Mike Petke: stay or go?

I think it’s relevant because, before this incident, RSL has never publicly rebuked Petke for his public defamation of officials in the past. Yet, MLS has suspended him for criticizing referees in each of the last 3 years. I honestly believe DLH purposefully did not connect the dots in the interview because the dots were not, in fact, connected. Instead he lead the listener to infer that there was a nexus. Again, it’s a deflection. Yes, it sounded great. And it was a nice story about how RSL is training youth referees. But, in the end, it’s a contrived connection.

 

Oh, come on! Petke wasn't thinking about consequences at all.

How about this: After being a likable, personable, handsome arrogant prick for an entire lifetime and as a player, losing a job as head coach and then getting a 2nd chance, he felt invincible. He finally went too far, and is completely unapologetic, having learned nothing other than "doubling down on being an asshole" and "never accepting blame for one's mistakes" pays.

I'd like to ironically say "Interesting strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off!", but I think that it often does.

 

Interestingly, I absolutely agree with you. My take differs only in that I think RSL enabled his behavior and probably reinforced it by not rebuking him in the past. Of course he wasn’t thinking about consequences...Why should he have? RSL had never given him cause to think about them.

 

But HEY it’s a major value of the organization.

 

I agree with you to a point - I think RSL certainly has a lot of blame in creating the monster that Petke was on that night. The whole printer thing was nothing but a tirade against officials that many found charming but, with the benefit of hindsight, should have received more scrutiny.

At this point nothing can be changed of it. I hope the organization learns to be weary of not only accepting but "rewarding" that kind of behavior. There is nothing wrong with publicly backing your coach, but you don't have to do it in those type of situations.

 

Has Kyle ever waited in the tunnel to reinforce his anger, and then sent written confirmation of his disrespect? Apples and oranges.

 

I have to disagree with the implication of this post. Kyle knows exactly how far he can take it in any game. He IS Crash Davis to the umpires. If he wanted to get thrown out, he knows the magic words. In reality, Kyle dances on the line and the referees, at this point, know that Kyle IS the most experienced person, regardless of role, on the pitch for any game.

What Petke did had noting to do with complaining during a game in an effort to influence future calls. It was an attack.

Side note: I'm waiting for the half time quiz that says:
When Petke went after the Panamanian referee, how many separate incidents were involved: a) 1; b) 2; c) 3?

While I am pointing that out with humor, I have a feeling that most of the fans defending him do not know the answer. On Wednesday, the season ticket holders around me ALL knew the answer and all supported the firing.

 

Legally speaking, DLH should not be doing an ad-hoc interview like that.

I guess the only real positive is that this will become something of a proverb in US Soccer. I pretty much feel sorry for everyone involved.

Life is suffering. Get a bowl.

 

You made my point better than I did. All of this stems from the concocted PR story that DLH gave in that interview. The one in which he tried to give the impression that Petke’s behavior after the Tigres game grossly violated the important RSL Value of respecting referees and being a role model to all of these youth referee trainees. If it truly is an important value then the club should have reined in KB long ago (but since it really ISN’T an important value to them there was no way they were going to do that).

 

I think that if the referees started handing out yellow and red cards like Halloween candy, maybe the players would get the idea that you open your mouth, you get a yellow card.

It really amazes me that the refs don't "make it rain" yellow cards when they get crowded by the players after a foul. All the ref needs to say is "I want to talk to this player and that player and the next player who comes within 5 feet of me or opens his mouth gets a yellow card". And then "make it rain".

 

Petke's previous "abuse" of referees on the field during games was nothing exceptional at all. Many coaches around the league treat them similarly or worse. Ever seen Bruce Arena or Peter Vermes on the sideline? Caleb Porter?

Instead, any of his antics prior to the Tigres incident were in after match interviews and were more taunts of the league - the printer issue, drain my wallet, etc. (at least he didn't say that the league can't touch him because he "is MLS" or that the playoff system is shit). I believe the team actually posted comedic references to the printer issue on rsl.com that seemed to glorify it. If they are now condemning it, I call foul. Certainly hypocritical.

I think the Tigres issues stands at face value. It is what it is, and it's not a "culmination" of a number of previous anger issues as some have attempted to paint it. Previously he had simply shared similar frustrations that other coaches have over the years. He just did it in typical over-the-top Petke style. Like others, I'm just trying to still understand the process RSL took in making the decision, and the timeline. The two interviews I've seen/heard with DLH haven't really created much clarity in my mind. My suspicion actually has been that they were not planning on terminating him, but a couple of key sponsors asked to meet to talk about it. That's when DLH inexplicably shared his thoughts with a group of fans. The next day he met with the sponsors, and TADA - Petke is gonzo. And the interviews he has given appear to be a poor attempt to connect some not very connectable dots to make it sound like the team took an extremely logically and admirable approach (it was all about values!). I suspect it was more about sponsorship.

I have no proof or certainty that's what happened. Just a hunch based on some of the snippets of info we have. I could be way off, and I'm likely just way too cynical.

None of my thoughts are an indication that I approve of what Petke did (quite the opposite), but at this point I'm very interested in how RSL handled this whole situation.

 

It doesn't seem a stretch to think they are related but not mutually exclusive. Like, he started out with the intent of sticking with Petke, but then he still listened to lots of constituents, and to the sponsors, and to consider the context of Gail Miller's stand taken earlier this year.

 

Oh , I’m pretty sure this is exactly what transpired. But note that none of those factors have anything to do with a corporate value of being in control or being good examples for the youth referee trainees. All of that was pure blarney introduced to make people feel good and to lead them to come to their own conclusions that the termination was all about RSL’s high standards, Which it wasn’t.

IMO the interview was just another FO face plant. Poorly thought out. Amateurish. Although DLH actually did a good job selling it. It probably influenced viewers who didn’t critically analyze what he said. I’ll also give him credit for not lying. In the interview he didn’t connect the dots. He was deceptive, but he didn’t lie.

By extension, one has to hope that in its termination notice RSL didn’t use those ‘values’ as the “for cause” criteria. If so, his lawyer will figuratively bend them over a barrel.

 

I think it does factor in. We have competing values/DLH has competing values: internal loyalty is one, and it is something that was probably up front initially. But when you look at the broader panoply and start any sort of tally sheet, the wider issues win out. Whoever in the organization is responsible for the referee training program probably raised it, pointed out the way it represents the organizational values, and DLH kenned it. And it apparently resonated with him, hence it being part of the justification in that interview with Bill Riley.

(Panoply and kenned in the same late-night post = time for bed!)

 

I can see that. But why wasn’t it important the previous times he publicly criticized the officials? To me there’s no gray here. It’s black and white. Publicly criticizing them is absolutely an action of disrespect and not consistent with those organizational values. Unless there previously was no such organizational value, and they simply created one when the director of the training program brought it up after the latest incident.

 

Could have been important there too, just handled internally. Or not important because it was more work-a-day criticism that myriad coaches and players and fans do. Petke really did go into uncharted territory here.

 

In the Black & White scenario I described it doesn’t matter what other clubs or employees of other clubs do. All that matters is what RSL does to stick by its stated values and making sure those kids don’t have hypocrisy as the role model.

 

Internally too: workaday (though still unfortunate) criticism of the variety myriad coaches and players in the RSL/Monarchs/Royals/Academy structure do.

 

The difference, IMO, is the emotion. DLH is saying they value being in control of yourself and your emotions. The times Petke criticized the refs during press conference are a different animal because he maintained control of his emotions. This was different because he went mental and had zero control.