Denver Post Article Rapids' Smith defends Brian Mullan after tackling incident Posting quotes from the Post is always tricky sorry.
three or four games is certainly appropriate and in line with historical precedence. He was deliberately trying to take out Steve for payback - but he was not trying to injure intentionally the way Clark when using the boot to the head intentionally. If there was no injury - the tackle would be a red and he'd be out one additional game. For not playing in a safe controlled manner - he should get an additional two to three games. Five would be very harsh. Having listened to the MLS Disciplinary committee guys the last two seasons ... they are very logical and very fair. Mullen's suspension will be appropriate I have no doubt. Now where you'll all be hating me. No - I don't think Mullan is a dirty player - I think he plays a hard physical game and fouls are a part of that game. And that's part of soccer. I like physical play - it makes the games passionate. But that was a dirty foul. It happens. Even the best of people lose their minds some times.
I guess at this point it doesn't matter what anyone says. One side says he's a thug and no one will convince them otherwise. The other side says he's sorry and he didn't mean for this to happen, so again, no one will convince them otherwise. The facts are out there. It's a matter of how you choose to read them. When the MLS announces their decision, we can argue the logistics then. Right now it's all very boorish.
I truly don't think very many people are calling him a thug. Sure, some are, but those, from what I have read, don't represent the majority view. And, the ones that are, are generally anonymous forum flakes that I doubt are influencing any decision one little bit. Clearly the meat of this discussion has been simmering for years. Simpy, does the MLS, through officiating, want to dictate a certain style of play? If the desire IS to dictate a less "physical" or direct style, the suspension will likely seem extraordinary. And, I suspect many Rapids fans will rail about the injustice visited upon Mullan. But, a paradigm shift is always going to be painful for someone. Change usually ain't pretty. So, from the perspective of a Sounder fan who is pretty damn livid about what happened to Zak, I can allow myself to feel some empathy towards the position Mullan finds himself. Being used as an example is never fun. I am sure he is feeling pretty blindsided himself. But, that doesn't mean I don't think a fairly harsh penalty is reasonable. I for one would like to see the league trend toward a more technical game. But, that is just me.
What do you consider a "harsh" penalty? Are you talking a 9 game suspension? By itself, I don't see what that does except scapegoat Mullan. It's basically throwing him to the dogs. It won't deter anything, because the MLS will still be allowing hard fouls. (In case we need another reminder, no foul was called on the play on Ferreira, and that's a fairly common type of occurrence.) Players will have the choice to keep playing the way they've always played (i.e., rough) or to lay on the ground and look to the ref in vain while the other team runs away with the ball. If a bunch of other stuff is done along with Mullan getting a 9-game suspension, including red cards having automatic 3-game suspensions rather than 1, and a policy to tack on additional games to that as needed, and a push to get more fouls called and more cautions given for reckless play, that's a different thing. But if all they do is hand out a 9-game suspension for Mullan and make some sort of statement about rough play, that will be bull.
It needs to be viewed as suitability harsh relative to past suspensions in order to potentially serve as a deterrent. If, for this type of tackle, that penalty has been 1 day on top of the automatic 1 day for expulsion, it would seem to me that somewhere between 5 and 10 is the answer. And, I agree, that if they don't consistently apply the penalty then he is just being scapegoated. I am in agreement with Mullan that he done this type of tackle many times. He is a hard, physical player. If MLS wants to minimize that type of play they have to punish it more than they have previously. I am not sure how that is arguable. What is arguable is whether you want that type of football in our highest league. As a few have pointed out; they do. I don't.
As expected, the "draw and quarter Mullan" segment are taking the news of him missing training and getting counseling as: A. unrepentant counseling because he's worried about his job B. A Rapids PR spin C. A lie by either the Rapids or Mullan D. All of the above Of course it was this same group that questioned why we hadn't heard anything from Mullan and if he had even bothered to see Zakuani yet. Now that they've found out Mullan has done the right thing they've moved the goalposts again. This essentially proves (not that its a shock) that there's a segment of posters that won' be satisfied until Mullan's career is ruined or at the very least his season is done. Funny that that's the exact thing they complain Mullan did to Zakuani, but they've had 4 days as apposed to 2 seconds to think about what they're going to do and they can't see the fact that they're doing what they're accusing Mullan of. The only difference is that Mullan had the ability to affect Zakuani directly, and they guys can only rant on a message board.
Just out of curiosity, who is the group you are referring to as the draw and quarter segment? Random internet jackasses (forums, blogs, etc)? Or members of the traditional media? If it is the former, why do you even bother? You can't change it. If it is the latter, and it is broadly held, well that is a different matter.
The former (though there might be a couple of members of the latter, like Ives, that stray dangerously close to it). Why I try to change it? Because I like tilting at windmills I guess. People should engage their brains more than they do these days and I want to challenge them to actually think about what they say (type) not just go with a knee-jerk reaction. Especially in a forum specifically titled Analysis.
I hear you, but you have chosen the biggest windmill in the world to tilt at. I am sure it is nothing new to you, but 95% of people posting in forums get no bigger jolly than to wind people up. Nothing revelatory here, but you must be a glutton for punishment
Well said. I'm trying to pull back from some other forums where I've wasted way to much time "debating" people in that 95% ager two things dawned on me. 1. The joke about wrestling with pigs... 2. The longer I engaged, the more I began to wonder how different I was from them.
I have to adjust circumstances to express this thought, because "that type of play" in this instance can't be divorced from the injury. I'm sure the league doesn't want injuries. So, to the extent that Mullan makes a tackle there that doesn't cause an injury, I'm not sure the league wants to stop it. I haven't read/heard a lot of coaches calling for it, and certainly no coach has disarmed - so to speak. The darlings of the league, RSL, right now are a joy to watch, but they've got their chippy players. I do think that there are fans who want to see changes, but I don't know that there's consensus on that either. Like GoRapids I like the physical play, and think it's a part of the game. That doesn't mean there aren't things I wouldn't change. Grabbing, shirt pulling, diving, time wasting, are all issues that I'd prefer to see focused on. For one thing those issues do more to break up the free-flowing game than hard tackles do. For another, if your laying down the law, addressing the petty crimes might have the effect of preventing the car wrecks. In theory a lot of fans seem to agree with that, in practice, they squeal like stuck pigs when their players are called for any of it.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how suggesting that it would be inappropriate for Tyrone Marshall or Nyassi to be Mullan's proxy to ask if it's okay to visit means that I have bizarre social expectations, but it makes sense that I have bizarre social expectations because I'm a Rapids fan. Because, really, two guys who played with Zakuani for 2 full seasons each should be the ones making that gesture, seeing as they've played with Mullan for... 6 games? Oh, and Mullan should be asking them to do so, since Mullan is probably so close to those two, having played together for those 6 games.
I’ve faced this same dilemma myself a bunch. I’d quit BigSoccer in a heartbeat if I could get American, MLS centric news in one spot. I recognize that MLSextrasSocer.com is getting better but it’s just not the same. Still I wish I could just WJvanish.
What Gladwell paper/article/book deals with this topic? Have you read any of his books that you would suggest? The Tipping Point looks like its good.
Sometimes it helps to talk in specifics. Are fouls/cautions in the EPL called too closely for your liking? That league gets the rep as being a "physical" league and yet fouls are called much more tightly than MLS. They still allow reasonable slide tackles, shoulder-shoulder contact, and defenders are allowed some leeway in the box (some hand checking/grabbing, that sort of thing). Balancing that, they call fouls and give out cautions when players come in studs up and when the slide tackle puts too much weight or momentum around the area of a player's legs. They also call more fouls on outright pushes when jostling for position on aerials in the midfield and when a player is dribbling, which probably helps keep the chippiness down. It's just a difference of where the line is drawn. In MLS it seems you're allowed to apply any amount of force to the other player as long as you do it with your shoulder. There's contact while jostling for a 50-50 ball, and then there's ramming speed, and EPL and other leagues seem to draw the line in a different place.
Seems like Ridge Mahoney and Steve Davis are in the "throw the book at him" crowd though I expect they're far more thoughtful about their positions than Ives. Though no one is brave enough to talk specifics, so it's to tell if they think doing so is more like a 3-game additional suspension, or 10 games. Though it seems the draw-and-quarter crowd sets the tone of the public debate since there's not much talk about MLS in the mainstream media and thus sites like bs and such fill in the gaps. Edit: correction, Mahoney has put it out there, and calls for 6-8 games. While I disagree with him, I have to hand it to him for putting it out there.
6-8 seems to be the zone that reasonable people (including me) are settling in. I can easily see 5 for the tackle and the apparent retaliation given MLS precedent (Marshall got 3 for breaking Cooper's leg, Shea got 2 for a nasty red card retaliation tackle). Through a game or two on to "send a message".
Seems reasonable to me, though I'd consider 5 to be acceptable as well given past suspensions. I'd be perfectly fine with an 8 game suspension plus an immediate change in policy to make all straight red cards for serious foul play / violent conduct to be a 3 game suspension. Mullan's tackle was horrific, surely, but it's not the first of its kind and it won't be the last unless MLS changes how they punish players for their actions.
If armed robbery is generally 3-5 then in a case where a whole lot of money is involved a judge decides to do 10-20 to 'send a message' (?) first off is that just, does the message get to the people it should i.e. is there really any deterrent effect on people that don't plan to get caught, and would you think it was fair if it was your client getting the 10-20 when all preceding cases in that jurisdiction had 3-5? Justice to me should be predictably certain, prompt, and most of all consistent. A 3 match ban on top of the one for the red card or even 3 matches total would be about where precedent lands, anything more smells a lot like letting the fans call the matches (dog knows they try). Some fans want the sanctions based on the outcome, justice should look at the action (the tackle) regardless of the outcome (the extremely unfortunate injury).
I think most people that are predicting what it will be, and that want to be right, have that in their calculations as x2 or x3. I on then other hand want it to be 'right' and believe 3 - 5 would be it. If he gets 10, Rico Clark should have had 20, and Dario Sala 30 ... OTOH if they decide tackles like that happen every match and the referee appropriately sanctioned it at the time it happened so nothing additional is merited -- we can all go to the Seattle board to watch the heads figuratively exploding like popcorn.
Anything more then five is too much. It was completely reckless - which happens in the game frequently. But it wasn't done with intent to injure. And considering what in the past has earned 3 ... I'd say 3-5 is appropriate.
I think you are making a mistake if you view it like that if the suspension is 10 games (and I am not saying it will be). The question at hand is whether MLS is looking to set a new precedent. If it is a new precedent, then you look for consistency going forwards, not back.
Perhaps, though I expect the precedent will prove hollow. First, I have no faith that the coaches will expect their players to back down. Second, since I've read too many times how this tackle was different than all the other bad ones, I'm just as convinced that the fans will look the other way. By claiming this one as an exception, the excuse has already been made. ------------ We hardly knew Brian in Colorado. He's had 16 appearances and cost the team three games for bad (or ill timed) fouls, but was a big part in helping the team to the final. If Goff's tweet is accurate I'm guessing that between the suspension and the space between Brian's ears an opportunity has just opened up for someone to claim the spot for the long haul. If he does come back it'll be an indictment of the quality behind him. Anyone who hates the way Brian plays deserves to have a team full of Mehdi Ballouchys.