Let me restate this. Leathers committed a reckless sliding tackle from slightly behind that snapped the players ankle as he went through Ferreira's leg to get to the ball. How is it that touching any part of the ball despite going right through the other player somehow absolves the player of any recklessness or injury to the other player. Football is a rough game. I played long enough and had enough broken bones to say I don't mind a physical game. Where I have a problem is where defenders are leaving their feet and throwing themselves to ground much to often when they are beaten.
Ferreira will be impossible for FCD to replace. This would be like RSL losing Morales. (probably worse than that, because Dallas isn't as deep as RSL) Eric Avila's gonna have to really shine. I was impressed with Bryan Leyva at the Dallas Cup. He's young, but maybe he'll be give a chance now. As for the play itself, I'm torn. This is clearly a different scenario than the Mullan-Zakuani incident.
Is that actually what happened? Because just based on the replay, it looks more likely that the injury was caused by Ferreira's ankle contacting the ground at a unfortunate angle after he was knocked off balance. The tackle itself looks pretty run-of-the-mill.
As I saw it, the order of these events was the other way around. While I, personally, would like for FIFA to issue a directive that any slide tackle from behind the attacker (a 180 degree "zone of safety" if you get my point) is an automatic red (or perhaps an automatic yellow, drawing a red under certain conditions) that is not currently the rule. Currently, the rule is that if you get the ball first AND you don't use excessive force, etc., it's a good tackle.
I seem to remember FIFA trying to establish something along those lines prior to the 1998 (I think) World Cup, and it being a complete failure. For such a rule to have any hope of working, it would have to require an automatic yellow at worst, rather than an automatic red. If a the punishment is red, refs will be very reluctant to call the infraction, and defenders will recognize that and respond accordingly.
I see what you're saying, but I disagree. To me, the problem was FIFA deciding to set a new standard in the freakin' World Cup. Do it starting July 1, 2011, and it'll be easier for the refs. Second, FIFA put in a "don't touch the ball if it's not yours or you get a yellow for delay" standard in for a WYC in 2005 or 2007, and while the first few matches saw alot of cards, the players quickly figured it out. The key thing is, the various FAs around the world have to back up referees who give red cards, and drop referees who don't. Granted, in all this, I'm assuming that a red rather than a yellow is the desired sanction. So I'm getting a bit off track. I agree that it should be a yellow absent aggravating circumstances (two feet, excessive force, or a boot higher than the opponent's ankle, for example). I'm just pointing out that there's no reason soccer players and referees around the world couldn't get it right within a month. The main thing, IMO, is to make it a yellow card even if you get the ball first, which it appeared to me Leathers did. Hey, Leathers, don't get beat and you won't have to engage in an inherently dangerous challenge. "I got the ball first" shouldn't be a defense of this kind of play.
ANY slide tackle? So even if the player gets only the ball, and doesn't touch the opposing player, it should be an automatic red or yellow.. You do realize that is what you're stating right?
FROM BEHIND. So long as you realize I'm not talking about slide tackles originating in the 180 degrees (or in the stricter form, 90 degrees) in front of the attacking player, yes, I do realize what I'm saying. There's some verbiage in what distinguishes a common foul from a bookable offense...it might be "reckless." I'm not a ref, so I don't really know. But for the sake of argument, let's say the word is "reckless." All you'd have to do is specify that a slide tackle from behind is, by definition, reckless. Sort of like how DOGSO fouls merit a red card.
I guess I just feel like if you're skilled enough to make a tackle from behind (or within the off-limits 180 degrees that you're referring to) and ONLY take the ball, it is really unfair to punish that player. That rule would not go over well with players OR fans.
I understand what you're saying. But from a practical perspective...what percentage of slide tackles originating from behind have ZERO contact, excepting plays when the attacker jumps out of the way of inevitable contact. If that percentage isn't zero, it's close enough to be a rounding error. I, personally, prefer to make the game safer and the ref's job easier and less controversial by saying any such challenge. It would suck if my team made that 1 in a 1000 slide tackle from behind and my guy picked the ball clean but picked up a 2nd yellow and was sent off.
No he didn't have that much time but this just shows how inferior Leathers is as a defender compared to how good Ferreira is as an attacker. A proper defender like Vidic or Pique wouldn't of even had to make a tackle there. They would have kept up with the pace of Ferreira, keep the appropriate spacing and use their upper body to usher Ferreira out of bounds or block the ball without having to lunge in. So if MLS doesn't punish these fouls consistently with yellow cards we're basically saying that if the attacker gets a step on you just go ahead and tackle through their leg and it's ok as long as you get even the slightest touch on the ball. I mean if you get the ball but you knock the attacker's leg before or at the same time it's still a foul. A proper slide tackle is a sweeping motion kind of like a sickle. I'm sure that's what Leathers was trying to do but he was late and he had no clean angle on the ball. Obvious yellow
I'm going to have to agree any tackle from behind should be an automatic yellow (maybe a red depending on the severity). The game suffers if reckless tackles are allowed to be made routinely. I'd much rather see "the beautiful game" than the thuggery I see too much of today. If the defenders cannot learn how to defend properly, then they do not belong in MLS. Maybe it'll take a few years of "cultural training" but MLS refs and players need to start emphasizing ball skills instead of thuggery skills.
What have I said with statistics from the game that is not objective enough for you? Of course I am upset but I am not arguing emotionally, I am arguing facts. 36 fouls, and everyone that watched the entire game has said there were quite a few fouls not called. You, on the other hand, are arguing some intangible collective wisdom on the part of MLS defenders. Other posters are wondering why you ignore the laws of the game regarding tackles from BEHIND. My real frustration is the larger one in the way games are called in MLS.
I have got to admit... I think this one is caused by the turf. I can't say whether or not it would've happened on grass, but there was so much of the rubber in-fill on that field, parts of it looked nearly black at times.
The good news is that just about nobody in MLS has proven skilled enough to pull this off, so we may as well make it a hard-and-fast rule until someone does develop that skill.
Bingo. It's the reason why Michael Parkhurst was consistently one of the players with the fewest fouls in the league while he was a starter in defense. It's also the reason why he was snapped up very quickly by FC Nordsjælland and why he's been a starter for them ever since.
I know who employs the refs. Thanks for the tears. cser If you think the league doesn't talk to refs about calls and what to watch for you are the idiot you were accusing me of. If you think that people haven't complained about the rough play and NON calls in MLS , you new. God damn half of this board could be professional drama queens.
So, the dumb fvck who used the term "stabbing grandma" is now accusing someone else of being a "drama queen." Guess you told me.
No such thing as a retroactive yellow card. I think........... I think if you'll read thru this thread you won't even find an FCD fan calling for the suspension of Leathers. Although I did see one call for the suspenion of the Vancouver turf!! This was a completely different situation than the Mullan/Zakuani incident. I suspect that if it didn't occur on the same weekend as the Zakuani incident, we wouldn't even be discussing it from a disciplinary perspective. It's a bad tackle, obviously. It should have gotten a card during the game. Some would argue a red card, and have done so. To me it's borderline yellow-red. But there was absolutely zero malicious intent. And if I'm looking at the play properly, the turf had as much to do with the actual injury as Leathers' tackle. And that's coming from an FCD fan.
I can't believe you missed the guy with the peashooter on the grassy knoll. It is smack in the middle of the screen grab. He shot the pea that grazed Ferreira's pompadour and that is what caused him to change his stride and plant his ankle right there for Leathers to nail. Look closely next time.
You've made only two posts all year, and this is what has you upset? I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "toe caught in the turf" theory that so many have talked about, including the commentator during the match. I would like to get a more detailed view of the play, for sure.
I don't want to rain on people's parade, but I don't think the level of play in MLS has risen all that much. Or I should say, while it has risen a lot in places, because of the rapid expansion there are still a lot of college level defenders/inexperienced players plying there trade in the league, who have never/rarely seen anything like Ferreia, Zakuani, Schelotto, Morales, Henry, etc. When the two collide, you get a lot of injuries. Throw in the fact the refs are terrible and seem to allow at least two yellow worthy tackles for free every game, allow tackles from behind to go unpunished too often, and never seem to show red for two footed lunges unless the players gets his leg broken (like Zakuani), and it is even worse. Top it off with the fact that Greedy Garber and his minions have been gleefully slopping up expansion fees without caring that almost every new team he has allowed to expand plays on turf, or did when they entered (RSL, Toronto, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver) that now, 22.2% of league games are played on turf (New England, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver = 4/18). Thankfully, TFC, RSL, and NY have gone from turf to grass, or we'd have 7/18, or nearly 40% of games on the fake). Look, I'm not saying I don't like the atmosphere or don't think the fans haven't been great in those cities, I'm just saying that turf leads to more injuries (and crappier soccer) than grass. And if the league was really serious about raising the quality of play, which means attracting quality players and keeping them healthy, they would do the following: 1) Start calling the games tighter to stamp out brutish play 2) Stop rapid expansion that dilutes the talent base 3) Get serious about playing on grass to protect the players and present a better product. I fully understand the difficulties with #1 as USSF is in charge of the refs, but #2 and #3 are fully within league control and there is no way they make any progress on either.