DisCo Sucks! The 2016 MLS Discipline Committee Thread

Unfortunately that's not how our legal systems work. And yes all disciplinary committees take concepts from legal systems. The action along with the action's results impact punishments. Mullen got 10 games because he snapped his leg and would have gotten less if Zukuani had just a bone bruise. If De Jong had snapped his ankle it would have been longer than 3 games. You can't intellectually separate the action from the result. They are not mutually exclusive, they are both taken in concert.

 

Intent as a factor or not, whatever they decide they should make it known and be consistent. I'm fairly sure all sides can agree on that.

DisCo's view toward precedent: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Translation, 'Portland got screwed the last couple of weeks, we will give them a break.'

This was only reckless, but Felipe's at New England two weeks ago was excessive force. Got it.

 

Yeah, sorry. Grabavoy should have to sit a game. That was a dumb, dumb, decision. The only thing that saved him and the guy he was going in after was that he bent his knees and tried to absorb as much of the contact as he could.

But it's still a red.

 

3 games to me is a fair amount. Glad to see them make a decision without all the public outcry emotions playing in. Hate seeing so many people think that a person should be suspended as long as the injured player is out. Such a bad idea, what if someone makes a legal tackle and the other person gets injured? What if the injury is a freak accident? What if the person who did the tackle is more important to a rival team and the other guy fakes his injury longer? Way too many gray areas to decide punishment off of that and it is overall an ignorant idea.

 

I know this must seem weird, but, as a Quakes fan (who would benifit from Grabavoy missing the upcoming game against San Jose) I think yellow was the right call. Yes, he had his studs up, but, it looked like he slipped and the actual force of contact looked pretty minimal. It's going to be a long, frustrating season if ref's start throwing reds out for situations like that. I rather prefer the Disco make the right decision after the fact, then the ref screw it up in real time.

 

I think Valeri should get a multiple game suspension. I don't expect it to happen, but it was after the whistle so there's no mitigating circumstance and it was a deliberate shot to the head, with a high level of force, which creates a risk for head injury. Very dirty play.

 

Ted Unkel gave a red card to Michael Parkhurst in last night's Crew-NYCFC match that should have gone to Tyson Wahl. Presumably the DisCo will sort it out and give the suspension to Wahl.

 

I know it has happened before, but I don't think it's happened this season.

 

Gotta disagree here. The result of the action isn't as important as him putting some real power behind the strike in the first place. The whistle was clear, the ref had his arm up, and everyone else stopped playing. There is no way Valeri didn't know what he was doing and it's an act that should lead to suspension. The fact that it hit an opponent in the face from close distance should add to the suspension.

 

I've read a few things from people who were at the game. They said it was so loud in the stadium at that point that it is entirely possible that Valeri never heard the whistle.

I think one game is probably enough

 

Even so, he's looking right at the ref who has his arm up waiving off the play AND everybody else stopped. I'm not buying Valeri being the only one who both doesn't hear and doesn't see that play is stopped.

 

You're probably right that they won't do anything more than the one match, but Valeri knew what he was doing, was the only one still running full steam, and had a clear line of sight to the ref (who was no more than 10 yards away and right in front of the goal). The more I watch it, the more I think it was on purpose.

 

Even if, on review, every referee believes that Borchers's tackle should have been a red card, that's NOT the determining factor for whether or not the DisCo intervenes. Here's the relevant rule from the DisCo:

So for all incidents, the first question is whether or not the referee (and crew) see the incident. Seems pretty clear in all cases (Van Damme, de Jong, Borchers) that the referees did see the incidents and did not give red cards at the time. So then you move on to question two: is the incident a clear and unequivocal red card? If the answer is no, then the DisCo will not suspend the player. For De Jong's tackle, it absolutely is. Van Damme, I think so. Borchers, I think there would likely be arguments. As @KCbus has pointed out, Borchers didn't go over the ball, Borchers's studs weren't showing, he didn't go directly in Zardes - it was with a lot of speed, and I personally would have been okay with red, but given the DisCo's history, I strongly believe that at least one member would say that it was not a clear and unequivocal red card, therefore no suspension for Borchers.

Then you move onto question three, is the play of such an egregious or reckless nature that you have to act to protect player safety? Clearly in de Jong's case, the answer is yes. Going over the ball with a lot of force, driving the studs into the player's leg - it's absolutely a horror tackle. I don't know how anyone can possibly argue otherwise. I don't know how Van Damme escaped punishment except for maybe the fact that he did actually win the ball. For Borchers, again, I doubt they get to this question anyway, and even if they did, the DisCo has repeatedly shown that they're more lenient than I am, so I don't know if they'd call this tackle so egregious as to warrant action to protect player safety.

 

I'm just reporting the news. I agree it is a bullshit excuse. I just think the intent was to shoot the ball, not target the player.

It seems to me since the De Jong tackle on Nagbe the Timbers have become a little more feisty. I haven't decided if this is a good or bad thing.

 

On the Parkhurst suspension, is there any actual confirmation that he was red carded because of mistaken identity? In the box score they list the reason for the card as "Serious Foul." I heard the announcers immediately say that they thought it was a case of mistaken identity, but I was wondering if Parkhurst wasn't being punished for the slide tackle when Poku pushed the ball past him and into the box. Also, if you look at the reaction of the players, none of them are pointing or gesticulating towards Wahl.

I went back on MLS Live and watched the tackling in slow motion. He completely missed the ball, and deliberately tried to trip Poku with a high boot. We'll find out soon enough, but it's possible the Parkhurst red wasn't a DOGSO.

 

One of the problems with all of these discussions is that the terms are not clearly defined.

What is the purpose of cards? If you say it's to prevent injuries, than I think you can make an argument that Borchers' tackle (if poorly executed) was just as likely to injure a player as De Jong's. You could say the same for Valerie's post-whistle kick, and Grabavoy's sliding knee-high tackle midweek.

However, If there are clear definitions of the type of tackle that is being reviewed, and for some reason those three tackles don't meet those criteria (which I believe is the case), then it may be a case of bureaucracy getting in the way of achieving the desired result.

In addition, if you look at Agoos' discussion of Grabavoy's tackle, it's clear that DISCO people can't really agree on these criteria.

As I've said elsewhere, there will always be grey area here, so I don't really have a huge problem with any of these recent DISCO decisions. My problem is much more with the press, players, and fans that personalize all of this. One of the points of invoking those tackles that weren't punished is that when you really break them down, it's such a fine line. Because of that, calling De Jong a "dirty player," "thug," or "butcher." Is counter-productive and intellectually dishonest.

However, all of that is outside the purview of this thread... so maybe we should let it go.
(Maybe I should have not made this post).

 

I don't think you can make that argument at all. I think De Jong's tackle is highly likely to injure a player, and cause a severe injury at that. Borchers's tackle is still likely to injure, IMO, but not nearly as bad as De Jong's. Valeri's kicking the ball after the whistle isn't likely to injure, and very unlikely to cause severe injury - we see players kicking the ball after the whistle all the time. As bad as it was optically, there was so little force in Grabavoy's tackle due to him initiating the tackle from practically a standing position that it wasn't likely to injure.

The point is that the league has an interest in protecting player safety in cases where the tackle is so egregious even when a red card is given (Mullan, Mondaini, Clark), or when an incident isn't seen (can't think of a good one here, all the ones coming to mind are actually ones where the AR or 4th caught the off-the-ball action), or when the referee simply gets it wrong (de Jong). In the latter case, however, the league also has an interest in not undermining the referees by re-refereeing the games. So it makes sense that they will only act in that case when it's blatantly obvious that a red card should have been given, the interest in protecting player safety is also met, and that it's a unanimous decision.

I agree with this, but as I stated earlier, I really wonder if the discourse about the tackle would be different if a) De Jong hadn't previously broken the leg of a promising USMNT player, and b) the player injured in this case wasn't another promising USMNT player. De Jong is up there with Torsten Frings, Rafa Marquez, and Carlos Ruiz on the "national team players I hate the most" list.