Yep, I agree with all of this. I thought it was DOGSO from the moment I saw it, but clearly Rivas and Sibiga had other ideas. Overall, Rivas was good last night. He made the right call giving Etienne a caution for simulation in the attacking penalty area in the first half. And other than letting Mensah get away with a talking to rather than a 2nd caution early in the second half after a hard tackle on Paredes (again!), he didn't do anything that aroused suspicion from me. But that DOGSO is definitely the big CMI that he missed.
Certainly Gantar does have a long history of double cautions; that is kind of a trade mark of his. But I don't think the double red was warranted. Martinez was trapped in the goal. He obviously wanted out as the ball was live, and he was trapped in there. The push to the chest was a caution, but honestly he was being fouled. I'm not saying it should have restarted with in IFK on the six or anything, just that Martinez was not the instigator here, and that ball was live. Regardless, he pushes the defender away (yellow), who then grabs his neck (red)...I mean, I don't think double reds is right answer. Moreover, in the VAR age, there is no justification for double reds, because the players will understand that one guy got caught hands to face, the other didn't. Maybe double reds is the way to you justify not restarting with a PK, but I don't like sending a player off who kept his cool just because of keeping it equal. It's (ironically) not fair. This reminds me of a change 5 years ago or so in the NFL, where they realized the desire to "keep things equal" led to actually an increase in misconduct. Players knew that if they acted outrageously enough to provoke their opponents, they would offset, so the league then instructed officials to only flag the instigator (unless the retaliation is more extreme than the instigator). Otherwise, it just wasn't fair. I think the same principle is true in MLS. If a defender can get a striker sent off with a double red, it is tactically an advantage to the defender. Both teams are down, only one team has lost a goal scorer. I normally can't stand it when red cards get overturned, but this one is ripe for it.
Two points. First, having watched it again and been pointed in the right direction by others, I would note that Martinez does actually hit Wanyama in the face as he pushes him away. So it's not the push to the chest or even the "attempted headbutt" that got Martinez red. It's the action in the attached image, where he has his hand over Wanyama's mouth/chin as he pushes him away. Second, I don't see where Martinez was fouled by Wanyama at all, so I don't share your concern about a PK restart (not that it would have ever happened anyway). They are physically contacting each other as the both head toward/into the goal. But Martinez is the first one who pushes and, given the live ball, does anything that would constitute a foul. So the restart was always going to be DFK for Montreal. Wanyama then puts the hands to the throat and then Martinez retaliates to the retaliation with the actions in the image attached. In sum, I can understand not agreeing with the double red--either in fact or philosophically. But having looked at this closer, I definitely disagree with your assertion that there was no justification for the double reds and/or that the double reds is what prevents a PK (because that part definitely didn't happen).
What I saw was two players who went to the threat/head. You can argue about level of force and if a red should be given, but its hard to claim there's no justification for either red when going to the throat/head is explicitly a red card offense.
I totally missed the Martinez hand to face. So, that gives Gantar and Gamble more room to go double red. Let's see if it is enough to keep the card from being overturned... [cue ominous music]
I assume VAR saw the hand to the throat and sent it down. The ref sees josef's hand to the face and goes double red. It was a reasonable red card for a quick/loose choke, ok to be missed as a YC and wouldn't have even been a foul in a concacaf game. Josef's was a soft red that would never have been called real time without the defender throwing himself to the ground to sell it. Neither player reacted in a way that made it seem less than an even up competitors getting a bit chippy, which is to be expected when the ref is calling a pretty loose game. The originally called double-yellow seems far more fair, but as long as it's a single game suspension and not a VC (which requires 3, I think?), think this ends up being an odd/unlucky, but reasonably fair application of VAR. As it's evolved in MLS, it is a mostly very positive addition to the game, I'm good with it occasionally yielding a worse results than the real time ref. 100% agree that there needs to be a lot of care to prevent mediocre players from taking DPs out of games with matching reds. Because if I know I'm facing Josef or Ruidaz and I can just choke them in the back of the net given the first opportunity until he pushes back hard enough to draw a red, I've shut down the main scoring threat for 90 minutes without hurting my team.
Sounds like it comes down to supporting referees not having to give “equal” punishments when this stuff happens.
But who is deciding what is unequal behavior and what isn’t? Martinez is the initial aggressor with a two handed shove and he pushes his opponent in the mouth. Wanyama puts his hand around his opponent’s neck. There’s nothing in the LOTG that says the latter is VC but the former isn’t. If anything, my worry is more that rigid instruction could result in a red for the throat grab but not for the multiple shoving. I’m glad some referees can still exercise common sense in the VAR era.
The referee would be ideally. That’s what this whole discussion has seemed to be about. How the throat grab is much more severe and is almost assuredly VC. While the shoving afterwards is not. But because we want to keep it “equal” we either go lesser for one or more for the other. Im not sure what you’re getting at when you say a throat grab isn’t VC. It is in almost every respect. There is nothing about a throat grab that can be explained as anything less than an act of brutality or intimidation.
I did not and never wouuld say "a throat grab isn't VC." I'm taken aback that you would assert so. I said there's nothing in the LOTG that says one specific action (throat grab) is VC while another (push to mouth) isn't. That's because from an LOTG perspective, we have a broad umbrella VC definition that includes "brutality or exccessive force." The only specificity in the VC provision is in regards to striking a person in the "head of face" with non-neglible force. I mean, if you want to get super-technical, Martinez's action is actually spelled out as the one form of specific VC noted in the LOTG while Wanyama's falls under the broader subjective definition because it's not actually to the face or head. But all that is beside the point. To be clear, I believe Wanyama has committed VC. What I'm trying to focus on is your first paragraph in the post I'm quoting here. Who, exactly, is saying that a throat grab is "more severe" than a push to the mouth? I am asking that rhetorically because I know people on this thread have already said so (I am excluding myself, because my posts above were when I missed the hands to the mouth--it was about the attempted headbutt... but I'm open to the argument). My points are that (1) there shouldn't be a consensus around these things based purely on a single action and (2) that one action being more severe than the other doesn't mean the card color must be different. There are a ton of variables at play with incidents like this including degree of force, speed and mode of contact. A throat grab with a squeeze is far more violent and brutal, to me, than a glancing slap to the face. Conversely, a hand placed on a throat, to my mind, is less violent than a direct and forceful push to the mouth/nose. All four hypotheticals in the previous two sentences can be red cards--I'm not saying otherwise. And that's fine. And that's what happened here. Martinez's red card isn't invented in anyway. It's warranted. You (and I presume most others) would conclude that Wanyama's actions are more violent than Martinez's. That's a totally reasonable conclusion. In situations like this, it's highly likely that one action is going to be "more violent" than another. But that doesn't mean the lesser action isn't "violent" itself. It's a long way of saying that you can have somewhat significant differences in severity of action and still have both actions fall within the same color card category. That doesn't mean referees "have to give" equal punishments.
You stated one wasn’t technically VC. Which I would agree with. Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you said but you seemed to be agreeing that two yellows would have sufficed. On that I can’t agree. The point I’m making is that we often see “equal” cards being given just for the sake of equality when it really should be a red and a yellow. The issue is the unwritten rule of the game is that they need to be equal when their is a dust up. It’s one of those things we’ve allowed to become part of the expectations of the game to the detriment of actually having real justice served.
In post #34? Where? I'll forgive you, because that's definitely not what I've said. The majority of my posts here have been about defending/explaining the Martinez's red once I saw that push to the mouth. Even before then, if you go back to post #19, I said Wanyama's actions were a clear red card. To the extent I've talked about double yellow, it was stating that I'd accept it in the pre-VAR days if the hands-to-throat wasn't seen clearly. I've also said I can understand people not liking double red and implied that double yellow is better than imbalance for this situation (because it is), but that doesn't mean I felt it would "suffice." And this is where we just completely disagree and why I started down this path. Specifically on this incident, do you believe it would be more just if one team was playing with 10 and the other with 11, based on the totality of actions? I don't. I don't think most fans or players do. And this is what I'm getting at. To the extent the phenomenon you are decrying exists (and, while it exists, I don't think it does to the extent you believe) is it really contrary the concept of "justice?" Both players are aggressive to each other off-the-ball, behind play. Both push and shove. Both square up. Both are culpable for the ensuing mass-con. What I think would be unjust is picking one specific action that we are taught is VC per our instruction and then using that to get an imbalanced result. It's almost a literal embodiment of missing the forest for the trees. Yes, of course, if one player punches another and the victim retalities with a push to the chest, you're going to have imbalanced cards. And that's why I think the phenomenon you worry about doesn't exist to the extent you seem to think it does. We get imbalanced results all the time when one specific action is far more egregious than anything an opponent did. And that's good. What I worry about, again--particularly in the VAR world--is picking out one specific action that we have seen on video screens in hotel ballrooms labeled unequovically as "red card" and punishing that rigidly while not assessing the totality of events to get actual justice. I think Gantar used common sense to recognize Martinez's actions also met the red card threshold and he dispensed justice by giving equal punishment. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you think a red to Wanyama and yellow to Martinez would have been justice. If so, I am wondering why.
You said there’s nothing in the laws to say one is violent conduct and the other isn’t. So you’re implicitly stating that one of the incidents could be perceived as less than VC. On this specific play I think double red is fine. Both players lost the plot. But we’ve seen incidents in the past where downgrading or upgrading of cards has occurred when in reality it shouldn’t be equal. It was less so I’m this forum but others I go to basically have said you have to give either two reds or two yellows here. Which I find to be nonsense. And that two yellows would be the worse choice of the two.