Javier Morales Suffers Serious Injury (Ankle break?)

Without disagreeing with your overall point, Zakuani was Mullan's assignment, because Kimura (the right back) was overlapped upfield from Mullan. There was no right-sided player between Zakuani and the goal other than Mullan. Not that it excuses the tackle or anything, but Mullan was covering exactly where he was supposed to.

 

Mateofelipe got this right and I have heard no one else mention the angle Jason Kries had on the foul, He was looking at the foul from behind and did not see exactly, because of the angle how badly Mondaini was beaten and how far the ball was out of Mondaini's reach.

I would really like to hear Jason's take on the foul now that he has seen the replay as much as we have. I would bet my home his take on the severity of the foul has changed alot.

B'bye is right.

 

So when you go chasing after a guy because you are mad you got fouled, you shouldn't consider the risk of injury before lunging into a reckless tackle?

They backed themselves into a position consistent with civil liability law in the United States and Canada, with criminal law everywhere, and with a position that makes MLS players consider the potential consequences of dangerous conduct.

Mondaini's conduct had absolutely nothing with defending his goal within the laws of the game. He probably did not intend to break any bones. But he clearly intended to slide into the back of a man's ankles without any regard for the ball or fair challenges on the player.

The disciplinary committee is not "backed into a corner." It needs to meet its own standard and punish deliberate conduct more severely than reckless conduct.

 

I'm going to assume you mean "deliberate...more severely than unintentional."

Why does this logic not apply to the tackle Leathers made on Ferreira?
After all, Leathers "probably did not intend to break any bones. But he clearly intended to slide into the back of a man's ankles without any regard for the ball or fair challenges on the player (ed.: in as much as both players made a cursory effort for the ball when going through their victim's ankles to do so)." And we all know what the DC decided on Leathers.

That's the corner I think Westside Cosmo is referring too, but I can't speak for him.

 

Good point. Except that makes it worse for Mullan. Not only was he mad he lost the ball, he was mad his lack of success unjustified his decision to pinch to the center when Kimura was advanced. He was going to make damn sure his own poor decisions did not result in a Seattle goal.

 

Corrected. More severely than reckless. Unintentional is being too nice to Mullan.

 

I know Mullan is worse than Satan to Sounders fans, but I seriously doubt he intended to break Zakuani's leg.

It was a horribly reckless challenge born out of frustration. It deserved an extended suspension.

But this whole Dirty Mullan, Mullan the Butcher bullshit is old. Calling him a no talent hack with a history of thuggery is beyond stupid.

We're talking about a guy in his 13th MLS season who just picked up his 3rd red card in his entire career. We're talking about a guy who only racked up enough yellow cards in a single season to get an accumulation suspension twice. And that was very early in his career.

Is Mullan an extremely aggressive and competitive player. Hell yes. Is he a "dirty" player. No. History proves that.

I realize Seattle fans are unaware that MLS actually existed prior to 2009, but c'mon.

 

Oh, I thought you were still talking about Mondiani with that part of the sentence. No qualms here with 'reckless'.

 

I am not a zit-faced twenty-year-old. If you are going to go all ad hominem, at least be aware of the hominus.

I have been an MLS fan from jump. I was aware of Mullan's skills and attributes before Seattle MLS existed. I have never said he is a dirty player. I have said MLS is a thuggish league. The fact that Mullan would make that particular tackle makes him the frog in the pot who dies when his blood boils because the temperature was raised gradually. MLS does not have a Mullan problem, it has a cultural problem.

 

I don't believe anyone has suggested that Mullan intended to break Zakuani's leg.

 

Do we know when the penalty will be announced?

 

I would guess Thursday. Could be Wednesday or Friday though. I would start looking for it on Wednesday though. And if it doesn't show up on Thursday for some reason it will be there on Friday.

 

I completely agree with this point. Mondaini made one of the worst tackles in league history in terms of likelihood of success (assuming he had any intent to play the ball), and I knew that before he left his feet. That aspect of the tackle was abhorrent to me, and the fact that his target player was the league MVP. If MLS comes down on him hard, it will be for these reasons, as well as the severity of the injury. My point was that as outrageously out of place as I thought that tackle was, I didn't expect Morales to be severely injured as a a result. But I couldn't see that he landed on the back of Morales' ankle.

I still believe the Wahl foul probably had no bearing at all on the Zakuani tackle, and was merely coincidental. After all, it was "a tackle that I've done hundreds of times". The Wahl foul was far too inconsequential to go into a flying rage about, unless there had been multiple fouls, and it was far too early in the game for that to be the case.

 

I hear what you're saying, but it's pretty unfair, I think. *I* don't complain when the refs call too much; I expect the players to adjust. There are posters on bigsoccer who think the refs are too lenient, there are posters who think they're too harsh, and there are posters who are confused in the way you're describing. But I believe they're in the minority.

 

A lot of red cards were issued early in the season, and many faulted the referees for this.

 

I think it was the Ferreira thread where I suggest a 180 degree or even a 270 degree zone of safety for slide tackles. ANY slide tackle from behind is an automatic yellow, with the referee having leeway to show red if he feels it's warranted is an example of a policy the Fed could establish.

I would like such a policy. At the least, it should be an automatic foul whether there's contact or not.

Alot of Houston and Colorado fans are completely mischaracterizing that tackle. Leathers came from behind but swung his foot in from the side. He didn't come through the back of the man!

 

And just as many, if not more, didn't.

 

What he said was that 'unintentional is too nice for Mullan.' You can see the problem here, and it would probably have been better that he left that line out, because the clarification was a far more effective explanation than the original statement.

 

Wait, I thought BigSoccer had decided that Mullan was getting revenge for being fouled and the ball was so far away from the Rapids goal there was no need to make the tackle. Now you're saying Mullan was trying to make up for a stupid play he made and he was preventing a good Seattle chance at goal. Which is it?

Maybe not break his leg, but there has been more than one poster in the multiple BigSoccer threads who has (implicitly or explicitly) stated that Mullan was trying to injure Zakuani.

 

Just going over some of the things I hear in regard to reffing, I think he has a point:
"let the players play"
"don't slow the game down"
"punish the thugs"
"there was no malice in that challenge"
"ref thinks he's the star"
"ticky-tack/niggling"
"players win games, coaches lose games, refs ruin games"
etc etc

I'm not sure if this applies to any individuals (it could always be different people saying these things), but the net effect is that the body of fans in general sound as if they are trying to hold two or more attitudes at the same time that conflict. And we absolutely excoriate our officials (be they league officials, refs, etc) for ignoring one of them, even if it's to uphold another.

Also, I think players do adjust if refs really take charge. . . but I don't think the adjustment happens within a game or two. So be prepared for that to make it worse before it got better. (I can still remember MLS's old foreign-exhange ref program, and how the visceral reaction to when a foreign-exchange ref [Scottish, I think] doled out 11 cards more or less ended that program.)

 

Well said. This fan/commentator hypocrisy is something we see on every EPL broadcast at least a dozen times a match. Maddening. Wanting it both ways and not having the balls to do either. It looks like we are copying that culture way to much.

I understand hard play, but when your best talents start going down every week there is a problem. A real problem.

If each top club in the big leagues lost their best player for 4 weeks straight it would not be ignored.

We are copying the wonderful hypocrisy and two faced attitude we see on FOX every match. Depressing.

 

The Dunfield-on-Mikulic tackle in the first half of Vancouver-Chicago should've been a straight red. It was given only yellow. This says to me that the criteria have to be adjusted.

It's a classic example of a near-miss that would've been red had Mikulic not gotten his foot unplanted, and Mikulic would've been added to our list.

It wasn't just studs-up at field level, it was a locked leg with studs at shin level at full speed.

The refs can't keep waiting to see a bone jutting out of a sock before giving a red card.

 

In light of what occurred as a result of this tackle, and in light of the fact that tackles like this often injure players in one way or another, don't you think this "mis-characterization" is a rather moot point?

It's the same as me trying to make an (ludicrous) argument that Mullan's tackle is somehow more tolerable/doesn't deserve suspension because he came at Zakuani full-on at the side in a "legal position" to make a sliding tackle from.
Meanwhile, I'd be ignoring the way Mullan got airborne, the force he tackled with, the retaliatory/"send a message" elements of the tackle, and the fact that it's likely ended a player's season.

And if you want to get really anal about it all, watch the replay of the Morales injury. Mondaini also came in from behind, but also tried to swing his legs in from the side to get the ball from around Morales's left side. He just failed miserably and clipped Morales' ankle before the leg swung through to attempt to play the ball, whereas Leathers was "more fortunate" (in quotes because of how silly it is to use the phrase here) to get part of the ball before clipping Ferreira.

Now, I stand on ElJefe's side with all of this. The tackles may not have been mirror images, with the timing just milliseconds off, the distances from the ball/player clearly exaggerated. But the intent and actions and result were close enough to each other that there's no reason we should all pretend this is an apples-and-oranges comparison. If we're going to treat it like such, ignoring the nature of the tackle made and focusing only on the results, just because a player got a bit of the ball, don't expect injuries like these to disappear from MLS.

 

I appreciate the discussion of specific cases. I believe this is the only way referees can become consistent with calls, and the only way the bar can be moved up or down in determining how the calls are to be made.

"It's a classic example of a near-miss that would've been red had Mikulic not gotten his foot unplanted, and Mikulic would've been added to our list."

I would say it is a classic example of a high foot with studs exposed which does not play the ball, blocking the opponent's follow-through and coming into contact with the upper foot of the opponent.

Banfield did not come near enough to Mikulic's plant leg for me to consider the tackle dangerous on this account.

"It wasn't just studs-up at field level, it was a locked leg with studs at shin level at full speed."

Banfield's leg was almost fully extended when he made contact with Mikulic, but describing the leg as "locked" is an exaggeration. Banfield's foot was at the same height as the ball, so calling it "shin level" is also inaccurate, unless Mikulic attempted to kick the ball with his shin, which he didn't.

However, the game would certainly be made safer without allowing this sort of play. Considering how little Banfield had to gain from completing the tackle successfully, it certainly should have been a red card, IMO. Banfield has made several dangerous tackles already this season, although I would have to perform an extensive review to give an accurate portrayal. He might be one of the leagues "thugs".

There was a tackle early in the RSL match that should have been cautioned IMO but wasn't. Due to MLS technical difficulties, I don't have the exact time. Chris Wingert took a dangerous swipe at Simon Elliott and Elliott was saved from injury only by his awareness to pull away from the tackle. Elliott went tumbling, but Wingert was not carded.