With apologies to Dickens, if the procedure permits that, the procedure is an ass.(Hopefully the panel would never grant an appeal on that basis. While this immediate scenario would be unusual with OFFINABUS, virtually the same thing could happen with a reckless 2CT. "Nah, that wasn't reckless, it was with excessive force, so since the R didn't give the straight red, it's nothing.") And if the PRO representative votes to rescind on that ground, we should completely give up on any credibility that PRO has.
Of the flaws in the system, this to me is the most bizarre. All but guaranteed to exacerbate any in game inconsistency with additional post-game inconsistency. (I thought that the craziness would have to get rectified after a season or two as the concept is so stupid, but was obviously wrong.)
It's simple. MLS, and by relationship PRO, wanst one panel that operates under the Laws of the Game, and they want one that operates outside of them so they can play politics with match discipline.
HA HA HA HA HA, GASP, WHEEZE, COUGH, HA HA HA HA HA. PRO gave up on that when they overturned the Unkle red card, saying, "hey, it was the right call, but Orlando fans were pretty upset."
sadly I doubt they have the guts to classify this as frivolous...but it would obviously be great if they did
Have they ever called an appeal frivolous? Sometimes having heavy sanctions from such a determination is a significant deterrent to making that finding--which must be unanimous.
Doubt it considering the amount of hinting and suggestion that has been made in this thread, and your question having gone unanswered.
This has been a great discussion. Something about the incident rubbed me the wrong way, but I don't think the ref could have done anything different (after mulling it over for a few days). Thanks for the discussion.
Certain things have to come out through PRO or MLS, otherwise people who raise these behind-the-scenes point will burn important sources and/or look foolish when the league or PRO stays silent. Truth be told, in this case it probably wasn't the best decision to even hint at the type of dissent here because I now have severe doubts it will ever be made public through an official channel. But I think there was a reflexive reaction to defend Stoica here, given the nature of what occurred and all the dynamics at play both during the incident and in the aftermath.
So it's basically just hearsay and nobody has verified that he said something, or what it actually was he might or might not have said? Do you really think MLS is going to publish it, or that PRO would publish it based on their relationship with MLS and their desire to toe the line when it comes to disciplinary action (as seen my PRO voting against it's refs to appease MLS)? My guess is that they'll rescind the 2ct for Bedoya, and go easy on the other player (ignore the spitting/assault)
Well, if that's your standard, then every report of dissent that isn't then publicized (which is, to date in MLS, all dissent) is "hearsay." I've verified it. And it seems @ManiacalClown has done so independently of me, though I imagine through the same source. It appears @GoDawgsGo also has verified it and I presume that's from a different source. But aside from that and most importantly, the Union have verified that Stoica reported something was said because their entire appeal is based on the premise that Stoica is a liar and that he booked him for the wrong thing (their appeal stipulates the second caution was for dissent, but they claim that's impossible based on video). I'll grant you that it is fair to have healthy skepticism over what exactly was said--at least until there is an official report. But if we're going to need every utterance of dissent "verified" in some capacity and the league buys that arguments, it is essentially saying it doesn't trust referees to be truthful. And that's a big, big problem. At this point, no, I do not expect the language used by Bedoya to become public via MLS or PRO. You might be right here. I've gone back and forth on both of these issues in the last 48 hours. It sounds like Webb, at least, has Stoica's back. I'm not sure how much that is worth given the nature of how the IRP is constituted right now. One thing to keep in mind is that Medunjanin played last night in the USOC. Per USSF policy, if he was under a report of referee assault or referee abuse, I believe he was supposed to sit the match provisionally until the case is adjudicated. I realize there's a big "if" in my statement, but it seems like the Richmond Kickers would at least be interested in examining this a bit more.
And contra to the LOTG: "The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final."
That ship has already sailed, though, with the very existence of the IRP. I was thinking last night, though (and I may have expressed this before)... in the VAR age, why does the IRP still need to exist? Since we have two separate bodies, it's worth noting that I get why the DisCo needs to exist. Only the DisCo can add supplemental punishment (ignore the Commissioner's unique role/prerogatives). And there needs to be a body to punish misconduct that was simply missed by the referee team--including the VAR--and comes to light later. Also, in a league that likes to punish simulation that was not sanctioned on the field (sometimes) the DisCo is the body that can do that, since the VAR cannot. But the entire premise of the IRP is to overturn wrongly given red cards--that is its only reason for existence. That was already contrary to the LOTG, but ignore that for a moment. We now have a mechanism with VARs and VR where one of the main purposes is to overturn red card decisions that are "clearly wrong." The IRP is only supposed to overturn "serious" and "obvious" referee mistakes. Given every single red card is checked by a VAR, there literally is no purpose for the IRP unless the argument is the IRP always knows better than both the referee and the VAR and the IRP's opinion is more valued than the referee and VAR. Because with the advent of VAR, the argument that the referee made a mistake and would have changed things if he had gotten to see the video goes out the window.
How do the ref talk communications systems used in MLS work? Do they need to be activated to transmit or are all the refs "micd up" all the time? And either way is the verbal communication recorded?
Fair point. But it does still seem different to me to reverse a red card (or take away the associated suspension) based on a review of angles the referee did not have than to start taking testimony about what was said and decide the ref is lying. Because only referees are involved during the game, and the referee representative is outnumbered in the IRP? More seriously, I'd say there are two rationale. First, VAR is currently an experiment, so dismantling IRP for an experiment doesn't make sense--especially since there would be political fall out. And second, it is possible there are things the VAR doesn't have access to that might be available later. But it should (in a properly functioning world) make IRP relief very uncommon.
IIRC, the R and AR are voice activated and the 40 is push to talk. But I'm sure someone here will know for sure.
It's an open system for everyone except for the 4th and VAR. They have to "push to talk" like a walkie-talkie. Prior to the implement of VAR, I don't believe they were recorded, now with VAR they are recorded for training purposes.
I know the VAR is recorded as apart of the process to improve VAR. I'm not sure if the entire crew is. Even if they were, I'm doubtful that Bedoya's voice would have been picked up since it was said at quite the distance from the referee.
If its a recorded open system for the referee, I simply wonder if something said by a player loud enough for the referee to hear could also be on a recording.
Yes, if the player is close enough the mic will pic it up. You have to be almost face to face with the referee for the mic to pick it up.
Everything is recorded but there's no way the mic would pick up Bedoya at that distance. The mics are designed to only pick up the person who is talking into them. Otherwise they'd be useless as everyone would just hear background noise and a bunch of people yelling on the other end. When you have up-close dissent or when the referee is engaged in a conversation with one player, that person might be picked up. But this Bedoya instance--or any instance of a player dissenting from any distance--wouldn't get picked up.
Remember the two other representatives are CSA and USSF. Theoretically, all three members should be "referees" in nature. An interesting wrinkle, by the way, which I've only learned recently, is that the "PRO representative" is actually a member of PRO's board but is not currently active within the day-to-day management of PRO. So, there's that. It helps explain why the "PRO representative vote" can now differ from what PRO is telling its referees. Not that anyone will know or understand that. Rationale #1 I partly buy. I would or will buy it more if the IRP is abolished in the coming years. Rationale #2 seems a really big stretch. If all broadcast feeds fail to show a clearly wrong decision and the IRP has to rely on amateur footage after the match to disprove 9+ camera angles, was the decision really clearly wrong? I think Rationale #3 might be the real answer, which is that the existence of the IRP probably relates to collective bargaining with the player's union or some other sort of contract that can't be changed easily.