That is certainly an interesting possibility that I hadn't thought of. But even without CBA influence, inertia is a powerful force.
I think the IRP exists purely because I don't think MLS and Don Garber have ever been on board with the idea of mandated suspensions for ejections in a game. The concept of mandatory and minimum suspensions for a red card/ejection is something that is relatively foreign in other American sports. That is why Garber and MLS have been such a proponent of replay. Garber always brings up how "American fans are used to replay in other sports, so that's why we must have it in MLS." It's why every other league in the world, you usually receive a minimum three match ban for VC or SFP, but not in MLS. You don't receive an automatic one game suspension in baseball, basketball or football for a standard run of the mill ejection like arguing with a referee/umpire, etc. You only receive it if you're a repeat violator or do something really egregious. We know that is not the tradition in soccer and, I, think, Garber and MLS have never been comfortable with that concept for standard red cards that are actual soccer plays like a 2CT red card, SFP or DOGSO. If it were up to them, I think they would change the rules for mandatory suspensions, but FIFA doesn't allow it. I always thought that IRP is MLS' way of sticking to the concept of mandatory suspensions. On a side note, I still don't know how within FIFA's Laws and protocols are leagues allowed to rescind red cards after the fact. I know they can because it's a hill FIFA is not willing to die on, but from reading all protocols it technically is not allowed.
doesn't IRP exist so teams can lodge appeals of things they don't like? That seems to be why it's there, and what has happened in this case. the league can't operate without referees. if they overturn this red card maybe the referees should threaten to walk like they have in other countries
I don't see how the refs can threaten to walk away when it takes a PRO board member voting to overturn a suspension. Now, if this does get overturned, I'd completely understand refs asking Howard what the hell is happening here.
Per their CBA, referees within PRO can not strike or walk out. Last year, they wore "respect" badges as a form of protest in regards to the Unkel red card being overturned, and PRO basically told them to stop or they would face discipline.
Ok I'll be more specific for you. Do you know who they share office space with? Do you know where their funding comes from? Like I said before: Follow The $$$$$
That question was warranted last week. This Philly issue will dominate headlines once resolved, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that last week was really, really bad.
One thing I want to point out. The ability to appeal a second yellow seems silly, but I would imagine the intended use is when the referee makes an error regarding simulation. Think back to what would have been an early 2CT for Blanco in that Orlando-Portland game that Baldo was on. Replays clearly showed it was NOT simulation by Blanco, and luckily the foul occurred inside the penalty area so it was reviewable as a missed penalty. Move that foul outside the area, and Blanco is still sent off unjustly. An appeal would give an opportunity for at least a measure of justice. Yeah, slippery slope and all that, but I think that sort of yellow is ultimately the easiest overall to say definitely if it was right or wrong. Not that there aren't borderline situations, of course.
Ok. Sure. But the IRP started with second cautions not being subject to appeal. So the initial premise or operating procedure of the IRP simply doesn’t jive with the point you’re making and the example you’re using. It’s true and you are correct that a wrongly awarded second caution for sImulation outside the penalty area is the sort of misconduct that IRP could handle but a VAR could not address. No disagreement there. But such an incident isn’t exactly the poster boy for the IRP and, to put all our cards on the table... has an MLS referee ever issued a 2CT for simulation outside the area (and, if so, was such a decision—which I don’t think has ever occurred—clearly wrong?)?
I was also thinking of situations where someone got a second yellow, but the player they supposedly fouled WAS guilty of simulation. That would be still rare, but definitely more common than the reverse. I can think of a few instances where teams probably would have wanted to appeal, and I figured that's where it came from.
What structure does the agreement actually follow? If they were full fledged employees of PRO with salaries, benefits etc they MIGHT be able to hold that sort of internal gag order up in court. If PRO still sees their refs as independent contractors then they are asking to be taken to court and taken for all they’re worth. Eventually this is all going to come to a head and PRO and MLS are going to have to stop flying under the radar with the ambiguous and shady status the referees hold within their organization.
Bedoya's appeal was rejected, and he'll serve his red card suspension on Friday. https://www.mlssoccer.com/mls-disciplinary-summary/2018/week14/alejandro-bedoya-appeal?autoplay=true
I just heard Curtins press conference and Curtin said the yellow was for calling the ref the "F word, cheat". Bedoya is adamant he said nothing and is almost disgusted at the accusation, and Curtin suggested an Atlanta player was going to make a statement on the appeal but that didnt happen. At that point it was just a he said/he said discussion and the committee of refs were always going to believe the ref. Is that about right from what others have heard, and for me if that f word ended in "king" would Bedoya be strongly opposed to the claim and therefore was it a different f word, and more likely to be a straight red card with a 3 game ban?
Not sure why that is about a committee of refs believing a ref. Under the LOTG, the ref is the neutral arbiter of the facts of the game. I don't think any competent review body in any sport is going to reverse decisions of referees because a player denies saying what the referee heard and acted on unless there is hard evidence to support the claim. (You totally lost me on your discussion of F words.)
I was just passing on what Curtin said about the incident in his weekly press conference, and then wondering what the F word used was. If it was the plain cursing F word, im surprised Bedoya is so adamant that he didnt say it.
Since Curtins has basically said it, the phrase reported was “motherf***ing cheat.” Not sure what you’re asking here, though. Of course it could have been a straight red.
Im just shocked at the indignition over saying that and how adamant he was that he didn't say what he said. Maybe it's just me that doesn't think thats so awful a phrase.
@bluetooner, looking at your profile, I can see that you're a Union fan and you occasionally drop in here around Union games. (That's great - please keep doing that.) I'm guessing you aren't an active referee, if one at all. I only say that because I can tell you confidently that while this forum might disagree on some marginalia around what is and isn't abusive or offensive, "Motherf**ing cheat" is going to be pretty much unanimous. You call a referee that - even if nobody else hears it - and you're gone. It's a direct attack on the fairness of the referee and it includes offensive language. Some referees might accept an occasional swear word here and there, some might accept a glancing bias issue ("call it both ways," "you just want them to have a chance", etc.), but no referee working within the Laws of the Game is going to accept both.
To add some to what @seattlebeach said, in England simply calling a referee a "cheat" is enough to be dismissed with a straight red card. Most high-profile example in recent history involved Graham Poll: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2006/nov/10/newsstory.sport6 Note the player's defense wasn't "I didn't say that." It was literally "I said 'shite' instead of 'cheat'." I've been led to believe that similar claims of "cheating" usually are dealt with in the same manner throughout the Spanish-speaking soccer world. For whatever reason, the visceral reaction that "you're a cheat" = straight red card hasn't seemed to take hold for referees in a universal manner here in the United States.
Massref beat me to it. The motherf***king part of it is a bonus. Calling a referee a cheat is enough for you to be gone.
Dont get me wrong I agree that it's at least a yellow card offense. It was just the way it was described from Curtin "Ale is not the kind of person to say what was said " made it sound much worse than "motherf**king cheat ". If we switch away from dissent, its like a bad tackle is a bad tackle, but how I interpreted the comment from Curtin is that Bedoya didnt want people to think he was Roy Keane deliberately going out to injure Alf-Inge Haaland.
I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion here. Stoica either reflexively went yellow in the heat of the moment or because, perhaps, he wrongly thought 2CTs weren't appealable and a dissent card was easier to sell than a straight red. But the reason Curtin is so defensive here is because he recognizes calling a referee a "motherf***ing cheat" is the verbal equivalent of Keane on Haaland. Talking about a referees call or overall management of the game is one thing. When you get into the personal insult realm, you're already walking from the dissent (yellow card) category into the insulting language (red card) category. "You're a motherf***ing clown" is a lot different than "that was a motherf***ing clown call," for example. At any level between recreational youth (where both are likely red cards) and professional games (where both, unfortunately, are likely yellow cards), that's really the dividing line from yellow to red. But when you add in that the "cheat" aspect accuses the referee of deliberately doing his job wrong and attacking his integrity, you're now in the world where it really can't get worse. Other than an accusation of racism (which also calls into question a referee's integrity) or racist abuse itself, it really can't get much worse. And let's not forget that, at the point this comment was made, it was clearly premediated and not a heated reaction immediately after the penalty decision. Bedoya was lucky Stoica went 2CT.