.

The Week in Review strongly implies that Kreis’s words were spoken between the PK foul and the taking of the PK. Yet Mathis had been in the wall and was not one of the four RSL players that went to Salazar to complain about the call. It is doubtful that he had been anywhere near the RSL bench, which was on the other side of the field, at any time during this period. So there is still quite a bit of mystery why Mathis got red-carded, and why it took so long for a card to be handed out to Mathis or Kreis.




Video Clip 3: Toronto at Columbus (37:38)

This clip involves a clear case of serious foul play and, therefore, the tackler must be issued a red card. As the clip is reviewed, the criteria established by U.S. Soccer and outlined above for evaluating tackles should be used to ensure the correct punishment is meted out.

I don’t dispute that the tackle was ugly, and a red card isn’t out of the quesition, but I do dispute some of the rationale used by USSF to explain the red.

As you view the clip, consider the following:

Excessive Force

• Is this a normal challenge? No. The foot is raised off the ground. If the defender were attempting to play the ball, he would have swung his foot at it to kick it away and not leaped in directly at the opponent. USSF should try to time kicking a ball as it drops vertically to the ground, taking care not to overshoot the play and crash into another player. Padula did not leap directly at the opponent, he leaped directly at the ball. The foot is raised off the ground because this is where Padula intended to make contact with the ball. If Padula isn’t trying to play the ball, then why does he bother to flick his left foot as his foot moves past the ball Padula could have made a big sweeping kick with this left foot, but had he done so, and missed, he is even more likely to be sent off, IMO, especially if Barrett attempts to kick the ball with his right foot, which he nearly did. I believe Padula took what he felt was a more controlled approach.
  
• The ball is on the ground and the challenge goes over the top of the ball. Yes, Padula mistimed his kick attempt. Obviously, he would have been better off attempting to kick the ball much lower in its trajectory. I’m not sure what the point of this is. What if Padula had swung a bit earlier, making the very same swing, but passing his leg underneath the ball?
  
• Does the defender have the opportunity to play the ball? No. A normal challenge is made with the foot on the ground not raised two to three feet off the ground. This is just silly. Padula clearly had an opportunity to play the ball. Had he gotten there sooner, he might have reached even higher with his left leg to play it, as the ball bounced up to Barret’s chest. Padula was just a few inches short of or a half-second behind successfully playing the ball where he intended to strike it.
  
• The challenge is late. Yet, the ball was not kicked away before Padula got there. The only thing “late” about the tackle is that the ball dropped too far for Padula to make contact with it at the height he attempted to kick it at. Had he attempted to hit the ball where it hit the ground, he would not have been late at all.
  
  How do any of these factors relate to “excessive force”? Certainly a tackle can be “non normal”, “over the ball”, “without an opportunity to play the ball”, and “late”, and not involve excessive force. At least, in the manner I consider excessive force.

Endangers the Safety of the Opponent

• A hard surface (the cleats) is used to make contact. Direct contact is made with the bottom of the cleats. OK, but the intent was to flick the ball with the toe of his boot. The cleat contact was accidental with Barrett’s knee was unintentional.
  
• The area contacted (the knee) is soft. Given that the area involves a joint, severe damage is possible. I wonder what other parts of the body USSF considers soft. The heel? The skull? Sure, the knee is a joint that, given the right forces, can sustain severe damage. But I would not label the knee as being soft.
  
• The tackle is committed straight on. No disagreement there However, normally, tackles from the front are to be preferred to tackles coming from other directions, so I am not sure what point USSF is trying to make here. Padula’s foot pushes Barrett’s knee back by only about two or three inches, then drops straight down to the ground. There is not a lot of force in the contact.. Fortunately for Barrett, his leg was not planted and was not in contact with the ground.

Given these factors, the referee must issue a red card for serious foul play.

If this is the case, why is it that no one appeared to demand a red card for this tackle? Barrett was understandably a little miffed, but no one seemed to be calling for Padula’s head.

....

The referee must not rely on the AR to make this decision. This is a clear challenge that utilizes excessive force and endangers the safety of the opponent. In addition, the challenge is in the open field and there are no obstacles to block the referee’s vision. With swifter movement and acceleration on the initial pass, the referee would enhance his view and give himself a better “feel” for the seriousness of the challenge.

I disagree. The seriousness of the cleat to knee contact is much easier to see from the slow motion camera angle we get than from the game speed angles the CR and AR had.

[refmedic]

Go back and watch the video clip from the RSL incident, paying particular attention to the very end, and the behavior of the RSL coach. After the PK is saved, the video cuts to the RSL bench, where Kreis is seen pumping his fist in elation at the PK save, and then turning to the 4th Official, swinging his arm, and screaming "f%*k you guys!". All you have to do is read his lips, and it's pretty easy to tell what he said. I'm not sure about the situation with Mathis, but the evidence for Kreis' dismissal is right there for all of us to see.

[pumpkinpie]

So vancouver on the padula tackle are you saying you would give red or yellow? I understand breaking down the rationale...but my question is after watching it what color card would you give. I agree they weren't calling for his head as you said and to be honest im a little baffled how the guy that got cleats in the knee isn't really pissed...that is an easy way to pick up a serious injury.

[jayhonk]

Originally Posted by PVancouver

I don’t dispute that the tackle was ugly, and a red card isn’t out of the quesition, but I do dispute some of the rationale used by USSF to explain the red.

Overall, the rationale wasn't as perfectly right on the money as it could have been, but I think it is fair to review this as a missed RC. Personally I think it could be summed up as: If you are waving your cleats around the other guy's knee, you had better be pretty darn careful.

**************

One thing I do have a problem with is the suggestion that the CR should have been closer to the play.

Originally Posted by Week in Review

Anticipation and movement by the referee
The referee must move much faster when the initial pass is executed. Although it is not clear in the clip, the referee does not anticipate nor move when the long pass is made. The referee must “read” the play and accelerate as the long ball is played to the corner. “Reading the play” involves recognizing a one versus one situation on the wing in which the defender is playing catch-up. A one versus one situation in the wide channel is a warning sign and this is especially true when the defender starts from a deficit position behind the attacker. The defender must prevent the attacker from getting around the corner and advancing toward goal. By moving closer to the challenge and gaining a proper angle, the referee will have a better view and will be better prepared to “feel” the tackle and identify the warning signs. Remember the age old adage: Presence lends conviction.

This sounds like 20-20 hindsight from the USSF. If I have an experienced AR, I am 'turning over' play on the wing to him. This incident occurs less than 10 yards from the (MLS-level) AR, so I am not sure why the USSF is calling for the CR to be closer. An inference from the video is that the CR was at the top of the D. By moving directly toward the play, I don't think the CR would have improved his view. Had he come straight towards the play, he still would have been somewhat straightlined. Only by moving at a 45 degree angle toward midfield would his view actually have been improved. To move in that unconventional direction would have shown an unusual degree of clairvoyance, that I am hoping the USSF is not expecting in my games.

Regarding the 'wait and see how the injured player reacts' suggestion. That is probably a good one. It also gives the Ref crew time to digest what they just saw. I would suggest that the AR may have had another strategem in mind when he quickly called for the YC. That is, if the CR runs over to the scene of the crime with the Yellow in hand, that is usually a good way to keep the victim's team's emotions in check. They can see that justice is on the way. This may have been a factor in the noted lack of outrage from the victim's teammates.