I sort of figured I just missed this thread, but I can't seem to find it. I can't believe with all of the craziness that happened this weekend in MLS, nobody seem to pick up on this incident: http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2012-08-18-mtl-v-sj/highlights?videoID=197051 No qualms with the red to each player here, but we do realize that a PK was given to San Jose on this play, for Camara's strike? Anybody want to explain this to me?
It's discussed somewhat extensively in the MLS discussion thread... no one had started a thread, yet and there might be more to discuss here. But there are several posts already in the main thread.
Eh, it's certainly an ad hoc system we've got. If the discussion keeps going here, we can peel those posts out and paste them here. Either way works.
I personally don't like a red to Lenhart here (and I'm trying not to be biased). USSF has directed that any contact above the head away from play is a red card. But I don't think that precedent in professional soccer has what Lenhart did as violent conduct. Most likely the referee had no choice but to send off Camara, however. Either way though, to call a penalty is atrocious. Would anyone here consider a yellow to both players as an acceptable solution? Camara hit pretty hard, though then again, you never really know with Lenhart It sure would have felt better for the game, though, to keep the players on.
I think you have to either go double yellow and know there's a good chance you are going to eat it with the assessor later or double red. Yellow-red is the sort of thing that sets games on fire. Lenhart may not have hit him as hard, but he hit him in the face after the ball was gone. It was obviously provcative. The misconduct was not nearly as controversial to me as the PK decision. I just fail to understand why give a PK when you are clearly indicating that you saw Lenhart's transgression with the red. If he had gone yellow-yellow, he could have just tabbed Lenhart for UB for "doing something, I don't know what, but no way he hits you in the face for no reason," and you still might be able to sell the PK (not as bad, still a bit dubious). But by showing Lenhart red you are clearly saying you saw him strike Camara in the face, and you can't dispute the order of events.
I might be entering a hornets' nest here because no one else seems to be seeing this, but after watching this several times, I think they got it right. It was messy, but I think right. On the MLS replay, watch 0:33 to 0:46. Right at the 0:35/0:36 mark, Camara is the first one to swing a forearm/elbow after the challenge for the header. It appears to either connect with Lenhart's arm or graze his chest. Granted, in some other circumstances you might view this as trifling. But it is definitely the first action by either player that escalates the situation. That's your striking foul for the penalty kick. Lenhart then quite deliberately lifts his arm upward and strikes Camara in the face at 0:38. That one is probably really hard to see for the JAR, and I don't know how they got it in the end, but that's an open-and-shut VC red card in a professional league. Then, of course, you have Camara essentially attacking Lenhart in retaliation. If the first swing wasn't enough for a red card, obviously he's earned it now. Am I arguing that the first strike/attempt to strike by Camara is supposed to be a penalty in most circumstances? No. But if you're stopping play for the totality of events here and going with two red cards, you got to go back to the root cause. And the first action is a swing by Camara.
For the sake of argument let's say this is right (I don't see what you are saying, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt). I still think going with a PK is way too by-the-book for this situation. You have two guys acting like idiots, it would seem to me you want to come out of that situation with a relatively even outcome. Yellow-for-yellow, red-for-red, thos are fairly even. Either one plus a PK? That just skewed things rather dramatically. If Montreal had lost or tied this game, I think this decision would have gotten far greater attention. Then again, there was plenty else to debate this weekend.
I think that's fair in most cases. But here, Camara really attacked Lenhart at the end. The sense of needing "1-for-1" with no PK isn't as high as it normally is, in my opinion. People see the end result and they see "wow, Camara really clobbered Lenhart." Now, Lenhart has to go because he raised his arm to the face. But if Camara threw the first elbow, there's your excuse/justification for going with the PK. Again, it was really messy. And I don't know how they ended up getting Lenhart's red in the first place. Maybe what I'm seeing isn't what they actually called and they just got it wrong (showing Lenhart red late, but not realizing once they showed it what the actual sequence of events were). But I think video shows this call was justifiable within the Laws because there is an initial foul action by Camara.
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that there were several incidents in the Impact defensive zone within five minutes prior to the sendoffs that SHOULD have been recognized as a temperature increase that should have been dealt with, but was unfortunately ignored by the ref. I think that perhaps an ass-chewing and/or caution(s) earlier could have avoided this situation. To me, the ref lost control of the game earlier. He managed to regain control through the sendoffs and I have no issue with them, other than the fact that it could have been avoided with greater vigilance and action by the referee earlier.
Im just not seeing it MassRef. I really think the crew was goated into sending off Lenhart by Montreal. Villareal reacted to the swings by Camara. If you feel Lenhart should have gotten a red there is no way you can restart with a PK. The only correct options, imo, are red to both with a dfk coming out or red to Camara nothing to Lenhart and a PK. I think the referee was pressured into sending off Lenhart. This is where Lenhart's reputation went against him. Referee crew thought "this is Lenhart, he must have done something wrong." If it was Henry or any other forward I doubt a red would have been shown. Also the announcers commentary was up there in terms of awfulness. Im surprised they didn't say "boys will be boys."
I simply don't understand what all this discussion is about really. Camara elbows Lenhart, easy PK. Lenhart clearly and forcefully backhands Camara's face, easy VC and send off. Camara retaliates, again easy VC and send off. Why are we making this so complicated? There are three components to this episode and Villareal got all three of them right. And I don't for one second believe he was pressured into anything, mainly because I actually know him and have worked with him numerous times (pre-MLS) and also because you don't get to the MLS if you can be simply pressured into making a call. Considering how much else went wrong elsewhere in the league this weekend by very experienced, veteran officials, I think this pseudo-rookie needs to be applauded for a) getting it right and b) having the balls to do it.
On MLS' ExtraTime podcast they discussed this incident in depth today with Peter Walton. Walton noted exactly what MassRef observed... at about 0:36-0:37, Camara throws an elbow (he appears to miss) at Lenhart that starts the whole thing. Walton said "one of the crew" saw this, thus the PK. When I just went back and looked at it for the 10th time... I saw it. Walton said the reds to both was correct, but the initial elbow was the PK offense. I'm still note sure I would consider the crew's decision (it has to be called that because Walton indicated "one of the crew", not Villareal; I would suspect it was likely Greg Barkey because the Impact players were hounding him after the PK was awarded) the simple way out of this situation. Yeah, Camara really went after Lenhart after getting smacked in the face. But I still don't see how virtually handing SJ a 1-0 lead leaves this situation even. I still think if this game ends in a draw or SJ win (or if it affected a fan base with a far greater English online presence than Montreal's... sorry, has to be pointed out), we would be hearing a lot more grunting about this.
Because in MLS (or pro soccer in general) if a PK was called every time somebody threw an elbow in the general direction of an opponent in the PA, there would be a PK on every corner kick.
I am not going to make any comment towards the play in question here as everything has pretty much been said but I love that fact that Lenhart has more hemp and jewelry on his wrist than a gift shop in Amsterdam. I know these are grown men and professionals but when does enough become enough with the jewelry and fashion statements?
I'd say that the real root cause for this happens long before this incident but that's a whole different discussion. However I'm not sure that the swing by Camara is the root cause in this incident either though. It looks to me as a "get off my back" kind of thing done due to the fact that Lenhart used Camara to break his fall, so to speak, by landing elbow first on Camara's neck/shoulder after his attempted header. Is that landing something that would result in a FK every time? No not at all but I don't think that the "get off my back" swing is either. I just don't see the transgressions here being so weighted to one side that you'd want an outcome that is as weighted to one side as they got.
Camara stated on the MLS website yesterday he was guilty of the first physical response in the altercation: http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/08/22/impacts-camara-offers-mea-culpa-reaction-lenhart Montreal head coach Jesse Marsch also came out and said he thought all the calls in the situation were correct, and admitted Camara head butted Lenhart (I didn't see this myself, but if the guy's coach admits to it, I think I'll take him at his word).
Its a straight head butt and crystal clear violent conduct. It happens several seconds before the highlight video starts. The whistle should have blown about 5-10 seconds early with a straight red to Camara. Apparently the assistant caught it, and the CR didnt see the flag in time to prevent the following occurance. Occurs at 18:44 on the game clock.
So just to clarify. Camara headbutted his opponent. Swung an elbow at him. Then violently attacked him with multiple strikes/punches. MLS suspended him for 1 game, right? When are we going to look at the disciplinary punishments and not the referees?
You had, i wanted to give full context. You said you hadnt seen it, and I wanted to let you know thats because the highlight started too late to show the whole sequence. Having watched the game, I saw the headbutt.
You know, I pulled the full game replay on MLS Live to watch the incident as it happened. You're right, there's a clear head butt at 18:44. Play should have been halted at that point, straight red to Camara, PK. I did a screen grab here and posted to YouTube... I've found MLS isn't generally as jumpy about putting clips on YouTube for educational purposes (obviously): According to the GTP, the original foul and punishment can be used as long as the AR raises the flag and leaves it up. Because the lead AR did not put the flag up, it would seem that the trail AR (Greg Barkey?) would have had to do this... which is entirely within reason. My only question then is that, considering everybody is miked up and RefTalk is actually working, why isn't the trail barking into the headset that Villareal should stop play? Or buzzing the flag (I presume they had one or the other)? 8 seconds of game time elapse before the punches are exchanged and the whistle blown. It would be nice to know if those communication methods simply failed.