What you said goes on in EPL is highly exaggerated, and nowhere near true, but nevertheless EPL and international games are refereed differently. Not the way it should be but the way it is. This referee did a lot of things wrong IMO, but he got these two red cards correct. Which is why most of the people on this board agree with it. PH
Well right, but the question is "what are they referring to with negligible force?" IFAB aren't necessarily known for writing the clearest in the Laws, look how offside basically has to be redebated every year. While it is very possible the negligible force phrase was meant to cover what Jones did, some of us have a hard time believing FIFA would take something related to VC that was definitely red last month and make it not be red any more after all the years of trying to say basically any contact above the shoulders is red off the ball. The phrase absolutely could include what Jones did, but it also absolutely could be there way to just make sure no one sends off for what Henry did, which is what La Rikardo was saying. FWIW, I was in the "100% red" camp at first but am starting to have my doubts because I am just not sure which of those two explanations is right anymore. Either way, I hope the decision on the appeal has an explanation instead of just being yes/no
both USA protests were thrown out, I honestly thought that they would allow the protest on Wood as play should not have been restarted: http://www.socceramerica.com/articl...us-protests-are-thrown-out.html?edition=15726
I'll confess that I don't really understand this complaint. So what if play had not been properly restarted? Wood committed a reckless challenge. Yellow card. The reckless nature of the challenge has nothing to do with the restart. Put it this way (maybe @MassachusettsRef already did), if after Roldan restarted play, a Ecuadorian player committed a foul that endangered the safety of a U.S. player, you wouldn't honestly be arguing that the SFP red card should be overturned, would you? Rightly or wrongly, play was restarted. It's not a free for all just because Jones hadn't left the field yet.
yeah, I would...and if play was improperly restarted and the result was a goal...I'd argue either way that you have to properly restart the match first...I completely understand your argument and Mass Ref did previously present this scenario, but I just don't agree with the logic.
If you could make the case that Wood was unprepared for the restart and that caused him to make the reckless challenge you might have a case linking the two. I don't think there's a very strong case of that here but that's one way where they could be related.
So would everyone else, including the ref crew. Theoretically, since they figured out that Jones was still on the field in this scenario, they'd figure it out if they had a quick goal. They brought the FK back here, so why wouldn't they bring it back in your scenario? The logic is the LOTG. There's really no explanation or justification needed. It's quite clear in the Laws. You can't commit misconduct against someone and have it be wiped away because the ball wasn't in play or because of some other temporary oddity. Whether Klinsmann bothered to know the LOTG or not prior to his press conference is an unknown, but the USSF Admins who filed the paperwork later hopefully knew the LOTG or were at least told that they were wasting their time. Ultimately, I'm glad they were both denied with seemingly little discussion. I think appealing these set a bad tone across the soccer news world here in the US. Important Youth Regional tournaments are just starting this week and the precedent has been set - "The ref may have gotten it right, and my guys may be totally wrong, but I've got my back against the wall, I don't like his call, and therefore we'll appeal it." Youth Soccer Administrators in the immediate future and beyond are going to see more spitballs thrown at the wall to see what sticks. I'm not sure that's the culture we need to promote.
This conversation has gone on long enough that I've forgotten what arguments people have suggested, so please forgive me if this has already been covered. I fully support the idea that a reckless challenge should be sanctioned despite the extra player on the field. But what if a player commits a tactical foul normally worthy of a caution, but not reaching the level of reckless? Is it reasonable to say that since the action occurred following an improper restart, there is no opportunity for a foul to be tactical and a card would not be appropriate?
In this particular case I agree, but I can see a scenario like a caution for a tactical foul or a send off for DOGSO that should be nullified once it becomes known that the ball wasn't in play.
Play improperly restarted. Wood committed the foul. Was issued the yellow card. Then play was brought back to the original spot of the previous foul (on Bedoya,) and restarted again, IIRC. The referee wiped away the play that caused the foul/card to happen.
No. While a foul can only happen with the ball in play, that is not true for misconduct. He was cautioned for unsporting behavior. It never had a snowballs chance in Hades of being reversed. (DOGSO would be canceled because it is dependent upon the actual existence of an obvious goal scoring opportunity and has nothing to do with mindset. Tactical is more interesting, as it is USB based on the purpose of actor -- and that purpose would be the same even if not in play for some technical reason. I don't know that an R would be overturned either way he decided on a tactical foul.)
I think SFP has to be a bit different, but I still feel like a player here is screwed by the referee. I understand the logical reason but it's really a mistake by the referee tha caused the problem. If this was a goal, we'd take it away for instance.
Personally, I would most likely rescind a yellow given solely for a tactical foul if the ball was officially never in play. The action would need to still be unsporting behavior for some other reason to be able to justify the card.