On Mullan And The Rapids Being Thugs

I still haven't seen the tackle so I have no frame of reference.

If descriptions are nearly accurate all this tells me is that the committee puts special weight on their abilities to read Mullan's mind, that they bought into the non-sense of the most twisted reading of his post game comments, and that their opinion of Mullan and the Rapids was not very good.

 

I understand why Mullan didn't appeal his suspension with whole world coming down on him. But so wish he could appeal now.

 

Here is the visual.

*Warning* Video of ankle is a bit disturbing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUGWAE8aR6c&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]YouTube - Brutal Foul Ever & Horrible Broken Leg! Javier Morales (Real Salt Lake-Chivas USA)[/ame]

 

There is no way in hell that Mullan's tackle was twice as bad as that one.

That being said, I'm laying a big part of the blame at the feet of the soccer bloggers in this country, specifically Summer's Ives for the way in which he covered that tackle. His twitter, which let's face it, it was a Rapids game and only on DK so twitter was probably the way most heard word at first, made it sound like Mullan had attempted to murder Zakuani. Then of course all the Sounder's fans piled on, but I'm serious in that I believe the say these bloggers put this story out there completely changed how it would be percieved.

I just don't see how Mullan's tackle coming in from the side is anything like this one from behind.

 

There's a world of difference between this tackle and Leathers's tackle. I'm actually okay with no suspension for Leathers, but MLS DC needed to come out and explain why it wasn't a suspension. My take on it is that Leathers's tackle wasn't a red card tackle. If you look at the criteria that the USSF uses for determining excessive force / endangering another player, Leathers's tackle doesn't really fall under that category.

Speed of play and the tackle - high speed, so check mark here.
Intent - going for the ball. No check mark.
Aggressive Nature - Not really. It wasn't a lunge at Ferreira, and it was a play that you see defenders make all the time. The distance between the players is minimal, so it's a more controlled challenge from Leathers. No check mark.
Position of the tackler (how high are his legs) - From the side, and the legs were low. I don't believe studs were exposed, though I admit I never saw a replay with a great angle on it. No check mark.
Opportunity to play the ball - Definitely possible, and in fact Leathers did get the ball. No check mark.
Atmosphere of the game - Don't know.

Compare that Mondaini's tackle, which gets check marks on all except possibly speed of the tackle, or Mullan's, which gets check marks on all except possibly for atmosphere of the game.

So I don't think Leathers should have been assessed a red card, even retroactively, and without a red card, you can't suspend the player. I'd say the lack of discussion about the tackle in the referee forum would say that other refs had no problem with it, but that particular topic was started by PVancouver, who has been placed on ignore lists by pretty much everyone in that forum, that I wouldn't be surprised if none of the other refs ever saw the topic. Still, no one else piped up about it, which either means every other referee missed that game or they agreed with the lack of a call.

What certainly would have helped would have been an explanation from MLS or a USSF referee as to why the Leathers tackle wasn't deemed worthy of a red card. The "no one on the DC thought it should be a red card" is fine, but having the explanation as to why they thought that way, especially when you have another bone-breaking tackle in the same weekend that you punish with 10 games, would have been extremely worthwhile. MLS has failed to do anything right with this entire process.

 

Well, that's what we thought the first time. I guess Mullan's tackle really was a threat to humanity. Or maybe with Bin Laden dead those tackles aren't as dangerous.

This is an astonishing piece of sophistry.

That tackle was more than clumsy. For it to have been clumsy Mondaini would have to be Mr Fantastic and able to stretch his leg out a yard or more to get the ball. If anything by the committee's statements, it had *more* intention than Mullan's.

So, if you lose your mind and go in recklessly and wreck someone, you are the worst. Whereas, if you know you can't stop a guy who's about to score, know you can't get to the ball, and wreck him from behind, and you know, do it with more intention than the guy "driven by anger"/committing the crime of passion, it's not as bad.

Or, what Jason said. What a joke.

 

This all goes back to what I was saying about memes before. For whatever reason, the Rapids have apparently been labeled as a "blue collar team" who "wins ugly" and has a roster of "thugs" (maybe from the MLS Cup final? though, I remember this attitude being fairly prevalent before last season so I'm at a loss). This much was obvious in the attitude among bloggers and posters on BS and elsewhere; however, I (naively) thought that the rainmakers at MLS had a bit more sense than that. Apparently not.

For the same reason that RSL will always be "the class of the league" (which, by the way, squeaking out a 1-0 win in the 88th minute at home against 9 men?? are you kidding?), the Rapids are "the blue collar thugs who must be kept on a short leash or the terrorists win". I, for one, am going to do my best to just embrace the albatross around our collective neck. We are such a better team/fanbase than anyone is giving us credit for and it's really fun to watch the elitist's heads explode whenever we do well.

 

Really bogus. So anger and location on the field is worth 6 extra games.

MLS message - "If you're going to tackle a guy that breaks his leg, make sure it's when he's close to the goal then. And make sure you're nice about it."

 

You don't have to be nice, just make sure you're smiling when you do it.

 

Maybe MLS listened to the Rapids' front office stating that Mullan's tackle didn't deserve 10 games and decided that from now on only 3 or 4 game suspensions and minor fines are necessary for Career ending tackles from behind.

 

For everything mentioned above I think Occam's Razor would say Mullan suffered from a reverse halo from the team in general. With Casey and Pablo as prominent (USMNT etc.) 'faces' of the team, despite all of the good soccer they play, one can see the smash-mouth reputation as having a source -- even if it is statistically incorrect.

If we view this (and often justice/sanctions in general) as a pendulum that will swing too far in both directions, but hopefully spend a lot of time in the middle, then Mullan just caught the thing at the wrong time. In a court with videos of both tackles and expert witnesses he certainly could expect a reduction in his fine and suspension but that isn't going to happen. Would it have been better for the league if they stuck to: red card + broken limb = 10 matches + $10k (?) probably ...

Lastly re. my bold in the quote above, it is too soon to say career ending and only the tackle that got the lesser 4 match suspension was from behind.

 

I was just being sarcastic due to the inequality in how the league is handling the suspensions this year. I would have been fine if they issued a 10 game 10 grand fine for the Morales ankle incident as well. It is every bit as bad and some have argued worse.

 

Might be. It certainly looks like they brought all their biases and gut reactions to bear without considering that their responsibility is to try to put those aside.

 

This is total crap. We need to fight back somehow. Its obviously titled. We need to be like Sounderss "fans" and start a freaking facebook page and spam the shit out of the league. Who do I call to yell at? Where can I send a letter bomb? I'm freaking pissed off.

I would love to see a banner when Brian comes back that slaps the league in one of its two faces.