I agree. Terrible decision. I think it has more to do with who commited the foul, than the actual foul itself.
I fully support what the League is attempting to do here. Since it's inception MLS has been much to physical and IMO will never mature as a league and as a place where players will develop to the highest ability until skill is rewarded and thuggery is punished. Bully Joseph earned this suspension.
I agree completely. Live, I didn't even think it was a foul (between the camera angle, my growing intoxication and a solid bias), I thought he had been pushed of the ball and accidentally took out Villar with his flailing leg. The replay confirms that I was far from correct and that Shalrie committed a foul which should be punished with a red/suspension/fine. I'm very glad that the league is reviewing these, though I wonder if this one would had been reviewed had there not been an injury as well?
Do you just disagree with everyone? Just curious, you really don't think Shalrie potentially put Ricardo Villar in harms way?
MLS is doing the unthinkable and handing out suspensions after the fact. This has always been a hot button topic with people preaching that this will diminish the responsibilities and authority of referees. I'm actually curious how all these post game suspensions will in fact reveal everyone's paranoia to be true or false. One question that will undoubtedly come of all this is when a video replay clearly shows a goal being scored that was not called by the referee, will the league review it. Is that any different than handing out red cards due to video evidence? Will league award those goals? Isn't one of the end goals of all this post game reviewing to make sure justice is served, both good and bad? ...Interesting.
No league has the authority to change a result unless the referee misapplies the laws of the game. This rarely happens. In almost every case, the game is completely replayed. Suspending players doesn't effect the result of the game. It's merely an attempt to crack down on the dangerous fouls that endanger opponents.
I had a feeling a response like that was coming. It's Villar's fault for sneaking behind Shalrie and trying to steal the ball away. That's a yellow card in my book. No need for fine AND suspension.
You can't be serious. Handing out post-game suspensions is VERY different from awarding goals that should have counted, but didn't. If a league did that, would they then have the authority to discount goals post-game too? I'm open to goal line technology and even replays, but post-game addition/subtraction of goals is an awful suggestion.
This isn't even the first time this player has received a retroactive suspension. Who can forget Dave Sarah-can't filing a protest to the league and them suspending Joseph for the second leg of our playoff series with those @%$#*& Bar stewards a few years ago. In the end, justice was served as the Revs did a victory lap with the "Free Shalrie" banner, and the Fire cried all the way home like the pathetic losers that they are!
I think it's a very weak suspension. Joseph is trying to toe poke the ball away as he's falling. His front foot makes no contact with Villar. If he got the slightest of touches on the ball, no one would have said a word. Unfortunately his back leg rolls up on Villar's leg on the follow through. He was only suspended because of the injury, not the foul. There's dozens of fouls each week which are comparable to that, but because no one is injured, MLS ignores them. MLS need to stick to the rash/violent tackles. Saying Joseph's tackle was endangering the safety of the opponent, and thus an automatic red, would mean nearly every foul is a red card. For me, Shalrie isn't using excessive force, or going studs up, or tackling from behind, or two footed. It doesn't qualify as endangering the safety of the opponent. It was just unfortunate and wreckless; deserving of the caution he was given.
Leagues do this all the time. In fact, I think MLS too often handcuffs themselves from doing the right thing when it come to discipline. However, I don't like this decision.
Yes, but I don't think that was his intent. Big difference. I truely think he was going for the ball. I don't think he was doing it out of anger or revenge either which I do think would deserve this suspension and fine. But I definetly don't think that was the case here. Yellow card offense. If we start fining and suspending people for tackles like that, then players will start having to look for another job.
I've never understood the how people think that handing out suspensions after reviewing tape hurts referees' authority. How does telling players and coaches 'if you do something that the referee doesn't see, you can still get punished' lessen the ref's authority? The ref is still "the decider", and his word is law in games, it's not like if someone doesn't like a call, they can get the call changed in the game by going to someone else. I like the fact that players now know that they can't pull stuff behind the play or whatever, when they know the focus is elsewhere. I contrast this with the decision that just came down on Mario Balotelli, who would have gotten a 9 match ban according to the Guardian, but didn't due to a technicality. The ref "sort of" saw the incident - he saw the 2 of them come together, but the view was partially obscured leading to him missing the nasty foul - so they couldn't do anything after the fact. Had the ref completely missed it, then Balotelli would have been banned, but because he didn't see all of it, and got the call wrong, Balotelli gets away with it. Even Balotelli's own manager thought he should get punished. I like players being on notice, knowing that if they do something dirty, they'll get caught, as opposed to letting them try it, and if they're sneaky enough about it, they'll get away scott free. How many times in the past have we seen nasty stuff done to US players in CONCACAF matches, qualifiers or whatever, and you knew that the players had no fear of further punishment once they got away with it initially?
Even if Joseph get's the ball first, it's still serious foul play. That play was the definition of excessive force and it obviously endangered the opponent. This really isn't a matter of opinion. And yes, there are 3 to 4 red card worthy fouls in an average MLS game. Of course it wasn't intentional. Still a red card. When it comes to "serious foul play," the laws of the game say nothing about intent. Unintentional fouls can threaten the safety of opponents as well. Revenge isn't a requirement for serious foul play. A player can go into a tackle with the best of intentions to win the ball. If it endangers the safety of an opponent, it's a red card.
Actually, it is a matter of opinion. Excessive force is a subjective call. There's no guidelines. For me, it was wreckless, not excessive force. Excessive force would be tackling with such power that you could break an opponent's leg or foot. Villar was only injured because he got rolled on, it had nothing to do with the force of the tackle.
The official interpretation says this: and this Shalrie without a doubt exceeded the necessary use of force. He literally used more force than necessary. The only other qualifier for sfp is "endangering the safety of an opponent." This is the judgement call in the scenario. While opinion may be a factor in this call, keep in mind a panel of expert individuals agreed that this incident was serious foul play. These people are professionals, and thus more qualified to make this decision than any of us. Their opinion matters more than our own. Saying that a panel of professionals (referees, students of the LOTG) is wrong is akin to an unqualified individual coming into your place of work and informing you that you're doing your job wrong.
Again, this is where I disagree. "Necessary" is completely subjective. I didn't find his force exceptionally strong. I have no idea how the panel operates. Who brings the cases in front of the panel? Do team's protest incidents? Does MLS have a team of officials watching for potential cases? Shalrie's tackle, regardless of whether I agree was a red card, was no more worthy of red than dozens of other tackles, as you agreed. So why is this the only one singled out? I don't mind suspensions for punching/elbows/kicking out or studs up/two footed tackles. Those are all objective, it happened or it didn't. But "necessary force" is subjective. I have no doubt there are officials who would view this the same as I do. And there's obviously at least 5 who disagree with me.