On the Sarvas situation, I think @MassachusettsRef is right. In isolation, it is a defensible call either way. It was a VERY subtle kick by Sarvas, as well, so I'm not even sure Stott saw it. Here's one factor I'm curious about. The Sarvas card was listed as dissent, but I sure thought it was PI at the time. He fouled Lodeiro A LOT. Four fouls whistled, and I'm pretty sure all of them were against Lodeiro, plus a few that were borderline that Stott let go and at least one advantage called on a Sarvas foul on Lodeiro. If the card was, in fact, for PI, is that a factor to consider when thinking about whether that kick on the ground rises to the level of a 2CT? If you see that a player is targeting another enough to warrant a PI caution, it seems reasonable that you should consider that the subtle kick of that same player while on the ground is both intentional and a continuation of a pattern after a caution for that same pattern. And yeah, Keller was my hero as a GK coming up a couple of years behind him, but his comments about officiating are idiotic, at best.
Some really interesting and fascinating plays yesterday. It's what makes soccer refereeing so fun and challenging at the same time. There are multiple options for any one incident. In regards to the Beckerman and Adi double reds, I personally, have a yellow to Beckerman and a red to Adi there. I think Toledo was going to show a yellow or nothing to Beckerman prior to the retaliation. Yes he led with the elbow, but it wasn't anywhere near the face or neck and there hardly was any excessive force there. More force there and I would support the red card to Beckerman. You can and I think that is what Toledo was thinking that Beckerman's elbow falls under the "attempt to strike" category for VC. I don't think Toledo was comletely wrong with red to both as Beckerman is a prick out there, but I just don't think what Beckerman did there rose to a must send off. In regards to the Sarvas incident. I, personally, have a caution to Sarvas and a red to Lodeiro. Sarvas was already cautioned for PI earlier in the match. According to the MLS stats, Sarvas committed 4 fouls and all four were against Lodeiro. He commits a niggly and unnecessary foul from behind on the same guy he fouled 3 previous times before and that he was cautioned already for. He then kicks the ball into Lodeiro for no reason other than to be an asshole. Also, let's not forget that Sarvas did similar antics a couple of times last year and got a couple of players sent off. In situations like these, we are always thought to think about what is "fair" and where is the "justice." Players do have a responsibility to behave irregardless of what an opponent does, but how is it fair that Sarvas fouls Lodeiro, kicks the ball/kicks Lodeiro after the whistle and gets away with nothing and Lodeiro gets sent off? For me, there isn't equal justice there. I think a caution would have been appropriate to Sarvas, regardless if he was sitting on a yellow or not. It is very similar to the Nasri and Vardy send off in the Champions League this past season. Nasri was on a caution and Vardy was not. Vardy starts game disrepute and Nasri retaliates. Both receive cautions and Nasri ends up hitting the showers early. Sarvas starts the game disrepute, but gets nothing.
I doubt MLS will do anything to Beckerman here. Beckerman knew exactly what he was doing there and it is a pretty vile gesture/act regardless of whether the spit actually hits Toledo. It's Beckerman telling/showing everyone what he thinks of Toledo and the decision. I hope he gets games for it, but I have my doubts. Earlier this year a player that was sent off made contact/bumped into the referee and the referee put it in his report and wrote it up as referee assault and all the player ended up getting was an extra fine with his standard one game suspension. I doubt they will tack on anything extra for an "alleged" spit in their eyes. Only if there is footage that shows the spit clearly hitting Toledo then nothing will be done. Even if Toledo puts it in his report. Also, Beckerman is known for giving referees a piece of their mind after getting red cards. He has quite the mouth and attitude on him. Notice how he covers up his mouth when he is saying something to Stoice after receiving the red. He's not exactly saying "that was a shit call ref."
I am certainly familiar with Beckerman's propensity to mouth off. But I also wonder about someone spitting away from the referee, even in disgust, being considered for punishment or suspension or a fine.
Whether there is a precedent or not isn't really the point. In this case, it's a pretty clear case of. Vulgar show of disrespect towards the referee. The fact that it's Beckerman shouldn't be that surprising.
I think that was a game control red card more than a merit red card. It will be interesting if RSL appeals. It certainly was less egregious than say...Ramos'.
Based on the still photo, it's hard to imagine that the spit didn't hit Toledo somewhere based on the angle and proximity. Toledo would obviously not have felt it hitting his back (I'm disgusted at even having to type about this). Even if there's no conclusive proof it actually hits Toledo, in my opinion it's irrelevant as the action of spitting towards him inches way is bad enough. This has got to be a minimum 5 game suspension. I'm not expecting MLS to do so, but it would be the right thing. Spitting at or towards someone is worse than striking someone. This repulsive act is saying that the other person is beneath taking the effort and time of hitting them as they're sub-human. Beckerman used to get away with murder for years for some reason, hence his reaction.
It's pretty clear from the video and other angles that he spit in front of Toledo, not behind. That one still is an excellent example of forced perspective, though.
And that when he started to spit, Toledo was not yet running that way or even clearly going to do so.
Thoughts? 26' - Only a yellow to Mavinga for this reckless challenge on Badji. 1-0 | #TORvCOL https://t.co/RIW7xg5tWJ— Colorado Rapids (@ColoradoRapids) July 22, 2017
Edvin Jurisevic is the referee on the Juventus and Barcelona game, hopefully he can return to the MLS soon.
MTL v DAL ... defender heads the ball from at least a yard in his own net and no goal was called. VAR can't come soon enough.
I'm not saying it wasn't a goal, but you need a better angle to prove it was. And it definitely wasn't "at least a yard"--I think the nets are 2 or 2.5 yards deep. Even with that bad angle, you can tell his head isn't halfway into the net as his lead foot is either even with the goal line or slightly in front of it. Maybe/probably a goal. But without good video and the right angle, you can't be sure.
I think the clipped angle makes it look much worse because you have no idea how far he came from. Full highlight is here: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2017-07-22-toronto-fc-vs-colorado-rapids It's on the border. But he keeps his foot down and doesn't catch him high. He also doesn't come from distance with a true lunge. It's a straight leg, but it's just the one leg and the fall is more dramatic because the attacker is turning as he got hit. Yellow is defensible. Of course, it's a lesson in calling the previous to prevent the worse foul.
Here's the video. Looks like a goal. But not sure this would be enough to confirm on VAR. Angles will be vital. https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2017-07-22-montreal-impact-vs-fc-dallas
Posted without comment -- Petke complains: 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/bfvQZerJ4G— Real Salt Lake (@realsaltlake) July 23, 2017 EDIT: I should say that the most surprising thing about this to me is that RSL is playing it up rather than discouraging him from public statements like these.
While the part about the headlock/free kick is over the top, he does a have a point about the Beckerman red card/suspension and no suspension for the Sanchez grabbing a guy by the throat. He is spot on in regards to the inconsistencies by the Disciplinary Committee.
Well for one, because it bears repeating, the two panels are separate entities. One tries to determine if the referee did enough. The other tries to determine if the referee did too much. The problem is that they approach the question in completely different ways. The DisCo takes a play and views it through the lens of league-established precedent. The Independent Review Panel, from what we can tell, seems to view incidents from another angle that seems to unwisely weigh it against public perception. So the DisCo looks at the Ilie Sanchez throat grab and only gives a fine because that's what they've given for similar incidents. There's, sadly, no precedent to suspend the player. League clearly doesn't want it to be a red card. The IRP looks at the Beckerman/Adi incident and upholds the former's suspension because everyone knows Beckerman is an antagonizing player so of course he did something, and the referee was correct. Then they'll turn around and fall victim to "he's a good lad" syndrome and overturn suspensions for dangerous tackles because they didn't mean to do it. It's unprovable, but I suspect for a few of those challenges each year that the DisCo steps in on, the IRP would not have upheld the suspension on appeal if the red was actually given.
From day one, having different committees for these functions was incredibly stupid. I am surprised that they have never been consolidated, as it seems such an obvious way to improve the consistency and credibility of the decisions. (And I share your umproveable suspicion.)