Difficult call, but isn't it generally the case that attackers are to have the benefit of the doubt - if there was so much ambiguity in the situation, then it would have been better not to call offside.
One day I'm going to sound like a broken record, but you've hit upon one of my biggest pet peeves. Striking is not, in any way whatsoever, an "automatic" red card. In your post, you admit as much when you say that Hejduk "reckless[ly]" got his elbows up. Elbowing someone is a strike. An elbow of a reckless nature implies a yellow card. When one strikes another player, it can be careless (ever see a player inadvertently hit a shorter person in the face with his hand while he's turning with he ball?), reckless or with excessive force. So it can be a simple foul, a yellow card, or a red card. Granted, the threshold for "excessive" force with a strike is much lower than with the other fouls, but you still can absolutely give just a caution or even nothing but a free kick when you call "striking." Is a headbutt more likely to be a red than other striking fouls? Yes. But you can still have a very innocuous, almost annoying type of headbutt to a relatively nonsensitive area (say the shoulder) that might not need a card at all if there didn't seem to be any malice or true force. Just like all other penal fouls (except spitting--but even with that, you need to make sure it's directed AT someone), it's a judgment call. As I said, I didn't see the DeRosario play so I can't say whether I thought it was red or yellow. But without seeing it, I still know yellow was absolutely a possibility. The notion that a striking fouls is an "automatic red card" is one of the biggest myths in soccer officiating that continues to perplex me. Sorry for the rant. We can now return to debating an offside call that, like someone else said, we're never going to solve (not that I don't think the debate, at most points, has been useful).
Sorry if I used "striking an opponent" in an improper way. I meant to use it to describe an egregious hit like a punch or a headbutt and not any sort of common contact like elbows up. I also used it in the context of retaliation which you ignored in your rant. I'll just defer to Alberto and the other refs who watched the incident and believe it should have been a red.
Didn't mean to ignore retaliation. But the principle still holds true. A relatively benign "get off of me" swat that barely makes contact in retaliation for a vicious foul should not, in my opinion, merit a sending off. You still evaluate the play on the merits. But I do get your point and understand what you're saying. Fair enough on this count, though I will point out that a few refs on here have said a yellow was enough.
Agree with MassRef's eloquent clarification about striking not being an 'automatic red.' Striking is a DFK foul and need not always be red. Agree also that a sendoff for that would have been too harsh a punishment. That said, DeRo really wasn't guilty of striking since the ball was not in play. That would be a caution for unsporting behavior, right?
Got to most vehimently disagree here. Ok we all agree that Heydude pulled off a cautionable action that would generally result in retaliation. That said. DeRosario got up and head butted Heydude in the back. It was a bush move and was clearly done with a purpose to hurt the opponent. My position on this is that DeRosario took a calculated risk that his head butt would not be treated the same way as a punch. The head butt is not the same as a slap. You apply it to the spinal column and it will hurt.
"DeRosario got up and head butted Heydude in the back." -- Agree, sorta. Calling it a headbutt is a little strong. More of a head bump or a head nudge. "It was a bush move." -- Agree. "[The headbutt] was clearly done with a purpose to hurt the opponent." -- Disagree. There was nowhere near enough force for that action to hurt Hejduk. It was more of a statement than a violent act. "My position on this is that DeRosario took a calculated risk that his head butt would not be treated the same way as a punch." -- Agree. But what did DeRo get out of this action? Not a whole lot, really.
If you have integrity you call what you see even if you see it different than others. The offside flag was raised, the referee backed the man with the flag with a whistle, the goal can not possibly count. INDFK out was the only real option even if the AR was mistaken. It matters not how close but how positive the AR is, in what he thinks he sees! I do agree though if you ARE undecided leave the flag down! It is important to note though ANY PLAYABLE body part is enough. A stretched out attacking leg puts the foot just a wee bit closer to the opposing goal line then the standing defender from a static position easily seen not so on ships passing in the night at full speed.
Totally agree. That was not a classic headbutt, more of a "pushing with the head". There was no way it was going to hurt Hejduk, which is why he got a yellow and not a red. Basically, it is like comparing someone putting a fist against a guys chest and pushing him vs. taking a swing with a fist and hitting him in the chest.
I still consider it violent conduct and even a short tap to the spinal column is going to hurt. Have someone try it on you and then post back with your observation.
I can accept and agree with the yellows to both DeRossario and Hedjuk. I would ask however if any of you think the card color to both would have been different if Hedjuk took the bait and struck DeRossario. To me that was clearly DeRossario's intention and since balance seems to be a theme here would you have been okay with two send offs if Hedjuk retailiated?
Yes, you send off Hedjuk. Look we are talking about men, not children. They need to be in control of their emotions and think their heads, not use them as battering rams. There is a clear escalation of violent actions in all sports. If the players get the message that retaliation and violent conduct will result in send offs, it is only for the good of the game. There is a clear erosion of civil behavior in society and it is more pronounced in sports.
Obviously you send off Hedjuk but do you change DeRossario's card as well? That's the heart of my question.
Alberto would have sent off DeRosario for his actions, anyway, so the question as posed to him is moot. Has video surfaced of this incident, yet?
I know. I haven't seen a video on the net yet. I will say that the referee's body language suggested to me that he didn't decide to give Hedjuk a card until DeRossario earned his.
Thanks. Not even close for me. No way I send him off. The initial foul by Hejduk, where he catches DeRosario in the head with his elbow while DeRosario is airborne and vulnerable, is infinitely more dangerous. Two yellows appeared just and seemed to take care of things. This might be heresy, but unless something occurred that wasn't seen in that replay, in a vaccum (meaning, not necessarily in this match and at this juncture) I think you could get away with two stern tongue lashings in some cases.
Agree. Most times, I'd probably go yellow to both players but in certain cases, you might be better off with 2 warnings instead of 2 cautions.
If it had been head to head, then DeRosario would have seen red... Hard to call, I would have been tempted to show the red card if I was the ref, the Hejduk foul didn't look dangerous to me. Compare with Figo vs. van Bommel: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CuaTyFI-q_8