Thanks for letting us know about the suspension, but didn't you recently tell KC fans to LET IT GO? Why aren't you following your own advice? Don't you have a "Fire Clavijo" rally to go to or something instead of hanging around our forum? No offense, I admire you sticking to your guns, but just let it go.........
Weyland isn't going to get repremanded or anything for not giving out a red in this case. It's not going to get refs in trouble if they only give out a yellow - any more than it would if they only gave out a yellow and they couldn't be 'overruled' as you state it. They have nothing to worry about from the committee's actions anymore than they would if the comittee couldn't give out suspensions. Sometimes refs miss calls, cannot see calls clearly, etc. Anything short of implementing some sort of instant replay system like they do in NFL will not prevent this from happening. I think the important distinction here is that they are not saying that the ref was wrong for not giving a red card. They are saying that if the ref had access to multiple camera angles, slow motion replay and the like (in real time, no less) that he should have given a red card, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ref was wrong in not producing a red card. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the ref was not wrong for not producing a red card as well - it simply has nothing to do with it. I'm also confused why you seem to think that the comittee itself is handing out red cards - this is not the case, they are handing out suspensions which happen to accompany red cards when they are given out. On the field, the ref's word is final, whichever cards, calls, penalties, goals, etc. that he gives is how it goes down in the record. The comittee's job is to simply ensure that any dangerous, malicious, etc. actions are punished correctly regardless of whether they were punished on the field. While they do have guidelines to help constrain the scope of their decisions based off whether the incidents were punished on the field, this is to simply prevent the comittee from having to review every second of every angle recorded from each game and to prevent too much subjectivity from entering into the equation.
2 games is light. Ballouchy should feel extremely lucky. I'm a little disappointed, but I thought with the week that passed he was going to get off with nothing. At this point, any amount of protection for our guys is welcome.
I think the important distinction here is that they are not saying that the ref was wrong for giving a red card. They are saying that if the ref had access to multiple camera angles, slow motion replay and the like (in real time, no less) that he should have given a yellow card, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the ref was wrong in producing a red card. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the ref was not wrong for producing a red card as well - it simply has nothing to do with it. See how it can go both ways? And I'll agree, the committee isn't handing out red cards, but their actions are identical to those of a red card after the match in which it happened. Every red card issued in a game carries a suspension and fine. The committee is issuing a suspension and a fine. If they can issue create/increase suspensions after reviewing tape, they should also be able to eliminate/reduce suspensions after reviewing tape. To answer cjgwizard's question, when I told KC fans to get over it, I was reacting to a KC fan who posted to the effect of that Onalfo should refuse to put the Wizards on the field until the league punishes Ballouchy, whoch essentially amounts to advocating that the Wizards forfit games over the (at the time) lack of punishment for Ballouchy. I just think that there's a difference between discussing league policy and advocating for game forfits. Though I will admit that my get over it comment might have been a bit harsh.
Just wanting to make sure you weren't saying that I was the person who said to forfeit games.....cuz it wasn't me! I thought that was a stoooopid idea. Suspensions and fines are handed out.....we can finally move on. The only thing I have left to say on the subject is thank goodness Sasha did not miss any games.
If you want to talk about whether or not the comittee should allow the appeal of red cards, I agree with that... but personally I would feel this should only occur after an appeal and what I think doesn't matter b/c (I believe) that FIFA doesn't like the idea of red card appeals. But outside of a red card appeal process, I don't think it's analogous. The comittee has no idea why the ref might give a red (could be that the player yelled 'I'm gonna get you sucka' before taking the guy out)... but the comittee has to assume that the ref was unable to see any events which they impose suspensions/fines after the fact. If the ref did see it clearly and it's obvious that they completely missed the boat then I would have to assume that the ref would possibly face some consequences for blatently ignoring situations which were obviously red card offenses. Still, as long as the ref doesn't over react too terribly then I don't see any problem with leaving questionable but light red cards intact... I've always felt that if you put yourself in a situation where the ref has to make a decision then you deserve the call... sometimes the ref doesn't see or mis-interprets intent, etc... but rarely is the player disciplined totally innocent from any wrong doing, so I don't have a problem with that. Keep in mind that I have seen many a red card given to players on teams I was supporting and felt that they were incorrectly given... while I can complain about the fact that the ref blew the call - I don't feel that it's necessary for anything to be done by any comittees or review boards or anything... Secondly - if the ref does give out cards which are simply outragous (silly example would be that a player decides to tie his shoe and the ref gives him a red card for it.. whatever) - then I would hope that not only would the ref be disciplined himself (no longer allowed to ref any MLS games) but that the league would make special exception to these types of instances. Fortunately I don't think stuff like this will happen (for the most part) so I don't think it's something we need to worry about. Again, I personally would tend to agree with an appeal process (and again, only on appeal, only on red cards, etc) but you'll have to talk to FIFA about that. I don't know why they hate appeals so much and I personally don't think that England has a particuarly poor system. I feel that yellows don't deserve appeal since A) you have to accumulate many yellows before suspension and B) things like persistant infringement come into play here (so the actual incident may not be worthy of a yellow by itself) and it's not nearly practical to review the entire game.
http://www.denverpost.com/rapids/ci_6503581 "Result of an altercation"? Oh wait, Ballouchy "collided" with Sasha. Geez, the Denver paper made it sound like there was either a fight or an accident. I think they confused it with the Jose/Coundoul incident.
It should have been whatever Herron got. I'm confused by any arguement that debates otherwise. A missed call by the ref, caught later on tape. Elbow to the head/neck, with clear intent. They were the same act, should be the same penalty. Sort of like when the last defender takes down an attacking player who is going to score.
The only difference I can see is that the ref gave a card in this incident and didn't in the Heaps Heron incident.
This happened right in front of where I was sitting, and I don't think there is anyway that he actually saw the play. I think he gave the card based on one of the assistants. Either way, this was violent conduct whether or not that card was issued for that reason, and since we can all agree on that, I think it's a necessity that the play be reviewed by commitee