ESPN has a nice article up on Peter Walton, the new "North American Refereeing Czar" as they call him. There are some interesting quotes, but he really focuses on the feel of the game and tweaking small things referees are doing to try to improve their performances. One quote that jumped out at me was: "When a player makes a challenge that endangers an opponent's safety and everyone in stadium just goes "Ouch!" the law dictates "Red Card." But if the player already has a caution and the challenge is merely worthy of a second yellow, I would prefer to see a referee employ a management technique: talk to the player, calm him down and let everyone know that the he will get another card if the offense is repeated." For Walton, a referee's prime value is to "give the game every opportunity to take place on the field." I think this shows a lot about his philosophy and what we may be seeing as the new expectations.
That's certainly a very British philosophy. I wonder though if the referee department and the Discipline Committee are on two totally different pages.
"the referee department." Let's understand that the USSF Referee Department has no role in the Professional Referee Organization (PRO). The philosophy and approach of Mr. Walton is not subject to the referee department.
he is very wrong - it the player already has a yellow - doesn't matter what for - then endangers an opponent, that's a swift, fast straight red - talking to him won't help
I think you're misreading the quote. He said an 'endanger the safety of the opponent' straight red is red. Always. He said a solid yellow card that is the player's second yellow should usually be managed. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a very fine line to work with.
It's awwardly phrased, but I think what he is saying is that the straight red is always a straight red, but that for a 2C,managing away the 2C is appropriate. (Note that he says "if the challenge is merely worthy of a second yellow.") That said, I'm not a fan of this style -- the caution, in my mind, is exactly that: a caution that further behavior means bye-bye. Publicly stating that refs should man-manage away 2Cs seems to tell players that once you have a C, you have a free bite with no consequences. Hardly the right message, in general, if you want to shut down the nonsense. At the same time, if the first C was on the soft side, and the opportunity was for a second soft caution, a @$$ chewing seems an appropriate management tool to me. YMMV.
Straight from USSF guidelines: Serious foul playA player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. AND Sending-off offensesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses: serious foul play
I'm confused about the article as well. It cites the leg-breaking tackle of Zakuani as being "held up as an example of MLS's declining officiating." (This is the caption under the photo). How so? Petrescu immediately and decisively displayed a red card and sent off Mullan. I was at the game, and he handled it wonderfully. The rest of the game went fine. Maybe the caption is just wrong (or not written by the author)? To the extent the Zakuani tackle (and others like it) led to a rash of erratic red and yellow cards because referees overreacted in later games, I don't really know how to respond. Maybe a directive went out and the referees were too eager to punish what they thought were dangerous tackles. Or maybe the officiating was just inconsistent. But I really don't think you can hold up the Zakuani tackle as an example of declining officiating. It was handled exactly right. What else could Petrescu have done? It was the 3rd minute of the game.
Re-read what he said. It's been explained twice. He was categorically NOT saying that SFP should be ignored and the player should be calmed down. He was saying IF the conduct only warranted a second caution, then just talkt to the player. They are two completely separate ideas that just happen to be in back-to-back sentences. Not crisply expressed, but he is not saying what you are accusing him of saying.
No he didn't. He said a straight red is a straight red. He then said: But if the player already has a caution and the challenge is merely worthy of a second yellow
Remember that Mullan attacked Zakuani because he felt he was fouled a few seconds before. Maybe what I'm asking is impossible, but if Petrescu had read the game well enough to call the first foul to control the game, none of this happens. The powers that be felt that there is too much physicality in MLS. The DC can only handle the most serious incidents, so tightening foul recognition is going to have to come from Mr. Walton.
Walton also says: For Walton, a referee's prime value is to "give the game every opportunity to take place on the field." Not sure exactly what he means by "prime value", but our foremost responsiblilty is to protect the safety of the players, even if they're hulking 6'3" behemoths making $10 million a year.
Editing and reading are lost arts. I have re-read the thread twice and have no idea what anyone is saying. And I read the whole article, and I think it is a combination of quotes that gets the author in trouble. What he is trying to say and DID actually say are two different things. I think Walton wants the players to know exactly what will get them red carded and why. And I think what he is also saying is that it isn't a STRAIGHT red the crowd wants, but it is one where the crowd knows the guy is on a yellow already and he just committed an offense that might earn him his second yellow, it behooves the referee to talk to the player and keep that player in the game and teach him the value of control. I could also be totally wrong, but I think that is what he is trying to say. Know your players, and the relationships they have with others on the field. Guys that I follow on other boards always say that if you can't figure out what the match ups are 2-3 minutes into a match, you may be doing a game above your pay scale.
X100. Why on earth would he actually say such a thing, even if that's his opinion? If a caution doesn't lead to the player being more cautious, then it's not a caution. It's a farce. This does bring up the isse that not all cautions are created equally. I've never seen a 2yc for delaying the restart, for example. Perhaps that is what needs evolve.
Just FYI, I have seen a 2ct for DR, in MLS, no less. If you look at LaRikardo's avatar, it is a picture from just such a scene. Player fails to save ball on the touchline in the waning moments of stoppage in a tie game. AR flags, player boots ball into the stands. Michael Kennedy decisively and correctly, shows him yellow for the second time and sends him off. But yeah, it's generally rare.
Also straight from USSF guidance, this from the October 12, 2004, memo entitled "Send-Offs for Receiving a Second Caution:" "Although no caution should be given lightly, a second caution carries the sameresult as the most serious conduct for which a player would earn a red card. Accordingly,referees should take care that the pattern of misconduct represented by the two cautionsreflects behavior that truly is worthy of the player being sent from the field. In caseswhere the player’s conduct on its own would warrant a caution regardless of the player'sprior behavior, the referee must consider whether, in addition and looking at the totalpattern of behavior within the spirit and feel for the game, the second instance ofmisconduct rises to the level of a send-off."Where it does, the referee must not hesitate to take the necessary action.Where it does not, the referee should consider other means of encouraging properbehavior by the player, including increasingly assertive demonstrations of dissatisfactionwith the player’s conduct or increasingly severe verbal admonishments." [Emphasis in original]
Remember the 2nd yellow to Mathis for dissent a few years ago? http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/topics/m/video/25926381/mls-highlights-real-salt-lake-houston.htm Man, I miss Cletus.
I am just going to come right out and say it: I don't need USSF or anyone else to water down Law 12 for me. I took math, so I know that 1 +1 = 2, everytime. And another thing...I just finished playing pickup soccer for a couple of hours, and I intentionally made myself bigger several times while defending in the penalty area. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but I have to tell you that it felt fantastic to get away with it.
This is not a new concept here in the US. Paul Tamberino always instructed this and I remember at National Camp discussion and instruction on player management including holding that second caution. It may seem like a new idea because MLS has moved so far away from any sort of player/ game management that officials working these games have lost sight. But, it is certainly not new at all.
*sigh* It was so much easier years ago. " I would prefer to see a referee employ a management technique: talk to the player, calm him down and let everyone know that the he will get another card if the offense is repeated." Was that not the purpose of the caution? To let everyone know that if he does it again he will get another card, that is why we went to a visual system in the first place. So we have to give a caution, then a caution-caution, before we send off players? Or should we go to a three color system of yellow (warning) orange (caution) red (send off)? Basketball is simple, one T and its your warning, second T and your gone. Hockey, one Game Misconduct is your warning, second Game Misconduct and your gone. Baseball doesn't even give warnings, either does football. This is getting silly.