I'm interested in what referees think of Pat Onstad getting cautioned for knocking down Fredy Montero last night after the ball went out of play. I expected a send-off, but I'm not a ref. The video can be seen in Bill Archer's blog.
I'd be interested to see what others think, too. I can hear the USSF justification of a yellow now: "well, it wasn't contact above the shoulders..." I think this is either a case of A) a higher standard for red cards in the playoffs OR B) over-instruction (since it didn't fit nicely in the "contact above the shoulders" instruction, it becomes not as recognizable as VC). The ball was out of play and I don't know how you classify Onstad's actions as anything but violent. He then, in my eyes (though the video can't confirm this), leans over Montero in an intimidating fashion and then grabs his face (after no contact?) in an attempt to make sure Montero gets the same punishment as him. I'm usually all for justice and a sense of "evenness" in these sort of skirmishes. But it sure looks like Onstad not only started this unprovoked, but he was clearly the worst aggressor. I see it as a red card for violent conduct.
I agree it could have gone either yellow or red. As a ref, you could defend either action. What I see as being hard to defend is the equal punishment (yellow) for both players, when Onstad was clearly the aggressor trying to bait Montero into a card. If you're going with a yellow for Onstad, don't give Montero a card and only talk to him verbally about the dangers of retaliation. Or you could defend a red for Onstad and a yellow for Montero; were it not a playoff game, I think we would have seen that situation.
First time through the clip I saw Onstand bump (hard) Montero, but when I saw Montero's hand go to his face while he was still standing and how he dropped (and having seen Montero flop several times during the season) I thought that maybe Onstad didn't really bump him that hard. Then I agreed with the two yellows (game disrepute and embellishing). After watching a few more times I lean more to a red for VC and a yellow for embellishing. I think the bump was enough to level Montero but he still embellished. A classic example of The Boy Who Cried "Wolf!"
You ever watch Stanley Cup games? There is a different standard in the playoffs. Looked like the ref didn't expect it and just took the appropriate, yet easy, way out. ---- To me, borderline Red to the keeper, but not in the playoffs.
I wondered at the time, and still do, if Montero did or said something to Onstad first on that play to provoke the shove. The camera is too far away to tell on the initial view, and the close-up at the end starts a couple of seconds too late. The shove just looked so totally irrational coming from a 41 year-old veteran.
I think this is correct. It's the playoffs and the officials will put up with a little more contact than normal. Should they? Probably not - but the fact is they do and they do it in every sport. You even see it in the final couple of rounds of the Champions League. Remember all of the non-calls in the Chelsea/Barca semi?
Giving a Red to Onstad for that would be pretty sad. Salazar handled it the best way he could, I don't see what can be gained by giving a red. Especially for that chest bump, these guys are men don't treat them like they're 13.
And that's a fair position to take, particularly in an amateur league. But it's impossible to reconcile with what the standard for violent conduct has been all year in the MLS. The "what do we gain?" standard hasn't really been part of the instructions with MLS recently (at least not with red cards). It's been the mentality of "you do the crime, you get sent off--period." There have been a lot of "soft" red cards for violent conduct this year (the ball-drop incident, as an example). I really don't think anyone can honestly argue that what Onstad did wouldn't have been considered a red card in one of the WiRs this year. I think that either Salazar didn't see it as cleanly as replay shows, or he consciously chose to downgrade to a yellow because of the situation. But Salazar gave red cards this year for less than what Onstad did.
Yeah I don't know about Salazar. I'm gonna say that I wouldn't have given a red for it, I don't think it deserves one.
I'm reading the whole incident completely different. My impression is that Onstad was walking towards - and yelling at - Ricardo Salazar. He points right at Salazar even as Monteiro is standing right in front of him. It was only after he bumped Monteiro and Fredy went down like he'd been shot that Onstad even acknowledges him. Am I misreading Onstad's intentions? The players saw Monteiro on the ground and Onstad over him telling him to get up, so they reacted accordingly. A red for Onstad and yellow for Monteiro? Try that imbalance on for size and watch what happens the rest of the match. Guaranteed Monteiro leaves due to opponent-inflicted injury later on. Those kinds of decisions are why referees get assaulted. And what about a caution for (Mullan?) for being 3rd man in and then berating Salazar as he's sorting it out. I would've flat out told him to shut the hell up. Then again, I'm sure that would've gone over well.
It seems like Montero was likely offside on the play, although it wasn't called. I suspect Onstad took offense at the way Montero deliberately held a Houston defender, Boswell?, and tossed him aside as Onstad tried to make a play for the ball. Montero may have simulated at that point as well, which also may have reasonably drawn some angst from Onstad. Onstad's charge was definitely borderline red. Onstad was certainly "playing with fire". Consider his push of Montero made during the previous corner kick. It took place at 13:34, atlhough is shown on replay more clearly, but from a distance, at 14:23. Does that type of foul ever get called? I am not sure, but it sure looked like a risky play by Onstad to me. While Montero's behavior was borderline unsporting, Onstad's behavior was clearly unsporting. With such disparity in the level of unsportingness, I question why it makes any sense to issue cards of equal color to both players. Onstad is the player who clearly crossed the line; he should be the one to get the card (or maybe he gets a red while Montero gets at most a yellow). Onstad did put his hands to his face, but it certainly possible that he actually got hit in the face. We simply cannot see.
Can I card Monteiro for the two little lines carved on the side of his head. Just kidding. But seriously, is he celebrating the Sounders NASL days and reliving 1983?
Yes. What exactly would you be giving Montero a yellow card for? Actually, Evans was the third man in. Mullan was the fourth man in, reacting to the wild-eyed appearance of Evans. Mullan was initially trying to diffuse the situation, but he may have done enough to earn a caution for dissent.
I've watched Montero all season and he's, what, the most often fouled player in the league? He's small and easily up ended. Sure, he has simulated, but he's no where close to a professional diver like, say, Carlos Ruiz was. I've watched the tape a few times from a few different angles, and Onstad flattened him.
It's a mans game...get up and play. Yellow for Onstad, you so much as breathe on another player you're gone. Did anyone see what Montero did before that? Onstad looked pretty pissed, maybe Montero earned a yellow for something besides simulation?
I just really can't see giving a red card in this situation. I am with falcon 7 it almost looked like Onstad was looking past Montero. Even if he wasn't I just think it would be awful to give a red and let Montero roll around on the ground like he got shot and draw that red card. Was Onstad stupid if he did it on purpose...absolutely..if he gets a red for doing can he really have any complaints...probably not. But to let Montero embellish and act like an as$%ole and cause the other team to lose a man would ruin the playoff game IMO...I know it should be the same as the regular season but in reality it's not and there is a ton at stake that I think Salazar took into account. Something I have done myself a time or too..
I agree, it's different in the playoffs, not recognizing that is to your own detriment. I'm a Sounders fan but I couldn't justify giving a red for something like that. You're looking at a long game if you red card someone that early, it's going to be the talk of that game and the next...you'd better be 100% on it.
Personally, I think a red in that situation would have been a disservice to the game. I'd have a hard time justifying a chest bump as violent conduct, especially when Onstad never had eyes for Montero until after he hit the ground.
Onstad was way out of line. Watching the video in real time and then watching the slow motion replay, his actions constitute violent conduct. He got off easy with a caution. Given the lousy quality of the video it's difficult to see what caused Onstad to get so angry. All I can see is that Montero was next to the keeper when the cross came into the PA. Was Onstad thinking Montero was purposely screening him? Montero has a right to his place on the field of play. Why Montero was cautioned I cannot tell.
Saying that he isn't as bad as Ruiz is damning with faint praise He gets fouled a lot. He is second in the league (behind Ljungberg), but that is no way excuses simulation (which he did not do this time). I abhor simulation, to the point that I yell at my own team's players when they dive. What Montero did was embellishment and in a way that I consider to be worthy of contempt. The directives from FIFA and the USSF make it clear that contact with the face should be punished with a red card. By putting his hand to his own face Montero was trying to deceive the referee and get Onstad sent off for contact to the face when no such contact even happened. That is a particularly low form of cheating and should be severely punished. (Onstad also grabbed his face but I could not tell if there was contact or not.)
I think we should also look at what Salazar did, and what the result of his actions were. He issued 2 cautions, and we can argue about whether or not each was the "correct" decision, but in the end the players accepted the justice which was handed down. Sure, players were upset and yelling while it was happening, but after it was over the read I got was that everyone came away generally satisfied. The temperature of the game definitely went way up after the incident, but that's to be expected in this situation. The game never got "dirty", players were not meting out their own justice, and the game went on. I think some are looking at this as "this happened so this has to be the punishment". What about reading the game, and reading what the players want? Forget what's right by the book, what about what's right by the game? In hindsight, based on what Salazar did and what occurred after the incident, I think the actions that he took were entirely appropriate and correct. THIS is refereeing. Not some robotic input/output sequence but reading what is happening and deciding what the best course of action is based on that day, that game, and that incident.
Again, this is fine. In fact, it's better than fine--it's ideal. This has always been the type of refereeing to which I ascribe. My point, though, is that we've gone an entire year where the "robotic input/output sequence" has been the norm. How many "contact above the shoulders" red cards this year could have easily been dealt with by issuing a lesser punishment? If MLS referees are free to do what you've espoused in your post, then I'll be the first one applauding the change. If you think I'm arguing for a red card on Onstad because I personally feel it should be mandatory, you're missing my point. My point is that every single sign we saw this year in the WiRs points to the opposite conclusion of what you write. And I don't think it's right that such a philosophy suddenly changes in the playoffs.
Are we seeing the same video....he hit him with his shoulder into his body, there was no above the shoulders contact.