2009 Discussion: Around the League [R]

Teams can ask the MLS discipline committee to review misconduct that the referee team does not call. I believe that the teams trigger this. I'm not sure if MLS will do this on their own initiative, although it is possible.

The question has been raised about MLS reviewing other calls. The answer is no, they review misconduct that the referee team did not see. They can also review protests about misapplications of the LOTG.

Goal/no goal: not reviewable.
Issuing a card to the wrong player: reviewable.
Only a foul is called and it should have also been misconduct: not reviewable.
Referee missed a foul: not reviewable.
Referee missed misconduct: reviewable.
Referee gave wrong restart: reviewable and if upheld the game will be replayed. This is not for a throwin awarded to the wrong team or a goal kick/corner mistake. It would be for things like an indirect kick in the area for handling, retaking a PK when it should have been an IFK out, that sort of thing.
Disputes concerning facts of play: not reveiwable.

Did RSL ask MLS to review Pablo's elbow? Do we know that the referee saw it?

If the referee saw Javi's elbow he should have called it, but I can think of several reasons why he may have swallowed his whistle. From my view on the TV I did not see the elbow, I only assumed it. The referee cannot call it if he did not see it.

In my final analysis we came out ahead on this one. Think about what the result would have been if it went the ther way: Colorado would have taken a PK, we would have been down two players and Javi would have STILL missed today's game. If the ref did see the elbow, how much of this did he consider? I don't know but RSL benefitted.

If we bash the referee for not being fair/consistent we are not being fair. He did not call Pablo's elbow and he did not call Javi's. Who benefitted?

As to blaming MLS for Javi's suspension: should we not be blaming Javi? After all, who threw the elbow?

If Pablo's elbow deserves a suspension (FIRE criteria) then RSL should make sure they send in the clip.

 

If its the incident I think you're referring to (Ball in air off a clearance, Pablo goes up over Javi and clips Javi in the head), it was whistled as a foul.

(I'd point out that the two elbows are hardly similar, given one was during a play on the ball and the other one was intentional and malicious, but then I'm sure I'd get shouted down being a Rapids fan and all. )

 

Crawl back under your bridge and stay there.

 

It's not just because you're a cRapids fan Rocket Science.

 

Pablo not intentional my a** anything that guy does is delibarte and intentional. He lead with his elbow right into the back of Javi's head!! Javi's was intentional too but just for the revenge factor...and I imagine it has to feel good to elbow a piece of garbage like Pablo.

 

I knew I could count on you guys to prove my point for me. Thanks!

 

actually, pablo's was more malicious then javi's. He came from behind on javi, and in mid air, full speed, hit javi in the back of the head (he was going the opposite direction as well so factor that in). Javi was tracking a ball out of bounds, had his elbows up, swung back hardly (if it was with any force it would have busted the douche bags mouth or nose open wouldnt it?)
the problem i have is that one was acceptable in the post game reviews while the other was deemed malicious. If you are going to review plays after the game, review ALL the questionable ones. Pablo's was just as worthy, if not more, of a suspension and you know it

 

If I needed to prove a point to you, I would use confetti.

 

I think Pablo could have been red carded for the hit, especially after what Montero got sent off for this week, I'd want to watch the video before I said anything definitively though. However, like I said, he was called for the foul and the ref made the decision not to card him. I think Javi's was worse than Pablo's, because there was nothing but malicious payback in the hit. The elbows weren't up because he was trying to play the ball, in fact, he was trying to shield the ball from Pablo. Pablo was going up for a header when he hit Javi. I wouldn't put it past Pablo to be more aggressive than he needed to be (Again, I'd have to watch the video) but the fact is that the foul occured in the natural flow of the game, while Javi struck Pablo with no attempt to play the ball. They may both be red card offenses, but they aren't equal in their harshness and Javi should be punished worse than Pablo IMO.

And when it comes down to MLS reviewing the hits, I think Dadof6 mentioned that if the foul was called (which Pablo's hit on Javi was) then MLS won't review it, but if the foul was missed (Javi's hit on Pablo) they will. If that's the rule then MLS applied it appropriately. And really, would you want to trade a red on Pablo for a red on Javi which would have resulted in a PK? I don't think that's a win for you guys.

(Everyone can feel free to jump in and point out how my opinion doesn't matter since I'm a Rapids fan, I expect that)

 

Again, it's not that you're a cRapids fan, it's that you are you.

 

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. How could Javi have gotten a red for elbowing Pablow if he had been thrown out of the game earlier? If Pablow gets the card he deserves, he isn't in the game for Javi to elbow later.

Crawl back under your bridge.

 

ding ding ding, we have a winner.
if pablo gets what he deserves, the game is different, javi plays on wednesday, and RSL maybe gets out of there (saturday @ colorado) with a point or 3.

 

The video in this thread (top ten MLS goals 1997) has to be seen to be believed.

 

wow
just
wow
i...
wow

 

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1015491

I just can't get too excited about it. It's not like Marrufo needs bribes to botch things. It's not unusual for a player to give his jersey to a referee.

This is from pg. 204 of Pierluigi Collina's book The Rules of the Game english ed. (Full credit to BS user USSF REF) NOTE: Collina is considered the best referee ever.

 

i was sad to see portland not hand seattle a loss. that would have been fitting